Colt 1860 owners advice
- Thread starter Dsiwy
- Start date
vagrantviking
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Southern Alberta
They will all get cap jams now and then. My Ruger Old Army and Remington 58 both do it too. You learn the ####-wrist-flip that helps after a while.
The Remington is also easy to take down but it's true that it's not quite as nice for cleaning. I kinda like having the solid modern style frame myself.
If you prefer the style of the Colt thats the way you should go.
The Remington is also easy to take down but it's true that it's not quite as nice for cleaning. I kinda like having the solid modern style frame myself.
If you prefer the style of the Colt thats the way you should go.
If you regard aggravation as part of the fun, by all means got for the cachet of the Colts, a gun held together by a wedge key. I've owned or currently own all the Colt repros from the .31 to the .44 Dragoon, including the Paterson models.
When I shoot in competition, I shoot my solid frame Remingtons. They don't fall apart, shoot loose and throw their caps off upon rotation of the cylinder.
The newer Pietta Remmies have more room behind the rigger guard so your knuckles don't get jammed.
When I shoot in competition, I shoot my solid frame Remingtons. They don't fall apart, shoot loose and throw their caps off upon rotation of the cylinder.
The newer Pietta Remmies have more room behind the rigger guard so your knuckles don't get jammed.
It's quite common if you don't do one of three things about it.
You can either put the fixed pin mod in place, you can fill in the notch in the hammer with a good epoxy or you can just roll the gun strongly to the right while cocking the hammer.
Apparently being a lazy sort I have not got around to trying either of the first two idea yet. But I do rely on the third to greatly decrease, if not quite eliminate the issue. The last time I shot my pair of 1860's in a cowboy match I got shards down inside once or twice despite rolling the gun as I cocked it. But I only once had to use my other hand to aid in turning the cylinder into place as I cocked the hammer. It didn't totally lock up and it continued to finish off the shots just fine.
There's also another great reason to roll the gun. If you don't you risk having hot cap shards fall between the grip and your palm. And they ARE HOT ! ! ! ! After a match I often have a red spot or small blister to show for the times I didn't roll the gun far enough....
The "classic" way to avoid this is to point it literlly at the sky or even slightly past vertical so the shards fall clear of the hammer. This method being the one used by the old cavalry officers that primarily used a pistol and sword instead of a rifle. But most ranges don't let us shoot from horse back and don't like to see us pointing a cocked gun ready to fire at that sort of elevation and then bring it back down to fire. So rolling it to the side is about all we're left with.
When I mess up the roll and cocking and get a hot cap landing on my palm it's also one of those times I wish I were a leftie....
As for pin vs filling in I've seen just about 50-50 proponents of each method. Each claims to all but totally eliminate the problem. Of the two filling in the hammer is easier and the epoxy can be easily dug out to give room for the pin if the filling in idea doesn't cut it.
I've got a pair of Uberti Remingtons as well. While MUCH better on this issue they are far from immune to being jammed with cap shards. The difference is that the bits that get into the hammer area tend to be smaller so they don't quite lock it up totally.
Which do I prefer? Having shot each pair a few times in both larger cowboy matches as well as our monthly fun matches and even a few plinking and general sighting in sessions I'd call my preference a wash. I like both for what they are. And I find that I enjoy both pretty evenly.
I would have to admit that the Remington pattern is both stronger, stays in alignment better and could be regarded as a technically superior design. But there's something about the open top that is so different that I like it equally either for or in spite of the "warts".
I do know that if things got tight and I had to sell one set or the other I'd have a devil of a time figuring out which pair to part with.
And no, shooting one style then the other as a mixed pair in a cowboy match is not a great idea. Different sights and a different feel for the reach to the trigger says "no".
But if you'll be buying them more for fun and smoking then the answer is an obvious "both please". It's just a matter of which do you get first....
Be aware that the Colt open tops from Italy come with some built in issues. Namely the front sight being overly low so the guns shoot very high and the fit of the arbor in the barrel for setting the cylinder gap. Read about what I did about these in my replies to bobdbldr in this other thread.
http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php/1416979-Starter-kit-for-BP-revolver
For an 1860 of course the front sight issue is a bit different due to it being a blade sight. The sight is press fitted into a woodruffe key slot so I knocked the old sight out and made up a new sight which was taller. A few sessions at the range with a small fine cut file to shorten the over height down until the POA matched the POI at 15 yards then some rounding out for the proper sort of shape and some touch up blue and the guns are great shooters.
In fact my older Uberti and even older Navy Arms .44Cal 1860's shoot as well for me as I can manage with my modern S&W's. I'm not in any danger of getting on the next Olympic team but I've been told by more than a few regular shooters that they wish they were as good as me. So the guns are certainly good shooters.
Ah heck. Here's a couple of pictures of what I did for the front sight. Coupled with the button or some other shimming of the arbor and an 1860 can be brought right up to snuff.
This first one is the new taller sight resting on the barrel and ready to go into the round bottomed slot. the old short sight is up above on the towel.
This is the jig I used to file the upper exposed sides of the blade at a slight angle both tapering upwards and thinner towards the front so the only thing you see is the rear edge. It's also in keeping with the shaping of the original.
As far as cleaning goes I don't find either is any easier than the other. The only difference is that the Remington needs cleaning from the muzzle end and the colt can be cleaned from the forcing cone end. Other than that it really is 6 of one and half a dozen of the other.
That's for short cleanings. About every three times out I do a full strip down and clean out the action. For that the Remington gets a slight nod of the head due to less screws to be removed. The Colt needs the whole grip frame broken down and that's 9 screws (5 grip frame screws, main spring screw and three action screws) where the Remington has five (trigger guard, grip screw, mainspring tension and two action screws). But even that's not a whole lot of a big deal in the grand scheme of things.
You can either put the fixed pin mod in place, you can fill in the notch in the hammer with a good epoxy or you can just roll the gun strongly to the right while cocking the hammer.
Apparently being a lazy sort I have not got around to trying either of the first two idea yet. But I do rely on the third to greatly decrease, if not quite eliminate the issue. The last time I shot my pair of 1860's in a cowboy match I got shards down inside once or twice despite rolling the gun as I cocked it. But I only once had to use my other hand to aid in turning the cylinder into place as I cocked the hammer. It didn't totally lock up and it continued to finish off the shots just fine.
There's also another great reason to roll the gun. If you don't you risk having hot cap shards fall between the grip and your palm. And they ARE HOT ! ! ! ! After a match I often have a red spot or small blister to show for the times I didn't roll the gun far enough....
The "classic" way to avoid this is to point it literlly at the sky or even slightly past vertical so the shards fall clear of the hammer. This method being the one used by the old cavalry officers that primarily used a pistol and sword instead of a rifle. But most ranges don't let us shoot from horse back and don't like to see us pointing a cocked gun ready to fire at that sort of elevation and then bring it back down to fire. So rolling it to the side is about all we're left with.
When I mess up the roll and cocking and get a hot cap landing on my palm it's also one of those times I wish I were a leftie....
As for pin vs filling in I've seen just about 50-50 proponents of each method. Each claims to all but totally eliminate the problem. Of the two filling in the hammer is easier and the epoxy can be easily dug out to give room for the pin if the filling in idea doesn't cut it.
I've got a pair of Uberti Remingtons as well. While MUCH better on this issue they are far from immune to being jammed with cap shards. The difference is that the bits that get into the hammer area tend to be smaller so they don't quite lock it up totally.
Which do I prefer? Having shot each pair a few times in both larger cowboy matches as well as our monthly fun matches and even a few plinking and general sighting in sessions I'd call my preference a wash. I like both for what they are. And I find that I enjoy both pretty evenly.
I would have to admit that the Remington pattern is both stronger, stays in alignment better and could be regarded as a technically superior design. But there's something about the open top that is so different that I like it equally either for or in spite of the "warts".
I do know that if things got tight and I had to sell one set or the other I'd have a devil of a time figuring out which pair to part with.
And no, shooting one style then the other as a mixed pair in a cowboy match is not a great idea. Different sights and a different feel for the reach to the trigger says "no".
But if you'll be buying them more for fun and smoking then the answer is an obvious "both please". It's just a matter of which do you get first....
Be aware that the Colt open tops from Italy come with some built in issues. Namely the front sight being overly low so the guns shoot very high and the fit of the arbor in the barrel for setting the cylinder gap. Read about what I did about these in my replies to bobdbldr in this other thread.
http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php/1416979-Starter-kit-for-BP-revolver
For an 1860 of course the front sight issue is a bit different due to it being a blade sight. The sight is press fitted into a woodruffe key slot so I knocked the old sight out and made up a new sight which was taller. A few sessions at the range with a small fine cut file to shorten the over height down until the POA matched the POI at 15 yards then some rounding out for the proper sort of shape and some touch up blue and the guns are great shooters.
In fact my older Uberti and even older Navy Arms .44Cal 1860's shoot as well for me as I can manage with my modern S&W's. I'm not in any danger of getting on the next Olympic team but I've been told by more than a few regular shooters that they wish they were as good as me. So the guns are certainly good shooters.
Ah heck. Here's a couple of pictures of what I did for the front sight. Coupled with the button or some other shimming of the arbor and an 1860 can be brought right up to snuff.
This first one is the new taller sight resting on the barrel and ready to go into the round bottomed slot. the old short sight is up above on the towel.
This is the jig I used to file the upper exposed sides of the blade at a slight angle both tapering upwards and thinner towards the front so the only thing you see is the rear edge. It's also in keeping with the shaping of the original.
As far as cleaning goes I don't find either is any easier than the other. The only difference is that the Remington needs cleaning from the muzzle end and the colt can be cleaned from the forcing cone end. Other than that it really is 6 of one and half a dozen of the other.
That's for short cleanings. About every three times out I do a full strip down and clean out the action. For that the Remington gets a slight nod of the head due to less screws to be removed. The Colt needs the whole grip frame broken down and that's 9 screws (5 grip frame screws, main spring screw and three action screws) where the Remington has five (trigger guard, grip screw, mainspring tension and two action screws). But even that's not a whole lot of a big deal in the grand scheme of things.
Personally, I prefer the open top designs, myself. I just like the feel and for me they just point naturally. It's just a fact of life that for C&B revolvers.......if you shoot em, they will eventually swallow a shard. Sometimes it's not so much about winning; it's about competing with a special style.
I have to nod my head in agreement and shared understanding with Edenchef's post. It's about experiencing what they used 150 years ago. Warts and all. Black powder guns are one of the few areas in life where we can actually have the exact same experience now as they did then.
Getting back to the cap jamming issue. I should add that my Remingtons may not get as big or as many shards down in the hammer slot but it makes up for that by trying to swallow bigger shards off the caps in the area between the cylinder ratchet teeth and the recoil shield. This occurs about once in ever 15 to 20 shots unless I again roll the gun to the right while cocking to aid in the cap pieces falling free of the gun.
The 1860 will swallow the shards primarily down the slot for the hammer instead. And unless I roll the gun to the right it'll do this roughly once in every 8 to 10 shots. So again advantage by what I consider a fairly slim margin to the Remington. Clearly both need to be rolled to the side to achieve higher degrees of reliability by shedding the shards out into the open air. The 1860's can also swallow shards between the recoil shield and the pawls on the cylinder but they don't do it as often or perhaps only as much as the Remingtons.
Oddly enough the two mods to aid in limiting the shards falling into the hammer slot won't do anything for stopping them from binding up the cylinder. But when it does and you need to strip the gun the advantage goes to the Colt open top. Removing the barrel frees up the cylinder where on the Remingtons pulling the base pin still leaves the shard wedging the cylinder into the frame so some choice words and wiggling this way and that is required in extreme cases.
Getting back to the cap jamming issue. I should add that my Remingtons may not get as big or as many shards down in the hammer slot but it makes up for that by trying to swallow bigger shards off the caps in the area between the cylinder ratchet teeth and the recoil shield. This occurs about once in ever 15 to 20 shots unless I again roll the gun to the right while cocking to aid in the cap pieces falling free of the gun.
The 1860 will swallow the shards primarily down the slot for the hammer instead. And unless I roll the gun to the right it'll do this roughly once in every 8 to 10 shots. So again advantage by what I consider a fairly slim margin to the Remington. Clearly both need to be rolled to the side to achieve higher degrees of reliability by shedding the shards out into the open air. The 1860's can also swallow shards between the recoil shield and the pawls on the cylinder but they don't do it as often or perhaps only as much as the Remingtons.
Oddly enough the two mods to aid in limiting the shards falling into the hammer slot won't do anything for stopping them from binding up the cylinder. But when it does and you need to strip the gun the advantage goes to the Colt open top. Removing the barrel frees up the cylinder where on the Remingtons pulling the base pin still leaves the shard wedging the cylinder into the frame so some choice words and wiggling this way and that is required in extreme cases.
Some good stuff in this post. But - raising the gun to even near vertical will get your butt kicked in any SASS sanctioned CAS event I've been to. Most clubs now enforce a 270* arc around the shooter, the old 180* gone by the board.
We shoot a lot of BP in our club, the philosophy being "Shoot Cowboy or go home!". Most of us have cap & ball guns and have a friendly rivalry going between the Remington and Colt "wedgie" lovers. Biggest problem I have with my Remmies is binding of the cylinders after the 2nd or 3rd reload. Easily cured with a shot of Ballistol as a last loading step.
We shoot a lot of BP in our club, the philosophy being "Shoot Cowboy or go home!". Most of us have cap & ball guns and have a friendly rivalry going between the Remington and Colt "wedgie" lovers. Biggest problem I have with my Remmies is binding of the cylinders after the 2nd or 3rd reload. Easily cured with a shot of Ballistol as a last loading step.
The "classic" way to avoid this is to point it literlly at the sky or even slightly past vertical so the shards fall clear of the hammer. This method being the one used by the old cavalry officers that primarily used a pistol and sword instead of a rifle. But most ranges don't let us shoot from horse back and don't like to see us pointing a cocked gun ready to fire at that sort of elevation and then bring it back down to fire. So rolling it to the side is about all we're left with.
I would have to admit that the Remington pattern is both stronger, stays in alignment better and could be regarded as a technically superior design. But there's something about the open top that is so different that I like it equally either for or in spite of the "warts".
Be aware that the Colt open tops from Italy come with some built in issues. Namely the front sight being overly low so the guns shoot very high and the fit of the arbor in the barrel for setting the cylinder gap. Read about what I did about these in my replies to bobdbldr in this other thread.
http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php/1416979-Starter-kit-for-BP-revolver
For an 1860 of course the front sight issue is a bit different due to it being a blade sight. The sight is press fitted into a woodruffe key slot so I knocked the old sight out and made up a new sight which was taller. A few sessions at the range with a small fine cut file to shorten the over height down until the POA matched the POI at 15 yards then some rounding out for the proper sort of shape and some touch up blue and the guns are great shooters.
In fact my older Uberti and even older Navy Arms .44Cal 1860's shoot as well for me as I can manage with my modern S&W's. I'm not in any danger of getting on the next Olympic team but I've been told by more than a few regular shooters that they wish they were as good as me. So the guns are certainly good shooters.
Ah heck. Here's a couple of pictures of what I did for the front sight. Coupled with the button or some other shimming of the arbor and an 1860 can be brought right up to snuff.
This first one is the new taller sight resting on the barrel and ready to go into the round bottomed slot. the old short sight is up above on the towel.
This is the jig I used to file the upper exposed sides of the blade at a slight angle both tapering upwards and thinner towards the front so the only thing you see is the rear edge. It's also in keeping with the shaping of the original.
As far as cleaning goes I don't find either is any easier than the other. The only difference is that the Remington needs cleaning from the muzzle end and the colt can be cleaned from the forcing cone end. Other than that it really is 6 of one and half a dozen of the other.
That's for short cleanings. About every three times out I do a full strip down and clean out the action. For that the Remington gets a slight nod of the head due to less screws to be removed. The Colt needs the whole grip frame broken down and that's 9 screws (5 grip frame screws, main spring screw and three action screws) where the Remington has five (trigger guard, grip screw, mainspring tension and two action screws). But even that's not a whole lot of a big deal in the grand scheme of things.
Begs the question whether we are using the same caps as they did back when. If the material of the cap was thicker, or nipple/hammer design different the aspect of 'shards' would be eliminated.
"Our" caps are designed to split and shed off the nipple which is unnecessary in the firing of the gun. (and they were built to fire, not jam. It meant your life in the 1860's, not time splits in a competition.)
@ the OP, I like the Remington's myself.
"Our" caps are designed to split and shed off the nipple which is unnecessary in the firing of the gun. (and they were built to fire, not jam. It meant your life in the 1860's, not time splits in a competition.)
@ the OP, I like the Remington's myself.
On the raising the gun to vertical to #### it. Yeah, the SASS rules are another reason in addition to the other reasons why this is a bad idea.
Sharps, you're lucky to have a good cadre of fellow C&B shooters. Bad Bobby brings his out now and then but it's not a steady thing any more. But there's hope for "our" passion. We've got a new CAS member that is keenly interested in C&B. I'm going to try to nurture him along.
Sharps, you're lucky to have a good cadre of fellow C&B shooters. Bad Bobby brings his out now and then but it's not a steady thing any more. But there's hope for "our" passion. We've got a new CAS member that is keenly interested in C&B. I'm going to try to nurture him along.
You likely know another friend of mine - "Amor de Cosmos", long time pal of mine from ML days. I got him into CAS and the Mission 'Red Mountain Renegades' crew have made him feel welcome. I sold him those Remington .44 conversions he shoots, with BP of course!
I've really enjoyed shooting with "Bad Bobby Blue Eyes" and "Kissin' Carol" at Hefley as well as Mission; the 'King & Queen of Bling"! Bobby bought that '73 'One of One Thousand' from me. Nice rifle, but I prefer carbines.
Yes, the 'Rope Burn City Bounty Collectors' shun the 'Pop-Pop-Pop' "IPSC in Cowboy Boots" philosophy. Some of us have Open Top .38's but most shoot .44's and '45's with 'real' Cowboy loads. My wife "Miz Josie" shoots a pair of Ruger .44 Spl. Flat Tops with 200 gr bullets. She also shoots one of her 1911's and .44 carbine in "Wild Bunch" along with her pet '97.
Our targets are never closer than 10m for pistol and 25+ for rifle. In 15 years, NO ONE has shot our match clean. This year we are offering a "Clean Match" award in memory of "Inky Fingers" who recently passed away from cancer. Our match was her favourite event.
Come on up and be the first to do it! July 22-24 at Quesnel Rod & Gun Club.
I've really enjoyed shooting with "Bad Bobby Blue Eyes" and "Kissin' Carol" at Hefley as well as Mission; the 'King & Queen of Bling"! Bobby bought that '73 'One of One Thousand' from me. Nice rifle, but I prefer carbines.
Yes, the 'Rope Burn City Bounty Collectors' shun the 'Pop-Pop-Pop' "IPSC in Cowboy Boots" philosophy. Some of us have Open Top .38's but most shoot .44's and '45's with 'real' Cowboy loads. My wife "Miz Josie" shoots a pair of Ruger .44 Spl. Flat Tops with 200 gr bullets. She also shoots one of her 1911's and .44 carbine in "Wild Bunch" along with her pet '97.
Our targets are never closer than 10m for pistol and 25+ for rifle. In 15 years, NO ONE has shot our match clean. This year we are offering a "Clean Match" award in memory of "Inky Fingers" who recently passed away from cancer. Our match was her favourite event.
Come on up and be the first to do it! July 22-24 at Quesnel Rod & Gun Club.
