The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The North Corral > Black Powder and Cowboy Action Shooting

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 10, 2013, 09:19 AM   #1
chaz12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2008
Posts: 223
Pietta Remington 1858 police .36 cal

I have never been fan of the Remington revolvers, just because they look wrong to me. The frame looks too long, and I don't like the fin on the loading lever.

But, I decided they have one overriding advantage over the colt navy, they have a usable front sight. The front sight on this .36 cal is fixed, not dovetailed like the 1858 army, but you can't have everything. I think I prefer the shorter 6-1/2" barrel on the .36. So I ordered one from Cabelas and got it yesterday.

I have to say I like the feel of it as much or more than the colt navy. There seems to be a little more distance between grip and trigger, which I also find awfully cramped on the colt.

Weather permitting, I'll shoot it this weekend and see how it does.

Chaz
chaz12 is offline  
Old May 10, 2013, 09:23 AM   #2
Doc Hoy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Chesapeake, VA
Posts: 5,194
Yup!

Yup!
__________________
Doc

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government. Thomas Jefferson
Doc Hoy is offline  
Old May 10, 2013, 09:35 AM   #3
noelf2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2008
Location: Stafford, VA
Posts: 2,426
Funny. For me, the Remingtons looks right. I prefer the Remmy look over the Colts. I'm also puzzled by the "usable front sight" on the Remmy because it is dovetailed. I find all front sights usable. You mean it's usable because it is adjustable for windage? Also, the Uberti and some others may be dovetailed, but none of the Piettas (Remmys) I have are dovetailed, but, they can be filed/modified for minor windage and elevation adjustments. One could also say that the Colt's rear sight is better than the Remmy's because it can be filed/adjusted for elevation, no so much for the Remmy's. All in all, IMHO, it comes down to the style you like more that the functionality tradeoffs.
__________________
Liberty and freedom often offends those who understand neither.
noelf2 is offline  
Old May 10, 2013, 11:03 AM   #4
chaz12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2008
Posts: 223
Quote:
I'm also puzzled by the "usable front sight" on the Remmy because it is dovetailed
By usable, I just mean that it's tall enough so you can shoot closer to point of aim. The front sight on the 1851 navy is so short that at 60 feet, I have to aim way below the target. Dovetailing would be an extra advantage because then you could adjust right and left as well.

Chaz
chaz12 is offline  
Old May 10, 2013, 01:26 PM   #5
noelf2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2008
Location: Stafford, VA
Posts: 2,426
Got it. I Concur!
__________________
Liberty and freedom often offends those who understand neither.
noelf2 is offline  
Old May 10, 2013, 01:55 PM   #6
bedbugbilly
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 19, 2009
Posts: 3,159
I have both the Remmington .36 (Pietta) and my current favorite '51 Navy is a Uberti. Two different designs . . . two different "feels" to them. I agree with you on the finger space behind the trigger guard on the Remmie over the '51. My '51 has a square back guard - I like the looks of it but to be honest, I much preferred the rounded back trigger guards on the other '51 Navies that I've owned. While I much prefer the '51 Navy - it just feels better in my hand and seems to balance better . . . if I had to choose between the Remmie or the Colt it would be hard . . . both are excellent revolvers.

Congrats on your new toy Chaz . . . I think you are really going to like it! Let us know after you've had the chance to shoot it a few times.
__________________
If a pair of '51 Navies were good enough for Billy Hickok, then a single Navy on my right hip is good enough for me . . . besides . . . I'm probably only half as good as he was anyways. Hiram's Rangers Badge #63
bedbugbilly is offline  
Old May 10, 2013, 07:09 PM   #7
mykeal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 8, 2006
Location: Northern Michigan
Posts: 2,772
I believe the Euroarms Remington is the only one that has a dovetailed front site; both the Army and Navy versions have it, I think.
mykeal is offline  
Old May 10, 2013, 08:27 PM   #8
North East Redneck
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 6, 2012
Location: Berkshire Hills
Posts: 739
The Colt and the Remmie are both great. I started with an 1851 in .44. Nice enough, points great and feels good in the hand, accurate too. Then I found the '58 model. As far as engineering a reliable revolver, I believe that any shortcomings on the '58 are nothing compared to relying on a pressed in arbor and a wedge. I'm not knocking Colts, they have a great history of serving our fighting men well.
From my point of view as an industrial mechanic/mill wright, I believe the '58 to be a superior design. Tougher, better built and less stress points to fail. As to the aiming systems, use it, learn it make it work for you. Modify it if needed. Guns are tools, pick the best tool and make it the best it can be. Would I depend on a Colt if that's all I had? Sure. They work well. If I could choose I'd take a Remmie.
__________________
NRA Patron Member
SAF Life Member
GOAL Member
North East Redneck is offline  
Old May 10, 2013, 08:56 PM   #9
Bishop Creek
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 20, 2011
Posts: 556
My Pietta "Shooters Model" Pietta Remington has a dove tailed front sight, all my other models do not. I really like the feel of a Remington in my hand and prefer shooting it to any other black powder revolvers that I own including 2nd Gen and Signatures Series Colt 1860 Armys, an 1851 Colt Navy, and a 2nd Gen 1862 Colt Police, though I will admit the 1860 Colt is a natural pointer.

Historically, due to the its solid frame and ease of conversion, the first large caliber cartridge revolver ever made was a converted 1863 model Remington (we call 'em 1858s) in .46 cal. made in 1869.
Bishop Creek is offline  
Old May 11, 2013, 05:34 AM   #10
Doc Hoy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Chesapeake, VA
Posts: 5,194
I have a Euroarms...

...and it is also dovetailed.

I have two Siles revolvers from ASP and I have to check them to see if they are dovetailed.

As I recall they are not, but I am traveling and can't check.

More later.
__________________
Doc

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government. Thomas Jefferson
Doc Hoy is offline  
Old May 11, 2013, 08:18 AM   #11
bedbugbilly
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 19, 2009
Posts: 3,159
North East Redneck . . . you made some good points for sure. Obviously the Colts did a fine job or they wouldn't have sold so many of 'em. What's interesting though, is during the Civil War, Colt was selling their Army Model to the Govt. for $25.00 a unit (individual pistol) - when the Remington became available, they undercut Colt and sold them to the Govt. at $12.50 a unit. Not that it has a whole lot to do with the price of tea in China but I still find it interesting. Of course the Govt. was faced with "arming the troops" and I'm sure the buyers were happy to get anything they could from a reliable supplier.

As much as I love the '51 Colt . . . I also think the Remington is a much better design - rugged frame, easy to remove cylinder, etc. as opposed to the pressed in cylinder arbor, wedge and removable barrel. We all know that the wedge on a Colt should be so it can be removed with "thumb pressure" - but - those that have Colts also know the reality of wedges - what should be isn't always . . .

As mentioned, what is important with either style is to "learn the gun" and how it shoots. I also view firearms as "tools" . . . and sometimes, tools need to be altered to perform what you want them to do - no different than keep a chisel sharp or building a special jig for a mill to perform a specific task.

Any way you look at it, with the modern technology of the firearms we have available to us today, a person really has to marvel at the skills our ancestors had with the Colts, Remingtons, etc. I always thought it would be something if a person could travel back in time and learn some of the "tricks" they knew in regards to BP revolvers and rifles that have been lost to time. And, I imagine that if you took a group of our ancestors and asked them their preferences, it would be about what it is today among us.
__________________
If a pair of '51 Navies were good enough for Billy Hickok, then a single Navy on my right hip is good enough for me . . . besides . . . I'm probably only half as good as he was anyways. Hiram's Rangers Badge #63
bedbugbilly is offline  
Old May 12, 2013, 02:41 PM   #12
ratshooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 22, 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,530
Quote:
Colt was selling their Army Model to the Govt. for $25.00 a unit (individual pistol) - when the Remington became available, they undercut Colt and sold them to the Govt. at $12.50 a unit. Not that it has a whole lot to do with the price of tea in China but I still find it interesting.
Whats even more interesting is that Remington said they could also build the Colts revolver for $12.50 also.
__________________
"Those who cannot cleanly dispatch their game using a .30-30 are either shooting too far, hunting inappropriate (too large) game, or are simply incompetent." Mic McPherson

I can understand your anger at me, but what could you possibly have against the horse I rode in on?
ratshooter is offline  
Old May 12, 2013, 02:53 PM   #13
Hawg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 8, 2007
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 15,091
Once Remington made that statement to the Government Colt dropped their price to 13.75 An interesting fact is that the entire production of Remington New Model Armies from 1863-1873 only had a total production of a little over 100,000 revolvers. Colt on the other hand supplied the U.S. Government with over 127,000 revolvers during the war with a total production of over 200,000 between 1860-1873
Hawg is offline  
Old May 12, 2013, 08:46 PM   #14
North East Redneck
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 6, 2012
Location: Berkshire Hills
Posts: 739
Bedbugbilly, glad you saw my points for what they were. Thought I was gonna get flamed for saying the Colt design is a lesser engineered form of firearm. And yes I own, shoot and love Colt style revolvers. Also, very interesting what you, ratshooter and Hawg said about the prices that the US government was paying. I wasn't aware of that. So was the gov sold a bill of goods on prices? Or did the Colt company somehow have an in with those who procured firearms for the government? We see this type of deal today, and certainly it has gone on since time began. Just looking for specifics. Thanks.
__________________
NRA Patron Member
SAF Life Member
GOAL Member
North East Redneck is offline  
Old May 13, 2013, 05:09 AM   #15
Doc Hoy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Chesapeake, VA
Posts: 5,194
The Siles, manuf by ASP

is dovetailed.

No surprise, I guess.
__________________
Doc

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government. Thomas Jefferson
Doc Hoy is offline  
Old May 13, 2013, 10:27 AM   #16
bedbugbilly
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 19, 2009
Posts: 3,159
North East - can't really give you a solid answer on that but let's look at a couple of things . . .

When the Civil War broke out (sorry Hawg, I'll rephrase that - "the late unpleasantness" ), both sides were put in a position of having to arm their troops . . . and as a result, both sides looked to European countries to buy arms to take up the slack. I would imagine that Colt had the ability to produce the arms and probably had the Govt. "over the barrel" a little . . plus, as you have said, things were no different back then as they are now . . favoritism, lobbying, kickbacks, etc. I'm not faulting Colt in any way . . . profit is not a dirty word. Look at it another way as well . . . the armies need arms . . . Colt could produce them but what would have happened if they said "no"? They were a private company and in no way would any private company turn their backs on lucrative contracts.

If you haven't seen the movie "Lincoln" . . . you should. It's basically the story of him getting the 13th Amendment passed. I've studied Civil War history of 50 years and I found it very interesting . . . especially the "politics" - kind of reminds you of Washington today . . . but we won't go there.

In a relateed story . . . my great grandfather came to the US in 1847. He bacame "naturalized" in 1850 along with my great-great-grandfather who came over with the rest of the family after my g-grandfather had purchased land, etc. I have papers of my g-grandfather - farmland leases, etc. that are in the Civil War years. In Ireland, they were flax growers and weavers - here they were farmers. During the Civil War, he leased as much farmland as he could - as close as I can figure, probably around 350 acres - a lot at that time, especially for horse drawn equipment. He had six kids at that time of working age and he hired additional labor . . . to raise beans which were much needed by the army. He became a wealthy man for those times . . due to the opportunity that the war provided for the government needing beans.

I guess it's human nature to take advantage of circumstances when you can . . . my great grandfather certainly did and I'm sure Colt, as well as many, many contractors did the same. It hasn't changed one bit and probably never will. We hae an Air Force but probably they are very limited in "passenger planes" so to speak . . . as a result, private companies are making a fortune from the Govt. in flying troops around the Mid-East . . . I'm no expert, but I have to believe that the Govt. could buy passenger planes several times over and the Air Force fly 'em . . . but somehow, politics gets involved?
__________________
If a pair of '51 Navies were good enough for Billy Hickok, then a single Navy on my right hip is good enough for me . . . besides . . . I'm probably only half as good as he was anyways. Hiram's Rangers Badge #63
bedbugbilly is offline  
Old May 13, 2013, 03:02 PM   #17
Gaucho Gringo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2007
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 365
From what I have read on Civil War over the years one of the reasons for resistance to repeating rifles from the Army brass was ammo supply. The Army had enough problems trying to supply the different caliber rifles they had bought from the arsenals of the various European countries. It was a supply logistics nightmare and they didn't want add more problems.
__________________
357 Taurus Gaucho, 22 Heritage RR, 2-Pietta 1858 44 NMA Remingtons, Pietta, Euroarms & ASM 36 1851 Navies, 31 Uberti 1849, 12 ga H&R Topper, 16 Ga Western Field, 43 Spanish Remington Rolling Block, 44 ASM Colt Walker, High Point C9 9mm, Winchester 1906 22, Rossi 62 22 rifle, Uberti 1860, H&A & IJ 32 S&W BreakTop, 36 Euroarms 1858, 32 H&R 04, 22mag NAA SS BP revolver, .44 Rodgers & Spencer, IJ 38 S&W BreakTop, IJ 22 Sealed 8
Gaucho Gringo is offline  
Old May 13, 2013, 05:18 PM   #18
Hawg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 8, 2007
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 15,091
A supply problem in the sense that they thought soldiers would waste ammunition.
Hawg is offline  
Old May 13, 2013, 09:41 PM   #19
North East Redneck
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 6, 2012
Location: Berkshire Hills
Posts: 739
Bedbug- great post. Thanks. You bring up some things I need to brush up on. And believe me, I'm a big supporter of capitalism. Best system ever developed by mankind. My only concern is when private enterprise over charges the government which is really just the guys like us that pay taxes. Very cool that you have been able to trace your heritage.
And I'd have to say that a civil war would be people of the same country fighting each other, no such thing has happened in American history, there was though a bloody conflict between the USA and the CSA............two sovereign nations. But that's another story.
Gringo- yes, that makes sense. Limit firepower and have ammo for the next battle.

Hawg- I seen that stated many times in regard to the 1860s right through modern times. And it does hold value. An army that wastes any supplies is bound to fail. However, if I was the guy in the trenches, I'd say I would prefer the repeater.
__________________
NRA Patron Member
SAF Life Member
GOAL Member
North East Redneck is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.08113 seconds with 10 queries