The US Army thought so too, based on experience..... so not really heresy.....just a fact.
My first gripe is about the name: 1858 Remington. The originals were the 1863 Remington NMA (.44)/NMN (.36). The replica community adopted the 1858 moniker only because of Beals' patent date of 1858.
The reasons that the US Army went for the Remington were 3-fold: Sam Colt was his own lobbyist with the Government, and Remington did not have viable competitor model for the Colt product until 1860 with the Remington-Beals revolver, which had its warts. Next came the successor 1861 Army/Navy revolver, but it still had its problems. Colt died in 1862, and probably never considered the Remington a real threat to his business. Colt charged the Army a very substantial amount for each of his guns. In 1863, Remington charged the Army considerably less for their revolver, which was very attractive to the bean counters of the day. Then, the Colt factory burned, and Colt's revolver supply dried up significantly.
I agree that the Remington solid top frame was a better design than the Colt open top frame, as evidenced by the Colt 1873 Model P revolver, which landed Colt's widow with large contracts. Remington tried to follow suit with its 1875 model, but still hung on to the somewhat percussion pistol look with a faux rib below the barrel. Remington's offering ended in 1889, while the Colt went on for very much longer.
"The Colt 1860 Army Revolver", Charles W. Pate is my source for most.
Regards,
Jim
