Why did Uberti leave out the loading lever on the 1873 BP Cattleman?
- Thread starter piettakid
- Start date
- Status
Sistema1927
Member
I would say that it is due to the fact that they want it to look like the cartridge pistol.
Shanghai McCoy
Member
Yep, this way folks in the europeon countries who can't own a cartridge pistol can at least own and shoot a Colt(ish) revolver.
I think so too but it's still stupid. 1858s have a loading lever and still look a lot like a cartridge gun. Uberti gave up a lot to gain a little.
Arkansas Paul
Member
That is a matter of opinion. It depends on what you want.
Some want it to look like a SAA.
It looks a lot like a cartridge gun because the 1875 Remington looks a lot like the 1858.
The 1873 SAA looks nothing whatsoever like the Colt cap and ball revolvers.
I get it if you don't like a particular model.
But it is not stupid. What would be stupid would be putting a loading lever on a revolver and calling it a model 1873.
If you want a loading lever, get an 1851, 1861 or 1860. Or a Dragood or Walker or 1849 pocket pistol. There are plenty to choose from.
Carl N. Brown
Member
Is there a cartridge conversion cylinder for the Uberti?
OK. Checked out revolver itself listed at the Taylor Firearms site. It's obviously designed and intended to appeal to fans of the Colt Peacemaker.
OK. Checked out revolver itself listed at the Taylor Firearms site. It's obviously designed and intended to appeal to fans of the Colt Peacemaker.
Last edited:
Fingers McGee
Member
Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding. we have a winner. thread over.
Arkansas Paul
Member
You are aware that you are not required to purchase one aren't you?
The gun would have to be completely re-engineered to accept a loading lever, there's not even space for a cut out to insert a ball.
The revolver was designed for sale in Europe and other countries that have laws and regulations that unlike the United States don't allow "ordinary people" to own metallic cartridge pistols. However cap & ball guns are an exception - and probably the only one.
Shooting is restricted to designated shooting ranges. The owner of one of these SSA style/C&B guns can go to a range with a bench-top cylinder loader and load the chambers using it. The one on the revolver is for appearance's only.
American importers have brought them into the USA for sale to those who want an SAA type handgun, but perhaps only for display or live in those states that mimic laws that are similar to what is likely found in Europe.
The owners are far from stupid, it's just that they have to make do considering the circumstances they have to live under.
Shooting is restricted to designated shooting ranges. The owner of one of these SSA style/C&B guns can go to a range with a bench-top cylinder loader and load the chambers using it. The one on the revolver is for appearance's only.
American importers have brought them into the USA for sale to those who want an SAA type handgun, but perhaps only for display or live in those states that mimic laws that are similar to what is likely found in Europe.
The owners are far from stupid, it's just that they have to make do considering the circumstances they have to live under.
Blackpowdershooter44
Member
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2016
- Messages
- 406
You calling me stupid? Lol I know what you mean, the design doesn't really make sense per say, but as said before this is the closest the folks in europe can get to a 1873 SAA. And I got to say, they are a lot of fun to shoot!
kBob
Member
As of yet there are no conversion cylinders......and they are made so such would be more difficult than say a Ruger Old Army, Remington New Army, or Colt 1860 BECAUSE that's the way the market in Europe wanted them.
I have considered one more than once. The prices have however gotten even higher than when they first appeared.
A LOT of people load off the gun on "normal" C&B revolvers for a number of reasons. I load off gun on my little Remington .31 "1863" because the loading lever linkage is notoriously weak. Others do so because with a good machine it is actually easier and more importantly more consistant in loading each chamber the same way, so more accurate.
If you don't like the way the Euro-faux 1973 loads, jump in your time machine and go back almost two decades and tell those Italians not to do it. Seems a lot of work, building a time machine just to get laughed at in Italian though......
-kBob
I have considered one more than once. The prices have however gotten even higher than when they first appeared.
A LOT of people load off the gun on "normal" C&B revolvers for a number of reasons. I load off gun on my little Remington .31 "1863" because the loading lever linkage is notoriously weak. Others do so because with a good machine it is actually easier and more importantly more consistant in loading each chamber the same way, so more accurate.
If you don't like the way the Euro-faux 1973 loads, jump in your time machine and go back almost two decades and tell those Italians not to do it. Seems a lot of work, building a time machine just to get laughed at in Italian though......
-kBob
45 Dragoon
Member
- Joined
- May 18, 2013
- Messages
- 2,772
They work really good though!!
I tuned one to be a C&B match to my El Patron! Worked rather nicely!! It was of Uberti manufacture.
(Not many C&B El Patrons out there!!)
Mike
www.goonsgunworks.com
Follow me on Instagram @ goonsgunworks
I tuned one to be a C&B match to my El Patron! Worked rather nicely!! It was of Uberti manufacture.
(Not many C&B El Patrons out there!!)
Mike
www.goonsgunworks.com
Follow me on Instagram @ goonsgunworks
Completely re-engineered??? Did you really say that?
It would require a new frame made along the lines of a Whitney or Remington New Model Army. Then a cap & ball style hammer and cylinder.
You could use the back strap, trigger guard, stocks, barrel, and other lockwork. Of course a new bullet rammer assembly and catch would be needed.
In the end it would require the development and tooling for an entirely different model, for which, in the United States would have a limited market.
You could use the back strap, trigger guard, stocks, barrel, and other lockwork. Of course a new bullet rammer assembly and catch would be needed.
In the end it would require the development and tooling for an entirely different model, for which, in the United States would have a limited market.
I sure did, what is the point of a loading lever if there's no space for a ball to be loaded in? You are asking them to take the ejector off, add a loading lever, and extend and modify the frame. Essentially make a fictional gun that doesn't replicate anything. Please tell me you aren't serious.
I call horse piffle on that. A $500 dollar gun that can't be reloaded in the field??? THAT sounds like a limited market.
Yup - take it off. The ejector is purely cosmetic. Put a loading lever there.
Driftwood Johnson
Member
Howdy
I just love it when somebody who clearly does not know what he is talking about continues to argue, just digging himself into a deeper hole.
This has already been explained to you.
This revolver was designed for the European market. Probably a lot before you ever heard of a Cap & Ball revolver. It was designed for a market that does not allow civilians to own cartridge revolvers. Uberti simply designed the revolver to look like a Colt Single Action Army because that is the most commonly recognized six gun in the world. So they came up with a revolver that looks like a SAA, but is in fact a C&B revolver. The folks who were buying these in Europe were not put off by the fact that there is no loading lever, they wanted something that looked like a SAA. Of course there was no provision for loading it in the field, that is not legal most places in Europe anyway.
A number of years ago, this revolver started being imported into the US, but it has very limited appeal here, because, as you state, there is no loading lever and most folks here who want a gun that looks like a SAA go ahead and buy a cartridge version, such as an Uberti Cattleman or a Pietta copy of the Colt. One would assume from your logon name that you know something about Pietta revolvers.
The bottom line is, this particular revolver does not sell well here in the US, for obvious reasons, and no company is going to go to the expense of redesigning a product that has a very limited market.
The illustrations provided should make it clear why the frame of this revolver is not a good candidate for adding a loading lever, besides the fact that money would be wasted in the redesign. Products don't just get altered for free, there are always costs involved with any design change.
I just love it when somebody who clearly does not know what he is talking about continues to argue, just digging himself into a deeper hole.
This has already been explained to you.
This revolver was designed for the European market. Probably a lot before you ever heard of a Cap & Ball revolver. It was designed for a market that does not allow civilians to own cartridge revolvers. Uberti simply designed the revolver to look like a Colt Single Action Army because that is the most commonly recognized six gun in the world. So they came up with a revolver that looks like a SAA, but is in fact a C&B revolver. The folks who were buying these in Europe were not put off by the fact that there is no loading lever, they wanted something that looked like a SAA. Of course there was no provision for loading it in the field, that is not legal most places in Europe anyway.
A number of years ago, this revolver started being imported into the US, but it has very limited appeal here, because, as you state, there is no loading lever and most folks here who want a gun that looks like a SAA go ahead and buy a cartridge version, such as an Uberti Cattleman or a Pietta copy of the Colt. One would assume from your logon name that you know something about Pietta revolvers.
The bottom line is, this particular revolver does not sell well here in the US, for obvious reasons, and no company is going to go to the expense of redesigning a product that has a very limited market.
The illustrations provided should make it clear why the frame of this revolver is not a good candidate for adding a loading lever, besides the fact that money would be wasted in the redesign. Products don't just get altered for free, there are always costs involved with any design change.
Driftwood Johnson
Member
No. This question gets asked all the time. This revolver is specifically designed so that it is not simple to convert it to firing cartridges. Again, because of its European market. It would defeat the idea behind the design if somebody could simply pop out the C&B cylinder and pop in a cartridge cylinder. The percussion nipples are off center on the cylinder, and the hammer is designed to strike them off center. Putting a conversion cylinder in, if one was available, would mean that the hammer would not line up properly to fire a primer.
Dorset_Dave
Member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2015
- Messages
- 15
I have one and it's fantastic. I live in the UK and like people above have said it is the closest thing to a "real" SAA I can legally buy. I went to my local gun dealer wanting an 1858 and came back with a 1873, it was just THAT pretty!
I always bench load it for (obvious reasons) and have actually taken the ejector rod off at the moment as I'm seeing if the balance has any effect on grouping.
Bottom line, it's a brilliant gun for the market it was designed and never fails to draw attention when I'm on the range.
My 2p
Dave
I always bench load it for (obvious reasons) and have actually taken the ejector rod off at the moment as I'm seeing if the balance has any effect on grouping.
Bottom line, it's a brilliant gun for the market it was designed and never fails to draw attention when I'm on the range.
My 2p
Dave
Crawdad1
Member
Now that's hilarious!!!
How are you going to get a ball in front of the chamber in the first place?
Everyone agrees it's an attractive gun. But is it practical?? Wouldn't an 1858 make more sense.?
- Status