CraigC
Sixgun Nut
I like the R&S and wish I'd gotten one when they were available new. Have no regard for the Ruger whatsoever.
Uberti va Pietta
- Thread starter ironcharlie
- Start date
- Status
Navy Six 2
Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2017
- Messages
- 196
I stupidly passed up a NIB Euroarms Rogers & Spencer at a recent gun show. Bet I won't let that happen again. I shot one of mine again today. Weather was nice for a few hours and I didn't want to waste the opportunity.
I have a question for those who own ((((( Current Production ))))))) 1858 New Model Army and Navy Revolvers of both Uberti and Pietta makes.
What kind of accuracy are you getting out them. One the the pitfalls I see in a lot of these youtube videos is not identifying the make and production date of their New Model Army and Navy revolvers. Without that information the video is useless for anyone interested in knowing what kind of accuracy to expect from what they are interested in. I put an emphasis on current production because of the greater consistency ??? due to CNC machines while older made guns from what I heard varied greatly in quality.
These videos often lack information about how many yards away from the target they are shooting as well as the powder type, charge, and projectile used.
One thing that troubles me is the official Uberti 2017 bore specs list the bore of the their .44 cal black powder guns as .440 and the groove as .458 while the cylinders are .450 (from website that sells modern Uberti spare cylinders.) I figure reaming the cylinder would make for very thin walls and an oversize caliber (.458 to .460 greater than .457) that would be hard to find. In practice do they work fine anyway ? Would reaming the chamber wider but still under .458 make a difference or is it a waste of time and effort ?
Another thought is since the .36 caliber Navy uses the same cylinder and barrel but bored to a smaller diameter (bore .360 groove .379 with .370 cylinder chambers) fixing those by reaming the cylinder chambers may not be a problem at all since there is more metal to work with. Any thoughts.
Are the newer made 1858 New Model Army revolvers harder to make more accurate than the older ones ?
I am not up on ((((((Current Pietta)))))) barrel and cylinder specs can anyone chime in ?
I am also interested in the differences between the $900.00 Pietta shooters model barrel and cylinder specs. I have read they are different (larger chambers) aside from better fit, finish, trigger pull, and action. Is the shooters model able to handle stout loads or is it limited to mild loads ? Is the steel hardened everywhere or on the pressure bearing parts ? Is it all made of mild steel ? How does it compare to lets say a standard revolver re barreled and modified into a competition gun by a gunsmith such as Hahn or other.
Does Uberti make an equivalent competition gun like the Pietta shooters model ?
What kind of accuracy are you getting out them. One the the pitfalls I see in a lot of these youtube videos is not identifying the make and production date of their New Model Army and Navy revolvers. Without that information the video is useless for anyone interested in knowing what kind of accuracy to expect from what they are interested in. I put an emphasis on current production because of the greater consistency ??? due to CNC machines while older made guns from what I heard varied greatly in quality.
These videos often lack information about how many yards away from the target they are shooting as well as the powder type, charge, and projectile used.
One thing that troubles me is the official Uberti 2017 bore specs list the bore of the their .44 cal black powder guns as .440 and the groove as .458 while the cylinders are .450 (from website that sells modern Uberti spare cylinders.) I figure reaming the cylinder would make for very thin walls and an oversize caliber (.458 to .460 greater than .457) that would be hard to find. In practice do they work fine anyway ? Would reaming the chamber wider but still under .458 make a difference or is it a waste of time and effort ?
Another thought is since the .36 caliber Navy uses the same cylinder and barrel but bored to a smaller diameter (bore .360 groove .379 with .370 cylinder chambers) fixing those by reaming the cylinder chambers may not be a problem at all since there is more metal to work with. Any thoughts.
Are the newer made 1858 New Model Army revolvers harder to make more accurate than the older ones ?
I am not up on ((((((Current Pietta)))))) barrel and cylinder specs can anyone chime in ?
I am also interested in the differences between the $900.00 Pietta shooters model barrel and cylinder specs. I have read they are different (larger chambers) aside from better fit, finish, trigger pull, and action. Is the shooters model able to handle stout loads or is it limited to mild loads ? Is the steel hardened everywhere or on the pressure bearing parts ? Is it all made of mild steel ? How does it compare to lets say a standard revolver re barreled and modified into a competition gun by a gunsmith such as Hahn or other.
Does Uberti make an equivalent competition gun like the Pietta shooters model ?
Last edited:
I have both, a Uberti 1862 Pocket Police, and was not happy at all in the beginning. Now that it has been modified (cap rake ) and some a/m nipples and repair, it is finally a good shooter.
I have had the Pietta Pocket and am very happy with it. It gets shot almost weekly and is very dependable.
My most recent is the Pietta Remington known as the 1858 Remington in 36 cal. With the 6 1/2 in barrel. So far I am impressed with it's consistency.
I think it just comes down to what model you want and who has the best price JMO.
I have had the Pietta Pocket and am very happy with it. It gets shot almost weekly and is very dependable.
My most recent is the Pietta Remington known as the 1858 Remington in 36 cal. With the 6 1/2 in barrel. So far I am impressed with it's consistency.
I think it just comes down to what model you want and who has the best price JMO.
Standard disclaimer: I am not telling anyone to do this. This information is for reference use only and anyone who does this does so at their own risk and is responsible for any outcomes good or bad.
In my opinion these should be able to group 1 to 3 inches at 25 to 50 yards and hit targets effectively at 75 to 100 yards They should also be capable of handling stout charges with both round balls and moderate weight conicals effectively and with accuracy. Although they are not rifles I don't think these were originally made with 6 feet to 7 yard point blank shooting in mind if they went through the trouble of putting gain twist rifling in them. The barrel is 7 to 8 inches long too.
I just read somewhere Pietta Shooters model 1858 Rem has thinner chamber walls and is shallower (about 1/10 of an inch shallower) holding less powder. Cylinder chambers are .458 ("maybe even .460" as per owner who wrote about it) and they are a match for groove diameter of barrel. The cylinder which was purchased in late November 2015 is a perfect drop in fit in a standard Pietta but the purchaser of the cylinder expressed concerns about using stouter loads and heavy conicals. The groove diameter of his Standard 1858 Piettas (he has two) was .450 and .453 so thats at least .005 to .008 over groove diameter which is a lot. He decided it was not for him but was glad to have tried and pleased to be able to share the information with other forum members.
I know current Uberti 1858 Rem cylinders drop into current Piettas and index fine (from what I know) but are a little too short leaving an excessively wide cylinder to forcing cone gap. These Pietta shooters model cylinders seem to have the right diameter for standard Uberti barrels. I wonder if a Pietta shooters model cylinder can have the front shortened by rubbing it down on a flat coarse diamond hone until it fits in a Uberti frame. Theoretically I think it should work but I have not heard of anyone trying it. Those thin cylinder walls trouble me though.
I understand the originals had tapered chambers somewhat cone shaped which would mean thicker walls towards the rear of the cylinder unlike the replicas which are bored the same size all the way. Maybe pressure management was the reason ? They say original cap and ball revolvers of the 19th century have the chambers matched to the groove to groove measurements (about .452 I think ?)
I am thinking that reaming .44 calibers only to the depth you plan on seating your projectile of choice with the intention of doing is as shallow as possible keeping away from those locking notches whatever the case would be the way to go if one must do this on a .44.
Now with the current production .36 caliber 1858 navy revolvers both Uberti or Pietta reaming that cylinder to proper width should be no problem at all. I would have a preference for stopping short of the locking notch but with all the steel on the .36 it probably wouldn't matter if you didn't.
Any thoughts ?
Standard disclaimer: I am not telling anyone to do this. This information is for reference use only and anyone who does this does so at their own risk and is responsible for any outcomes good or bad.
In my opinion these should be able to group 1 to 3 inches at 25 to 50 yards and hit targets effectively at 75 to 100 yards They should also be capable of handling stout charges with both round balls and moderate weight conicals effectively and with accuracy. Although they are not rifles I don't think these were originally made with 6 feet to 7 yard point blank shooting in mind if they went through the trouble of putting gain twist rifling in them. The barrel is 7 to 8 inches long too.
I just read somewhere Pietta Shooters model 1858 Rem has thinner chamber walls and is shallower (about 1/10 of an inch shallower) holding less powder. Cylinder chambers are .458 ("maybe even .460" as per owner who wrote about it) and they are a match for groove diameter of barrel. The cylinder which was purchased in late November 2015 is a perfect drop in fit in a standard Pietta but the purchaser of the cylinder expressed concerns about using stouter loads and heavy conicals. The groove diameter of his Standard 1858 Piettas (he has two) was .450 and .453 so thats at least .005 to .008 over groove diameter which is a lot. He decided it was not for him but was glad to have tried and pleased to be able to share the information with other forum members.
I know current Uberti 1858 Rem cylinders drop into current Piettas and index fine (from what I know) but are a little too short leaving an excessively wide cylinder to forcing cone gap. These Pietta shooters model cylinders seem to have the right diameter for standard Uberti barrels. I wonder if a Pietta shooters model cylinder can have the front shortened by rubbing it down on a flat coarse diamond hone until it fits in a Uberti frame. Theoretically I think it should work but I have not heard of anyone trying it. Those thin cylinder walls trouble me though.
I understand the originals had tapered chambers somewhat cone shaped which would mean thicker walls towards the rear of the cylinder unlike the replicas which are bored the same size all the way. Maybe pressure management was the reason ? They say original cap and ball revolvers of the 19th century have the chambers matched to the groove to groove measurements (about .452 I think ?)
I am thinking that reaming .44 calibers only to the depth you plan on seating your projectile of choice with the intention of doing is as shallow as possible keeping away from those locking notches whatever the case would be the way to go if one must do this on a .44.
Now with the current production .36 caliber 1858 navy revolvers both Uberti or Pietta reaming that cylinder to proper width should be no problem at all. I would have a preference for stopping short of the locking notch but with all the steel on the .36 it probably wouldn't matter if you didn't.
Any thoughts ?
Standard disclaimer: I am not telling anyone to do this. This information is for reference use only and anyone who does this does so at their own risk and is responsible for any outcomes good or bad.
Last edited:
Interesting thread. Does anyone know or has anyone recently bought a pietta 1860 from Cabela's? I have a nice Pietta made 1860 army 44 that I think needs a twin. I've bought BP revolvers from Cabela's before and gotten good quality from them but am wondering if they are still sending out good quality revolvers?
Tommygunn
Member
Pietta makes very good revolvers - - - in general I think the quality is better now than in years past. Keep in mind all companies turn out some lemons. Some people think Piettas need fine tuning out of the box, and for their purposes maybe they're right, but 99.9% work well from the factory. Cabelas should make any problems you might encounter right if you do get unlucky.
LonesomePigeon
Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2015
- Messages
- 497
grtr, my Pietta Shooter's Model made in 2017 has two little hardness test marks on the front face of the cylinder so perhaps they are heat treated. I also have an older Shooter's from the 1990's and a Deluxe(basically a Shooter's but specially marked for Navy Arms) from the 1980's and neither of them have hardness test marks. I have shot them all with up to 35 grains of 3f. I do believe all of them have a step in the bottom of the chambers making them not so thin at the locking notches.
One other thing, according to Dixie Gun Works catalog the Old Silver Pietta 1858 has .452" chambers and .452" grooves but it does not have progressive twist rifling. I think they run about $400. Double check me on those dimensions but I think it is true.
One other thing, according to Dixie Gun Works catalog the Old Silver Pietta 1858 has .452" chambers and .452" grooves but it does not have progressive twist rifling. I think they run about $400. Double check me on those dimensions but I think it is true.
TTv2
Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 4,989
No, both companies can make good ones and bad ones.
30 years ago, Uberti probably had an edge on Pietta, but Pietta is making fine percussion revolvers now. I have three of them and only one, the 1851 had to get exchanged because the latch for the loading lever wasn't done correctly (too loose a fit with the loading lever) and I knew if I shot it, the loading lever would fall down each time.
IMO, if you buy the 1851, 1858, or 1860 from either company, you're getting a good product in return. It's the more uncommon stuff from Pietta like the 1863 Pocket, Lemat, etc. that I think you're more likely to run into issues as they don't make as many of those models in the Pietta factory as they do the others.
Thanks for the input guys, good info. I already have 3 Pietta revolvers from the early 2000's production, (two 1858 Remington's, 1 with the 8 inch barrel and the other with the 5 1/2 in barrel; and I have an 1860 army). But who can stop with just 3 right? It''s good to know that Pietta hasn't changed over the years
arcticap
Member
Two reports of minor defects this past week.
The 1st was an unfired Traditions Pietta 1851 steel frame purchased from his local gun shop within the past 5 months.
He went to shoot it for the 1st time over the weekend and the hand spring is suddenly broken.
He called Traditions on Monday, they told him to send it in to them and that the turn around time for the warranty repair would be two weeks.
He also shot two unfired brassers purchased in the last 5 months which worked without any problems which I assume were new Piettas [models unkown].
Old South Firearms has steel frame Traditions Pietta 1860 Colts for $271.00 Vs. Cabela's at $279.99.
There's no free shipping from Old South but you do get a 1 year Traditions warranty [sound familiar?].--->>> http://www.oldsouthfirearms.com/traditions1860coltarmyrevolversteelframeblackpowder.aspx
The 2nd report was about an Uberti 1861 purchased from Dixie.
The 1st time he went to shoot it last week he discovered that one nipple was too short to fire the chamber off.
After swapping the nipple into another chamber it still wouldn't work.
He said that he didn't dry fire it or damage the nipple, it just looked shorter than the others.
Appears to be a defective nipple right out of the box.
The 1st was an unfired Traditions Pietta 1851 steel frame purchased from his local gun shop within the past 5 months.
He went to shoot it for the 1st time over the weekend and the hand spring is suddenly broken.
He called Traditions on Monday, they told him to send it in to them and that the turn around time for the warranty repair would be two weeks.
He also shot two unfired brassers purchased in the last 5 months which worked without any problems which I assume were new Piettas [models unkown].
Old South Firearms has steel frame Traditions Pietta 1860 Colts for $271.00 Vs. Cabela's at $279.99.
There's no free shipping from Old South but you do get a 1 year Traditions warranty [sound familiar?].--->>> http://www.oldsouthfirearms.com/traditions1860coltarmyrevolversteelframeblackpowder.aspx
The 2nd report was about an Uberti 1861 purchased from Dixie.
The 1st time he went to shoot it last week he discovered that one nipple was too short to fire the chamber off.
After swapping the nipple into another chamber it still wouldn't work.
He said that he didn't dry fire it or damage the nipple, it just looked shorter than the others.
Appears to be a defective nipple right out of the box.
Last edited:
Olon
Member
I'm not the expert but from what I've read and seen, Ubertis typically have a nicer finish. For example, Piettas will have all sorts of stuff stamped on the barrel like "BLACK POWDER USE ONLY", "PIETTA", etc. The Ubertis I've seen have stamps like that but they are hidden under the loading lever and more discrete. Makes it look a little more realistic, I guess. It doesn't really bother me, though. I have a Pietta and it functions perfectly and is pretty to boot. The trigger is very nice and the action feels plenty tight.
woodnbow
Member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2007
- Messages
- 2,085
Me either but side by side with the original guns Uberti looks like a closer copy. That and the quality of the fit and finish is what sold me on the brand. Pietta has really stepped up in quality but the dimensions aren’t as close to the original to this day.
What is it with these almost razor sharp edges on the plate of the trigger guard especially the front near the screw hole. You really have to watch it when you take apart a new one. I recommend file touch up to correct any knife like edges that lurk around 90 degree cuts, and the front of the trigger guard that is ground almost like a flat grind knife. I think this is on both Piettas and Ubertis. Are there people in these Italian factories grinning and honing razor edges into the brass while they wonder what surprises may await those that take them apart for the 1st time. I think quick mass production and less human intervention is really he culprit but I think it's a good joke.
Last edited:
351 WINCHESTER
Member
Uberti fits my hand better & overall is a better gun. Pietta has come a long way, but Uberti is still better.
- Status
