Did Remington steal Colt tech???

[camoloc]

okay.

the colt "Root" pocket pistol came about around 1855. the only closed top BP pistol I'm aware of that Colt made.

enter the 1858 Remington pocket pistol which looks eerily similar to Colt's 1855 "Root" pistol.

so my question is......think they stole their tech/design?

I could see Colt seeing that specific model as a money $$$ loss and abandoning it. didn't want to spend money on barristers/litigation either.

any members have thoughts on this?

thanks

camo

 

[45D]

okay.

the colt "Root" pocket pistol came about around 1855. the only closed top BP pistol I'm aware of that Colt made.

enter the 1858 Remington pocket pistol which looks eerily similar to Colt's 1855 "Root" pistol.

so my question is......think they stole their tech/design?

I could see Colt seeing that specific model as a money $$$ loss and abandoning it. didn't want to spend money on barristers/litigation either.

any members have thoughts on this?

thanks

camo

I believe Colt didn't bother since they were rather quick to file lawsuits for any other patent infringements. The Open top platform was a better/ stronger item than the Root top strap ( and the later Remington).

Mike

 

[sethwyo]

Hmmm . . . . Enter the 1858 Remington pocket pistol ?

I'd sure like to see one of those

 

[camoloc]

Hmmm . . . . Enter the 1858 Remington pocket pistol ?

I'd sure like to see one of those

okay I was off by 5 years maybe.....

but this copycat......

camo

 

[sethwyo]

It's a miniature pocket version , the style of which was in great demand at the time, an still is, so Remington stepped up to fill the demand of people who wanted a reliable, strong, concealable repeating pocket pistol.

It's a miniature version of the full-sized Remington 1858 army revolver that was introduced in 1860.

Colt kind of sort of maybe copied the 1858 Remington for their model 1873 peacemaker

 

[Jim in Wisconsin]

Maybe the 1873 Colt was a better/stronger design than the open top previous Colts.

 

[M. De Land]

Maybe the 1873 Colt was a better/stronger design than the open top previous Colts.

The false propaganda that open frame design is in any way as strong or stronger than solid frame design is so over the top "nutso",flat earth thinking" it isn't worth the space to argue but I absolutely support the freedom to think that way if one chooses. Truth is I don't really believe anyone with good sense actually holds that view but rather open frame design with modern materials, sealed cartridge cylinders and tolerances is capable of more than we had previously thought.
It's the sealed gas containment of cartridge conversion cylinders that allows the weaker design to still be utilized not it's inherent design.
That I can get on board with !

 

[sethwyo]

Maybe the 1873 Colt was a better/stronger design than the open top previous Colts.

So when we start talking about these type of firearms we are supposed to refer to them as unmentionables here, for the first couple months I was a member here when people would mention unmentionables I thought they were talking about women's underwear and I had some difficulty following the conversations.

 

[sethwyo]

okay I was off by 5 years maybe.....

but this copycat......View attachment 314909
camo

I certainly myself would not refer to Remington as a copycat because it had a much better design than colt.

Colts revolving handguns did inspire other people to make revolvers and some people came up with some really high quality ones,

The ease of removing the cylinder from the Remington without having several spare parts such as the wedge and the barrel of the Colt that you could drop and lose while trying to disassemble it , was a vast improvement. The top strap with the frame and the type of sites used were vastly superior to the colt.

I'll have to say that , no, Remington did not steal from Colt but that like many others they were inspired to make revolving handguns and they built a really darn good one thats still blazing away today

 

[camoloc]

I certainly myself would not refer to Remington as a copycat because it had a much better design than colt.

Colts revolving handguns did inspire other people to make revolvers and some people came up with some really high quality ones,

The ease of removing the cylinder from the Remington without having several spare parts such as the wedge and the barrel of the Colt that you could drop and lose while trying to disassemble it , was a vast improvement. The top strap with the frame and the type of sites used were vastly superior to the colt.

I'll have to say that , no, Remington did not steal from Colt but that like many others they were inspired to make revolving handguns and they built a really darn good one thats still blazing away today

I was just making the point because the "Root" came first before the Remington model.

camo

 

[45D]

The ease of removing the cylinder from the Remington without having several spare parts such as the wedge and the barrel of the Colt that you could drop and lose while trying to disassemble it , was a vast improvement. The top strap with the frame and the type of sites used were vastly superior to the colt.

So, why would you take apart a revolver during battle? I highly doubt that cleaning your revolver was high priority during battle !!

Please explain "vastly superior" . . .

Mike

 

[Smokerr]

And the fight is on!

Clearly the Colt was strong enough for the tech at the time. Could you make a reasonable gun in say 44 special with that open top design? Or is it a weight factor that is involved and you can do lighter with a top strap.

From my standpoint I am impressed with the 47 Walker as a good design for the era and how well it works. Its in my view elegant solution for a revolver. I can pop the wedge out on a bench in a heartbeat which makes the range officers happy as they want a cylinder on the table.

The 1858 is pretty fast and the ROA comes in behind as you don't want to fling those parts around.

As for stealing, everyone copies someone else and Patents were absurdly stretched and the system abused.

Clearly the Remingtons were a copy of the basic Colt action with refinements. But it also went on to be the method of build with a top strap going forward and the open tops day was done.

 

[Bad Karma]

And the fight is on!

Clearly the Colt was strong enough for the tech at the time. Could you make a reasonable gun in say 44 special with that open top design? …

Yes, you can make a .44 special open top. Uberti does it every day.

 

[45D]

Clearly the Colt was strong enough for the tech at the time. Could you make a reasonable gun in say 44 special with that open top design?

Somkerr, there's definitely no fight, I ended that a year and a half ago with the announcement of the then new Kirst 45acp cylinder. I've shot a steady diet of +p's out of it ( for testing purposes, not a recommendation) since then and there is absolutely nothing structurally different than when new. That's getting close to 2K rounds with not quite half being the +p's. The sister '60 Army is doing the same of course. If you'd search a little bit you'd find all these same old arguments about how I can't do what I do . . .
For those new to the topic, I've never said anything about originals being able to handle any modern loads with a modern cyl. ( heck even the SAA couldn't handle what these NEW '60 copies can for about 30 yrs!! ( the SAA is a top strap design btw)). I HAVE said the new Uberti copies, when fitted to a high tolerance, can in fact handle ammo that many new top strap revolvers can't. So, I've got proof . . .

Bad Karma is right, you can get Colt open-top platforms .38 sp, .44sp and 45C all day . The only reason you still see top straps is they're cheaper to produce. Open Top revolvers need much more hand fitting for a reliable "unmentionable", not so much for burning charcoal . . .

Mike

 

[Smokerr]

Mike:

Just find it a bit funny. Same as going with conversions not my thing. I would buy a cartridge gun if that is what I wanted (well I have).

The Walker and the ROA will continue to burn charcoal.

 

[45D]

Mike:
Just find it a bit funny. Same as going with conversions not my thing. I would buy a cartridge gun if that is what I wanted (well I have).

Well, there ya go. Conversions ARE my personal thing. So, if I want a "cartridge gun", I make it !!

There's just no reason to perpetuate the lie that the open-top platform is weak when it clearly isn't. Just trying to educate a little bit . . .

 

[RMFnLA]

So, why would you take apart a revolver during battle? I highly doubt that cleaning your revolver was high priority during battle !!

Please explain "vastly superior" . . .

Mike

Not necessarily take apart, but reload quickly with additional cylinders?

Early speed-loaders…

 

[45D]

Not necessarily take apart, but reload quickly with additional cylinders?

Early speed-loaders…

They didn't do that , that's Hollywood.

Mike

 

[springfield art]

okay.

the colt "Root" pocket pistol came about around 1855. the only closed top BP pistol I'm aware of that Colt made.

enter the 1858 Remington pocket pistol which looks eerily similar to Colt's 1855 "Root" pistol.

so my question is......think they stole their tech/design?

I could see Colt seeing that specific model as a money $$$ loss and abandoning it. didn't want to spend money on barristers/litigation either.

any members have thoughts on this?

thanks

camo

Wasn't that what Eastwood had at the denoument of High Plains Drifter? (Or the movie where the" Posse" was hunting him in the town, the titles escape me as a few of Clint's movies were so similar!

 

[45D]

Wasn't that what Eastwood had at the denoument of High Plains Drifter? (Or the movie where the" Posse" was hunting him in the town, the titles escape me as a few of Clint's movies were so similar!

No, he did the cylinder swap in "Pale Rider" . . . PREEEEEEE- CHEEER . . .

Mike