as far as the accuracy test goes, i did notice that the colt bore was pretty corroded and pitted, while the remington bore looked pretty clean. that probably had a large influence on the colts accuracy.
The Coilt's greater penetration may, simply, be down to wood density. Had you been able to shoot the same block in the same place that would have been a more representative test.
If I was fighting in the Civil War I'd take the Remington over the Colt in a heart beat. Stronger frame and you can swap out cylinders for a quick reload.
Great video! I prefer my Remington for several reasons over the Colt but enjoy both. Keep those great cap and ball videos coming, you provide a great service as a steward to these weapons and history.
Thanks for a great video, When you said 30 grains of Swiss and saw the barrel of the colt I was waiting for a big bang. I had a 1861 Remington but had kittens every time I fired it. I now have a ruger old army which still has its share of problems. they got it pretty much right with the Remington except for the cylinder pivot which has a tendency to bind. Nice guns Bravo.
Nice video kind sir. I appreciate it as I've been given a Pedersoli 44 replica of the Remington in mint condition. I will not use the pistol until I have gathered all available data on it. So far, your channel has the best content relevant to my research. Subscribed!
With that Remington...who started to think, “I do not shoot with my hand, he who shoots with his hand has forgotten the face of his father, I shoot with my mind...”
I had a choice between a Colt 3rd gen (Signature Series) 1860 and a Remington New Model Army a few months back and after handling each, I readily chose the Colt. It fit my hand much better and pointed so naturally that i had to have it. The Remington might be a little stronger but its a moot point even with shooting Triple 7, up to 40+ grains ive not experienced any malfunctions, cap jams or misfires. With 38 grains of 10+ year old 777, it chronographs 1180 fps with a .454 143gr roundball. The Remington 1858 is very nice and I'll be buying one directly if i cant find a decent Ruger Old Army for sale, but ill carry the Colt as my EDC until i expire. Its proven reliable thus far and ill bet my life that if i happen to call on it, that itll acquit itself most effectively. Excellent video and historical commentary.
The grip frame of the 1860 is much more ergonomic and comfortable, but the 1858 is a superior revolver in every other way. I had a machinist friend of mine modify the grip frame of my replica stainless 1858 by opening it up some behind the trigger guard to make it more like the 1860 grip. I also had him enlarge the nipple windows on the cylinder to allow for use with a capper. Lastly he deepened the safety notches on the cylinder just a little, for stronger hammer contact. I put in a lighter trigger spring and polished the sear and hand. I have what I now believe to be the perfect percussion revolver.
Colt's were much more popular during the Civil War with soldiers, in fact soldiers would throw a Remington away if they could pick up a Colt Navy or Army on the battlefield. The open frame of the Colt let those guns be fired longer before having to be cleaned. A Remington could fire about 2 cylinders before becoming so clogged with black powder residue that it was worthless until cleaned. Today the call is different, serious shooters want the Remington due to the solid top strap, they are more accurate, and since target shooting will allow someone to replace or clean the cylinders frequently. Also with use, Colt's get worn where barrel meets the frame, so they become less accurate than the Remington or Rogers and Spencer.
That is completely opposite actually and there are sources to prove it. Soldiers would readily pitch any Colt to save on weight and just use their rifle and bayonet or would trade a Colt and something else in addition to it just to get a Remington, because Colts had a design flaw with the opening to the action being right under where caps would fall in and jam. It was very well known and they were very inconvenient to clean out in the field. They had paper cartridges that made them a bit easier to reload but these were often used up quickly and supply lines were often cut off. Remington 1858 revolvers were a huge innovation that changed revolver design forever. There is absolutely no doubt about it. The first modern revolver.
Love your channel, always interesting, reliable information and honest opinions. You shoot, describe and cover so much information on each of the many great and wonderful historical firearms and your video coverage of each weapon is excellent as well. However, I would like to just add my $0.02 worth on the accuracy test you performed on the Colt and Remington revolvers. Judging from the views of the barrels you showed starting @ 4:16 in this video, the Remington clearly shows a much better condition bore compared to the Colt. The Remington revolver obviously was treated much better (cleaned and maybe even loved more) in it's early live than the Colt was. Thus, I feel this add a great deal to the superior bullet patterning of the Remington on the human targets. One thing I can not explain is why the Colt, shown by the chronograph (shooting the the same bullets and powder loads) is producing slower bullet speeds than that of the Remington, yet produces superior penetration. Anyway, thanks again for another great video.
This was an awesome video. Lots of history, and spewing information. Love it. On another note, I actually prefer the grip of the Remington over the colt. My hand has a more positive lockup on the Remington grip shape. And I actually have fairly large hands
You handle the recoil nicely. Very good comparison and demonstrations here. I'll bet many men from back then made the same kind of comparison. I'm sold on the Remington! Like you, I would love to have both of those classic weapons!
definitely agree that the sight picture is better on the Remmy, and the Colt is more comfortable, and easier to clean. I think it's odd that you keep getting caps jammed in the action; when i do get a jam its usually the cap getting stuck between the cylinder and the frame.
Thank you for the great comparison video! I have an 1851 Navy in .36 caliber. I am hoping to get a second revolver in .44 this time. I like the swappable cylinders of the Remington. According to Duelist1954, the Ted Cash capper will not fit the Remington, due to the shape of the cylinder nipple housing. It is such an easy capper to use, that I'd hate to give it up. Using a bit of a cliche', the Colt looks a bit more "Civil Warish"... Two would match what gunfighters like Wild Bill Hickok wore. I will agree that the very design of the Remington sights make them both more reliable and a quicker sight acquisition. Thanks again for the great video.
From what I hear most people are taught to just make shots within a one foot diameter or less if necessary Plus modern guns hold 7-30 rounds per mag so they don't have the "you need to make each shot count" mentality shooters had back then instead of blasting away in a controlled spray and pray I know not every shooter is like this it's just on average for those who don't go shooting as often as others more dedicated to marksmanship If that makes sense
I have both the Colt and Remington originals and both replicas . My groups at the same distance shooting one handed are better than what's shown in this video . Shooting 2 handed produces greater accuracy , but cavalry had to hold the reins for a horse and fire with the other hand . I'll stay with what the gunfighters preferred = Remington
Oh yeah, well I put all my bullets through the same hole in the paper at 50m, AND then I find all 6 bullets perfectly lined up back to back in the wooden backstop behind the paper target! Beat that! Lol
I own two Colt Navy revolvers and a Remington, and I have never had problems with the Remington. Every time I fire one of the Navy revolvers, a cap falls down into the action.
Having actually used all three in Cowboy Action Shooting competitions, my impression is that the Ruger Old Army is too big and heavy. That makes it slower. As always, opinions and preferences differ.
REMMYS RULE !!! I love my 1858 New Army reproduction by Pietta and use it as part of my personal defense . These guns are rock solid reliable and a joy to shoot. If you buy a second ( or third ) cylinder for them you can reload about as fast as a modern handgun a'la "Joe Kidd" . Thanks for making this Vid , your new subscriber from California !
Pale Rider used the interchangeable cylinders . Joe Kidd used SAA, plus a battle pickup C96 Mauser . Both those are just movies . In real life Civil War, and " wild west " , serious users carried extra complete revolvers .
I have them both from Uberti & Pietta replicas. Both with .45 Colt conversion cylinders. Its July 2021 and in the USA not a percussion cap to be found anywhere ditto on cartridge primers and powder. Especially rifle powder. Hey thru the years I love you videos!!
Let's make one thing perfectly clear. Colt and Remington martial revolvers were manufactured with only one cylinder, sold with one cylinder, and issued by the military with one cylinder. Neither army during the Civil War provided spare cylinders nor pouches in which to carry loaded spare cylinders. Wild Bill Hickok relied on two complete Colt Navy revolvers. Nobody reported him bristling with spare cylinders. Colt's "Directions For Loading Colt's Pistols" clearly states, "The Cylinder is not to be taken off when loaded." This myth about switching spare cylinders is a tall tale that has been repeated so often it's become accepted as fact.
+Anne Hrobsky You're wrong this time. It is a fact that the fastest way to reload a cap-and-ball is to switch cylinders many men back then did carry spare cylinders and the military had a accouterments box for carrying cylinders.
+mcmax571 the Colt Patterson issued to the rangers came with spare cylinders according to some historians. Certainly the New York reload was the most popular method but I believe that many did keep spare cylinders if they could get them. It only makes good sense and many vets have told me that i a firefight you do what is necessary to stay alive.
+mcmax571 The fastest way to reload a cap and ball is to grab the other loaded revolver.Carrying a loaded and capped cylinder, esecially with the more volatile percussion caps of the civil war era (then they used mercury fulminate as opposed to modern lead stipenate) would've been risky, the reload itself would be fiddly on the move, and it's slower then just grabbing the other gun.I have not managed to find one credible source confirming this "cylinder swap" reload method.
Revolving RIFLES were issued with spare cylinders, never revolvers . Never say never, and if you can imagine something, it probably was attempted at least once by somebody . That said , the number in the real world back in the day was essentially zero . If the only source of an extra cylinder was to cannibalize another revolver, you're not going to throw away the rest of the revolver . And disassembling and reassembling a Colt in the middle of a gunfight isn't really faster than reloading with paper cartridges . ( Yes, in the modern day , Pietta extra cylinders are cheap , and people do pre-load a buncha cylinders before a range trip . But that is Now, not back Then .
I have both these pistols (repos) and shoot them both frequently. I do prefer the 1858 as it is more accurate and the grip suits my small hands. Would love to have an original but at the last gun show an 1860 Colt was going for 3K !
Great video!! I know I am "late to the party" by several years. However, I still want to add two things to the discussion. I have also handled and fired originals of both of these revolvers, and have used Uberti replicas of them in competition. First, as to the grip size and comfort, my personal experience is the exact opposite. I have large palms and shorter fingers. I found the 1860 Colt grips to be too long and "fat" whereas the 1858 Remington grips fit my hands very nicely. Many of my fellow competitors had the same experience, and actually replaced the 1860 Colt grip frames with the smaller 1851 Colt grip frames.They are interchangeable. Second, part of the reason for the above is a difference in the way the revolver is held in "combat" or competition. The video shows you and your associate placing all four fingers on the grip. Most post-Civil-War shootists let their fourth finger slide below the grip (difficult or impossible to do on the unmodified 1860 Colt). This change actually offers better control and, because it helps the pistol "roll upward" in the hand so the thumb can engage the hammer spur, greatly facilitates the second through fifth shots.
The Remington cylinder pin can build up with fowling and seize the cylinder to the point I can't rotate if not kept clean, where as the Colt cylinder pin is designed to avoid the problem with a grease grove and spiral groves to keep it clean with out worrying of cylinder lockup between cleanings.
Can’t rotate with the caps jamming the action. I have multiple replicas of each and while the colt feels better in hand, the Remington is without question the superior revolver. I’ve never had an issue with the Remington dropping out cylinders either. I don’t know where you come up with this base pin “fouling”. It’s a myth just like the full frame supposedly causing cap jams. Colt stole the Remington design when they made their 1873...enough said, colt is second to Remington. Even today.
I realize that this reply is three years to late but, I did notice that the colt had a much poorer bore than the Remington. I imagine that would go with the worn finish. that said, everything you said about the colt is true.but I would say that if the bores are comparable, the accuracy would be comparable. no?
I agree Mike, regarding the Colt the only question is weather it will shoot to the same spot after disassembly and reassembly or not. That 1860 Colt is a fine shooter with roundballs on the other hand. Pitted or not it can produce competition grade groups.
That seems an anomalie...The Colt with 15 or 20 something fps(excuse me mps) less velocity than the Rem. yet with greater penetration. Perhaps the molecular(or cell-wall) density must vary somewhat from block of wood to block of wood?
shot from colt hit at the edge of wooden block and bullet slip between two blocks. That is why it penetrate more. rest whole be alternative physic, and in violation of law for conservation of energy.
Yes , pine boards was the historically correct test medium . In the modern day , the best medium is calibrated Ballistic Gelatin ( US Mil uses 20% , most civillian and LE testing uses 10% . 10% actually better replicates human tissue, but the Military first established the 20% standard , and either seeks continuity, or suffers from beaurocratic inertia .) It may have been different wood density, or the 50fps faster Remington may have hit the threshold of greater expansion .
Excellent. Prior to buying any new revolvers one must note that seldom are the precise dimensions the same between replicas and the originals. I have seen where it was necessary to open up the frame groove area where loading takes place to allow the use of conical balls. For many years most people only fired round balls in the replica guns, now they are learning how to use the conical bullets in these guns. I would love to see a comparison between the replicas and the originals. that could the next video.
Thank you, the video was very informative and fun to watch. I also love knowing the specs of how each revolver performs. Iike the chronograph but I do not understand the metric system, so I don't know what the feet per second fps was, lol. But that's okay, thank you for sharing the video with us and the revolvers are beautiful and look like fun to shoot.
Excellent video. Would like to point out a couple of things to take into account however. 1 for the accuracy test, it looks like the bore of the Colt is more pitted than the Remington, might account for some of the accuracy difference. 2 modern caps are thicker than what was used during the civil war and from what I understand the Remington was actually more prone to cap jams. Again excellent video, really enjoyed it, and you are indeed lucky to own and shoot such pieces of history.
The Colt can be altered easily to stop pulling caps. Also new Wilson springs will do wonders. I have a 1860 Colt Navy replica made in Italy. Two years of progress is a big advantage. Cartilages need to be lubed. Solders would put them in their mouth to lube them if they had nothing else. Both of your pistols are beautiful. Your video has the best sound of any shooting video.
The Remington is a more modern design, despite being released 2 years earlier than the Colt! I don't understand how lower muzzle velocity equals less penetration of the SAME bullet.... There must've been some inconsistency with the hardness of the boards.
@@billmelater6470 that kinda depends. A lot on the bullet. If the bullet expands more at the higher speed it can penetrate less because of the larger size. I remember shooting times doing a test. With the 458 win mag and the 45-70. With both loaded with a 500 solid the 458 penetrate more as expected. But with a 450gr sp the extra speed of the 458 made it expand and the 45-70 penetrate more. Then they loaded them with the 45-70 300gr hp. The 45-70 penetrated more. The speed that the 458 had it going it came apart like a varmint bullet.
@@tbjtbj4786 Sure, if the bullet is designed to break, expand or otherwise destabilize at higher velocities it will not penetrate well. However if penetration is the desired outcome, velocity does matter. But that comes down to what the projectile does on impact.
@@billmelater6470 yea no doubt. But the reason why I point it out here. With cap and ball the ball probably 100% lead. So it should expand more at a higher speed. But your right if the bullet doesn't expand or they expand the same the faster one should penetrate more. With this i know board was the standard penetration test back in the day. But you could have differences in the wood to that could change small number testing.
In the Clint Eastwood film 'Pale Rider' the hero is walking and reloading his pistol but there is no evidence or reference to percussion caps when he's reloading. Would this be an accurate depiction of the firearm at this time in history?
Pale Rider, my favorite western. Around 1870 cartridges was introduced, with the surplus o Civil War pistols, many were fitted with conversion cylinders so they could shoot 45 colts, so yes the movie for once was right. I have two conversion cylinders for my Pietta 1858 Rem. very fast to swap
Job38 It's seems that Clint Eastwood is possibly quite knowledgeable about pistols. In the preparation for 'Unforgiven' he asked for a selection of pistols to be brought to the film set and without hesitation selected the most appropriate models for the date period the film is set in.
The first thing I look for when watching westerns, is Period Correct firearms, maybe Clint learned that from his early westerns, because my next favorite western is (The Good the Bad and the Ugly), the revolvers are all wrong, but I still like the movie.
Job38 Four they are cartridge conversions in The Good The Bad And The Ugly. In the other movies from the trilogy Clint uses a SAA with custom grips and a 5.5 inch barrel. And in Pale Rider Clint uses a Remington 1858 and reloads by swapping cylinders.
*IF* anyone actually did cylinder swaps in the percussion era , they would have been already primed . Yes , Cartridge Conversions were widely used back in the day . Both actual percussion revolvers converted , and factory built using stocks of leftover parts, after the US cancelled all existing contracts at the end of the war . But they Weren't in .45 Colt . Individual gunsmiths undoubtedly used others also , but factory conversions were primarily .38 Rimfire, .44 Rimfire, .46 Rimfire, .38 ( Short) Colt, .44 Colt, .44 Remington . These converted guns were popular long after the introduction of proper cartridge revolvers . For the first 5 years or so of the 1873 Colt SAA , most of the production went to the Army contract, and they were rare and expensive on the civillian market . And the converted ( & converted designs) were 1/3 to 1/2 the cost of an 1873 Colt or 1875 Remington, or S&W No 3 , making them very attractive to buyers . The Remington conversions were slow to reload, and Open Tops not as durable as solid frames , but most people didn't fire thousands of rounds at a time , and they were just as fast for the first 5 or 6 shots, and .4r Colt or .44 Remington was plenty powerful enough for defense, or most hunting . They were widely enough used that ammo for .44Colt/ .44Rem was available until 1941 .
Good video. But I'd change the penetration test material for another more homogeneous, like clay. Wood is not reliable for that, a slight change in grain orientation or density and the penetration of the bullet would be different
Yes, ice bricks could be also very interesting targets for penetration. IMPORTANT NOTE: If you compare penetration, you shouldn't focus on how far did the bullet go, but how well did it "share" its energy into destroying the target. That's the point of them. You can compare for example 9mm Luger in FMJ or HP versions and which kicks harder? HP - and it does penetrate less, but it expends and releases more energy at smaller distance, so the tissue of the body is much more devastated. Keep that in mind!
I agree, I see the Colt went thru the stack between the 2 by's. the best cap and ball revolver is the one Josey Wales uses. The Uberti 1847 Colt Walker. Its the biggest and baddest gun ever made.
Having looked down the bores of both pistols, it is hard to be jubilant in the results of the accuracy tests. The barrel of the Colt looked so bad that I would consider having it rebored/lined. The Remington had better care over the years and it's condition was head and shoulders above the Colt.
Nice comparison but I have two issues. It looked like the barrel condition of the Remington was much better. The Colt can be capped with a capping tool to make capping faster while the Remington could not.
Ralph Watten Definitely agree about the bore condition. He could compare accuracy just for fun, but it is wrong he does not mention the bore condition as a factor. He seems like a nice guy but that one point makes the whole video seem either ignorant or biased. Also he needed to say something about the opposing velocity vs. penetration results. Wood density variations, the uncentered hit with the Colt, there are various explanations, but SOMETHING needed to be said about results which would/should seem contradictory to thoughtful yet inexperienced viewers.
I enjoy your vids very much. Please keep them coming. I read through all of the comments to see what was addressed about your comparison and for the most part I think the important criticisms were expressed in the comments.The important points were; Penetration tests were not relevant due to inconsistent density of the wood blocks. Accuracy tests may not not truly represent what that revolver was capable of historically, simply because of the condition of the Colt revolver. It is conceivable that, that Colt revolver example, due to it's condition may never be capable of accurate fire. All of that said I enjoyed watching the video. Thanks! JRM
The '58 New Model Army launched those 200gr bullets at 866fps ... The Colt sent them at 807fps .... Pretty significant when you consider the Remington basically duplicates the performance of the .44 Special... also matches up well with the legendary .45 ACP launched from a 1911...
Really enjoyed your video. Although I have never fired a period Colt 1860 Army or the Remington 1858 New Model Army, I have owned and fired the reproduction models of both. I love the Colt and I have found it extremely accurate. I hit a man sized target with 5 of 6 rounds fired at center of mass at 60 meters. I have always been told that Colts' measure of accuracy was that if it would hit a target at point blank range, it was acceptable. I did Civil War reenacting for about 10 years and rode with the cavalry. I carried a Colt 1860 as my primary side arm and carried a Remington and a Spiller & Burr (similar to the Remington but Confederate made) in a set of pommel holsters. It is extremely hard to reload on horseback and believe it or not, the pistol was not the primary weapon, the saber was. That is why the pistol is carried with the butt forward in a flapped holster. The reason was is that you don't have to reload a saber. Just a bit of cavalry trivia
Being a former green beret and weapons expert I'm curious why the integrity of the barrels was never mentioned. Even modern gun accuracy begins to degrade after enough rounds are fired through them, especially if they are not well maintained. To put these two side by side 150+ years after they were made and say one is more accurate than the other is like having two 85 year old men run a 100 meter dash and then declaring that the winner was a better sprinter when the runners were 18
I have had several cap and balls revolvers and feel his test was correct even with the difference in barrel conditions. The top strap of the Remington adds a lot of strength and combined with the better sights the Remington always seem more accurate to me. The slim feel of the colt just naturally points at a target better. The sight on the hammer of the colts may be another part of the accuracy problem. I am not sure that the hammer comes back at full cock to the exact same position. You will commonly see drag marks on the hammers of open top revolvers where the rub in the frame as they are fired. I have seen open top revolvers with both sights on the barrels and have wonder if that would improve there accuracy. I would like to see the test done with round balls. The tester did do a great job at shooting.
Well preserved guns hold up better than well preserved humans . From his other videos testing various original revolvers I'd have to say the Colt's sights were more of a limiting factor in 50 meter offhand shooting than any differences in intrinsic accuracy .
I enjoyed this video very much. I do, however, have a disagreement with the way the wood penetration test was conducted. I believe the test was done using 1 inch, or 1/2 inch pine boards sandwiched together, and the bullets fired at right angles to the sandwich, so they passed through successive layers one after another. This makes measuring the penetration much easier, One can immediately see the layers that were penetrated, and just count them, and then one only has to measure the final layer where there was only partial penetration.
Cavalry during the ACW must have either carried many pistols on them, or they could compile a healthy amount of cylinders for fast reload. Preloading several cylinders would seem to be more efficient, especially considering that you'd only have to carry one pistol. Less luggage because you're also packing a saber, and possibly a rifle or shotgun. ACW troops were so badass.
What is the difference between the barrel cylinder gap of both of those original firearms? I only have replicas, and the 1858 has a slightly tighter gap which should mean that if one gun was going to have higher pressures and velocities than the other with the same load, it would be the Remington. Unless you're having caps blow off... It would be interesting to know if the deviation was just from firearm to firearm or if the deviation is in the replicas.
The conical bullet does not have a concave recess in the back similar to a Mini ball? Just curious which was most accurate. While I like the concept of the point of aim, being very close to the edge of the bullet or cartridge cylinder of the Colt, I prefer the structural strength, provided by the wrap-around frame of the Remington, which is what I have. Thanks very much for demonstrating your surviving examples of both.
Agreed, this was a very good video. You can buy them from some specialized manufacturers, or use cigarette paper and make your own. (make sure to remember to make them taper, my whole first batch don't have this, and therefore are very hard to get in the cylinder.)
+stainmorelegend Sorry, that statement is incorrect. Cap and Ball revolvers are specifically excluded from the ban on pistol ownership in the UK. A friend of mine has a Colt Walker .44 replica, which I have fired at a range earlier this year. From Section 3.6 of the current Guide to UK Firearm Regulations (October 2014): "Category (iii) affects the kind of small firearm that is easily concealed and yet confers high firepower. For this reason, muzzle-loading weapons (including cap and ball revolvers) and flare pistols are deliberately excluded." Catagory (iii) is the section which defines arms prohibited by law as regards pistols. He still needs a Catagory 1 FAC and follow all the rules for security and storage, but he is not banned from having it.
would it make any form of difference in the case of the navy percussion revolvers to install the percussion primer caps 1st and then load the paper cartridges next just so the loading process wouldn't be painstaking
A flawed comparison: (A) Each gun is an individual, so comparing just one against the other is not statistically valid. Compare 50 original Colt and Remingtons against each other, and you would likely reveal trends.(B) Accuracy test should have been done from a benchrest, with hands on a solid rest, to eliminate any "wiggling around." Shooting one-handed is not a good indicator of either gun's accuracy capability.(C) Original paper cartridges from that period varied widely in bullet weight and powder charge. Search the internet for an article posted by Gatofeo entitled, "Found! Original Loads for cap and ball revolvers." Gatofeo, who knows a great deal about cap and ball revolvers, concluded that there was no real standard for bullet weight and charge; contractors assembled cartridges with vast differences. However, I applaud you for sticking to only one bullet weight and powder charge. This was good statistical method.(D) I also was pleased to see that you fired these revolvers at 50 meters. The originals, and most of the reproductions, were sighted to hit to point of aim at anywhere from 50 to 100 yards. The revolver, with its six shots, was thought of as a substitute to the largely single-shot (Henry and Spencer not counted) rifle.(E) I believe your bullet diameter of .452 was too small for these original revolvers, which resulted in poor accuracy. The gain twist rifling of the original Colts and Remingtons was noted for producing very fine accuracy. The late gun writer Elmer Keith notes that he had a Colt 1851 Navy about 1910 that, with lead ball (no size given) and powder charge nearly filling the chamber (no weight given) and felt wad soaked in melted beeswax and tallow would put all of its 6 balls into one ragged hole at 20 yards. Others have praised the accuracy of the old revolvers with gain twist. Today's modern cap and ball revolvers have constant-rate twist, not gain twist (a few Remington patterns made for target shooters, with gain twist, are an exception).(F) The Colt jammed from a spent cap, but I believe this didn't become a big problem until people started using the old, original guns with caps made in the 20th century. I have a few tins of caps made in the 19th century, and the copper is thicker than today's caps. Consequently, the old cap gets a tighter grip on the nipple. Today, people buy new nipples that are slightly larger than the old nipples, which compensates for the thin copper of today's caps.A very fine report, but until we can challenge 25 to 50 original Colts in very good condition against 25 or 50 original Remingtons in the same condition, we'll probably never know how accurate the old guns were. There are many contemporary accounts that praise their accuracy, and they were almost certainly more accurate than the later .45 and 9mm issued to militaries during the 20th century.With my own Uberti-made Remington .44, and the Lee 200 gr. conical bullet, I can put six bullets into a 1-1/2 circle at 20 yards from a benchrest. I believe the gun is capable of slightly better accuracy, despite its constant rate rifling, but my 63-year-old eyes are not!-- GatofeoRemote Utah DesertApril 19, 2018
Very interesting! I use Gatofeo #1 lube with my cap n balls. The ugly cat knows his business. Don't underestimate the old antiques! A local journalist, noticing my 25-yard groups, did an article on my cap n ball Colt in the local paper. These were the most effective military handguns ever made, as they were the primary arms of cavalry troops. Elmer Keith noted an 80-something YO Civil War veteran he knew in Montana could put every shot in a fence post at a full gallop on horseback.
I doubt if the penetration test is representative; If the Remington shoots the same bullet at higher speeds, it should penetrate deeper. What was clear was that the bullet from the Remington hit full wood, splitting the wood block, while the Colt hit near the edge of the block creating much less deformation in the wood and therefor shedding less energy while penetrating allowing it to travel "deeper" into the wood.
I only bought the 1860 replica as it was on sale and the 1858 combo I came to buy was sold out. Never thought i would like it but the 1860 is one of my favorite guns of any kind I've ever shot. 33 years a handgunner, carried professionally in security work both revolvers and pistols, qualify expert with both. Carried concealed in Virginia with a permit. Nothing fills my hand like the 1860. Of course I really like my 1858's. They are more reliable with fewer cap jam worries, faster to reload and easier to field strip. I am more of a woods loafer than any kind of serious hunter. The primary weapon in the hills where I'm from is a walking staff of some type against rattlesnakes. A revolver is just a nice peace of mind companion and a good .44 will take a wide range of game given the opportunity. For those times I reach for the 1860, when out and about and 'don't need a gun'. For a backup to a small caliber rifle, or a primary game getter, or serious social purposes if it ever came to that I'd take the 1858. If I could only have one, it would be the 1858 but there is something magical about the Colt replica in the hand, and it's just a bit lighter on the belt.
Add slix shot nipples to your 1860 army then and you have a winner. They redirect the blowback through the nipple and makes sure the cap stays on, so it wont fall into the action :)
Prefer the looks and handling of the (replica) colt 1851 navy, but... would like to get my mitts on a remington replica. Sadly the colt army 1860 design doesn't do anything for me for some reason. But it is still awesome to see both these old original antique guns working! I had the luck to once handle and cycle an antique colt cap and ball gun (another 1851 but no replica) but sadly never fired one. I can only imagine how awesome it must be to shoot a gun that is over a hundred years old and has such history!
Quite right, colt was rather cosy with the Union’s “top brass” and often gave away elaborately decorated models. Not to say colt was different from other vendors during the war, uniforms and equipment were also the result of back room deals, many were reportedly bad quality.
Another of your excellent videos,however, you did not show the real problems of the Remington in getting the cylinder out/in,or the hell of getting the caps onto the nipples,both easy to achieve on the Colt design. The caps dropping into the action (although I have never had this with proper size caps ! ) can be avoided if you tip the gun sideways on cocking. Thanks again for the best on RUclips!
keep in mind that distance is a little too far most officers or soldiers on both sides would generally finish people off with the pistole due to a 36. caliber and most of the time they would be maybe 25 feet away at max
Some of the most famous pictures of Bill Hickok show him carrying a Remington pistol . Sometimes stuck in his belt and with no holster and often carried as 2 in what is called a brace of pistols / one under each arm in shoulder holsters . Hickok killed a man in a duel on the sidewalk of downtown Springfield Missouri . There is a brass plaque in the sidewalk where he stood and the range was aprox. 45 yards . His handgun was a Remington .
as far as the accuracy test goes, i did notice that the colt bore was pretty corroded and pitted, while the remington bore looked pretty clean. that probably had a large influence on the colts accuracy.
The Coilt's greater penetration may, simply, be down to wood density. Had you been able to shoot the same block in the same place that would have been a more representative test.
It might be, too that the bullet deforms less quickly due to lower velocity.
Fantastic video! Great to see a couple of original guns like those out at a range instead locked away and never getting shot.
Couple of my favorite old percussion revolvers. I especially like the design of the Remington, just a very nice looking piece.
If I was fighting in the Civil War I'd take the Remington over the Colt in a heart beat. Stronger frame and you can swap out cylinders for a quick reload.
In the colt you can change the cylender for a quick realod to but yes the remington is the best for quick realod
Except no one swapped cylinders like that
@@SonOfTheDawn515 everyone seems to forget that
@@SonOfTheDawn515 Not soldiers for sure but I could imagine that some civilians did do that.
Watched a video where a swap was made faster than the Remington.
Great video! I prefer my Remington for several reasons over the Colt but enjoy both. Keep those great cap and ball videos coming, you provide a great service as a steward to these weapons and history.
I really appreciate the honest assessment you conducted on these two pieces of history. Well done sir and very informative!
Speaking as a history student, I can think of nothing that I want to do more than what you do. Good on you, sir.
Without the Colt, there would be no Remington
Good point, Thanks
How fortunate to have originals in working order! Great video!
Thanks for a great video, When you said 30 grains of Swiss and saw the barrel of the colt I was waiting for a big bang. I had a 1861 Remington but had kittens every time I fired it. I now have a ruger old army which still has its share of problems. they got it pretty much right with the Remington except for the cylinder pivot which has a tendency to bind. Nice guns Bravo.
A delightful video, thank you! I've fired replicas, because that's what I have; to see these old originals in action was a real treat!
Nice video kind sir. I appreciate it as I've been given a Pedersoli 44 replica of the Remington in mint condition. I will not use the pistol until I have gathered all available data on it. So far, your channel has the best content relevant to my research. Subscribed!
Good video. It's rare to see two working pisols left over from the war of northern agression.
With that Remington...who started to think, “I do not shoot with my hand, he who shoots with his hand has forgotten the face of his father, I shoot with my mind...”
Roland :)
Lmao, best book series I’ve read in years.
Who knew Hungary has a muzzleloading team? My British Facebook friend recommended this video. I'll be looking for more! REally well done analysis!
I had a choice between a Colt 3rd gen (Signature Series) 1860 and a Remington New Model Army a few months back and after handling each, I readily chose the Colt. It fit my hand much better and pointed so naturally that i had to have it. The Remington might be a little stronger but its a moot point even with shooting Triple 7, up to 40+ grains ive not experienced any malfunctions, cap jams or misfires. With 38 grains of 10+ year old 777, it chronographs 1180 fps with a .454 143gr roundball. The Remington 1858 is very nice and I'll be buying one directly if i cant find a decent Ruger Old Army for sale, but ill carry the Colt as my EDC until i expire. Its proven reliable thus far and ill bet my life that if i happen to call on it, that itll acquit itself most effectively. Excellent video and historical commentary.
The grip frame of the 1860 is much more ergonomic and comfortable, but the 1858 is a superior revolver in every other way. I had a machinist friend of mine modify the grip frame of my replica stainless 1858 by opening it up some behind the trigger guard to make it more like the 1860 grip. I also had him enlarge the nipple windows on the cylinder to allow for use with a capper. Lastly he deepened the safety notches on the cylinder just a little, for stronger hammer contact. I put in a lighter trigger spring and polished the sear and hand. I have what I now believe to be the perfect percussion revolver.
Colt's were much more popular during the Civil War with soldiers, in fact soldiers would throw a Remington away if they could pick up a Colt Navy or Army on the battlefield. The open frame of the Colt let those guns be fired longer before having to be cleaned. A Remington could fire about 2 cylinders before becoming so clogged with black powder residue that it was worthless until cleaned. Today the call is different, serious shooters want the Remington due to the solid top strap, they are more accurate, and since target shooting will allow someone to replace or clean the cylinders frequently. Also with use, Colt's get worn where barrel meets the frame, so they become less accurate than the Remington or Rogers and Spencer.
That is completely opposite actually and there are sources to prove it. Soldiers would readily pitch any Colt to save on weight and just use their rifle and bayonet or would trade a Colt and something else in addition to it just to get a Remington, because Colts had a design flaw with the opening to the action being right under where caps would fall in and jam. It was very well known and they were very inconvenient to clean out in the field. They had paper cartridges that made them a bit easier to reload but these were often used up quickly and supply lines were often cut off. Remington 1858 revolvers were a huge innovation that changed revolver design forever. There is absolutely no doubt about it. The first modern revolver.
Love your channel, always interesting, reliable information and honest opinions. You shoot, describe and cover so much information on each of the many great and wonderful historical firearms and your video coverage of each weapon is excellent as well.
However, I would like to just add my $0.02 worth on the accuracy test you performed on the Colt and Remington revolvers. Judging from the views of the barrels you showed starting @ 4:16 in this video, the Remington clearly shows a much better condition bore compared to the Colt. The Remington revolver obviously was treated much better (cleaned and maybe even loved more) in it's early live than the Colt was. Thus, I feel this add a great deal to the superior bullet patterning of the Remington on the human targets.
One thing I can not explain is why the Colt, shown by the chronograph (shooting the the same bullets and powder loads) is producing slower bullet speeds than that of the Remington, yet produces superior penetration.
Anyway, thanks again for another great video.
You look so young in the older video. Well done comparison of the two revolvers.
This was an awesome video. Lots of history, and spewing information. Love it. On another note, I actually prefer the grip of the Remington over the colt. My hand has a more positive lockup on the Remington grip shape. And I actually have fairly large hands
You handle the recoil nicely. Very good comparison and demonstrations here. I'll bet many men from back then made the same kind of comparison. I'm sold on the Remington! Like you, I would love to have both of those classic weapons!
New Model Army is my favorite Revolver of all time.
Great test with these two beautiful and historical pistols. Kind Thanks and Many Blessings! DaveyJO in Pennsylvania
definitely agree that the sight picture is better on the Remmy, and the Colt is more comfortable, and easier to clean. I think it's odd that you keep getting caps jammed in the action; when i do get a jam its usually the cap getting stuck between the cylinder and the frame.
Thank you for the great comparison video! I have an 1851 Navy in .36 caliber. I am hoping to get a second revolver in .44 this time. I like the swappable cylinders of the Remington. According to Duelist1954, the Ted Cash capper will not fit the Remington, due to the shape of the cylinder nipple housing. It is such an easy capper to use, that I'd hate to give it up. Using a bit of a cliche', the Colt looks a bit more "Civil Warish"... Two would match what gunfighters like Wild Bill Hickok wore. I will agree that the very design of the Remington sights make them both more reliable and a quicker sight acquisition. Thanks again for the great video.
You may want to look into the Polish Star capper for ease of use.
Most shooters couldn't get a better group size shooting one handed at 50 meters with a modern handgun then you got with that 58 Remington...
From what I hear most people are taught to just make shots within a one foot diameter or less if necessary
Plus modern guns hold 7-30 rounds per mag so they don't have the "you need to make each shot count" mentality shooters had back then instead of blasting away in a controlled spray and pray
I know not every shooter is like this it's just on average for those who don't go shooting as often as others more dedicated to marksmanship
If that makes sense
@@wyattguilliams2621 it does make sense.
Just like it made sense when you said, "From what I hear...". Lol!
;p
I have both the Colt and Remington originals and both replicas . My groups at the same distance shooting one handed are better than what's shown in this video . Shooting 2 handed produces greater accuracy , but cavalry had to hold the reins for a horse and fire with the other hand .
I'll stay with what the gunfighters preferred = Remington
Oh yeah, well I put all my bullets through the same hole in the paper at 50m, AND then I find all 6 bullets perfectly lined up back to back in the wooden backstop behind the paper target! Beat that! Lol
@@patrickmcleod111 mine reload themselves after hitting the center bullseye.
I own two Colt Navy revolvers and a Remington, and I have never had problems with the Remington. Every time I fire one of the Navy revolvers, a cap falls down into the action.
I'd love to see you do a versus video of both these guns or their modern replicas against a Ruger Old Army.
Having actually used all three in Cowboy Action Shooting competitions, my impression is that the Ruger Old Army is too big and heavy. That makes it slower. As always, opinions and preferences differ.
CAS uses relatively large multiple targets at close to moderate distances , so speed of handling is emphasized . ( Not criticising , just observing .)
REMMYS RULE !!! I love my 1858 New Army reproduction by Pietta and use it as part of my personal defense . These guns are rock solid reliable and a joy to shoot. If you buy a second ( or third ) cylinder for them you can reload about as fast as a modern handgun a'la "Joe Kidd" . Thanks for making this Vid , your new subscriber from California !
nilo drallub I believe the Clint Eastwood movie you're thinking about is Pale Rider.
Pale Rider used the interchangeable cylinders . Joe Kidd used SAA, plus a battle pickup C96 Mauser .
Both those are just movies . In real life Civil War, and " wild west " , serious users carried extra complete revolvers .
I found this video to be well made and looking forward to more of this type
I have them both from Uberti & Pietta replicas. Both with .45 Colt conversion cylinders. Its July 2021 and in the USA not a percussion cap to be found anywhere ditto on cartridge primers and powder. Especially rifle powder. Hey thru the years I love you videos!!
Let's make one thing perfectly clear. Colt and Remington martial revolvers were manufactured with only one cylinder, sold with one cylinder, and issued by the military with one cylinder. Neither army during the Civil War provided spare cylinders nor pouches in which to carry loaded spare cylinders. Wild Bill Hickok relied on two complete Colt Navy revolvers. Nobody reported him bristling with spare cylinders. Colt's "Directions For Loading Colt's Pistols" clearly states, "The Cylinder is not to be taken off when loaded." This myth about switching spare cylinders is a tall tale that has been repeated so often it's become accepted as fact.
+Anne Hrobsky
You're wrong this time. It is a fact that the fastest way to reload a cap-and-ball is to switch cylinders many men back then did carry spare cylinders and the military had a accouterments box for carrying cylinders.
+mcmax571 the Colt Patterson issued to the rangers came with spare cylinders according to some historians. Certainly the New York reload was the most popular method but I believe that many did keep spare cylinders if they could get them. It only makes good sense and many vets have told me that i a firefight you do what is necessary to stay alive.
+mcmax571 The fastest way to reload a cap and ball is to grab the other loaded revolver.Carrying a loaded and capped cylinder, esecially with the more volatile percussion caps of the civil war era (then they used mercury fulminate as opposed to modern lead stipenate) would've been risky, the reload itself would be fiddly on the move, and it's slower then just grabbing the other gun.I have not managed to find one credible source confirming this "cylinder swap" reload method.
Revolving RIFLES were issued with spare cylinders, never revolvers .
Never say never, and if you can imagine something, it probably was attempted at least once by somebody . That said , the number in the real world back in the day was essentially zero .
If the only source of an extra cylinder was to cannibalize another revolver, you're not going to throw away the rest of the revolver .
And disassembling and reassembling a Colt in the middle of a gunfight isn't really faster than reloading with paper cartridges .
( Yes, in the modern day , Pietta extra cylinders are cheap , and people do pre-load a buncha cylinders before a range trip . But that is Now, not back Then .
Thanks for sharing your BEAUTIFUL originals in this video!
I do like your reviews, you are thorough and seem always to do what we would like to see...
Very good review. I have two Pietta 1858 New Army revolvers and they both can shoot hole in hole groups. I use a .454 round ball.
I have both these pistols (repos) and shoot them both frequently. I do prefer the 1858 as it is more accurate and the grip suits my small hands. Would love to have an original but at the last gun show an 1860 Colt was going for 3K !
Great video!!
I know I am "late to the party" by several years. However, I still want to add two things to the discussion.
I have also handled and fired originals of both of these revolvers, and have used Uberti replicas of them in competition. First, as to the grip size and comfort, my personal experience is the exact opposite. I have large palms and shorter fingers. I found the 1860 Colt grips to be too long and "fat" whereas the 1858 Remington grips fit my hands very nicely. Many of my fellow competitors had the same experience, and actually replaced the 1860 Colt grip frames with the smaller 1851 Colt grip frames.They are interchangeable.
Second, part of the reason for the above is a difference in the way the revolver is held in "combat" or competition. The video shows you and your associate placing all four fingers on the grip. Most post-Civil-War shootists let their fourth finger slide below the grip (difficult or impossible to do on the unmodified 1860 Colt). This change actually offers better control and, because it helps the pistol "roll upward" in the hand so the thumb can engage the hammer spur, greatly facilitates the second through fifth shots.
Which one of these is better in modern replicas? Is modern 1860 less reliable too?
The Remington cylinder pin can build up with fowling and seize the cylinder to the point I can't rotate if not kept clean, where as the Colt cylinder pin is designed to avoid the problem with a grease grove and spiral groves to keep it clean with out worrying of cylinder lockup between cleanings.
Can’t rotate with the caps jamming the action. I have multiple replicas of each and while the colt feels better in hand, the Remington is without question the superior revolver. I’ve never had an issue with the Remington dropping out cylinders either. I don’t know where you come up with this base pin “fouling”. It’s a myth just like the full frame supposedly causing cap jams. Colt stole the Remington design when they made their 1873...enough said, colt is second to Remington. Even today.
@@jayswap2 I've never had a problem with my Belgian made Colt. No cap jams nor cylinder problems.
Another excellent review/comparison. Thank you!
I realize that this reply is three years to late but, I did notice that the colt had a much poorer bore than the Remington. I imagine that would go with the worn finish. that said, everything you said about the colt is true.but I would say that if the bores are comparable, the accuracy would be comparable. no?
I agree Mike, regarding the Colt the only question is weather it will shoot to the same spot after disassembly and reassembly or not. That 1860 Colt is a fine shooter with roundballs on the other hand. Pitted or not it can produce competition grade groups.
That seems an anomalie...The Colt with 15 or 20 something fps(excuse me mps) less velocity than the Rem. yet with greater penetration. Perhaps the molecular(or cell-wall) density must vary somewhat from block of wood to block of wood?
shot from colt hit at the edge of wooden block and bullet slip between two blocks. That is why it penetrate more. rest whole be alternative physic, and in violation of law for conservation of energy.
The army tests for guns at the time was with pine blocks
Yes but with 100s of tests into the middle of blocks, NOT like what happened here!
Yes , pine boards was the historically correct test medium . In the modern day , the best medium is calibrated Ballistic Gelatin ( US Mil uses 20% , most civillian and LE testing uses 10% . 10% actually better replicates human tissue, but the Military first established the 20% standard , and either seeks continuity, or suffers from beaurocratic inertia .)
It may have been different wood density, or the 50fps faster Remington may have hit the threshold of greater expansion .
great video! proud to own an uberti remington!
Excellent and detailed information. As well of photos of these beautiful revolvers.
Your the best in the business. Your descriptions are top notch
Excellent.
Prior to buying any new revolvers one must note that seldom are the precise dimensions the same between replicas and the originals. I have seen where it was necessary to open up the frame groove area where loading takes place to allow the use of conical balls. For many years most people only fired round balls in the replica guns, now they are learning how to use the conical bullets in these guns.
I would love to see a comparison between the replicas and the originals. that could the next video.
Thank you, the video was very informative and fun to watch. I also love knowing the specs of how each revolver performs. Iike the chronograph but I do not understand the metric system, so I don't know what the feet per second fps was, lol. But that's okay, thank you for sharing the video with us and the revolvers are beautiful and look like fun to shoot.
250 m/s is 820 fps, 1 meter/second is equal to 3.28 fps.
Great video, great presentation. Best video I've seen for blackpowder revolvers so far.
By the way, I just got my Remington a couple of weeks ago and I am enjoying shooting cap & ball.
A reproduction or the original? Isn't it dangerous to shoot with a 150 years old gun?
I love the reference to Gordian's Knot.
Kind of amazing that 160 year old revolver still work!
Excellent video. Would like to point out a couple of things to take into account however. 1 for the accuracy test, it looks like the bore of the Colt is more pitted than the Remington, might account for some of the accuracy difference. 2 modern caps are thicker than what was used during the civil war and from what I understand the Remington was actually more prone to cap jams. Again excellent video, really enjoyed it, and you are indeed lucky to own and shoot such pieces of history.
The Colt can be altered easily to stop pulling caps. Also new Wilson springs will do wonders. I have a 1860 Colt Navy replica made in Italy. Two years of progress is a big advantage. Cartilages need to be lubed. Solders would put them in their mouth to lube them if they had nothing else. Both of your pistols are beautiful. Your video has the best sound of any shooting video.
The Remington is a more modern design, despite being released 2 years earlier than the Colt! I don't understand how lower muzzle velocity equals less penetration of the SAME bullet.... There must've been some inconsistency with the hardness of the boards.
Unless you have a typo, lower velocity will generally mean less penetration.
@@billmelater6470 that kinda depends. A lot on the bullet. If the bullet expands more at the higher speed it can penetrate less because of the larger size.
I remember shooting times doing a test. With the 458 win mag and the 45-70.
With both loaded with a 500 solid the 458 penetrate more as expected.
But with a 450gr sp the extra speed of the 458 made it expand and the 45-70 penetrate more.
Then they loaded them with the 45-70 300gr hp. The 45-70 penetrated more. The speed that the 458 had it going it came apart like a varmint bullet.
@@tbjtbj4786 Sure, if the bullet is designed to break, expand or otherwise destabilize at higher velocities it will not penetrate well. However if penetration is the desired outcome, velocity does matter. But that comes down to what the projectile does on impact.
@@billmelater6470 yea no doubt. But the reason why I point it out here. With cap and ball the ball probably 100% lead.
So it should expand more at a higher speed.
But your right if the bullet doesn't expand or they expand the same the faster one should penetrate more.
With this i know board was the standard penetration test back in the day.
But you could have differences in the wood to that could change small number testing.
In the Clint Eastwood film 'Pale Rider' the hero is walking and reloading his pistol but there is no evidence or reference to percussion caps when he's reloading. Would this be an accurate depiction of the firearm at this time in history?
Pale Rider, my favorite western. Around 1870 cartridges was introduced, with the surplus o Civil War pistols, many were fitted with conversion cylinders so they could shoot 45 colts, so yes the movie for once was right. I have two conversion cylinders for my Pietta 1858 Rem. very fast to swap
Job38 It's seems that Clint Eastwood is possibly quite knowledgeable about pistols. In the preparation for 'Unforgiven' he asked for a selection of pistols to be brought to the film set and without hesitation selected the most appropriate models for the date period the film is set in.
The first thing I look for when watching westerns, is Period Correct firearms, maybe Clint learned that from his early westerns, because my next favorite western is (The Good the Bad and the Ugly), the revolvers are all wrong, but I still like the movie.
Job38 Four they are cartridge conversions in The Good The Bad And The Ugly. In the other movies from the trilogy Clint uses a SAA with custom grips and a 5.5 inch barrel. And in Pale Rider Clint uses a Remington 1858 and reloads by swapping cylinders.
*IF* anyone actually did cylinder swaps in the percussion era , they would have been already primed .
Yes , Cartridge Conversions were widely used back in the day . Both actual percussion revolvers converted , and factory built using stocks of leftover parts, after the US cancelled all existing contracts at the end of the war .
But they Weren't in .45 Colt .
Individual gunsmiths undoubtedly used others also , but factory conversions were primarily .38 Rimfire, .44 Rimfire, .46 Rimfire, .38 ( Short) Colt, .44 Colt, .44 Remington .
These converted guns were popular long after the introduction of proper cartridge revolvers . For the first 5 years or so of the 1873 Colt SAA , most of the production went to the Army contract, and they were rare and expensive on the civillian market . And the converted ( & converted designs) were 1/3 to 1/2 the cost of an 1873 Colt or 1875 Remington, or S&W No 3 , making them very attractive to buyers .
The Remington conversions were slow to reload, and Open Tops not as durable as solid frames , but most people didn't fire thousands of rounds at a time , and they were just as fast for the first 5 or 6 shots, and .4r Colt or .44 Remington was plenty powerful enough for defense, or most hunting .
They were widely enough used that ammo for .44Colt/ .44Rem was available until 1941 .
Good video. But I'd change the penetration test material for another more homogeneous, like clay.
Wood is not reliable for that, a slight change in grain orientation or density and the penetration of the bullet would be different
Yes, ice bricks could be also very interesting targets for penetration.
IMPORTANT NOTE: If you compare penetration, you shouldn't focus on how far did the bullet go, but how well did it "share" its energy into destroying the target. That's the point of them. You can compare for example 9mm Luger in FMJ or HP versions and which kicks harder? HP - and it does penetrate less, but it expends and releases more energy at smaller distance, so the tissue of the body is much more devastated. Keep that in mind!
He was doing it like the US army did it's trials. Yes, they aren't very good ballistic mediums, but he was going for historical accuracy.
Also, the remington hit the center block, the colt hit the space between blocks, so, obviously suffered less resistance...
I agree, I see the Colt went thru the stack between the 2 by's. the best cap and ball revolver is the one Josey Wales uses. The Uberti 1847 Colt Walker. Its the biggest and baddest gun ever made.
Mr. Midshipman Uberti is a replica company...
Your methodology was great. Thank you for this very informative and entertaining video
Having looked down the bores of both pistols, it is hard to be jubilant in the results of the accuracy tests. The barrel of the Colt looked so bad that I would consider having it rebored/lined. The Remington had better care over the years and it's condition was head and shoulders above the Colt.
great review their capandball thanks.
Nice comparison but I have two issues. It looked like the barrel condition of the Remington was much better. The Colt can be capped with a capping tool to make capping faster while the Remington could not.
Ralph Watten Definitely agree about the bore condition. He could compare accuracy just for fun, but it is wrong he does not mention the bore condition as a factor. He seems like a nice guy but that one point makes the whole video seem either ignorant or biased.
Also he needed to say something about the opposing velocity vs. penetration results. Wood density variations, the uncentered hit with the Colt, there are various explanations, but SOMETHING needed to be said about results which would/should seem contradictory to thoughtful yet inexperienced viewers.
I enjoy your vids very much. Please keep them coming.
I read through all of the comments to see what was addressed about your comparison and for the most part I think the important criticisms were expressed in the comments.The important points were; Penetration tests were not relevant due to inconsistent density of the wood blocks. Accuracy tests may not not truly represent what that revolver was capable of historically, simply because of the condition of the Colt revolver. It is conceivable that, that Colt revolver example, due to it's condition may never be capable of accurate fire. All of that said I enjoyed watching the video. Thanks! JRM
My Grandpa had three of it...interesting thing is 2 of them are still in good condition
Your presentations are always professional, well done.
I really like your videos, high production value, well informing and lots of fun!
Which revolver is better? Easy....
The Beaumont Adams of course ;-) And I think you agree?
Greetings from Atlanta, Georgia and congratulations on another well done video!
The bore of the Cot looks a bit rough, which might account for the poorer accuracy.
The '58 New Model Army launched those 200gr bullets at 866fps ... The Colt sent them at 807fps .... Pretty significant when you consider the Remington basically duplicates the performance of the .44 Special... also matches up well with the legendary .45 ACP launched from a 1911...
I have a Pieta 1858 Remington New Army. It's extremely accurate and a lot of fun to shoot, but I still will add the Colt to my collection one day.
Outstanding video
Miss not seeing more...
Really enjoyed your video. Although I have never fired a period Colt 1860 Army or the Remington 1858 New Model Army, I have owned and fired the reproduction models of both. I love the Colt and I have found it extremely accurate. I hit a man sized target with 5 of 6 rounds fired at center of mass at 60 meters. I have always been told that Colts' measure of accuracy was that if it would hit a target at point blank range, it was acceptable. I did Civil War reenacting for about 10 years and rode with the cavalry. I carried a Colt 1860 as my primary side arm and carried a Remington and a Spiller & Burr (similar to the Remington but Confederate made) in a set of pommel holsters. It is extremely hard to reload on horseback and believe it or not, the pistol was not the primary weapon, the saber was. That is why the pistol is carried with the butt forward in a flapped holster. The reason was is that you don't have to reload a saber. Just a bit of cavalry trivia
I bought the Pietta 1858 in 5.5 barrel. Will use conversion cylinder in 45 LC.
The Remington must have been the superior design since Colt copied it.
Nice presentation as ever. Thank you !
I always enjoy your videos Sir! Thank you for sharing your knowledge and experience!
Being a former green beret and weapons expert I'm curious why the integrity of the barrels was never mentioned. Even modern gun accuracy begins to degrade after enough rounds are fired through them, especially if they are not well maintained. To put these two side by side 150+ years after they were made and say one is more accurate than the other is like having two 85 year old men run a 100 meter dash and then declaring that the winner was a better sprinter when the runners were 18
As the rifling wears down you increase the diameter of the ball
I have had several cap and balls revolvers and feel his test was correct even with the difference in barrel conditions.
The top strap of the Remington adds a lot of strength and combined with the better sights the Remington always seem more accurate to me. The slim feel of the colt just naturally points at a target better. The sight on the hammer of the colts may be another part of the accuracy problem. I am not sure that the hammer comes back at full cock to the exact same position. You will commonly see drag marks on the hammers of open top revolvers where the rub in the frame as they are fired. I have seen open top revolvers with both sights on the barrels and have wonder if that would improve there accuracy. I would like to see the test done with round balls. The tester did do a great job at shooting.
Well preserved guns hold up better than well preserved humans .
From his other videos testing various original revolvers I'd have to say the Colt's sights were more of a limiting factor in 50 meter offhand shooting than any differences in intrinsic accuracy .
I enjoyed this video very much. I do, however, have a disagreement with the way the wood penetration test was conducted. I believe the test was done using 1 inch, or 1/2 inch pine boards sandwiched together, and the bullets fired at right angles to the sandwich, so they passed through successive layers one after another. This makes measuring the penetration much easier, One can immediately see the layers that were penetrated, and just count them, and then one only has to measure the final layer where there was only partial penetration.
Cavalry during the ACW must have either carried many pistols on them, or they could compile a healthy amount of cylinders for fast reload. Preloading several cylinders would seem to be more efficient, especially considering that you'd only have to carry one pistol. Less luggage because you're also packing a saber, and possibly a rifle or shotgun. ACW troops were so badass.
What is the difference between the barrel cylinder gap of both of those original firearms?
I only have replicas, and the 1858 has a slightly tighter gap which should mean that if one gun was going to have higher pressures and velocities than the other with the same load, it would be the Remington.
Unless you're having caps blow off...
It would be interesting to know if the deviation was just from firearm to firearm or if the deviation is in the replicas.
The conical bullet does not have a concave recess in the back similar to a Mini ball? Just curious which was most accurate.
While I like the concept of the point of aim, being very close to the edge of the bullet or cartridge cylinder of the Colt, I prefer the structural strength, provided by the wrap-around frame of the Remington, which is what I have.
Thanks very much for demonstrating your surviving examples of both.
The Regminton looks so much advanced and modern!
Agreed, this was a very good video. You can buy them from some specialized manufacturers, or use cigarette paper and make your own. (make sure to remember to make them taper, my whole first batch don't have this, and therefore are very hard to get in the cylinder.)
+stainmorelegend
Sorry, that statement is incorrect. Cap and Ball revolvers are specifically excluded from the ban on pistol ownership in the UK. A friend of mine has a Colt Walker .44 replica, which I have fired at a range earlier this year. From Section 3.6 of the current Guide to UK Firearm Regulations (October 2014):
"Category (iii) affects the kind of small firearm that is easily concealed and yet confers high firepower. For this reason, muzzle-loading weapons (including cap and ball revolvers) and flare pistols are deliberately excluded." Catagory (iii) is the section which defines arms prohibited by law as regards pistols.
He still needs a Catagory 1 FAC and follow all the rules for security and storage, but he is not banned from having it.
why did your colt have the notch for the handle but not the screw on the frame under it ? It's a civilian or GB version ?
would it make any form of difference in the case of the navy percussion revolvers to install the percussion primer caps 1st and then load the paper cartridges next just so the loading process wouldn't be painstaking
A flawed comparison: (A) Each gun is an individual, so comparing just one against the other is not statistically valid. Compare 50 original Colt and Remingtons against each other, and you would likely reveal trends.(B) Accuracy test should have been done from a benchrest, with hands on a solid rest, to eliminate any "wiggling around." Shooting one-handed is not a good indicator of either gun's accuracy capability.(C) Original paper cartridges from that period varied widely in bullet weight and powder charge. Search the internet for an article posted by Gatofeo entitled, "Found! Original Loads for cap and ball revolvers." Gatofeo, who knows a great deal about cap and ball revolvers, concluded that there was no real standard for bullet weight and charge; contractors assembled cartridges with vast differences. However, I applaud you for sticking to only one bullet weight and powder charge. This was good statistical method.(D) I also was pleased to see that you fired these revolvers at 50 meters. The originals, and most of the reproductions, were sighted to hit to point of aim at anywhere from 50 to 100 yards. The revolver, with its six shots, was thought of as a substitute to the largely single-shot (Henry and Spencer not counted) rifle.(E) I believe your bullet diameter of .452 was too small for these original revolvers, which resulted in poor accuracy. The gain twist rifling of the original Colts and Remingtons was noted for producing very fine accuracy. The late gun writer Elmer Keith notes that he had a Colt 1851 Navy about 1910 that, with lead ball (no size given) and powder charge nearly filling the chamber (no weight given) and felt wad soaked in melted beeswax and tallow would put all of its 6 balls into one ragged hole at 20 yards. Others have praised the accuracy of the old revolvers with gain twist. Today's modern cap and ball revolvers have constant-rate twist, not gain twist (a few Remington patterns made for target shooters, with gain twist, are an exception).(F) The Colt jammed from a spent cap, but I believe this didn't become a big problem until people started using the old, original guns with caps made in the 20th century. I have a few tins of caps made in the 19th century, and the copper is thicker than today's caps. Consequently, the old cap gets a tighter grip on the nipple. Today, people buy new nipples that are slightly larger than the old nipples, which compensates for the thin copper of today's caps.A very fine report, but until we can challenge 25 to 50 original Colts in very good condition against 25 or 50 original Remingtons in the same condition, we'll probably never know how accurate the old guns were. There are many contemporary accounts that praise their accuracy, and they were almost certainly more accurate than the later .45 and 9mm issued to militaries during the 20th century.With my own Uberti-made Remington .44, and the Lee 200 gr. conical bullet, I can put six bullets into a 1-1/2 circle at 20 yards from a benchrest. I believe the gun is capable of slightly better accuracy, despite its constant rate rifling, but my 63-year-old eyes are not!-- GatofeoRemote Utah DesertApril 19, 2018
Very interesting! I use Gatofeo #1 lube with my cap n balls. The ugly cat knows his business. Don't underestimate the old antiques! A local journalist, noticing my 25-yard groups, did an article on my cap n ball Colt in the local paper. These were the most effective military handguns ever made, as they were the primary arms of cavalry troops. Elmer Keith noted an 80-something YO Civil War veteran he knew in Montana could put every shot in a fence post at a full gallop on horseback.
Outstanding review, very well done. Thank you.
The Remington is such a beauty
I do believe the Remington New Model Army is the best black powder revolver you can buy. In fact, I just bought one myself.
I doubt if the penetration test is representative; If the Remington shoots the same bullet at higher speeds, it should penetrate deeper. What was clear was that the bullet from the Remington hit full wood, splitting the wood block, while the Colt hit near the edge of the block creating much less deformation in the wood and therefor shedding less energy while penetrating allowing it to travel "deeper" into the wood.
I only bought the 1860 replica as it was on sale and the 1858 combo I came to buy was sold out. Never thought i would like it but the 1860 is one of my favorite guns of any kind I've ever shot. 33 years a handgunner, carried professionally in security work both revolvers and pistols, qualify expert with both. Carried concealed in Virginia with a permit. Nothing fills my hand like the 1860. Of course I really like my 1858's. They are more reliable with fewer cap jam worries, faster to reload and easier to field strip. I am more of a woods loafer than any kind of serious hunter. The primary weapon in the hills where I'm from is a walking staff of some type against rattlesnakes. A revolver is just a nice peace of mind companion and a good .44 will take a wide range of game given the opportunity. For those times I reach for the 1860, when out and about and 'don't need a gun'.
For a backup to a small caliber rifle, or a primary game getter, or serious social purposes if it ever came to that I'd take the 1858. If I could only have one, it would be the 1858 but there is something magical about the Colt replica in the hand, and it's just a bit lighter on the belt.
Add slix shot nipples to your 1860 army then and you have a winner.
They redirect the blowback through the nipple and makes sure the cap stays on, so it wont fall into the action :)
ToreDL87
a trip to mike is in my heart for my Pietta, but the wallet is weak at the moment. :D
Doug Beatty No need for trips, screw nipples off/on is easy as hell :)
Great video, even after 8 years!
Prefer the looks and handling of the (replica) colt 1851 navy, but... would like to get my mitts on a remington replica. Sadly the colt army 1860 design doesn't do anything for me for some reason. But it is still awesome to see both these old original antique guns working! I had the luck to once handle and cycle an antique colt cap and ball gun (another 1851 but no replica) but sadly never fired one. I can only imagine how awesome it must be to shoot a gun that is over a hundred years old and has such history!
Quite right, colt was rather cosy with the Union’s “top brass” and often gave away elaborately decorated models. Not to say colt was different from other vendors during the war, uniforms and equipment were also the result of back room deals, many were reportedly bad quality.
Another of your excellent videos,however, you did not show the real problems of the Remington in getting the cylinder out/in,or the hell of getting the caps onto the nipples,both easy to achieve on the Colt design. The caps dropping into the action (although I have never had this with proper size caps ! ) can be avoided if you tip the gun sideways on cocking.
Thanks again for the best on RUclips!
keep in mind that distance is a little too far most officers or soldiers on both sides would generally finish people off with the pistole due to a 36. caliber and most of the time they would be maybe 25 feet away at max
For me, nothing beats the look and feel of the 1860 army and 61 navy.
I have one of each as well (both original). I agree that I would rather carry the Remington in combat; but as far as accuracy mine are identical.
thanks for a very well done report!
Well, I'm sticking with the Remington then.
Wild Bill Hickok would agree with you .
Nothing wrong with prefering Remingtons , but Hickok was a Colt user . His close friend in real life , Bill Cody was a famous user of Remingtons .
Some of the most famous pictures of Bill Hickok show him carrying a Remington pistol . Sometimes stuck in his belt and with no holster and often carried as 2 in what is called a brace of pistols / one under each arm in shoulder holsters .
Hickok killed a man in a duel on the sidewalk of downtown Springfield Missouri . There is a brass plaque in the sidewalk where he stood and the range was aprox. 45 yards . His handgun was a Remington .
Great video! Awesome test! You are a master of your art!