Let's talk Navy

[ssb73q]

Hi Kirt, I took the new Uberti 1851 apart and stone smoothed the internal action parts. The internals were very clean for a new Uberti. The bolt legs were shortened to the correct length to have the bolt drop right at the entrance of the cylinder lead in groove. A Wolff reduced power spring was installed and the action is now quite nice. A 0.075" long brass button was machined to lengthen the arbor the correct amount. That button was JB Weld to the arbor end and is now setting up. Tomorrow I can then file the brass arbor end to produce a 0.003" cylinder/barrel gap.

BTW, the Howell 38 Colt/38 Special conversion cylinder fits and operates in this revolver well with minimal side to side cylinder slop. A much better fit than in the Uberti engraved 1851. The engraved 1851 was shot 50rds yesterday using the conversion cylinder with 38 Special, but I'm not happy with the large 3.5" groups from 25yds. It also shot high, ~10". I guess that my engraved Uberti 1851 will become a display piece. Hopefully this new Uberti 1851 will be more accurate than the engraved 1851.

I will keep my eye open for sales on the Pietta 1851 at Cabelas for you.

Regards,
Richard

[Captainkirk]

Hi Kirt, I took the new Uberti 1851 apart and stone smoothed the internal action parts. The internals were very clean for a new Uberti. The bolt legs were shortened to the correct length to have the bolt drop right at the entrance of the cylinder lead in groove. A Wolff reduced power spring was installed and the action is now quite nice. A 0.075" long brass button was machined to lengthen the arbor the correct amount. That button was JB Weld to the arbor end and is now setting up. Tomorrow I can then file the brass arbor end to produce a 0.003" cylinder/barrel gap.

BTW, the Howell 38 Colt/38 Special conversion cylinder fits and operates in this revolver well with minimal side to side cylinder slop. A much better fit than in the Uberti engraved 1851. The engraved 1851 was shot 50rds yesterday using the conversion cylinder with 38 Special, but I'm not happy with the large 3.5" groups from 25yds. It also shot high, ~10". I guess that my engraved Uberti 1851 will become a display piece. Hopefully this new Uberti 1851 will be more accurate than the engraved 1851.

I will keep my eye open for sales on the Pietta 1851 at Cabelas for you.

Regards,
Richard

I highly suggest you check grouping using .375 or .380 RB before relegating it to a wall hanger. Gary Barnes (Hoof Hearted) and I had a long discussion about shooting .357 bullets from a .36 cal bore if not using a heel-based bullet and he doesn't recommend it for that exact reason.
Appreciate your updates on the Navys and the Cabelas sales.....

[ssb73q]

Hi Kirk, you make a good point about using 38 Special. Looking back in the archive, I see that I did get groups of 2.5" @25yds using the Pietta 1851 with Magnus hollow based (hbwc) bullets. Speer hbwc produced groups ~3.5" @25yds. I used the Magnus loading in the engraved Uberti 1851 yesterday producing 3.5" groups. See:
http://blackpowdersmoke.com/colt/index.php?topic=932.msg8314#msg8314

I have all the dies necessary to load heeled bullets, but loading them would be a royal PITA.

You make a good point about testing the engraved Uberti 1851 with C&B to determine best accuracy with that revolver before considering retiring it.

Regards,
Richard

[Captainkirk]

Do you shoot much loose powder these days? I noticed most of your guns appear to be conversions.

[ssb73q]

Do you shoot much loose powder these days? I noticed most of your guns appear to be conversions.

Hi Captain, I sure do shoot loose powder, mostly Black Mz. Also shoot holy black when motivated. I have a dozen extra Pietta 1858, dozen Pietta 1860, and eight .36 Pietta cylinders that I keep loaded for when the weather allows. Have conversion cylinders for all my revolvers except for the 1862 Colt. The extra cylinders are preloaded using Dick Dastardly's Tower of Powder loading tool.

I don't have extra C&B cylinders for my Ubertis so mostly use conversion cylinders with them.

Conversion cylinders are especially useful when I want to shoot and not worry about cleanup for a day or so. Most of my modern handguns have been safe queens since getting into replica BP handguns. BP revolvers return me to a day where I feel more connected with my shooting hobby.

Regards,
Richard

[ssb73q]

Hi Captain, one more thought. While I love my Pietta's for economical BP shooting, I find the Uberti's, while problematic, do have a special feel in my hand. Maybe it's the idea that the Ubert's are almost exact copies of the originals? I'm not quite sure why I feel that way, but there is something special about handling the Uberti's. Every Uberti that I purchased needed work, maybe it's that fix-'em-up connection that appeals to me. Revolvers just personalized for me?

While I love the Pietta's, I love the Uberti's more.

Regards,
Richard

[sourdough]

I find the Uberti's, while problematic, do have a special feel in my hand. Maybe it's the idea that the Ubert's are almost exact copies of the originals?

In a few days I will post a thread (once I get all the photos in line) that will show the idea that any modern day replica is anywhere near an "exact copy" of the perfect Colt 1851 Navy is a fallacy.

Stay tuned...

Jim

[LonesomePigeon]

Something about the "Pietta tail". It's not just the flare at the bottom of the grip. It's that the top of the backstrap is not bowed out like a Colt. Some of the Colt's do have a bit of a tail but the top is bowed out and curves into the tail, whereas the Pietta is just no bow and a straight sweep into the flared tail. I'm talking about the older Pietta's. I haven't seen too many new ones but the ones I have seen seem to be much closer to Colt's.

sourdough, I'm looking forward to you comparison thread. 

[ssb73q]

Hi, the brass arbor button has been sized for a 0.003" cylinder/barrel gap, see:



The timing is now perfect for both C&B and conversion cylinder, the action is smooth as silk, a real joy to hold and operate, one side:



The other side:



Now all that's left to do is shoot it.

Regards,
Richard

[ssb73q]

I find the Uberti's, while problematic, do have a special feel in my hand. Maybe it's the idea that the Ubert's are almost exact copies of the originals?

In a few days I will post a thread (once I get all the photos in line) that will show the idea that any modern day replica is anywhere near an "exact copy" of the perfect Colt 1851 Navy is a fallacy.

Stay tuned...

Jim

Hi Jim, I'm waiting with bated breath for you to destroy my closely held belief that the Uberti 1851 is representative of the original. 

This video suggests more similarity than difference, see:



Note that the current Uberti 1851 uses a left hand twist consistent with the original and different than what CapandBall reports for his Uberti.

BTW, he also compares an original 1860 to the 1860 Uberti where he can exchange parts, see:



Regards,
Richard

[ssb73q]

Hi, re: grip tail.

This is a photo showing grip tails for both Uberti and Pietta 1851s:



The top engraved Uberti was made in 1987
The next down Uberti was made in 2015
The bottom Pietta was made in 2014

The difference is obvious.

Regards,
Richard

[Captainkirk]

Thanks, Richard, for that comparison.

[Hawg]

The Pietta tail has a close relative in C.W. era revolvers but it wasn't on a Colt. It was a actually on a Remington which Pietta doesn't do.

[sourdough]

Well, folks, here we be.

I scanned these photographs from Nathan L. Swayze's " '51 Colt Navies", cropped the pages to only include photograph information, and resized the photos to fit the forum pages. (There should be no copyright infringement as I am not doing this for financial gain and for educational purposes only.) This treatise contains far more information than presented here (such as five different trigger guards, different barrels, et al) and I would urge anyone seeking more information to purchase this out-of-print book. I got mine on Amazon last year for ~$75.

I think the first photo says it all concerning the "tail/no tail" authenticity argument as concerns original pistols vs the modern replicas, especially Pietta, (although Pietta has combined the short curve frontstrap with their version of a backstrap to create their signature design). My 2015 G&G shows that they may be changing their design practices.

Peruse further. In the end, I am convinced that there is no "true" trigger guard/backstrap/wood combination when it comes to Colt originals and when it comes to "accurate" replicas. I'm sure many will disagree.

Enjoy and have a good weekend.

Jim 

[sourdough]

To add to the comparison, (I think most of you folks have seen this) here is a 2014 [CM] Pietta Navy .36 with a 2015 [CN] Pietta G&G for grip comparison. Some of you have stated that the 1851 Navy grip is thick in the wrist. Well the G&G is thicker in the wrist, has a different backstrap curve, and a different frontstrap curve.

Are we having fun, yet? 





Jim