Just gonna put this out there..1858

Rating - 0%
0   1   0
Joined
Apr 21, 2019
Messages
79
Likes
76
Gonna get flamed I'm sure but who cares..

Not gonna lie or disclaim or beat around the bush, the all out best gun going IMO is the Remington 1858, whether by Pietta or Uberti, though I admit a preference for the second. Why? They've always been that little bit smoother in operation IMO. Both lock up like bank vaults, I mean ZERO wiggle of the cylinder when at full cock. And these guns are the ONLY blued revolvers that I've ever owned personally, which NEVER leave a turn ring if the simple rule of taking the two seconds time it takes to align an inserted cylinder and draw to full cock and lower, is followed.

May not be a big deal to some, but that turn ring really disgusts me to look at, gives an appearance of misused and abused. Maybe I'm alone on that one but it is nonetheless true. That's why I never consider blued revolvers outside of the Italian clones, except for the 1500.00 Colt's I'll never afford. With double-actions I do understand that it's sort of inevitable that it happens, but I don't feel that should be the case given the design capabilities of the major manufacturers, who these days are making a TON of money. The single actions by Ruger just cannot be bought in blued to my eyes. They leave rings. Also I do not like this thing that manufacturers like to call "bluing" these days, the major problem being that none of these guns get the right amount of polishing that they need before bluing, and that they did get back in the day. Bluing SHOULD be glossy. The upside to a blued gun over a stainless one is that you could still see your own reflection just like the stainless, while not show a glare from far off. Aka the fact that the metal has been blued IS your glare reducer, and it seems today's bluing uses "glare reduction" as a reason for giving sporting arms military-like finishes. Pure yuck.

Stainless also leaves turn rings in all of these newer guns, but it can at least be polished and touched up. Stainless' selling point is, of course, it's added corrosion resistance. But the main caveat in my opinion, at least in revolvers, is that it can be brought to looking new in appearance, which includes removing that nasty turn ring. That said, with the Italian clones of either stainless or carbon material, those turn rings are just plain and simply a non issue in a mechanically correct revolver which is being used by an informed operator. The bluing is superb and old school, and rivaling the old Smith's in the case of the Uberti's. Polishing before the bluing is applied, is in fact in itself a much better rust deterrent than is offered in any of these modern "matte" bluings", which, if we're honest, really need to be lightly smeared in grease to prevent rust while being put up. And being honest again, I would ask this.. Would any of you want to pay as much for a revolver with an obvious turn line, as you would for one without one? Given identical guns, which were used identically, with the same amount of rounds through them, and built on the same day, and with both being well cared for equally. Which would you pick for the same price? That's my point, and that turn ring leaves an impression of wear and tear which should not exist on a gun which has been competently cared for and with no EXCESSIVE wear and tear on it other than that ugly scratch.

Man I'm on a rant.. And I'm not a fan of "antiqued" finishes, They should be called "neglected" finishes, as it's been my experience that the more a gun is used and handled, as it is passed down from one generation to another, the more the bluing/nickel becomes POLISHED off in certain areas, and the more the grip stocks are used, an increasing yellowing of the finish as well as an uneven increase in the polishing, becomes apparent over the wood. That is antiqued to me, it's not supposed to look like it was used as a hammer and then left to pit in the weather on the grass for a year, to then be given a quick sanding and a cheap lacquer job on the stocks - that to me, goes with the "neglected" finish.

Back to the 1858. We are talking about the fastest reload possible in a revolver, sans a Jerry Miculek talent using personalized hardware. No revolver reloads as quickly as an 1858 with extra cylinders in practiced hands. None, whether double or single action. With the Remington you simply drop out the old, roll in the new, set pin, snap lever, cock and fire. Accuracy is far and away superior to any modern design autoloader. The 15 shots will do him no good as those light guns with squirt gun triggers, are bouncing all over the place in rapid fire as your own eye easily acquires that long sight plane and your finger touches off that 3 pound trigger which has no creep and a crisp break. The 1858 is the ONLY single action revolver which can be realistically utilized as a combat handgun, as in being used in a protracted engagement and not merely for the purpose of possible personal defense. The Remington is the ONLY percussion gun for which a conversion cylinder even makes sense to me, to hell with turning screws on Rugers or pulling barrels on Colts. I like the Colts as they are, for cap and ball.

Speaking on ballistics, a .44/.45 black powder, when loaded properly in CnB mode, or utilizing .45 Colt, is bested only by the hotter .357 magnum and .45 super loads. .45 ACP, even in +P, is not the equal of the old Remington in terms of power. The cowboy load crap is just that,- crap. In the real world these guns shoot untold amounts of standard pressure .45 Colt of all incarnations, and yes, I do mean modern jacketed bullets as well. The Remington is at least as strong as a SAA, and while SLIGHTLY inferior to the Ruger old army in strength, neither is a Blackhawk, and neither will handle hot .45 Colt - forget that.

These guns are ridiculously high quality. A manufacturer who is going to provide you with a product which has a superior finish without tooling marks, and markets their own cartridge versions of the same guns, is not about to screw you with lousy materials for a base. American gunmakers need to learn a few things from the Italians about how to provide quality products to the consumer.

I recommend the 8" variation, as size matters more in black powder mode. And forget black powder, use 777 or trailboss.

I have spoken.
 

FPrice

Retired Zoomie
NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
93   0   0
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
23,398
Likes
11,785
Location
Western Mass
Gonna get flamed I'm sure but who cares..

Not gonna lie or disclaim or beat around the bush, the all out best gun going IMO is the Remington 1858, whether by Pietta or Uberti, though I admit a preference for the second. Why? They've always been that little bit smoother in operation IMO. Both lock up like bank vaults, I mean ZERO wiggle of the cylinder when at full cock. And these guns are the ONLY blued revolvers that I've ever owned personally, which NEVER leave a turn ring if the simple rule of taking the two seconds time it takes to align an inserted cylinder and draw to full cock and lower, is followed.

May not be a big deal to some, but that turn ring really disgusts me to look at, gives an appearance of misused and abused. Maybe I'm alone on that one but it is nonetheless true. That's why I never consider blued revolvers outside of the Italian clones, except for the 1500.00 Colt's I'll never afford. With double-actions I do understand that it's sort of inevitable that it happens, but I don't feel that should be the case given the design capabilities of the major manufacturers, who these days are making a TON of money. The single actions by Ruger just cannot be bought in blued to my eyes. They leave rings. Also I do not like this thing that manufacturers like to call "bluing" these days, the major problem being that none of these guns get the right amount of polishing that they need before bluing, and that they did get back in the day. Bluing SHOULD be glossy. The upside to a blued gun over a stainless one is that you could still see your own reflection just like the stainless, while not show a glare from far off. Aka the fact that the metal has been blued IS your glare reducer, and it seems today's bluing uses "glare reduction" as a reason for giving sporting arms military-like finishes. Pure yuck.

Stainless also leaves turn rings in all of these newer guns, but it can at least be polished and touched up. Stainless' selling point is, of course, it's added corrosion resistance. But the main caveat in my opinion, at least in revolvers, is that it can be brought to looking new in appearance, which includes removing that nasty turn ring. That said, with the Italian clones of either stainless or carbon material, those turn rings are just plain and simply a non issue in a mechanically correct revolver which is being used by an informed operator. The bluing is superb and old school, and rivaling the old Smith's in the case of the Uberti's. Polishing before the bluing is applied, is in fact in itself a much better rust deterrent than is offered in any of these modern "matte" bluings", which, if we're honest, really need to be lightly smeared in grease to prevent rust while being put up. And being honest again, I would ask this.. Would any of you want to pay as much for a revolver with an obvious turn line, as you would for one without one? Given identical guns, which were used identically, with the same amount of rounds through them, and built on the same day, and with both being well cared for equally. Which would you pick for the same price? That's my point, and that turn ring leaves an impression of wear and tear which should not exist on a gun which has been competently cared for and with no EXCESSIVE wear and tear on it other than that ugly scratch.

Man I'm on a rant.. And I'm not a fan of "antiqued" finishes, They should be called "neglected" finishes, as it's been my experience that the more a gun is used and handled, as it is passed down from one generation to another, the more the bluing/nickel becomes POLISHED off in certain areas, and the more the grip stocks are used, an increasing yellowing of the finish as well as an uneven increase in the polishing, becomes apparent over the wood. That is antiqued to me, it's not supposed to look like it was used as a hammer and then left to pit in the weather on the grass for a year, to then be given a quick sanding and a cheap lacquer job on the stocks - that to me, goes with the "neglected" finish.

Back to the 1858. We are talking about the fastest reload possible in a revolver, sans a Jerry Miculek talent using personalized hardware. No revolver reloads as quickly as an 1858 with extra cylinders in practiced hands. None, whether double or single action. With the Remington you simply drop out the old, roll in the new, set pin, snap lever, cock and fire. Accuracy is far and away superior to any modern design autoloader. The 15 shots will do him no good as those light guns with squirt gun triggers, are bouncing all over the place in rapid fire as your own eye easily acquires that long sight plane and your finger touches off that 3 pound trigger which has no creep and a crisp break. The 1858 is the ONLY single action revolver which can be realistically utilized as a combat handgun, as in being used in a protracted engagement and not merely for the purpose of possible personal defense. The Remington is the ONLY percussion gun for which a conversion cylinder even makes sense to me, to hell with turning screws on Rugers or pulling barrels on Colts. I like the Colts as they are, for cap and ball.

Speaking on ballistics, a .44/.45 black powder, when loaded properly in CnB mode, or utilizing .45 Colt, is bested only by the hotter .357 magnum and .45 super loads. .45 ACP, even in +P, is not the equal of the old Remington in terms of power. The cowboy load crap is just that,- crap. In the real world these guns shoot untold amounts of standard pressure .45 Colt of all incarnations, and yes, I do mean modern jacketed bullets as well. The Remington is at least as strong as a SAA, and while SLIGHTLY inferior to the Ruger old army in strength, neither is a Blackhawk, and neither will handle hot .45 Colt - forget that.

These guns are ridiculously high quality. A manufacturer who is going to provide you with a product which has a superior finish without tooling marks, and markets their own cartridge versions of the same guns, is not about to screw you with lousy materials for a base. American gunmakers need to learn a few things from the Italians about how to provide quality products to the consumer.

I recommend the 8" variation, as size matters more in black powder mode. And forget black powder, use 777 or trailboss.

I have spoken.

Meh, typical Friday night rant. Not too bad but...

[pics]
 

FPrice

Retired Zoomie
NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
93   0   0
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
23,398
Likes
11,785
Location
Western Mass

Mountain

NES Member
Rating - 100%
22   0   0
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
16,770
Likes
20,436
I dunno, I keep hearing that the spaghetti 1858's all have timing issues. I'd rather have ring on a reliable shooter like the Ruger Old Army.
 

Mountain

NES Member
Rating - 100%
22   0   0
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
16,770
Likes
20,436

To be fair, the 1858 deserves some celebration as well. I think this one is appropriate-

tenor.gif
 

hennypenny

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Dec 5, 2015
Messages
166
Likes
222
I like the 1858 too. Well-designed gun for it's time. Didn't know the Uberti's were slightly better. Had one, the .44 Army you mentioned, some time ago and it was fun to shoot. Thought about getting a .36 belt model and may eventually get one, it's just not a priority now. Drag marks on revolver cylinders are something I expect to see. Think the spare loaded cylinder idea has it's points, but also poses a very slight risk I personally don't need to take. Not looking for a speedload or bettter ballistics in a gun I'd only use for plinking. Prefer to use black powder in blackpowder guns. Think the OP's post is remarkably detailed and well-written for a drunken Friday night rant, doesn't attack anyone, and sticks to a subject matter I'd expect to see on a gun forum. A nice change.
 

PappyM3

NES Member
Rating - 100%
25   0   0
Joined
Mar 31, 2012
Messages
4,421
Likes
6,736
.... Think the OP's post is remarkably detailed and well-written for a drunken Friday night rant, doesn't attack anyone, and sticks to a subject matter I'd expect to see on a gun forum. A nice change.

To claim it’s the best is ludicrous. But the rant was detailed and educational. Thumbs up there.
 

Mountain

NES Member
Rating - 100%
22   0   0
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
16,770
Likes
20,436
I like the 1858 too. Well-designed gun for it's time. Didn't know the Uberti's were slightly better. Had one, the .44 Army you mentioned, some time ago and it was fun to shoot. Thought about getting a .36 belt model and may eventually get one, it's just not a priority now. Drag marks on revolver cylinders are something I expect to see. Think the spare loaded cylinder idea has it's points, but also poses a very slight risk I personally don't need to take. Not looking for a speedload or bettter ballistics in a gun I'd only use for plinking. Prefer to use black powder in blackpowder guns. Think the OP's post is remarkably detailed and well-written for a drunken Friday night rant, doesn't attack anyone, and sticks to a subject matter I'd expect to see on a gun forum. A nice change.

Totally agree regarding your assessment of OP's post. However, posting LONG essays on at least 4 different sub forums upon my last check is like chumming for sharks off Race Point.

I will say that my Old Army and spaghetti Griswold are surprisingly some of the most accurate pistols I have, even comparing the round balls to modern projectiles. It's almost weird how tightly they will group. In one of his diatribes he mentions skip the BP and use 777 etc. I totally agree with that.
 
Rating - 100%
20   0   0
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
1,319
Likes
1,791
This is kind of like that dog that just continually bark's for no reason. Hey old guns are pretty cool in the correct context. But in time's like this shit that has zero relevance draws down on people's patience.
 
Top Bottom