Discussion Colt vs Remington

[aardq]

Colt had all the patents and the production facilities. Colt set the standards, but patented every new development. There were far better pistols than the Colt at the time, but they always had 'patent evasion' technology so no under-barrel rammer or a different mechanism. Double-action was frowned upon, even though they were the better close quarter battle weapon. Smith & Wesson did the same - patenting the 'through bore cylinder' ie any cylinder made for cartridges.

Every maker patented the features that were unique to their pistols. Colt did not "have all the patents," and did not "set the standards." Colt was very protective of their patents and sued any maker that copied one of their patents, so there was no "patent evasion technology." Each maker developed their own designs, independent of Colt. "No under barrel rammer" HUH?? Almost every revolver had an under barrel loading lever! S&W did not patent the bored through cylinder chambers, Rollin White did, and sold the patent to S&W. You need to get new reference sources because the ones you have now are incorrect!!

 

[aardq]

Cylinder swaps are a myth. My first cap and ball was a Remington, I was happy with it until I bought my first Colt. Colts are pretty, Remingtons aren't, the smooth flowing lines of the Colt are more pleasing to my eye. Remingtons foul up quickly, getting sticky and binding the cylinder causing a bent hand spring when trying to cock the hammer. After firing 2-3 cylinders the Remington is done shooting until the cylinder pin and cylinder are disassembled and cleaned, I get tired of shooting a Colt before it becomes unshootable due to powder fouling. YMMV

If by "cylinder swamps" you are referring to the ability to switch the cylinders on Remingtons, it is no myth. That it happened often is a myth since the gov never bought extra cylinders for individual pistols. You certainly can switch cylinders in Remington revolvers, and the cylinders weren't hand fitted to a particular frame. You are correct that Remingtons will foul faster than Colts, but they clean faster and easier than Colts.

 

[aardq]

Cylinder swaps are a myth. My first cap and ball was a Remington, I was happy with it until I bought my first Colt. Colts are pretty, Remingtons aren't, the smooth flowing lines of the Colt are more pleasing to my eye. Remingtons foul up quickly, getting sticky and binding the cylinder causing a bent hand spring when trying to cock the hammer. After firing 2-3 cylinders the Remington is done shooting until the cylinder pin and cylinder are disassembled and cleaned, I get tired of shooting a Colt before it becomes unshootable due to powder fouling. YMMV

Cylinder swaps are not a myth! It is possible to change the cylinders on a Remington. That it was done often would be a myth since the gov never bought extra cylinder for the individual pistols, only for armors' stores so that revolvers could be fixed by unit armors.

 

[Dan Kohli]

Cylinder swaps are not a myth! It is possible to change the cylinders on a Remington. That it was done often would be a myth since the gov never bought extra cylinder for the individual pistols, only for armors' stores so that revolvers could be fixed by unit armors.

Documentation?

 

[Old Soldier]

Every maker patented the features that were unique to their pistols. Colt did not "have all the patents," and did not "set the standards." Colt was very protective of their patents and sued any maker that copied one of their patents, so there was no "patent evasion technology." Each maker developed their own designs, independent of Colt. "No under barrel rammer" HUH?? Almost every revolver had an under barrel loading lever! S&W did not patent the bored through cylinder chambers, Rollin White did, and sold the patent to S&W. You need to get new reference sources because the ones you have now are incorrect!!

Colt was first with the ideas - and patents. Using HIS idea cost. Most manufacturers designed around those patents. It was applied rigorosly in Britain and Europe, but especially the USA. Colt was first patenting it in 1839 and the patent did not allow copying for the next 14 years without paying for the priveledge of using it. Yes rammers like Colt's may have been used, but they paid for it - or they differd in major mechanical detail. The patentswere due for run out in 1853, but were certainly renewed in England in 1850. That is why Adams and other British revolvers revolvers had side-rammers (or detachable ones) and had cylinder rotation done by the trigger. Colt had patented the rotation by hammer.

 

[Joe Whitworth]

Cylinder swaps are not a myth! It is possible to change the cylinders on a Remington. That it was done often would be a myth since the gov never bought extra cylinder for the individual pistols, only for armors' stores so that revolvers could be fixed by unit armors

Of course you can swap cylinders with interchangeable parts, that goes without saying..

 

[Jim in Wisconsin]

"disappearing rear sight"? Got me there what are you talking about? The rear sight is actually on the hammer when you cock it.

The rear sight disappears as you pull the trigger because the hammer falls out of your line of sight. Makes "follow through" real difficult.

 

[Dan Kohli]

I do like the look of the 1860 Army.

 

[Trooper "D"]

Which pistol was better and more over favorited by troops in the field ? Me personally I like the remington new model army . I carry a reproduction on my belt when I go to reenactments.

I prefer the rugged full frame of the Remington. I have 4 I think. One has a much smaller grip so I call it my "Lady Remington". HAW! I have an extra cylinder but I've never "swapped out" while in reenactor combat. It comes in handy in between battles on a busy day chatting with the crowds.
'51 Navy is a nice design. Used with the Dragoon horse pistols as well. I have two brass framed .44 Navy design pistolas. They clear leather faster and easier being lighter and no top strap. Always had problems with Colt's design. Not the Dragoon so much. Cleaning is tedious and that wedge! I lose the adjustment screws so easily. I have not mastered the technology.
When revolvers get gummed up I spray WD-40 or something similar on the pin and let it drain, wipe it down really good and reload. Machine oil works also put is quite expensive to rinse out a cylinder with. Also like to help the cylinder along with my left hand when cocking.
My Le Mat has the loading lever on the side of the barrel.
My Starr re pro has delicate innerds and if someone tries to hammer cock it the damage is noticeable.
Lastly, (finally) Rodgers and Spencer made what I find to be the best BP revolver design of all. They were not issued to CW troops but I use it anyway doing battle. Scalloped nipple cut outs make capping so easy and it is full framed. Hand stock is fluted on the bottom so it fits the hand perfectly for aiming down the sights. My re pro is accurate. For target shooting in the BP class I would recommend an R&S.
I wear 2 to 3 revolvers as a Conf. Cavalryman. 2 large frame in both reverse positions and a slanted slim jim holster on the back of the saber belt.
Thanks for the question and Cheers!

 

[bayonet]

The rear sight disappears as you pull the trigger because the hammer falls out of your line of sight. Makes "follow through" real difficult.

The "follow through" is you have to cock the hammer again otherwise there is no need to use the sights again or fire.

 

[bayonet]

Every maker patented the features that were unique to their pistols. Colt did not "have all the patents," and did not "set the standards." Colt was very protective of their patents and sued any maker that copied one of their patents, so there was no "patent evasion technology." Each maker developed their own designs, independent of Colt. "No under barrel rammer" HUH?? Almost every revolver had an under barrel loading lever! S&W did not patent the bored through cylinder chambers, Rollin White did, and sold the patent to S&W. You need to get new reference sources because the ones you have now are incorrect!!

Moore found that out the hard way when sued by Smith & Wesson. The last about 3000 Moore made that had to put not only their name but also the Smith & Wesson name atop the barrel. See my recent post on the Moore Patent revolver 7 shooter.

 

[Old Soldier]

Sighting of pistols.
All of the Britsh, French and Belgian self-cocking revolvers had sights on the frame or barrel - even those without the topstrap. Even on single action, the same applied - the hammer did not interfere with the sight picture. The American revolvers Colt and my Starr M1863 (single action) have the backsight on the tip of the hammer which completely obscures the sight line when not cocked. Although I can understand and appreciate the thinking behind this, it was not our style. In fact there is a British double-action hammerless revolver from Harvey (1853)

The 'under barrel rammer' is dismounted and reattached before using. Others were pulled to the SIDE - to escape Colt's patent.

It is very like the US Pettengill hammerless revolver (1856) developed independently (it DOES happen) in the USA. I doubt if Harvey would have taken out a US patent anyway. This was availalbe during the civil war and this example is a US Army issue revolver:

I have only just discovered these beauties so cannot go into any detail (readers breathe sigh of relief), but they were available from .44" (54-bore) to .31". They do seem to be rather 'muzzle heavy' - but then so is the Starr M1963. Advantage? Less whip due to the higher grip and higher rate of fire (self-cocking)

 

[JOHN42768]

The Pettengill was made in .31, .34 & .44 caliber. I find it very difficult to hold comfortably in ones hand due to closeness of trigger guard to grip and front heavy. Maybe just me. Mine:

 

[Old Soldier]

The Pettengill was made in .31, .34 & .44 caliber. I find it very difficult to hold comfortably in ones hand due to closeness of trigger guard to grip and front heavy. Maybe just me. Mine:

View attachment 563918

Thank you for the confirmation!

 

[bayonet]

Pistols are for close quarter combat. Depending on the year (swings up or down by a few percentage points) most LEO handgun shootouts are from 7 feet or less (95-97% about). Don't waste your time with sights on a pistol. The pistol is just an extension of your hand, think simply pointing your finger at the target, same with the pistol.

 

[Jim in Wisconsin]

When target shooting at a little black circle, using the sights is how it's done. Like any sport, it probably is a waste of time though!
Follow through is important in hitting a golf ball, baseball, or doing most anything in sports.

 

[bayonet]

When target shooting at a little black circle, using the sights is how it's done. Like any sport, it probably is a waste of time though!
Follow through is important in hitting a golf ball, baseball, or doing most anything in sports.

"little black circle" will not try to rob, rape, or kill you! I always use human targets will actual photos of humans not the plain blue or black silhouette or those cartoon looking targets. Best targets have the outline of the spine, heart, neck, head, etc.

 

[Old Soldier]

Every maker patented the features that were unique to their pistols. Colt did not "have all the patents," and did not "set the standards." Colt was very protective of their patents and sued any maker that copied one of their patents, so there was no "patent evasion technology." Each maker developed their own designs, independent of Colt. "No under barrel rammer" HUH?? Almost every revolver had an under barrel loading lever! S&W did not patent the bored through cylinder chambers, Rollin White did, and sold the patent to S&W. You need to get new reference sources because the ones you have now are incorrect!!

If you have the patent the opposition PAYS to use it and even that can be refused. Colt was first with the revolver and patented all the best ideas so other makers could not use them without paying - an excellent way to ensure you still make money from the competition. The Remington has an under-barrel rammer, but it is a completely different design to the Colt one - otherwise it would cost more. A good example of 'patent evasion'. Colt's is easier to use - he even patented the catch on the muzzle end! Smith and Wesson BOUGHT the patent - therefore it is theirs - another thing you can do. If your patent does not make money, you can sell it - if you can, if it is useful enough.

 

[Old Soldier]

Pistols are for close quarter combat. Depending on the year (swings up or down by a few percentage points) most LEO handgun shootouts are from 7 feet or less (95-97% about). Don't waste your time with sights on a pistol. The pistol is just an extension of your hand, think simply pointing your finger at the target, same with the pistol.

True. BUT, we have people on here saying they are useful over tens of yards - on horseback! And against infantry! What they forget that if infantry are attacked by cavalry, they fire at the horses - a bigger target and certainly upsets the rider when the horse goes down. (King Henry V's archers at Agincourt (1415) didn't kill many knights in heavy armor, they unhorsed them - and the foot soldiers finished them off!)
Handguns are pretty useless beyond a few yards and not much use in battle.
The Brits during the Crimea War (1854-55) and the Indian Mutiny (1857) preferred the .44" 5-shot double action British pistols to Colt's .36" 6-shot single action revolvers because they could get all 5 shots off before 2 on the Colt, and the heavier round disabled the opponent far more reliably. It stopped the opposition before they got to bayonet/sword-length. Again, there are many who trumpet about how much more accurate the single action Colts (et al) were yet, as you say, they were not used over particularly long distances. Yes, a double action is a much heavier and longer trigger pull which upsets aiming, but if you are just 'pointing'' ....

"I had one of your largest sized Revolver Pistols at the bloody battle of Inkermann, and by some chance got surrounded by the Russians. I then found the advantages of your pistol over that of Colonel Colt's, for had I to cock before each shot I should have lost my life. I should not have had time to cock, as they were too close to me, being only a few yards from me; so close that I was bayoneted through the thigh immediately after shooting the fourth man." (from a letter to Adams from: J.G. Crosse, 88th Foot (Connaught Rangers)

Lt. Col. George Vincent Fosbery: "An officer, who especially prided himself in his pistol shooting, was attacked by a stalwart mutineer armed with a heavy sword. The officer, unfortunately for himself, carried a Colt's Navy pistol of small caliber and fired a sharp-pointed bullet of sixty to the pound and a heavy charge of powder, its range being 600 yards, as I have frequently proved. This he proceeded to empty into the sepoy as soon as he advanced, but having done so, he waited just one second too long to see the effect of his shooting and was cloven to the teeth by his antagonist, who then dropped down and died beside him. My informant told me that five out of the six bullets had struck the sepoy close together in the chest, and all had passed through him and out of his back."

 

[Old Soldier]

"disappearing rear sight"? Got me there what are you talking about? The rear sight is actually on the hammer when you cock it.

And disappears as soon as the hammer starts falling.