PDA

View Full Version : Remington vs Colt, it never ends...


ZVP
March 13, 2012, 01:00 AM
In the spring 2012 "Guns of The Old West" there's a short article on yet another part of this neverending dispute over which revolver is best and why?
The only solution is to buy BOTH, so you can pick a favorite every other week!
Both have some endearing qualitys and I can't chose a favorite. I know price point was one of the Governments qualifications, but not the only one.
What do you guys say?
I think you have to own both!
ZVP

deerslayer303
March 13, 2012, 01:30 AM
Ditto,
Must have both, and one from every manufacturer, every model, and if u see one with different finished grips on the same model by the same manufacturer that you already own. Well then you have to have that one too! :D

IDAHOMIKE
March 13, 2012, 02:28 AM
Don't have a vast selection of either, but I'd have to go with the "Colt". My 1860 of oldish manufacture, will cut a single ragged hole from 25 paces or so for the first 5 or 6 cylinders. My "Remington" 58 won't do that, but it's not too bad either. I greatly favor the feel of the "Colts" as well. But I must say, it is real nice to have both.

dlbarr
March 13, 2012, 03:43 AM
I've got one of each, Piettas, for my entre into C&B revolvers. And I have to agree: I like 'em BOTH! Each has a unique feel and is enjoyable to hold, point & shoot. Wouldn't want to be w/o either and intend to get more, More, MORE!!!

Hawg
March 13, 2012, 04:34 AM
I like both but if I had to go with just one it would be a Colt.

noelf2
March 13, 2012, 06:29 AM
Both are good, but its a remmy for me.

mykeal
March 13, 2012, 06:56 AM
ROA, followed by R&S.

madcratebuilder
March 13, 2012, 07:23 AM
It's not about "best" it's about "different". If it's different you need to own it.:D

Noz
March 13, 2012, 08:49 AM
How do they feel in your hand. Remingtons are designed wrong for my hand. The hammer sets too high for me to reach it easily. 1851s are too small for my hand but the 1860 fits perfectly.

Hawg
March 13, 2012, 11:16 AM
Curl your pinky under the butt and that 51 will fit a lot better.

Doc Hoy
March 13, 2012, 05:09 PM
It might be the same an you still need to own it.

bedbugbilly
March 13, 2012, 05:55 PM
You mean they make something besides a '51 Navy?? :D :eek: :D

Wildhipoint
March 13, 2012, 07:50 PM
Colt got the history

mikthestick
March 13, 2012, 08:10 PM
According to the colt book I have
The Us gov chose the colt single action army because it was more accurate harder hitting and worked when the others (S&W, Remington ) would not. I read the report made by the army, I think few who read it would choose anything else.

Shotgun693
March 13, 2012, 08:18 PM
I shoot CAS and do it Gunfighter. I have '73 Colt's and one '75 Remington. I shoot my '75 in my right hand and a '73 in my left. Last match, out of 5 stages I shot 2 clean and shot'm with the best time. Which gun do I prefer? I kinda like'm both. If Remington had gotten their '75 out in 1872 then history might be different.

hoof hearted
March 13, 2012, 10:39 PM
Oh hell..........
Just buy them all and hang 'em on the wall, I did!

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c91/buckoff123/100_2734.jpg

Fingers McGee
March 13, 2012, 10:49 PM
Oh hell..........
Just buy them all and hang 'em on the wall, I did!


I surrender!!!

hoof hearted
March 13, 2012, 11:05 PM
Awwe Heck, Fingers.....

Don't give up so easy!
Just come visit for a spell and help me shoot 'em..............
(you should see the other three walls)

Regards, HH

deerslayer303
March 13, 2012, 11:33 PM
Oh hell..........
Just buy them all and hang 'em on the wall, I did!



OMG!! :eek: I busted out laughing when I saw your post hoof!! CLASSIC!!

madcratebuilder
March 14, 2012, 07:14 AM
Oh hell..........
Just buy them all and hang 'em on the wall, I did!

Nice start, my walls are to small.:)

Willie Sutton
March 14, 2012, 07:54 AM
"The Us gov chose the colt single action army because it was more accurate harder hitting and worked when the others (S&W, Remington ) would not. I read the report made by the army, I think few who read it would choose anything else"


Since we're in a black powder forum, my assumption is that we're not talking about the Single Action Army... we're talking about cap and ball pistols. History is history, and once metallic cartridges became the norm, the Colt's were the more sucessful design. That's not subject to much debate.


Back to cap and ball:

For fondling and admiring, the Colt designs are both beautiful and varied. Interesting to examine their evolution and design, and with a large variety of designs they are fun to collect. No doubt they are esthetically pleasing to behold and fun to shoot.

But to really take out and shoot, to remove cylinders and exchange, to use with cartridge conversion cylinders, etc... the Remington design is definately more friendly. When Bill Ruger wanted to build a modern cap and ball pistol, he did not use a Colt as his basis, he used a Remington. There's a reason for that. It's a stronger and more modern design.


Willie

.

zullo74
March 14, 2012, 07:57 AM
Willie,

Actually Bill Ruger used his own Blackhawk as inspiration for the ROA, which itself was conceived from the C-O-L-T designed SAA.

Willie Sutton
March 14, 2012, 08:36 AM
"Actually Bill Ruger used his own Blackhawk as inspiration for the ROA"

For lockwork and frame, yes, it is a cousin to the other Ruger cartridge guns. Those, BTW, are not even close to being mechanically copies of the SAA. They are "stand off" copies from a cosmetic standpoint.

For layout of the loading lever and other modifications to cap and ball, it is absolutely inspired by the Remington and it bears no resemblance to any of the Colt cap and ball pistols.

Not to mention the name... New Army (Remington) and Old Army (Ruger). Or is that just coincidence? :rolleyes:


Willie


.

hoof hearted
March 14, 2012, 08:57 AM
Bill Ruger also used a Remington pistol as design influence for the Bearcat......

Hawg
March 14, 2012, 09:48 AM
Some of us don't like Rugers either.:D

zullo74
March 14, 2012, 10:07 AM
Hawg, You're a sick puppy! :rolleyes:

Strafer Gott
March 14, 2012, 11:10 AM
I know that it never existed in days of yore, but that SAA cattleman in cap and ball that Uberti puts out makes a swell shooter. Got one with 2 extra cylinders,and it makes a nice Colt replacement.

Hawg
March 14, 2012, 02:42 PM
Hawg, You're a sick puppy!

Not the first time I've been told that but I yam what I yam.:D

sandman_nv
March 14, 2012, 10:39 PM
Oh hell..........
Just buy them all and hang 'em on the wall, I did!


That's the spirit, Hoof!

Awesome collection.

Bill Akins
March 14, 2012, 10:53 PM
I've owned both 1851 & 1860 Colts and 1858 Remingtons.

There are plus' and minus' for both.

Remys plus'
1. Extremely quick change cylinder.
2. Stronger rectangular frame as opposed to Colt open top frame.
3. Easier to remove trigger guard and clean.

Remys minus'
1. Hammer located higher (than a Colt's) and harder for me to easily cock.
2. Stronger hammer spring (than a Colt's) makes cocking harder.
3. Feels "top heavy" and nowhere near as balanced (to me, my opinion) as a Colt 1851/1860.

Colt 1851/1860 plus'
1. In my opinion I like the balance of the 1851 & 1860 much better than 1858 Remy.
2. Hammer is more natural reach for my thumb than an 1858 Remy.
3. Hammer & spring is much easier to cock force wise than 1858 Remy.

Colt 1851/1860 minus'
1. Open top frame theoretically not as strong as Remy closed rectangle frame. (The significance of this is debatable depending on loads used).
2. Cylinder takes longer to change than a Remy does.
3. Sometimes get spent caps falling into gap between hammer and frame and jamming action, where this does not happen with the Remy.
4. More frame screws required to be removed to access bolt and bolt spring area for cleaning or replacement of parts.

Recently I sold my Pietta, stainless, shortened barrel, target sights 1858 Remy along with its "stainless like" R&D .45 colt cartridge conversion cylinder.

I kept my two nickel & gold 1860 Pietta Colts which are currently my only two black powder revolver handguns. Those I won't sell.

To me the plus' of the Remy do not offset the top heavy feel and lack of balance nor offset the much harder to cock Remy hammer. Not only much harder force wise to cock, but also feels harder to access with the thumb.

The Remy is a fine revolver. I've owned two of them. I just prefer the 1860 Colt personally. I like its balance over the Remy, it fits my hand better, and is easy and natural for my thumb on cocking.

With different people's hands and fingers being different sizes and strength, it's an each to their own thing and whatever works best for them.

The 1860 Colt works best for my hands. Someone else's experience may differ.





.

mykeal
March 15, 2012, 06:17 AM
You left out the greater tendency of the Remington to bind up due to fouling.

Noz
March 15, 2012, 09:03 AM
The only time that the extra strength of the top strap gun should come into play is if you are going to smack someone up the side of the head.

Newton24b
March 15, 2012, 07:31 PM
heres the thing i have never understood. there really is no evidence to support that a feller carried spare cylinders and swapped them out. if it was done, why hasnt anyone ever found one single photo from the period showing a person carrying multiple cylinders?


cylinder removal and insertion does take longer with a colt. if the wedge comes out its a pain, but with the remington ive seen on here that if you go to far with the cylinder the whole thing ties up and creates a real major issue to get it to go into place.
so toss up on that.
ive read a few posts on here about guys who didnt seat the ball down properly in a revolver. the colt guys seem to either pull the cylinder out pull the bullet out or they remove teh barrel, advance the cylinder by hand and reinstall the barrel and shoot.
on remingtons ive read of unlucky guys who spent the afternoon with a pocket knife cutting excess lead off the bullet till itwas flush with the cylinder face.
botha pain, but colt clearly wins in that.

the only time the remingtons come down to a clear victory is a rear groove sight that never changes from shot to shot. and longer longevity to the full frame.

matthew261
March 15, 2012, 07:35 PM
I like'em all, but have to admit that there's a special place in my heart for Colt.

Hawg
March 15, 2012, 08:22 PM
the only time the remingtons come down to a clear victory is a rear groove sight that never changes from shot to shot. and longer longevity to the full frame.

In most cases my Colt's have been more accurate than my Remington's but it only shows up from a bench.

Slamfire
March 15, 2012, 09:01 PM
I purchased a Uberti Remington M1858 , the following are my comments on the Remington design.

It is clearly superior to any Colt caplock. Firstly most Colts have 12 visible screws. The Remington has six. To access the inner lock works on a Colt you have to remove six screws, three trigger guard screws, one mainspring tension screw, and two back strap screws. On a Remington you have to remove one guard screw, one grip screw, and one mainspring tension screw. The Remington only uses two side plate screws to hold in lock works, the Colt uses three. There is one tiny screw on the Remington cylinder hand that I had to unscrew to remove the hammer and the hand. Maybe there is a trick that I have not figured out yet. Unfortunately, something that is true for all replica actions, most screws are unique, and a couple will be so very similar that it is easy to start them in the incorrect hole.

The cylinder in the Remington design is easily removed by dropping the ramrod and pulling out the cylinder pin. The parts fit is tight and requires jiggling, but it is far better than the Colt. The Colt requires an involved process: First, removal of the barrel wedge. This entails loosening of the wedge screw, and then driving the cylinder wedge out to the side. For me I need a drift in addition to a rawhide mallet. The barrel is usually tight on the cylinder pin, I use the rammer against the cylinder face for leverage. Considering the loss of coordination under stress, the number of hand movements, the number of loose parts involved, it is hard to believe that soldiers in battle exchanged cylinders for a quick reload. I wonder if this is some sort of a myth.

In the seventy rounds I fired, I did not have one exploded cap jam the action. This shows the intelligent design of the Remington. The closed frame prevents a cap from getting between the hammer and the frame. It is not unusual in six shots to have one or more exploded caps come off a Colt nipple and fall in between the hammer and the frame. If a cap falls into the lock works, sometimes it takes needle nosed pliers to clear the debris. If you fire a Colt enough, you will learn to flick your wrist as you cock it, in an attempt to toss the busted cap clear of the revolver.

The Remington nipples are slightly angled outward, making it easier to push a cap on. The Colt nipples are perpendicular to the cylinder. There are notches next to the nipple which are just the right size to clear a capping tool. Depending on the colt replica, you do not have safety notches between the cylinder. The Remington has them and thus is a safer action.

SIGSHR
March 15, 2012, 09:05 PM
The Remington was a 1st Generation revolver, the Colt a 3rd, and the whole notion of the revolver was still pretty new back then, so they had a lot of refining based on experience to do.
Supposedly "back then they did" a lot of things for which there is no documentary or photographic evidence. Given the somewhat complicated and cumbersome photographic processes of the time there was little candid photography or snapshots, and i don't most photographers were interested in details of uniforms or armament, in many case Civil War soldiers hold firearms that are the photographer's props. Plus they tried to "dress up" for the occasion. I have read that the Battle of Blood River in South Africa on December 16, 1838 the Boers fightin the Zulus would put the lead balls in their mouths, after they poured the powder down the barrel they's spit a ball down it then thump the butt of their muskets against a wagon or on the ground to seat everything, prime, then fire. Makes sense, but they they actually do it?

Hawg
March 16, 2012, 04:38 AM
it is hard to believe that soldiers in battle exchanged cylinders for a quick reload. I wonder if this is some sort of a myth.

They didn't, it's a Hollyweird fantasy.

Smokin'Joe
March 16, 2012, 07:09 AM
I don’t understand anyone’s fascination with Remingtons. My first exposure to black powder shooting was with Remingtons, both original and reproductions. I became so frustrated with fouling causing cylinders to seize preventing both rotation and removal that I swore off of black powder for forty years. I guarantee I can swap a Colt cylinder far quicker than a Remington. A properly set up Colt wedge can be easily and quickly removed and, contrary to what some people think, without ever touching the wedge screw. The top strap design of a Remington provides absolutely no advantage for a black power revolver. The Colt design is plenty strong enough to perform properly. Cap jams on a Colt is a problem that can be managed with proper set-up and usage. However, the negative effects of fouling on the Remington cylinder pin is a deal breaker. Add to that the ergonomic advantage of the Colt design and the choice is clear. Colt beats out Remington.

zullo74
March 16, 2012, 07:53 AM
Well said Joe! ;)

arcticap
March 16, 2012, 05:35 PM
The top strap design of a Remington provides absolutely no advantage for a black power revolver.

The Remington top strap sports the rear square sight notch, or an adjustable rear sight on the reproduction target models.
Not that any of this matters anyway because who really cares about which guns another person prefers to shoot with?
I think that we're all just trying to offer a little bit of advice to others who ask for it. But only that other person can decide which type that they like better.
Since every gun that satisfies someone is a winner, it's not like there's any losers.

MJN77
March 16, 2012, 06:47 PM
I purchased a Uberti Remington M1858 , the following are my comments on the Remington design.

It is clearly superior to any Colt caplock

Clearly. That's why nobody debates/argues over which revolver is better.:rolleyes:

One reason the Remington cylinder is so easy to remove is because the face of the cylinder needs to be wiped off every little bit to keep the gun from binding up. The Colt, with it's large axel pin and spiral cut grease grooves, will hold enough grease to keep the cylinder turning free for a very long time. I own two Remington copies, and five Colt copies. I like all of them. The only advantage I see with the remmie is the fact that it has better sights. When black powder is involved, the topstrap doesn't matter a bit.

swopjan
March 25, 2012, 02:59 AM
Oh hell..........
Just buy them all and hang 'em on the wall, I did!


I thought I had enough C&B revolvers, but look at you! Challenge accepted!

So far I "only" have 11. I think. Fairly sure.

ZVP
March 25, 2012, 02:14 PM
I bought my S/A battery by the passions I had for each revolver. Got a standard and 5 1/2" '58 Remingtons, several Colt models and my favorite carry gun is the Piettia '36 caliber Police model.
I bought a 4 5/8" .357 Vaquero, I wanted the short barrel cause it just "Looks" right! and the chambering gives me the ultimate in medium bore power plus the economy of .38 Special reloads. (If I ever get all the guns together for CAS I will shoot full power .38 Specials in rifle and Revolver plus a .38 Cobra derringer for side matches), a economical choice as I am retired and on a fixed income.
I think that when you choose your "Classic"guns you should do it from the heart and buy the models that move ya! If a Colt Open Top does it then get one! If a .31 Remmie does it, pick it over the Colt, afterall it;s YOU that will be the shootist with it.
For Cap and Ball knockover power you can't go wrong with the .44 caliber but the .fully charged .36 can do the job so if you find a .36 that turns-you-on, by all means get it or you'll regret it later! I did that by not buying a Brass framed .44 Remington Shooters kit and to save a measly $20 I chose the Brass framed .44 Colt and have regretted it since...
I made the .44 Piettia into a shooter but somehow that big Brass framed Remington still stirrs my soul!
Most of all, shoot your guns as much as possible!
ZVP

Hardy
March 25, 2012, 03:45 PM
As far as i'm concerned rems are more accurate but colts are easier to clean. Especially the barrel. you can take a colt barrel and look down both ends. Rems, you have to put your thumb nail between hammer and cone to check barrel. Am I right or is there something we need to know?

WBH

James K
March 25, 2012, 04:04 PM
That argument started long before any of us was born, about 150 years ago.

But one reason the Colt was liked "in the day" was because fired caps could be gotten rid of by turning the gun over or throwing it back over the shoulder while cocking. With the Remington, fired caps kept getting stuck under the topstrap and hanging up the gun. No fun when an enemy trooper is riding straight at you and his saber doesn't jam.

Jim

noelf2
March 28, 2012, 01:44 PM
I read somewhere that a civil war soldier would trade two colts for a remmy. May have been Remington propaganda though. All this talk about the cylinder pin on a remmy binding after a few shots hasn't been my experience. After a few cylinders, well, yeah if I don't wipe and lube the pin. Way I see it, both the colts and rems were for six rapid shots on the battlefield, and no more. After that - holster it, drop it, throw it or wield it for maximum blunt trauma on the enemy. I've never had a colt or a rem bind from fouling on the first cylinder.

MJN77
March 28, 2012, 02:18 PM
Way I see it, both the colts and rems were for six rapid shots on the battlefield, and no more. After that - holster it, drop it, throw it or wield it for maximum blunt trauma on the enemy. I've never had a colt or a rem bind from fouling on the first cylinder.


Then why did they invent combustable cartridges? If you never reloaded on a battlefield in a hurry, wouldn't loose powder and ball be all you need? I have read several accounts of reloading C&B revolvers on the field from the Texas rangers and their Patersons at Walker creek in 1844 through the Mexican and Civil wars, as well as several "indian" encounters. Colt put those deep grooves in the axel pin to hold enough grease to keep the cylinder spinning for more than six shots. Why do people think nobody reloaded a revolver in combat before 1873?

noelf2
March 28, 2012, 03:59 PM
If you have time to reload something, it would probably be your rifle. Depends on the heat of action. I can just see men reloading a colt or rem on the field during the action. :rolleyes:

Hawg
March 28, 2012, 04:23 PM
You would have to be hid out to relaod anything from the muzzle. You couldn't do it on a horse.

MJN77
March 28, 2012, 06:50 PM
If you have time to reload something, it would probably be your rifle. Depends on the heat of action. I can just see men reloading a colt or rem on the field during the action.

You would have to be hid out to relaod anything from the muzzle. You couldn't do it on a horse

Actually, I have read extensively about Mosby's rangers in the ACW. There are more than a few accounts of reloading revolvers in combat. Even in the Mexican war, I have read about Texas rangers reloading their revolvers in a fight. In one account, "Jack" Hay's men reloaded their Walkers and Patersons on the run, on horseback, after emptying them into an overwhelming group of Mexican lancers that surprised them near Izucar de Matamoros. After reloading, the rangers then turned, charged the lancers and emptied them again, before repeating the scene a few more times. So it was done. Probably more often than you or I will ever know. I have also read about rangers reloading revolvers in the battles of Monterey, San Juan Teotihuacan, and Zacualtipan, not to mention countless fights with Mexican guerrillas. That's probably why combustable revolver cartridges have been around since at least the late 1840s or early 1850s. So, yeah folks did reload in battle, and they could do it on a horse.:eek:

noelf2
March 28, 2012, 08:19 PM
Well let's scale it down a bit. We both start with empty revolvers. A colt for you, and a remmy for me. You start loading yours and I'll run directly at you and try to crack your head with the butt of mine. No cheating! Once and for all, that should prove the remmy is better.... :p:D:D

Noz
March 29, 2012, 09:47 AM
How far apart are we? I can get one loaded and capped pretty quick.

zullo74
March 29, 2012, 11:26 AM
Noz,

Why don't you just charge him first and club him to death. :eek:

maillemaker
March 29, 2012, 11:30 AM
I count 61 revolvers up there.

At $300 a piece, that's an $18,000 wall of revolvers. Probably warrants an insurance rider.

Steve

noelf2
March 29, 2012, 01:09 PM
How far apart are we? I can get one loaded and capped pretty quick.

The distance would be inversely proportional to the probability of your success. ;)


Noz,

Why don't you just charge him first and club him to death.
I said "no cheating"...:mad:

MJN77
March 29, 2012, 09:04 PM
What makes you think the empty revolver would be my only revolver? :cool:

gyvel
March 29, 2012, 09:35 PM
From a mechanical point of view, I would imagine the Remingtons would take top honors for their solid frame and relative few parts.

It seems to me that increased frame strength+fewer parts=superior weapon.

arcticap
March 30, 2012, 01:40 AM
That would be true if placing form over function.
But if putting function first, then its harder to judge which one actually functions better.

It could also be judged based on accuracy instead of strength, or accuracy instead of function.
So then what should the criterion be?
The criterion should be based on what's most important to each individual consumer. Then each consumer judges or votes using their own pocketbook when they decide which one to purchase.
And since every gun has its own quirks, then maybe one particular Colt is better than an individual Remington, and then yet another particular Remington is better than another totally different Colt than the 1st.
Some may just be better than others, but maybe not better than all of the them.

radom
March 30, 2012, 05:39 AM
Acutully from the idea in 1865 was the rem is a total fail due to the soild frame. If its a .44 mag with 2400 for sure but BP its a total fail. The top frame deflects all the BP gunk down into the action and the things jam like a 1930 M-1 trial gun. Plus they are hard as all heck to cap so there is a reason why they surplused all of them in 1865-66. also you can tear down a gunked up colt faster.

Hawg
March 30, 2012, 06:01 PM
there is a reason why they surplused all of them in 1865-66.

Can you give any documentation for that? It's my understanding that a fire at Colt halted production for quite some time and the Remington became the number one issued sidearm until Colt got back up.

HisSoldier
March 30, 2012, 09:09 PM
It has been said that soldiers later in the war tossed their Colts to the sides of the trails when they got a Remington.

From an engineering standpoint the Colt is very poorly designed, so much so that I have to wonder what possible reason Sam Colt had for the cantilever design, as it has no advantages (Except in ease of manufacture) and many weaknesses. Weakness is weakness, and saying that since it was a BP arm weakness doesn't matter is baffling to me, why would one design a firearm to be weak?

What happened is that competition resulted in a superior design, which is why a competitive manufacturing world is good for everyone. If the open top design were superior newly designed revolvers would have them today.

Also, theoretically the Remington should be more accurate, not less, and if they are less accurate it has to be because of something other than the solid frame causing it. I suppose with the hammer back the sight length is slightly longer on the Colt, but the fact of the rear sight's tiny available area and it's movement should more than offset any such advantage.

Even Colt abandoned the cantilever frame later, long before smokeless powder came along, by the way.

zullo74
March 30, 2012, 09:18 PM
You are entitled to your opinion.............even if it is bogus! :rolleyes:

Smokin'Joe
March 30, 2012, 09:26 PM
The open top design is not weak. And Colt had a top strap design 20 years before Remington.

Hawg
March 30, 2012, 09:33 PM
It has been said that soldiers later in the war tossed their Colts to the sides of the trails when they got a Remington.

Infantrymen were issued sidearms at the beginning of the war but soon tossed everything they didn't have to have including revolvers and bayonets. The only ones to have revolvers for the rest of the war were cavalry, officers and some artillerymen. C.S. cavalry carried from 4-6 revolvers of whatever make they could get. U.S. cavalry used what they were issued.

Even Colt abandoned the cantilever frame later, long before smokeless powder came along, by the way.

Colt went to a top strap because the military wanted it.

mykeal
March 30, 2012, 10:04 PM
Don't confuse him with facts. He wants to believe it, let him. He'll sleep better.

noelf2
March 30, 2012, 10:16 PM
The open top design is not weak. And Colt had a top strap design 20 years before Remington.

The open top wasn't weak considering what it was designed to shoot. The top strap design was obviously superior in withstanding higher pressures from BP cartridges and later, smokeless powder cartridges. I doubt the idea for the top strap design was to make a more solid frame as much as it was to ease disassembly, but turns out it does make a stronger frame. Thanks to Colt, or whoever thought of it. As HisSOLDIER said, the top strap design has survived to this day and the open top is history. To argue this is to lie to yourself.

4V50 Gary
March 31, 2012, 05:15 AM
The early war (1861) line infantryman was as adventurous and obsessed with gear like our couch commandos are today. First long march and a lot of things were tossed including big knives, revolvers, clothing and other non issue items. After the first battle where they were proven useless , the bullet proof vests (they weren't) were tossed. The lighter the better.

I suspect that a lot of guns in the tintypes or other images belonged to the photographer's studio. There's an image of Geronimo with a Dance revolver. I doubt he ever used one.

Smokin'Joe
March 31, 2012, 05:47 AM
The open top wasn't weak considering what it was designed to shoot.

Isn't that the way it's supposed to be? Engineers design products to perform a certain function. Then they add in a safety factor to prevent catastrophic failures. This is true of cars, buildings, dams, aircraft and guns. Neither the Colt open top design nor the Remington top strap design could handle a modern magnum load. They were not designed to.