Nice! How long are those barrels?
Favorite 1862 Pocket Police?
- Thread starter ClemBert
- Start date
- Status
Nice! How long are those barrels?
Brad_Bradsher
Member
My Uberti '62 along with its ASM older brother...
Brad_Bradsher
Member
I, too, am interested in getting a 3.5" barrel to go with my Uberti pictured above...question for Goon, can you fix the two barrels so that they interchange, but the arbor properly bottoms out on both? I know he gets the arbor to bottom out by adjusting arbor length, not the arbor hole in the barrel...
Brad_Bradsher
Member
Ahh man, I just taked to the Goon, and he shims the arbor hole to meet the arbor...so no problem fitting a 3.5" AND the original 5.5" barrel to the same base 1862. Sooo $123.50 to Taylor's for the 3.5 barrel, a check to Mike, plan on loading using the lever on the 5.5 to ram balls and then swapping on the 3.5 to shoot...and we'd have a "rented mule"-tuned '62 with a choice of barrel lengths. Was kinda hoping this wouldn't work so easily, now I'm gonna obsess about this until I get out the checkbook!
TTv2
Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 5,001
Besides the smaller size and lower weight, the 3.5" barrel is really what sold me on the 1862 Police. I still think the barrel is about an inch longer than I'd like, but it's unlike anything else out there for percussion revolvers. Yeah, you could probably get an 1851 or 1860 and chop the barrel down, but the frame and grip are so large that it makes them look goofy. The 1862 with a 3 inch barrel never looks goofy no matter what the barrel length is.
Brad_Bradsher
Member
I agree. The "Detective Special" of 1862. If I had the $, I'd be tempted by the Cimarron .380 with the 3.5 incher...
TTv2
Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 5,001
I asked recently if the barrels (and cylinders) of the Uberti 1849 Pocket were able to be used on the 1862 and the answer was yes. So, if you wanted, you could buy a .31 caliber 1849 barrel and the .32 S&W conversion cylinder for the 1849 Pocket and use it on the 1862.
Yeah, .32 S&W is weak, but you'll still have the percussion capability. The .380 Cimarron has none of that capability.
Sistema1927
Member
Hmmm, I have a '49 with a conversion cylinder. I might just need to try this with my '62.
Gordon
Member
I have a wells fargo 1849 with a conversion and mostly shoot .32acp , although I do shoot .32 S&W also. I couldn't stand the .31 balls , was always fiddling with it and had cap jamming problems if I didn't watch it. With the conversion I got 5 easy shots 
TTv2
Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 5,001
If you do, please tell us your results. While I'm not likely to bother, I'm interested nonetheless in the results.
TTv2
Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 5,001
.32 ACP? You're a brave man shooting a copper jacketed bullet in that high a pressure in a conversion cylinder meant for the low pressure .32 S&W with lead bullets.I have a wells fargo 1849 with a conversion and mostly shoot .32acp , although I do shoot .32 S&W also. I couldn't stand the .31 balls , was always fiddling with it and had cap jamming problems if I didn't watch it. With the conversion I got 5 easy shots
When I was considering the 1863 Pietta Pocket years ago, I had asked the conversion cylinder manufacturer if .32 S&W Long wadcutters would be okay to shoot in it as they're pretty low pressure and could likely be chambered since they're short enough. I just wanted to be able to shoot cheaper ammo as .32 Long wadcutter is a lot cheaper and more available than .32 S&W is.
BTW, the manufacturer said no (of course) and after a while I just gave up on the idea of the 1863. Now, I think the NAA companion with the 4 inch barrel is a better choice and higher quality.
Unfortunately, mine was lost in "the great gun burglary." I had an 1862 (of course, a reproduction) that had a lot of rounds through it.
It was a brass frame 6.5" model. One of the things I liked about it was that it used a very simple barrel wedge (no spring in it like on my 1860). I was able to pres out, and reinsert, the wedge easily by hand. It made for quick cylinder swaps.
If I were to replace it . . . okay, when I replace it . . . I think I will go for a 5.5" barrel. I might even consider the 4.5". I am more interested in it as a lite trail pistol, and plinker, that anything else. The 6.5" barrel always seemed a bit long on that particular gun.
It was a brass frame 6.5" model. One of the things I liked about it was that it used a very simple barrel wedge (no spring in it like on my 1860). I was able to pres out, and reinsert, the wedge easily by hand. It made for quick cylinder swaps.
If I were to replace it . . . okay, when I replace it . . . I think I will go for a 5.5" barrel. I might even consider the 4.5". I am more interested in it as a lite trail pistol, and plinker, that anything else. The 6.5" barrel always seemed a bit long on that particular gun.
I think I'm leaning toward the 5.5"....I'm thinking 4.5" takes a bit too much off of this elegant design. The 6.5" sure gives it that slender look but like you said it may be a bit long. If anyone has any more pics of their 1862 pocket police please post them.
Gordon
Member
I gave away my 6.5 " 1862 Navy Pietta, which worked OK to a friend for his 65 birthday last month. He just installed my new bought LED florescent tubes which required rewiring and eliminating the ballasts in a couple 4 tube fixtures I paid with a pound of FFF , 100 csaps, 100 .380 balls and a small brass powder measure.
I kept my pretty 5.5" Uberti Police and the length is perfect; long loading lever (which you don't get on 4.5") , compact enough (yeah the 1849 3.5" Wells is quite a bit smaller) but the 5.5" seems to hit hard and has a good sight radius , superb balance !
I kept my pretty 5.5" Uberti Police and the length is perfect; long loading lever (which you don't get on 4.5") , compact enough (yeah the 1849 3.5" Wells is quite a bit smaller) but the 5.5" seems to hit hard and has a good sight radius , superb balance !
- Status
