1. Bullet

    Bullet New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2003
    Messages:
    17
    Location:
    Ga
    Can I have some opinions on who makes the most durable 1858, I want to get into black powder handgun, and thinking 1858 mainly because it has that top strap over the cylinder for strength, If I get one, I am sure I will shoot it till it breaks, any ideas which one I should get ?
    Thanks
    Ron
  2. warpig

    warpig Guest

    I think the steel framed guns are stronger than the brass framed guns. Not sure if this applies to the 1858.

    I have a 1860 Army made by Lyman. I can vouch for its strength. I had two holes fire at once and it held together. Bent the ramrod and ramrod catch was the only damage besides my pride.
  3. armedandsafe

    armedandsafe Guest

    I had a chain fire on my brass frame once and had only similar damage. I did have some clothing damage, however. :D

    Pops
  4. RobW

    RobW New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2003
    Messages:
    115
    Location:
    Southern Nevada
    Generally, there are only 2 factories that produce BP revolvers, all Italian: Pietta and Uberti. Common opinion is that Ubertis are better craftsmanship, but Piettas are none the less very good products (in comparison what was called the "Italian Mess" a few years ago).

    If you want to shoot them a lot, get steel frames, brass will loosen over time with heavy use.

    The main advantage of the 1858 Remington model are the sights, open top Colt models proved to be as accurate as the Remington, but they only have a narrow cut in the nose of the hammer as rear sight and a brass bead at the front.

    If you are going to compete, use the Remington model, if you want to have plain fun, go with everything you like!
  5. Karl/Md.

    Karl/Md. New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2003
    Messages:
    6
    Location:
    Western Maryland
    I shoot a Tom Ball accurized Pietta Remington in N-SSA competition. Its one of the best to be found anywhere, BUT, I would suggest you find one for fit. The Remingtons are made for a small to medium sized hand. If you're ham-fisted, then a Rem is out for you and you need to go with a Rogers & Spencer.
  6. bigboom338

    bigboom338 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Messages:
    399
    Location:
    South Dakota
    Welcome to TFF Karl/Md. hope you enjoy the site. We need more BP shooters around here.
  7. powdersmoke

    powdersmoke New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2003
    Messages:
    109
    Location:
    Brooksville, FL
    :) There are several cap-n-ball revolver manufacturers. EuroArms (Armi San Paulo), Perderasoli, Uberti, Armi San Marco, Pietta and perhaps some others.

    I shoot Pietta and EuroArms and do not have any complaints about them, with the exception of the 1863 Remington 31 cal pocket pistol. :rolleyes:

    The others are somewhat comparable, with Pederasoli, Uberti, EuroArms and Pietta being most reliable. Pricewise Pietta will probably be the cheapest in cost if you discount some models.
  8. horsepowder

    horsepowder New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2005
    Messages:
    28
    Location:
    MI.
    I have a 1858 new army made by pettia.no problems! I shoot 25 gr. T-7,With 150 gr. round balls.20 gr. trip..7,with 158 gr. bufflo ballets. easy on the hand's compared to
    smokeless revolver's like the 44 mag.
    no hang fires!!! no chain fires!!!

    very relyable pistol wouldn't trade or sell.

    but would suggest if you do buy one make sure you lube the end of the cylinder to prevent chain fires. price is cheep for the quality of this firearm.

    Can't what till it warm's up in MI.looking forward to shot it agian soon!
    just my 2 cent's.
  9. MisterEd

    MisterEd New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    112
    Location:
    LaPine, OR
    I got my first BP revolver last year, a NIB CVA 1851 Navy made by ASM (Armi San Marco). The machine work on the frame, cylinder and barrel is excellent but the internal parts leave much to be desired. They can be very soft and wear quickly. I have heard this varies from gun to gun but prepare for internal parts problems if you shoot it much. So far I have had to make a new bolt spring (out of a peice of .035 bandsaw blade and it works great), a trigger and a hand/spring assembly. Anyway maybe the new ones are better as the manufacture date on mine is 1984. Otherwise fun to shoot and accurate! Now I can vouch for the quality of Euroarms - I have an 1863 Euroarms .58 Zouave and it is excellent - as good a fit and finish as any domestic off the rack rifle and very accurate.
  10. raveneap

    raveneap New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2005
    Messages:
    216
    Location:
    Maine
    Believe Armi San Marco went under several years ago. I've got both Piettas and Ubertis - The Piettas are good; the Ubertis are excellent but the MSRP of the Ubertis are quite a bit more than the Piettas.
  11. REB BUMMER

    REB BUMMER New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2005
    Messages:
    5
    Remingtons cylinders are easyer to change, for quick reloading, just drop the rod + pull the pin,+ swap . Try doin that with a Colt during a Reenactment ,...
  12. Gatofeo

    Gatofeo New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    87
    Location:
    Remote Utah desert, separated from Oblivion by a s
    As long as both frames are made of steel, and not brass, forget the argument that the Remington is stronger than the Colt design. We're talking black powder pressures, folks, and that makes the argument moot.
    I own and shoot both Remington and Colt designs, but each have their own attributes and weaknesses.

    The Remington is easier to aim, owing to its more-defined sights. The Colt's notch in the hammer and brass bead front sight can be a challenge, especially on a sunny day when that brass bead is glowing like a UFO. I often use Birchwood Casey's Sight Black on my cap and ball guns, to keep the sights from shining. No doubt about it, the Remington sight is much easier to shoot with.

    Should you be unable to seat a ball below flush in the cylinder, owing to too much powder or felt wads, the Colt's design allows you to remove the cylinder quickly. Simply tap out the wedge and remove the barrel assembly, then the cylinder.
    With the Remington, there may not be enough room under the rammer to slip the offending ball or conical bullet past the rammer, as you remove the cylinder sideways.
    The option of quickly removing the Colt cylinder, in the event of a mistake, is a nice feature.
    And yes, using too much powder does happen. I was distracted by an inquisitive shooter and poured 40 grains of FFFG into my Remington, then tried to seat a Lee conical bullet on top of that. Bullet was rammed in tight, and I had to juggle the cylinder around to where the nipple was somewhat free of the frame, then remove the nipple and gently scratch out the excess powder with a toothpick. Then I replaced the nipple and seated the bullet deep enough to clear the barrel, so I could shoot it out. Took me 30 minutes of diddling and I felt like a horse's patoot.
    Bottom line: Don't get distracted. Pay attention to what your'e doing.

    The Remington holds slightly more powder than the Colt, in either .36 or .44 caliber. But it's only a matter of a few grains and doesn't matter. The Remington .44 is not well-suited to hunting anything but small game or coyote sized animals. Yes, deer have been taken with it at close range but if you wish to hunt deer with a cap and ball sixgun, the clear choice is a Ruger Old Army. Forget the Walker and Dragoons, they have the power but their sights are atrocious. Hunters have a responsibility to place their bullet with great accuracy; the Dragoon or Walker are not conducive to that.

    The Colt 1860 has the better rammer of the two. It reaches farther into the chambers than the Remington, which is important if you're shooting very light loads. It also has more leverage, owing to its rack system. The Remington rammer pivots on screws, like the earlier Colts.

    There is more area around the rammer with the Remington, which can make it much easier to seat conical bullets. The Colt 1860 has some room too, but not as much. With some conical bullet designs this can be important. The Lee conical has a fairly long body above its heel, as do some of the old, original designs. If you're only going to shoot round balls (and I suggest you do) then this is a moot point.

    I"ve never found a conical bullet as accurate as a ball. And the ball is certainly easier to load. By the way, forget what the books tell you about using a .451 inch ball. Use a .454 or .457 inch ball. The larger ball, when rammed, creates a wider bearing band and this helps accuracy.
    Similarly, in the .36 calibers use a .378 or .380 inch ball, if you can find that size. Ozone (formerly Warren Muzzleloading) sells balls of this diameter but the last time I checked their website was still under construction. Give them a call. They cast great balls.

    The Remington is heavier and isn't nearly as well-balanced as the Colt. The Colt is a natural pointer, the Remington takes some getting used to. The Colt grip feels better in my hand. Try both styles and see which feel better to you. Having a comfortable grip goes a long way toward accuracy.

    While the Uberti and Piettas may appear very similar, there is one subtle but telling difference: the Ubertis have slightly deeper rifling grooves.
    The Piettas typically have grooves .005 to .008 inches deep. The Ubertis typically have grooves .010 deep. The deeper rifling shrugs off black powder fouling easier and longer than shallower grooves. Thus, accuracy is typically better and doesn't drop off as suddenly due to a clogged barrel.

    Though some claim that the Remington cylinder is easier to remove, I've always had to jiggle and fight with both my Remington design revolvers (An Uberti .44 and a Pietta .36). I dunno, maybe I just don't have the hang of it. I'm not a reenactor, so I can see how having to swap cylinders on horseback would be easier with the Remington. I shoot from a portable bench and always have my shooting box with me, which contains a small Lyman nylon-faced hammer to knock out the Colt wedge with a rap or two. Being able to change cylinders in a hurry just isn't something I deal with.

    The Colt is a little easier to completely disassemble for cleaning. It contains more screws, generally because its grip frame and trigger guard are held together by screws. That means more parts to lose. The Remington is a little more complicated to diassemble, especially when it comes to compressing the mainspring to get it back into the frame, but has fewer parts. Both designs are rather simple, once you get the hang of it.
    If I were you, I'd buy a few extra screws and a replacement spring for either model, just to have on hand. They're cheap enough insurance and it could prevent your gun being down for a few weeks while parts are back ordered.

    The Colt has panache the Remington never will have. The Colt looks old-timey while the Remington could pass for a new Ruger to the untrained eye.
    But both have a long, gallant and terrible history.
    If it were me, I'd spend the extra money and get an Uberti-made Remington 1858 in .44 caliber. Overiszed balls of .454 or .457 inch are readily available, the sights are better and it's just a darned good handgun.
    So is the Colt, but for the first-time shooter I'd suggest the Remington design. Later, when you get a little experience, you can get a Colt and see what you've been missing.
  13. Danny

    Danny Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2005
    Messages:
    601
    Location:
    West Va
    :) From my experience you can not beat the Ruger old Army.I've had one for twenty years and only shoot 457 diameter balls in it.I load it so tight that I have to shave the lead from around the chambers.Most of the time turning the cylinder does this for me.It is the best and most durable BP handgun ever produced and is very accurate.I've heard of gents taking deer down with this weapon.With shaving the lead you don't have to worry about chain fires either,as you are getting an air tight seal.There was an article in one of the gun magazines several years ago that stated chain fires were not caused by open cylinders ,but the caps flash over.Anyway it goes the Ruger is my justified choice for the money.And yes it was designed on the 1858 Remington frame. Danny
  14. LIKTOSHOOT

    LIKTOSHOOT Advanced Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2001
    Messages:
    9,367
    Ruger Old Army



    LTS
  15. TomBk

    TomBk New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2010
    Messages:
    14
    Location:
    NYC
    Are the cylinders on a Ruger Old Army quick swapable like on the 1858 Remington?
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
Black Powder Shooting / Muzzleloaders / Handguns Shooting steel with my Remington 1858 revolver. Back yard CBA May 28, 2013
Black Powder Shooting / Muzzleloaders / Handguns Pietta 1858 Remington Buffalo .44 May 2, 2013
Black Powder Shooting / Muzzleloaders / Handguns fully engraved nickel asm armi san marcos 1858 in 44 cal, couldn't resist. Feb 16, 2013
Black Powder Shooting / Muzzleloaders / Handguns identifing a model 1858 Jul 1, 2012
Black Powder Shooting / Muzzleloaders / Handguns Shooting the Remington 1858 Jun 3, 2012