Insofar as Pietta Navies are concerned, you are not going to break the bank (unless you are as SS dependent as I am).
I purchased 2 Piettas within the past 15 months: an 1851 Navy steel .36 ([CM] 2014) to which I substituted a Pietta squareback TG (from Taylor's) to make it an 1851 Navy 2nd Model, and also a Pietta G&G .36 ([CN] 2015) brasser, both from Cabela's @ $200 and $220, respectively.
My goal was to create 5 somewhat historically correct replica pistols (1851 Navy 2nd Model, 1851 Navy 3rd Model, G&G, L&R, and S&G) using the two purchased pistols.
Between the two, and the spare TG, one can create about 9 more "fantasy" variations if one chooses to do so.
My favorite "fantasy" pistol is the 1851 steel with the G&G plain cylinder and barrel and the squareback TG. To me, this should have been Sam Colt's "midi" .36 Dragoon, rather than the full octagon barrel.
My next addition to the bunch (if feasible) is the Pietta Dance .44, only if the cylinder/barrel assembly is fully interchangeable with the standard Navy frame. I have a few feelers out, but it is not looking all that good.
The fantasy possibilities are immense if this works, but I'm not holding my breath.
To finally answer your concerns about Pietta quality, I would give it a firm heads up. Goon says (and I agree) that the arbor-to-barrel lug fit is better than Uberti. I don't own a Uberti, but my two Piettas are solid, with less than .002" cylinder-to-barrel gap from the factory. I had to do a bit of wedge fitting on both because I like to see the tip of the wedge spring protrude a bit on the right side of the barrel lug.
My 1851 Navy has the proverbial Pietta "tail", but the G&G does not. Go figure: has Pietta listened to criticisms about the "tail", or is this an anomaly?
Anyhoo, I wish you the best in your new endeavor/experiment: let us know what it is.
Nothing worse than letting us all hang in the breeze!
Jim
