colt banner

Author Topic: Rem navy  (Read 730 times)

Offline bigted

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • when all is said ... more will be said then done.
    • View Profile
Re: Rem navy
« Reply #15 on: November 04, 2019, 03:20:22 AM »
Thanks Cap. Am getting to like it a lot. Can not wait to baptize it with sparks n smoke.
BIGTED

Offline G Dog

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 791
    • View Profile
Re: Rem navy
« Reply #16 on: November 04, 2019, 12:27:45 PM »
That’s one handsome revolver bigted.  I’ll bet it shoots even better than it looks.  Keep us posted.

***     ***     ***

Looking at the Wikipedia article for Remington Model 1858 it seems that 1863 was a very big year for Eliphelat Remington & Sons.  That year they came out with at least four new models.  One was the .44 NMA and the NMN with a 7 3/8” barrel.  The other two models dropped the Navy designation and were .36 Belt Revolvers (large frame).

The Wiki article cites Fladerman (2001) for an interesting chart outlining Remington’s production history and details on each model.

Of interest is that their Remington-Beals Navy Model Revolver came with a 7.5” barrel (like Ted's) but on a medium frame.  This seems to be the only 7 1/2” barreled original model.

Of further interest, especially to we Pietta owners of the .36  6.5”, is the New Model Single Action Belt Revolver and the Remington-Ryder Double Action New Model Belt Revolver.  Both were large frame models and had a 6.5”  barrel - like the Pietta.  Large Frame is a relative term of course and one wonders if those two .36 models were the same frame size as the NMA.

For years I’ve been trying to figure if the Pietta Remington .36 is historically accurate (generally).  I still don’t know.  Any further info on the topic would be appreciated.

"A man cannot have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition".
                              -Rudyard Kipling

"Nietzsche is dead".
                              -  God

Offline sourdough

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 734
  • Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: Rem navy
« Reply #17 on: November 04, 2019, 01:51:17 PM »
Thanks for your post, G Dog.

I looked at the Wiki article, and depending upon how one reads it, there is (to me) one mistake insofar as the pricing of the Colt 1860 Army vs. the Remington 1863 NMA concerning Army contracts. Somewhere in Charles W. Pate's Colt 1860 Army book is mentioned that the reason Remington got an Army contract in 1863 was because Colt was overcharging the Government for his guns (compared to civilian pricing) and the Remington NMA was far less expensive to procure.

IMO, the Wiki chart was created by the author of the article and not by Flayderman. Flayderman is also a bit confusing using his terminology of "scaled down", which I read as either different frame size, or barrel size, or both.

I have Flayderman's Guide 5th Edition (1990) (which does not have a similar chart) that states (pg. 144) the New Model Police .36 5-shot was made from 1863-1873 (not 1865-1873 on the chart) and is not a pocket model. Said to be a scaled down version of the Navy and Belt models, but does not have a rebated cylinder, which indicates to me that it used a Navy frame.

Flayderman also states (pg. 143) that the 1863 NMA had at least 3 "transitional" models using parts from the 1861 Army.

So, who knows if the different Pietta models are or are not correct?

Regards,

Jim

Offline AntiqueSledMan

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 174
  • Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: Rem navy
« Reply #18 on: November 04, 2019, 03:32:05 PM »

Offline sourdough

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 734
  • Newbie
    • View Profile

Offline bigted

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • when all is said ... more will be said then done.
    • View Profile
Re: Rem navy
« Reply #20 on: November 10, 2019, 06:46:32 PM »
Well took er out Saturday and smoked it up. Very fun! Accurate and comfortable shooting. Like the sights very much. Something different with the grip on this Remington. Do not have a "New Army" model to compare with ... but ... if memories serves ... this grip/TG relationship seem somewhat different, more comfy to my big ol mit's.

Any rate, shooting my .380 ball's in ZigZag cig papers and dunked in melted lube over the ball and down the paper about 1/8th inch with 22 grains 3F OE powder and sparked with CCI #11 caps ... shot in 1 inch group at a solid bench rested 10 long paces.

The paper cartridgesmade with the Era's Gone conicals did like in my other cartridges ... bout 3 inch at the same bench and yards.

Even loaded with lose powder (30grains OL 3F) ( all this cylinder will hold and seat a ball )  under the .380 balls but man this load ... even tho it went off with a good bang and a bit more recoil ... shot patterns instead of groups ... terrible!

This Remmy Navy though is a hoot and a half to shoot! So refreshing to find a Remmy that is just fun to shoot. Now I wonder if either I have come round the corner ... or ... maybe Uberti has changed their grip relationship some how.

So does anybody have a 2019 New Army that can shed some light on this for me? Hopefully somebody has both the 2019 navy as well as the 2019 Army to compare to each other.

If the general grip frame relationship has changed, might be tempted to get another Army to go with this dandy Navy.
BIGTED