More reliable Remington or colt cast your vote n tell why

You can only take one into the field for the next month ....which is it?


  • Total voters
    47
Driftwood: late question but do you have much problem keeping your Remington conversions running shooting black powder loads? I understand the cap and ball versions get crudded up quickly and don't want to turn.
The reason the 1858 model Remington crudds up quickly is because there is no bushing on the front of the cylinder.

RU8ib5.jpg




The barrel cylinder gap is in line with the front of the cylinder. This allows fouling blasted out of the barrel/cylinder gap to be deposited directly onto the cylinder pin. This is the main cause of binding with any Black Powder revolver. Fouling blasted onto the the cylinder pin causes the cylinder to bind after not very many shots.



If we compare the 1860 Colt to a Remington, we see there is no bushing on the front of the Colt cylinder either. However, the Colt arbor has a helical groove cut into it, which provides clearance for any fouling that gets blasted onto the arbor. In addition, the Colt arbor is much larger in diameter than the Remington cylinder pin. This means that any fouling deposited on the Colt arbor will be more' spread out', and less likely to cause the cylinder to bind. If you look closely you will see I cut grooves around the cylinder pin of this Remington. The idea is to pack the grooves with bore butter, or some similar goop, to help lubricate the cylinder and keep it from binding quite so much. In fact, this does not help very much.

Zu3rgM.jpg





When Colt released the Single Action Army in 1873, a removable bushing was included in the cylinder design.

4dVb7y.jpg





Left to right, the three cylinders in this photo are from an Uberti Catleman, Ruger 'original model' Vaquero, and 2nd Gen Colt. The Uberti and Colt bushings have been pushed all the way into the cylinders, the Ruger bushing is integral with the cylinder.

OObZ0J.jpg





This is a close up of the fit of the cylinder on a Colt. The barrel protrudes all the way back to the front of the cylinder, but below it the cylinder bushing is shielding the cylinder pin from almost all of the powder fouling blasted out of the barrel cylinder gap. This is a very practical design. I can shoot a Colt all day long with cartridges loaded with Black Powder without any binding.

H0A9E3.jpg





When Remington introduced their cartridge revolver in 1875, they included a bushing on the front of the cylinder. This is the cylinder from an original 44-40 1875 Remington cylinder. The bushing is not as pronounced as on a Colt, but it does help keep fouling blasted onto the cylinder pin to a minimum.

EeBRyu.jpg





Colt may or may not have gotten the idea of the cylinder bushing from Smith and Wesson. When S&W introduced the American Model, around 1869 if memory serves, there was a prominent bushing pressed into the front of the cylinder. This is the cylinder from a S&W New Model Number Three that left the factory in the 1880s. Notice the cylinder bushing.

A9BC4g.jpg





This is the way the cylinder fits in the S&W New Model Number Three. Notice the bushing below the barrel completely shields the underlying arbor from powder fouling blasted out of the barrel/cylinder gap. I can shoot this revolve all day with 44 Russian ammo loaded with Black Powder without the cylinder binding.

XjIvij.jpg





Anyway, to answer your question, the design of the cartridge conversion cylinders I have for my Remingtons necessitates the cylinders be removed from the frame to poke out the empties and to reload. I take the opportunity to wipe the fouling off the cylinder pin and front of the cylinders with a damp cloth every time I reload. That keeps the fouling to a minimum and helps keep them rolling pretty well without binding.
 
Yes, lots of them. I'll try to get some posted up tonight
So, here are a few pix of the modified target Remington:

Side shot of the cylinder showing the 'bushing' made by milling back the face of the cylinder
39456502542_1a899930ca_w.jpg


front view:
39456502422_1ca6d8d967_w.jpg


barrel setback:
39456502292_be39ef8135_w.jpg


Comparison with standard Remmy cylinder:
39456502262_521fdd5b48_w.jpg


Modified axle pin:
39456502112_430d881d44_w.jpg


Setback for axle pin 'fingers':
39456501962_7b7a6b209f_w.jpg

24620251377_967d64ddc9_w.jpg


I can't take credit for any of the machine work performed, or the idea behind it. I received a non-functional gun and got it working and tuned. It's my most accurate BP revolver by a country mile and certainly the most unique.
 
So, here are a few pix of the modified target Remington:

Side shot of the cylinder showing the 'bushing' made by milling back the face of the cylinder
39456502542_1a899930ca_w.jpg


front view:
39456502422_1ca6d8d967_w.jpg


barrel setback:
39456502292_be39ef8135_w.jpg


Comparison with standard Remmy cylinder:
39456502262_521fdd5b48_w.jpg


Modified axle pin:
39456502112_430d881d44_w.jpg


Setback for axle pin 'fingers':
39456501962_7b7a6b209f_w.jpg

24620251377_967d64ddc9_w.jpg


I can't take credit for any of the machine work performed, or the idea behind it. I received a non-functional gun and got it working and tuned. It's my most accurate BP revolver by a country mile and certainly the most unique.
Rear base pin hole get a bushing from being wallowd out?

Mike
 
Back
Top