New Uberti Pocket Navy with tight and long arbor

Status
Not open for further replies.
Denster,
Well I should have known you'd know more than me!! Lol!!

A search for parts though shows Numrich Gun Parts has replacement parts for Pietta Walkers! They list New bolts, hammers, trigger/bolt spring screws and new and used hands! Whoda thunk?!!!
Or, maybe they have a heads up on what Pietta will be selling in the future!!?

Oooops.

Mike
 
45 Dragoon said:
Denster,
Well I should have known you'd know more than me!! Lol!!

A search for parts though shows Numrich Gun Parts has replacement parts for Pietta Walkers! They list New bolts, hammers, trigger/bolt spring screws and new and used hands! Whoda thunk?!!!
Or, maybe they have a heads up on what Pietta will be selling in the future!!?

Oooops.

Mike
Click to expand...
Well I'm glad you realize it! LOL Seriously just having a bit of fun with you. As to Numrich they also list parts for the Pietta 1862 police which Pietta never made. I note that they have no listing for Palmetto at all. I'm guessing someone there screwed up because Pietta never made any Walkers Dragoons or 1862 police revolvers.
 
Well I know one thing . . . . . . . if they made one, . . . . . . . I could tune the heck out of it !!!:rofl:

Mike
 
After reading some old threads on prefered gaps and going to a different hardware store for different washers, I got my gap to around 0.002". So it's the nut and 0.008" or washers and 0.002". I measured the gap on my Pietta 1851 and out of the box it was 0.002" and i haven't had any problem with fouling, so i think i'll give this gap a go on the Pocket. The only real unknown is how much load is being taken by the shims and how much is being taken by the Uberti arbor shoulder? I'll see how it behaves next time i go shooting. I already know that 0.008" seemed fine, but knowing that I had no problems with my 1851, it seems like you'd want a tighter gap if there weren't any problems associated with it. Thanks all again for the discussions and help!
 
mh, I generally set mine between .0025" - .003". Something else you can do is to break the outside edge of the forcing cone and polish the f.c. with some 320 or 400 grit sandpaper and your thumb. Also wouldn't hurt to make sure the cylinder face is flat and smooth. At least check the chamber edges and break any high areas. You'd be surprised how much that will help convince a cylinder to turn!

Mike
 
Thanks, Mike! I'm going to try and make a better shim to get me to around 0.003" this weekend. I've got some various thin shim-stock so I figure sandwich that between the two washers and solder it together (and record the exact thickness in case I lose it!). good idea about the edges and the flat end of the cylinder. Really, on the Uberti, it's all pretty surprisingly poor, especially compared to my Pietta 1851 which seems like every edge has been attended to already (not to further go down the Pietta vs Uberti path!) but since the Pietta is so smooth and has given no problems or even showing any signs of cone to cylinder wear, I'm not touching that gun, even with its small gap ("if it aint broke!), in comparison to the Uberti which will have needed every flat and edge worked on just to get it to work reliably... but in the end, im kind of feeling more attached to it because of it! I guess the "luck of the draw" got me a kind of substandard Uberti... but still, thinking I'd like to get an 1862 Pocket Police model next... :)
 
Accidentally came up with a super easy solution to the shim thing. Needed to add some more thickness to the two brass washers I had, so I cut a piece of 0.01" shim stock and put it in the hole. Ended up with the washers going in first with the shim stock on top, but since I had just rough cut the shim stock with scissors, it had some pointy oversized parts and when the arbor pushed it into place, it is there, holding the washers and not moving and not budging without some effort. Also cosmetically invisible. Honestly, without having a machine shop, I think this is probably about the easiest and most effective fix for these short arbored Ubertis!
 
Haha! I'm thinking this lo-tech approach is more precise than wadded up tinfoil! :)

Two washers weren't enough and three washers was too much, so I got shim stock that was half the thickness of a washer and added it to two washers. The gap now is around 0.004" which is think is fine.

Plus, it happened mostly by accident. Was just putting the washer and shim stock in to do a gap measurement, but then couldn't get it out! It really seems like it won't come out without some real effort (either using an etching point or maybe a tiny drop of super glue on the end of the arbor)... then I checked the gap, decided it was good and that the shim not coming out was what I wanted!

Loose shims (etc.) are a pain when they fall out in the field while clearing a jam or while cleaning.

After stumbling on this elegantly simple fix, I'm less concerned about buying other Ubertis with the same problem.

(And yeah, the "real" fixes shown on the internet are way better, but when you don't have a machine shop, you gotta use what you have. This took just a pair of junk scissors to cut the brass shim stock.)
 
Shooting the gun this weekend, it turned out that the cylinder had two high spots. Started binding, so I honed it flat with a sharpening stone. Now there's no bluing on the face, but it cycles smoothly.

Also, i sighted it in a bit and my shots are reasonable. Still not as i get with my 1851... guess the longer barrel, bigger grip and heavier weight really helps!
 
Gee, I just found this doing a quick search about the amount of cylinder gap:

"cylinder gap

Consistency in the gap from one chamber to the next will be more important than the overall gap itself unless you have a ridiculously wide gap. A black powder revolver should have a gap between 0.006 and 0.010 inch. At 0.012 inch it will start spitting. Less than 0.006 and it may bind up due to fouling." --->>> Post #3 --->>> https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/cylinder-gap-and-accuracy.319317/

I makes me wonder if your gap was too tight due to not being able to remove the shim.
If you could have reduced the shim by the amount of material that was removed from the cylinder, then that might have been preferable to altering an expensive factory part.
I understand how it happened, but still feel bad for you.
Hindsight is 20/20.
A curse on Uberti. ;)
 
The face wasn't flat. I don't think having a variable gap would make for consistant shooting... or maybe it wouldn't matter much, I don't know. It was already showing a little wear where the high point rubbed against the cone.

I could have added more shim material and pushed the gap out more, but the non-planar cylinder condition bugged me. :)

Yeah, looks like your's now, 44 Dave. :)
 
So two people in that thread say that truing up the surface of the cylinder was the right thing to do, even if it meant removing the bluing. I bought the gun to shoot, so whatever it takes. Hindsight, I probably should have exchanged the gun for a better one, but too late for that and returning things mail order is kind of a pain.
 
But for the record, honing the face of the cylinder flat, while being something you shouldn't have to do with a brand new gun, hardly destroys the aesthetics of it. Plus I'm sure the steel will darken with age here.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20181107_074553.jpg
    IMG_20181107_074553.jpg
    74.1 KB · Views: 10
It was wrong and probably backwards for me to say that material could have been removed from the shim instead of added.
I don't think that you did anything wrong and should set the gap to your choice.
Even 45 Dragoon mentioned setting a tight gap.
However you could have kept the M2.5 nut as a shim and had a gap of .008 as some folks recommend.
I have a feeling that they like to more closely copy the originals and some folks do complain about binding during cowboy matches with some guns.
Perhaps binding also depends on which powder is used or the caliber and model of the gun.

For instance, in one thread makos_goods believes that the ideal cylinder gap should be set at .008 - .010 after which other mating surfaces can be corrected.
He describes a pretty complicated fitting process, but his post is interesting even with the CAD drawings missing.
His post is #24 but the whole thread is a good read:--->>> https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...linder-gap-on-a-colt-type-bp-revolver.588340/

You did it to your spec's better than I could have done and I respect that.
You wanted to closely copy your Pietta gap and succeeded.
Every gun is like an individual.
If you're happy then I'm happy for you.
 
Last edited:
Actually, I did try increasing the gap by increasing the shimming material, but with the "potato chip" surface of the cylinder, just the pressure from the hand during cocking was wearing at the bluing, so it just seemed better to make the surface flat. Part of why I wanted to avoid a more permanent shimming approach was that i wanted to keep the ability of adjusting the gap until I was really certain i knew what I wanted it to be!

Thanks!
 
Ok, I lay out my thoughts of how these setups can be obtained and "it is what it is". If you think another way of arriving at the same " goal" is as good or better, jump on it.
If .008"-.012" clearance (it's not a gap) is good enough for you, that's great! I personally think that that revolver won't last as long as one with a .0025" clearance. There's a reason for my tight clearances and that is the same as every well built machine, which is -close tollerance/tight clearances. The same thought process is used buy Magnum Research and Freedom Arms. I consider F.A. to be the ultimate in S.A. arms today. That's where my "numbers" come from. I knew they were closer/tighter than everything I had read, but that is where I was going. So far, I think I have been right. Folks seem to enjoy shooting the S.A.s they get back from me and there haven't been any real problems to speak of. I just heard from one CASS shooter that a particular pair of Remington's with a fully coil sprung action went through a 2 day match (10 stages and 4 stages) with no more than a wipe down of the exterior and he said they were flawless and he shot a clean 2 day match. I figure accurate actions with close tollerances and perfect timing do amount to something.
I could be wrong but I'll keep doing what I've been trained to do and instilling my own thoughts on what I've observed from high end producers as to what needs to be done to the Italian offerings. You'll end up with excellent, reliable, precision tools that perform like you think they should. And they'll do it again tomorrow, next week, next mo. . . . . That's the goal.

This isn't a rant or any thing of the sort, I just want to let some "newer to the party" folks know what, where, and why I do what I do. If you know a better way, thats awesome, tell us about it . . . I'm all about learning!! I figure if you're done learning, then you're done . . . .

Mike
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

stephen cockerham
  • Locked
1851 Navy arbor
Replies
15
Views
872
stephen cockerham
stephen cockerham
white smoke
  • Locked
My Uberti short arbor fix
Replies
18
Views
1K
dickydalton
dickydalton
V
Can I shoot my new Cimarron/Uberti 1851 Navy even though it has a short arbor?
2
Replies
42
Views
991
Ugly Sauce
Ugly Sauce
expat_alaska
  • Locked
Uberti Whitneyville Dragoon To Walker Conversion
Replies
6
Views
640
skeeterfogger
S
expat_alaska
  • Locked
Uberti Whitneyville Dragoon .44
Replies
8
Views
1K
Tommygunn
Tommygunn
Back
Top