60 armies

[bigted]

Well i have had, after years of messin about, a fairly important discovery concerning the 60 Colt revolver.

It is lighter just by reason of removed metal compared to 36 cal. The longer barrel is to my taste, more "pointable" then the smaller cal barrels ( kinda like a good fitting 12 gauge double). The bigger army grip fits my hand better as i do have large hands. The cal is a more serious caliber in that the cross sectional is wider, giving better shock and delivered power then the smaller cal's.finally there is the length that puts in mind ,when handling it, THIS IS A REAL REVOLVER.

Overall i guess i have never just contemplated the assets of the 60 Colt revolver. I really like my 61's and 62 Colts but for me i have always gravitated towards the 60 for a revolver that is ( seemingly anyway ) just rite.

In fact my 2nd gen Colt SAA wears a 60 grip frame from Uberti and makes it " better " for this pilgrim.

Anyhew ... noticing not too much activity so thought id ramble a bit concerning the epitomy of revolver evolution ( my words only ). They are just rite.

[Hawg]

There's only 1/2 inch difference in barrel length between the 51 and 60. Personally I find the 51 to be a more natural pointer but the 60 ain't bad. The thing with the 51 is to be comfortable you have to curl your pinky finger under the grip.

[Captainkirk]

I agree with your assessment, bigted, "Just Right".
I have two '60's and while I have other guns I 'like' more, or are more unusual, sleeker looking, better pointablity, etc...for hands-down ergonomics and function, it's hard to beat a '60. The .44 is hard-hitting and the creeping loading lever is a mechanical marvel. Add one of the Goon's cap rakes to combat cap swallowing and you are in some serious black powder territory.

[G Dog]

As to an 1860 then, I think Big Ted has spoken true words.  I have a bias though.  In childhood the 1860 was the first of the ‘cap-guns’ with which I identified.  That was soon followed by Rems and Navies but the Sixty was the first.

In my praise of a Navy or a Remington I have nothing to unsay but when using the Army I feel better connected to the gun than I do with either of the other two models.

Also, the Army grip really shines when used from a moving horse (!).  The design of the Army grip may have had mounted fighting in mind.  When I do mounted shooting the 1860 is the go-to gun.

Modernly, we have the luxury of considering all these guns as sporting arms but back in the day they were of course for business and survival.  That’s why, for me, ounce for ounce, the .44 would have made the most sense during Nineteenth Century conditions (more "smack-down" than a .36) and the 1860 platform as ergonomically superior to anything available at the time..

I really do love them all - but for me the Colt 1860 is special.

[sourdough]

There's only 1/2 inch difference in barrel length between the 51 and 60. Personally I find the 51 to be a more natural pointer but the 60 ain't bad. The thing with the 51 is to be comfortable you have to curl your pinky finger under the grip.

Hawg, I agree with your assessment about the '51 except you all must have large hands. I have average sized hands with long skinny fingers and the pinky does not go under the backstrap. I find the '51 is more muzzle heavy than the '60 which I like. I also don't like the creeping load lever on the '60 compared to the straightforward load lever on the '51. More parts to break.

I actually like the Pietta 1851 Navy .36 with the pre-2015 "tail" grip as it fits my hand the best.

All personal preference, gentlemen.

Jim

[G Dog]

I also don't like the creeping load lever on the '60 compared to the straightforward load lever on the '51. More parts to break.

I don’t understand that, there’s one less screw on an Army loading lever.  The rack and pinion setup on the 1860 and 1861 provides much more control and leverage, especially on conicals and heavy charges.

I never minded the former Navy infamous ‘Pietta Tail’ flair  (Ventral proboscis  ).  A few of the originals had that, too.  I wear medium gloves and the pinky curl is optional for me on those.  A Griswold that I got last year has the stumpy grip and took awhile to get used to and does require the little finger either on the bottom edge or below the grip.

In terms of self-preservation, if you had some big and mean type of thing all up after you would you not prefer to shoot them/it with a .44 rather than a .36?

[bigted]

This pinky under the grip frame is exactly why i prefer the 60.i have shot the 51's and 61's more over the years only because everyone TOLD me they eere natural pointers ... which i agreed with BUT i always took a 60 with me shooting and only recently stopped to try to figure out why.

The pinky thing is only the first thing i very much prefer about the 60. The longer barrel is somehow more comfy which i attribute to the less muzzle heavy barrels then on 51 and 61 navies. I like the less muzzle weight of the thinner barrel walls on the 60 and find that they are slightly less taxing to handle and shoot for an afternoon.

I also find that the 44 cal Uberti 60 to be more close in cylinder mouth match to the bore then with the 61 or 51 36 cal cylinder mouth/ bore match up on the 36's.

All in all ... and this is just me talking about my preference ... i choose the better ballance, longer grip and lighter model 60 army 44's to the navy 36's. NOT to say i want to destroy my navies, nor put them up for sale as i still enjoy the lighter lead balls, lighter powder charges and accuracy of the 36 cal ... but for a personal preference ... make mine a 60 army Colt please

NOW we have a proper descusion ... 

[bigted]

Been awhile since this thread was posted and guess what ... still prefer the grip n balance of the 1860 Colt revolvers.

My absolute favorite WAS my Uberti 60 that I pared down in length to a 5 inch barrel. That was the first absolute perfect capper revolver I ever had. I took it back to the chopping block and cut it further to a 2 inch belly gun which I very much enjoy. BUT ... that 5 inch 60 Colt was the shiz niz for this shooter. Not historically accurate ... but my God what a natural pointer and well ballanced revolver.

I have a Pietta 60 that needs the barrel trimmed back to 5 inch ... then I will have a perfect setup ... an 8 inch civilian model, a 5 inch gunfighter model and the 2 inch gambler model.

Just tryin to get some posters goin in the 1860 Army section.

[ssb73q]

Hi Ted, this is my shorty, the 1851 Yank:

It's a lot more accurate than one would would expect. A taller dovetail front sight was added to have poi=poa @25yds using .45 Colt.

Regards,
Richard

[ShotgunDave]

I couldn't agree more bigted. I switched all but one of my Navies over to Army grips. My hands are large, and the Army grip affords me a much better purchase on the gun. I don't like curling my pinky under the butt of the pistol.

[mike116]

I'm an 1860 Army guy too bigted.     The '60 just feels better than a '51or '61 Navy to me.    Until recently I had five 1860's but sold one a few months ago.   
Here's a couple pics of my 1860 with a drop-in Thuer conversion.  I also made the grips from American Holly.  The grips are now turning a nice yellow/amber color much the same as Ivory does.   

[ShotgunDave]

That is gorgeous Mike. That is what I want on my guns. I love the looks of American Holly.

[ssb73q]

Hi Dave, I like your solution to using 1860 grips on 1851 frames. Other than the Civilian 1860, those 1860 stock screws bite my hand.

Regards,
Richard

[ssb73q]

Hi Mike, those grips look great, a sweet looking rig!

Regards,
Richard

[bigted]

GREAT pictures's fellers. I very much like those white grips! Please do elaborate on the material, purchase store and the how of fitting and finish.

I so like the 60 grip frame, I bought Uberti BS & TG on my second gen Colt SAA. Guess I have never contemplated putting them on my navy's ... great idea! Gotta try it, looks great!

I also do not like those stock screw heads. I take them out and chuck them up in my drill motor and take a file to them to soften the height AND the sharp edges and then blue them and replace in the revolver. Makes them less of a problem ... BUT ... they are still there. Would like to remove them but what to do with the threaded hole?