Hello friends--as a new owner of an Uberti Cimmaron NMA, I decided to do a little research about the history of this sixgun. In my reading, I was surprised to find references to some unhappiness with the revolver in the immediate post-Civil War frontier. This was surprising to me, as I am impressed by the efficency of the design, which I'm sure members here will concur has distinct advantages over the classic Colt pattern.
I refer specifically to a judgement in "Wild Bill Hickok, Gunfighter," by Joseph G. Rosa (a historian of some note and a leading authority of Wild Bill), that "although it looks stronger than the Colt 1860 Army, it was not as well made, accurate, or as reliable." He states this in the context of the incident in which Bill had his confrontation with a couple 7th Cavalry troopers. Apparently, Bill was saved by a misfire from a NMA. Rosa states that, "ordnance reports reveal that they were notorious for misfires or for blowing up on occasion."
Additionally, I read in the excellent reference, "Arming and Equipping the U.S. Cavalry," by Dusan P. Farrington (an exhaustive and detailed volume), "No adverse reports on the Colt revolver (1860 Army) have been found wheras complaint against the Remington is a matter of Ordnance Department record." He goes on in some detail with a litany of reports of the sixgun's failings.
This is surprising to me, as I have always thought that the original guns were at least as well made as the Colt equivalent. Am I missing something? Is it because the weapons issued post-1865 were tired out from Civil War service and had not been re-furbished?
Has anyone encountered these reports before, or had personal experience comparing the two? I ask the questions purely academically, though this venue is obviously for the Remington advocate. Not trying to start the old Colt/Remmie debate really, just expressing my surprise at finding this information.
I thank you all in advance for any thoughts or opinions.