Hi:
Beginning interest in pre and post Civil War History I wonder why the Remington Model 1858 .44 Revolver's grip is shorter than that of the Colt Model 1860 .44 Revolver? I prefer the Remington Model except the grip seems too short for my hand. Ideally the Colt's longer grip on the Remington would be ideal.
Opinions?
Thanks,
Jimmy

I doubt if anyone knows. Probably, the designer's hand was small, as were many hands of that day. The Colt .36's have a shorter grip than the 1860 Army, which was thought to need more grip due to more recoil.

The main advantage that the Remington has in this area is that the grip and frame are one forging. The Colt grips screwed onto the frame, making them a nuisance to keep tight. The solid Remington frame was also stronger, and featured a top strap.

T-Star

I have owned a pair of colt 1860 armys in the past. I own this original (not a copy) 1858 remington new model army. I am tall, bigger than average hands. The remington feels just fine to me, larger than needed even. I never seemed to notice your compareison.

If I remember correctly, I think that one of the Italian makers was making a Remington with an oversize and longer grip for fellers with bigger hands- but I don't remember who made it.


As for Remington grip frames...I second Texas Star's opinion.

As for shooting the reproductions...I like them.

__________________
Lost it all in a boat accident

They probably didn't think about how well the grips felt back then. The only pistols where anyone thought about proper fit and ergonomics were duelling pistols, the idea being you wanted to get on target as fast as possible. Another thing about BP revolvers that seems odd to us modern shooters is the sights. The Remingtons are better than the Colts in that regard, though they all seem to be sighted for 50 yards or so.
My favorite shooter is the Colt Dragoon. More heft than the Colt 1860 Army, better balanced than the Walker. Firing it with a full charge load feels like a 38 Special out of an N frame.

I have been shooting cap and ball revolvers since about 1970, all of them reproductions and one reissue (Colt 2nd generation 1851 Navy).
I like both the Remington and the Colt. Both have their good points and bad.
The Colt grip -- 1851 Navy and 1860 Army -- fit better in my hand.
The Colts are much better balanced than the Remingtons. They point very well. In fact, the 1851 and 1861 Navies are considered some of the best-balanced handguns ever produced. With very little practice, you can get them to roll forward and backward on your finger, if that sort of thing appeals to you.

The Remington is not as well balanced but has better sights. It has a groove along the topstrap, and a well-defined front sight. The Colts have merely a notch in the hammer nose and a brass bead that becomes an ill-defined yellow blob in bright sunshine.
For target shooting, the Remington is better. For instinctive point-shooting, the Colt excels.

But both revolvers are capable of very fine accuracy because, like the originals, today's reproductions have rifled barrels.
My Uberti-made Remington will put 6 .454 inch balls into a 2" circle at 25 yards from a benchrest, if I take extra effort to load it carefully.
My Colt 1851 Navy will put six .380-inch balls into a 3" circle.

The Remington with its top-strap is stronger than the Colt, but the point is rather moot because both guns are designed only for black powder pressures.

One point: If you're thinking of buying a cap and ball revolver, buy one with a steel frame. The brass-framed ones wear out more quickly if fed a steady diet of loads considered to be standard in the steel-framed models. If you purchase a brass-framed cap and ball revolver, you'll need to shoot lighter loads in it, or damage will result over time.
This means not exceeding 30 grs. FFFG black powder or equivalent in the .44 and not more than 18 to 20 in the .36 caliber.

It's best to buy a steel-framed gun. Nearly all of the brass-framed guns I've seen over the years are lower quality than their steel-framed brethren. Occasionally, you may see a high-quality brass-framed gun but they're not common.

Owning a cap and ball revolver means a commitment to clean it immediately after firing, in most instances. There's no waiting a day or two, because rust will set in quickly. However, a stainless steel cap and ball revolver may allow you to delay a few days. Eventually, however, even stainless steel will rust.
The culprit is the fouling. Black powder fouling contains a salt very similar to common table salt. Pyrodex fouling contains perchlorates, which may make it more corrosive than black powder (opinions and sources vary).
Despite manufacturer claims, no propellant designed for black powder is non-corrosive. They all draw moisture, if they do not contain a corroding agent, and that moisture can quickly cause rust.

If you search my name -- Gatofeo -- along with "cap and ball revolver" you'll find many of my posts on the internet concerning these revolvers. You'll find a wealth of information in, "So You Want a Cap & Ball Revolver" and "Proper Use of a Cap & Ball Revolver."

The advantage to the Colt design is that it's easier to remove the cylinder for cleaning.
In the Civil War, in the Union Army at least, officers carried their revolvers on the right hip in a crossdraw holster and were supposed to draw and firw with the left hand. The right hand held the sword.
Double Ditto on what Gatofeo said about cleaning.

gateofeo, I googled your writeups and you are to be commended. A lot of knowledge and work with experience there! Thanks, it will come in handy! I bookmarked it.