Uberti Pocket Navy

Status
Not open for further replies.

mec

Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2002
Messages
4,588
attachment.php


They made about 18,000 of these and I haven't heard any good mayhem stories about them. This one had a rough action out of the box. We found out the hammer was blowing back and partially rotating the cylinder. Bates deepened the curve in the cam-side leg of the locking bolt delaying contact with the hammer cam. Now it is as smooth as you like.

attachment.php

Point of aim was center under the black squares and just under the four lower shots. The high shot is only one strike but the target was wrinkled. Sun was angling in from the left. Different conditions and I believe I remember it hits center. New. It shot about a foot high, prompting replacement of the front bead with a taller blade.
 
Last edited:
I have the 1862 .36 Pocket Police with the fluted cylinder. I never noticed the cylinder or stepped-down frame on the Pocket Navy. How does the frame size compare to the 1851 .36 Navy? Nic pics.
 
I have one of these -- just like in the picture. The hammer tended to rub up against the side of the cylinder cut-out, but other than that it works fine. Mine does shoot a little too high for my tastes though. Other than that it's a nice gun.
The frame on these are smaller than the .36 navy. More like the .31 caliber guns.
 
If RL Wilson is right, they made about 19,000 of the pocket police the are on the same frame as the Pocket Navy. Basically, the navy had the unfluetted cylinder and the loading lever of the .31 pocket model and the police had the "creeping" lever and round barrel of the 60 army. They were both on the 31 frame with a rebated and slightly enlarged five shot, cylinder.

The Pocket Navy used to be called the Pocket Navy of 1853 by collectors who made a lot of stuff up. It is actually a product of 1861-62 contemporary with the pocket police. The features were the same as the
60 army and the contemporary 61 navy. It was either a concession to nostalgia or an example of Colt's penchant for using available tooling and parts on hand. Cool little gun anyway and today's shooting made a slightly smaller group than we got with an original pocket police a few weeks ago. This probably means exactly nothing as the shooting is off-hand and subject to user error.

It is almost disgusting how much better I am able to shoot it than the same szd .31. It is just about as practically accurate as the full sized navies.
 
I think it was "The Outlaw Josie Wales" where Clint reached into his coat and pulled out what looked like a Pocket Navy or Pocket Police and finished off a bad guy. Anyone remember that scene?
 
Which is more accurate, the Pocket Police or the Pocket Navy? Although they're both quite similiar, I've read a few posts that state the Navy has a slight edge. I've saved up enough money to get one of these, I'm just waiting to find out if one is more accurate than the other. Also, are parts very difficult to come by (if you shoot c&b revolvers this question is always in there somewhere)?
 
Bates made the holster. He's not commercial
Which gun is most accurate would depend on the individual revolver. You might divide my group sizes by three to get an approximation of what they will do from a good rest. this is from a fairly wobbly rest and I believe Bates shot it.
attachment.php
 
"It shot about a foot high" is the norm for these pistols. The originals and their replicas are regulated to shoot point of aim/point of impact at 50 yds. They were not designed to be target shooters, they were designed as combat arms. Put up IDPA type targets at various ranges, hold center of mass and see how effective these guns are. You "point at the belt buckle" and at 20 - 25 yds you hit the heart area, at 50 you have a hit in the belly and set up for another round. It was a different way of gun fighting than the "one shot stop" (which is bs) that we think of today.
Enjoy it for what it was designed to do.
 
My Uberti pocket navy continues to have issues handling fired caps. I made all the modifications mec advised in his book, which improved it greatly, but didn't cure it. The main problem is a fired cap being blown backward off the nipple (replaced originals with Ampco) and falling down into the bottom of the hammer cut in front of the hammer where it acts as a hammer block. I even added a second, thin spring to the mainspring to increase the hammer tension to make it harder for the hammer to be blown back. Again, some improvement but still more than just an occasional problem. I'm only shooting 15 grain charges and have it in mind to increase the hammer tension a little more. My idea is if I can keep the hammer down on the cap as it fires, the cap can't blow back off the nipple.

I really love the little pistol other than that. I put a higher front sight on mine to make it shoot where it looks at about 15 yards.

Steve
 
I believe bates tried the ampco nipples and no joy. They did the trick on one of his navies. That prompted him to do the thing with the cam-side leg of the bolt. The hammer sill blows back, I'm sure but there hasnt been any problem with the fragment falling down and becomming a hammer block. The hammer will move back about 1/4th inch before the cylinder begins to move and this seems to have done the trick as far as smooth functioning goes.

Last week I was shooting those bullets and balls you cast into a light guage shop vac can. Up close, both would go through both sides and they would get through one side at 25 yards. This week, we shot the same can with a jukar philladelphi derringer. .44 bullet and charges of 15 and 30 grains of goex. The ball would get kind of flat and just bounce off so, I'm a bit more impressed with the .31
 
look up Percussion Pistols and Revolvers on Amazon.com. If you read all the reviews, you should get a pretty good idea whether you want it or not. Its available there or from other online book sellers or can be ordered by your local book store.
 
If things work out, there will be another one in a few months. Some of the passages will be familar to readers of the first book but it will quickly become evident that it is extensively re-written and expanded. The manuscript is submitted. This one will be focused on revolvers with more models covered, more loads and load variations, more history. This time, I've set up the pictures to cover one half page to a full page, mostly eliminated the cutesie cantebury font and made the lettering on the graphics larger. There is an appendix of sources for guns, parts and loading components. Several people thought that was needed. I was reluctant to put it in the first book because industry shifts will make it obsolete fairly soon.
It will also go for a (expensive) line edit to get the spelling and punctuating right. The word count is higher and I believe it will be thicker- though there aren't as many illustrations.
Since it is an assisted self publishing effort, there is nothing more I can do about the low-tech, black and white illustrations. I will try to stress that It is Not a picture book and those wanting a coffee table volume will be better off with R.L Willson or something from Krause Publications.

The one in circulation now has seen some steady custom in England and at least blipped the charts in Germany, France, Canada and Japan. I heard from a guy in Hungary who bought one last month. It's been picked up by the Smithsonian Library-probably because it is pretentious enough to have an index and bibliography. I did a search there and found they had titles by Keith, Askins and Cooper but nothing much else from the gun press for the last thirty years.
 
Mec. I know you are reluctant to do a lot of horn blowing about your book on these forums. I would ask, however, that you post a thread when the second one becomes available so we all can get one ordered.

There's another guy around here with a book on the way. How about it Gary, how can we get one?

Steve
 
It will be announced. I'm not all that reluctant as every time I've mentioned it here, a few more of them sell

Gary's book will be about flintlocks and I expect to learn a lot from it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top