Colt 1851 vs 1860

[dallas.moore]

Gee, it sometimes seems the more you learn, the more questions you have.  What are the differences between the 1851 and 1860 colts? 
Is it correct that all 1851s were .36 caliber?  (their are a lot of clones that say their 1851, but are in .44). 
Do all 1860s have round barrels while the 51s have octagon?
What about the naval seen engraved on the cylinder?
Would there have been a such thing as a confederate made colt with an octagon barrel, brass frame (they say from a shortage of steel in the south), in .44?

It's all a little confusing, but I know ya'll will straighten me out.  Thanks.

[Lazarus Longshot]

Yeah, Dallas, the research never ends!!! I'm gonna slide on the Colt cap and ball questions. I shoot cap and ball Remingtons, and don't know much about the Colts. I like to load my Remmies by removing the cylinders and using a loading stand. Plus it's easier to carry pre-loaded cylinders. I was never thrilled with any revolvers that required taking off the barrel to remove the cylinder!

[dallas.moore]

LL,

The more I read about the 1858, the more I think I would prefer them over the Colt (though I'm sure I'll eventually get an 1860); much better design.  I assume you have the 8" barrel?  Do you have yours converted or as cap and ball?  I read about Eastwood using them in Pale Rider; just so happened the movie was on last night.  Heck of an idea when it comes to changing cylinders rather than reloading.  Seems even easier than the Peacemaker or the 1875 Remington.

My biggest pet peeve with Westerns is seeing a cap and ball revolver in the hand of a gun slinger with cartridges on his belt.  Even on Pale Rider I thought I saw Clint loading cartridges (though I understand conversions on the 1858 were a lot more common than with the Colts).

Any pearls of wisdom with the 1858.  Think I'll get one from Cabelas; they've got a heck of a price.

Thanks,

[PlacitasSlim]

I have both an 1858 Remington clone and a 1860 Colt clone. I prefer shooting the 1860, but that is only a preference. Both of mine are Piettas which is what Cabelas used to sell. Have had mine for 4 or 5 years so don't know what they sell now.

[Lazarus Longshot]

Hi, Dallas,
My '58 Remingtons are stainless Piettas with 8" barrels. I've had them for a while, as I paid less than $150 each for them brand new. IIRC, they are making these with 5 1/2" barrels now, but I like the longer barrels. (Even my AWA Colt clones are 7 1/2" barrels). I have two sets of the Kirst conversion cylinders for my Remingtons; one set is .45ACP, the other set is .45 Colt. All my Kirst cylinders are in blue, not nickel. I just couldn't justify the extra expense; the stainless revolvers look kinda nifty with the blued cylinders, though. I shoot the Remmies in Plainsman side matches as cap and ball, and in main match competition as .45 Colt, using APP in .45 Cowboy Special cases with 250 gr. bullets. The revolvers do NOT have the loading gate cuts. As long as there's no reload on the clock, it's easy enough to remove the conversion cylinders to load/unload the revolvers. If you're doing a complete reload (five rounds), the ungated conversion is faster, as all you do is swap cylinders (assuming you have extras, of course).

If you're swapping back and forth from percussion to cartridge, a nice feature of the Remington is that the mainspring tension is easily adjustable by the strain screw on the frontstrap. You can lighten the hammer tension easily when you shoot cartridge. I usually run my strain screw all the way up for cap and ball, though.

I really prefer the Remingtons to the Colt percussion revolvers. With the solid top strap, the Remington is a bit stronger, and I like the ease of removing the cylinders to load compared to the Colts. I just don't like the idea of essentially disassembling the Colt revolver to remove/replace the cylinders, but that's just me. I use a loading stand to charge my percussion cylinders out of the revolvers, as I find it much easier. I also like the Remington grip frame, although some folks really hate it. You might want to hold one before you buy it online.

I also have a pair of Cimarron (Uberti) '58 Remington conversions in .38 special, with the loading gate and ejector. Since these were manufactured as conversions, they are a true .38 special, so I don't have to worry about a converted .36 caliber using hollow-base bullets. 'Course, I can't shoot them as cap and ball either, so there is a tradeoff. These have the 7 3/8" barrels, as the 8" factory conversions weren't available when I bought them. Here's a link to the Cimarron site showing the conversion revolver: http://www.cimarron-firearms.com/Conversions/58NewModArmyConv.htm#

[StrawHat]

Gee, it sometimes seems the more you learn, the more questions you have.  What are the differences between the 1851 and 1860 colts?  

I'll tell you what I know about the Colts revolvers.

Is it correct that all 1851s were .36 caliber?  (their are a lot of clones that say their 1851, but are in .44).  

Yes, all 1851s that were sold by Colts were in 36 caliber only.  And all came from the factory with a 7 1/2" barrel.  Colts did make up a few 40 caliber 1851s as a test but these were not sold commercially and remained in the factory or were destroyed.

Do all 1860s have round barrels while the 51s have octagon?

Correct, all 1860 barrel were round and 8" in length from the factory.  All 51s had octagonal barrels and were 7 1/2" long.  Colts did make an improved model of the 1851 with the round barrel and creeping lever similar to the 1860.  These were the Model 1861.  Originally offered from the factory with 8" barrels the barrel was quickly shortened to 7 1/2 inches and most 1861s have that length barrel.

What about the naval seen engraved on the cylinder?

What about it?  Ormsby designed and executed the engraving plates for the 1851, those plaes were used for as many revolvers as they would fit, thew 51s, 60s and 61s.  Some 60s and 61s were fitted with full fluted cylinders but not many.

Would there have been a such thing as a confederate made colt with an octagon barrel, brass frame (they say from a shortage of steel in the south), in .44?

If by "confederate made colt" you mean from the Colts factory, no.  Colts did not make brass framed revolvers as it was realized back then that brass was not the material from which revolver frames should be made.  The south, being desperate for firearms and lacking proper raw materials used whatever they could find to produce a shootable revovler.  Supposedly melting church bells and statues to make frames.

It's all a little confusing, but I know ya'll will straighten me out.  Thanks.

Yes, the willy nilly naming of firearms by the italians does make it a lot confusing for folks.  Unfortunatley, internet searches for real info are tough to perform as all the misinformation is cited also.

[whbonney26]

A great book to read is Guns of the American West by Dennis Adler. Its one of the best books around for guns that you would have seen in the 1800s. Lots of detail and pics to look at. It shows some of the Confederate brass framed guns in there also. Its a must for anyone interested in guns of that period.

[P.A. Myers]

My gunsmith tells me the actions are slightly different between '51 and '60. All '51s were 36s. The naval scene on the cylinder is about an action between Texas and Mexico, in 1843. The Texans had Colts.

The Italians will build anything that sells.

The '58 Remington is more utility gun, works good, lasts longer.

[Flint]

First off, let's try to stay on subject, folks. The Question was the difference between the 1851 and 1860, those are both Colts.  dallas.moore was not asking about Remingtons, and which is best is another issue entirely.

The 1851 Colt Navy was called a Navy because of the US Naval engagement with the Mexican Navy scene on the cylinder.  This had little or nothing to do with whether or not the US Navy purchased or preferred that revolver, and the Navy issued single shot pistols for boarding parties, even after changing to cartridge, they issued Remington Rolling Blocks.

All Colt Navies were 36 caliber, except, as another mentioned, some factory experiments.  The 1851 had the octagonal barrel and hinged loading lever.  The 1861 Navy had the round streamlined barrel with a creeping loading lever similar to the 1860 Army.

The 1860 Army, despite having the Naval engagement scene rolled onto its cylinder, was not called a Navy.  An Army, no matter what company or design, was defined as a 44 caliber revolver with an 8 inch barrel.  Unlike the later Government purchases, where different vendor's guns had to interchange parts for an identical design, the Civil War era revolvers needed only meet the barrel length and caliber spec.

A "Navy", named because of the Colt cylinder engraving, was defined as a 36 caliber revolver with a 7-1/2 inch barrel, no matter who made it.

Notably, Pietta is marketing a 44 caliber "Navy".  It mounts an Army cylinder and frame with an octagonal 44 bored barrel of 1851 style, and a Navy sized gripframe.  It is not something Colt ever produced, nor even the CSA.

Most CSA revolvers were copies of the Colt Navy in 36 caliber or the Dragoon as a 44.

The action parts of a Colt Army and Colt Navy are identical except for the rebated cylinder and notched frame.  A Navy barrel and cylinder can be mounted on an Army frame and funcion perfectly.  Not vice-versa, as the Navy frame will not accept the Army cylinder.  This is true of the Italian reproductions, but might not have been true of the original Colt, unless the barrel pins were in the same location.  I no longer own originals of both to compare.

For that matter, the action of the SAA is identical except for the hammer, hand and spring and hammer pivot screw.  The mainspring, bolt/trigger spring and screw, trigger and bolt, trigger guard and backstrap and wood grips are interchangable between the 1851, 1860, 1861, 1871, 1872 and 1873 SAA and the conversions.

[Fingers McGee]

Thanks Flint, saved me from typing it all out. 

The terms '1851 Navy' and '1860 Army' are modern names coined by collectors.  Originally, the 1851 and 1861 Navies were called the 'Old Model' and 'New Model Belt Pistol' and the 1860 Army was called the 'New Model Holster Pistol'; the Dragoons were known as the 'Improved Model Holster Pistol' or 'Old Model Holster Pistol' depending on when they were sold.

[Oldwolf]

I'm looking to get a 1851 myself to complement my Whitneyville. Then, I'm hoping to get a 1849 .31 Pocket.

I'm not worried about quick reloads with my muzzleloaders. If I really need that capability I'll use my GP100 or Colt 1911!

Btw, you can learn a lot about the old Colt's by going to the Uberti website.

[Davmart]

I would like to clarify a common historical inaccuracy. The engravings on the early colt revolvers had nothing to do with the U.S. army or navy....read the following. The Republic of Texas Army and  Navy were armed with Colt Patersons, hense the later model Colts depicted the Texas Navy battle in 1843 and the Texas Ranging Company battle of 1844 on the Colt Walkers and Dragoons.
[/color]Manufacturer: Colt's Patent Fire Arms Manufacturing Company
Engraver: Waterman Lilly Ormsby
87.118.163
[/color]The roll-engraved cylinder scenes found on early Colt revolvers were the creation of Waterman Lilly Ormsby, a professional siderographer. Siderography is the art of engraving on steel plates, a profession commonly associated with the production of bank notes. The scene depicted on this proof plate shows a battle that took place in the Gulf of Mexico on May 16, 1843, between ships of the navies of the Republic of Texas and Mexico. Interestingly, the Texas Navy was armed with Colt revolvers during the fight, but they were never close enough to their Mexican adversaries to actually use them. The scene was used on the Model 1851 Navy, the Model 1860 Army, and the Model 1861 Navy Revolvers, as well as later on what collectors came to call the Model 1871–72 Open Top .44