Traditional Firearms > Cap and Ball Revolvers
Remington Navy models
Jim in Wisconsin:
The Remingtons didn't have any scenes on the cylinder, but the Colts did. Both the 36 and 44 Colts had pictures of some ships in battle. They're usually real faint and hard to make out.
According to the Remington book, a New Model Army (44) weighs 2 lbs 14 oz, and a New Model Navy (36) weighs 2 lbs 10 oz. The barrel is shorter on the 36.
The frames do seem to be the same size, except for that little area around the rammer (I think, but not sure).
The army bought a lot more 36 cal. revolvers than the navy did, but then the army bought a whole lot more revolvers anyway.
I don't know why I am so interested in the Remingtons, maybe just because the Colts are more popular and I like being different!
Winter Hawk:
--- Quote from: Jim in Wisconsin on July 20, 2023, 08:06:07 AM ---I don't know why I am so interested in the Remingtons, maybe just because the Colts are more popular and I like being different!
--- End quote ---
Perhaps because the Remingtons have the top strap on the frame which would make them more rugged, plus having a place to mount a rear sight (instead of the notch in the hammer which the Colts have. Colt would have continued making their revolvers with the same frame if it wasn't a better design!
~Kees~
Hanshi:
I owned a New Model Army .44 years ago and it was one heckuva pistol. But I have never seen or read about a .36 model. They must be rare, and if so, would command a price up to the stratosphere.
Jim in Wisconsin:
I've since learned that the 36 and 44 cylinders are both 2 inches long, but the 36 cylinder is smaller in diameter. This means that the cutout in the frame is smaller in height, making the entire frame a little smaller. The reproductions don't do this, unfortunately.
I've never seen an original 36, a nice one would be way to expensive for me! Some of them got converted to cartridge guns, which sort of spoils them, at least to me.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version