Well it's not exactly a replica, but my Ruger Old Army is definitely the best gun I've got and it's American made. I've got a 31 Baby Dragoon clone and it's reasonably accurate at 10yds and cheap to shoot. My 31 rem clone can't hit the target at 10yds and the worst is a 22 NAA companion b/p, well made but can't penetrate a soda can at 20ft.

 

I whould say that the worst repo I ever worked on I an early 80's 62 pocket mauf by cva weak springs ruff action hands down the worst took me two weeks to make new springs and an hour to smooth the action how ever its a sweet shooter now and fun the best I whould say is the 61 by petta I did a convertion to 45 a sass legal and all I had to do wastrim the forcing cone and slick the action good to go

 

Well, after finally deciding to scratch a decades old itch, I ended up with the 2 revolvers I've been talking about here; the Uberti 1861 Navy and the Pietta 1860 Army. That hardly makes me an expert, especially since I haven't even fired them yet, but I know one thing, the Uberti is a great piece of workmanship! I can't imagine any other manufacturer exceding it. The Pietta is close to matching it, but only close.

 

I'd love to get my hands on a 71-72 opentop uberi!! Like that pistol in the movie appalosa now that my friend is a sweet pistol

 

I have worked on good and bad examples from all the major manufacturers. Most of the Colts suffer from short arbors. There are periods when soft metal was pretty common. I avoid palmetto like the plague. Italian cap and ball revolvers are 90% kit guns, if you have that mind set when you buy them you'll be OK. Uberti, Pietta, Euroarms, ASM, Santa Barabra, making tabletop gunsmiths out of American shooters for fifty years.

 

Uberti, Pietta, Euroarms, ASM, Santa Barabra, making tabletop gunsmiths out of American shooters for fifty years.

Okay, now we have found someone with extensive and diverse experience! ;D

I thought that, given improvements in steel and manufacturing techniques, that a modern replica from a manufacturer like Uberti would be every bit the equal of, or likely better then an original revolver. Obviously you think that is not the case. Why? ???

And before anybody gets their panties in a wad, (I've already been told once today I have a bad "bark") : that's not a challange to the cratebuilder's opinion, it is a sincere question!

 

I'm certainly no "expert" but I'll add my .02 cents worth with the best of intentions. I've had a '51 Navy for years - Italian - can't figure out who made it. Quality is pretty good but nowhere near what the originals were. A nice gun and fun to shoot. I have a Navy Arms - .36 - looks like a Griswold & Gunnison with a short barrel. It's not the prettiest but action is crisp and fit and timing are right on - a nice one to carry on the farm for critters and also fun to shoot - a good one that you don't hve to worry about a nick or scratch now and then. I got a Pietta '58 Navy - .36 this past summer but haven't had the time to shoot it. The appearance and quality are very nice, great bluing, no machining marks, etc. The only complaint I would have is that they seem to have difficulty making grips that fit properly - mine overhang the grip frame at the hee.. Not a big deal but I wasn't planning on having to "re-fit" them and havng to refinish them as a result. The one pistol I DO want to brag about is a '61 Colt Navy I got a short time ago at a gun show. It is a ASM that was made for CVA. It was in the original box, papers show it was made in 1988 and the owner had never used it or even turned the cylinder on it. It might be hard for some to believe, but I think this one could give the original '61 Colt Navies a run for their money. This gun is fantastic! Quality is top notch - action crisp and clean - strong mainspring - no machining marks or burrs, etc. The bluing is beautiful and the wood in the grips a great burled walnut. I haven't shot it yet but I'm confident that it will shoot well and probably become my "favorite". I'm sure there are pros and cons on all makes - where some makes fall short in one regard, they probably make up for it in other areas. Thanks for letting me add my 2 cents worth even if it's only worth a penny!

 

About 4 months ago I picked a pitta 58 rem in tombstone it was 125 and it was not working! seems it broke somthing and they bought a parts kit and never fit the parts to the gun well I fit the parts and couldent find the right nipples! Well to make a long story short that was a easy to tune fun to shoot pistol

 

I have bought, used and worked on replicas by most of the major makers. Uberti, Pedersoli, and Pietta are considered to be top notch by most folks. ASM was always hit or miss and Palmetto is a pariah.

As for the various models, none are perfect but the closest are the various Colt models. With the exception of the Patersons and Roots, I have worked on evry model of Colt available and they are all close to the originals and easy to get working or repair. The Remington copies are about the same. It is not a question of new vs old steels or manufacturing techniques, it is a question of design. The design is the same whether the steel is new or old and as such has some drawbacks. If a design is weak, ie open top revolver, than it will be weak no matter what it is made from. Granted, harder steels will allow it to wear better but eventually it will need retiming or repair if it is used much. (The same can be said of S&W or modern Colt revolvers, the ones that get used, wear out - eventually.) The Colts sopies are for me the easiest to work on, they come apart well and go back together easy. Parts are well made and can be fitted with ease. The few Remington copies I worked on were a bit harder for me but I was using Colt techniques and trying to adapt them.

The biggest problem I find with the Italian copies is the cones, getting replacement cones is a pain and I wish they would tighten the QC so the problem would go away.

My favorites are the various models of the 1860s. I consider them my go to clones but I also have and use others. The Dragoons, as has been pointed out, were and still are heavy hitters. They went through a series of variations starting in 1847 and continuing through about 1860 when the belt model 44 was introduced. The 36s came out with the 1851, the first practical belt model revolver, and culminated with the 1861. The pocket models on the 31 frame were the most numerous of all the Colts and were built from 1848 through the 1870s. But with all the variations, Colts used the same basic action in each of them. Once he got away from the V mainspring they are all about the same and many parts are usable in a variety of models.

The Colt factory was trying to get military contracts and became responsixe to compliant from the people who used the revovlers. The fragile Patterson was supplanted by the larger Walker, The Walker, which got Colts back on their feet as a manufacturer, recieved a lot of complaints from the field and was improved to become what we call the Dragoons. And the Dragoons were changed over time.

Enough rambling, some of the Italians make a good product and with some work they are a lot better.

 

StrawHat - I enjoyed reading your post and your comments. You obviously have worked on a number of models & makers (Italian). I have a question - don't really know if there is an answer or not - but - will run it past you anyway. To start with - let's forget about the pros and cons of the different makers - we all know that each person has their particular likes and dislikes. I was interested in your remark in regards to ASM. For years, I've heard (and seen examples) of their product and I as well wasn't impressed with some of the examples that I examined. Recently though, I picked up an ASM '61 Navy, made in 1988 for CVS, that was in the original box and the cylinder had probably never been turned on it. I bought it. The quality was excellent. Finish and fit were great - tight tolerances - parts fitted like they had grown together - i.e. it is a beatiful piece. We all know that every maker can make a "lemon" once in a while. I have a good general metalworking background. The question I have is this - why do you think there is such a difference in quality in one particular manufacturer's line of models? I'm talking in respect to say a quantity of '61 Navies that were produced in the same year. Why are some near perfect and some absolutely crap? Are they run on the same production line or is it just a lack of pride in workmanship on the part of whoever is on the line and how do the "lemons" get past whatever quality control they might have? To me, a number of vendors negotiating their wholesale purchase price on the pistols that they are buying for resale shouldn't affect quality of the product. Or, do the mfg. cull out the worst ones and ship them to the vendor who purchased them at the lowest unit price? As I said, I don't know IF there is an answer to this but would appreciate reading your thoughts on it. Thanks!

 

StrawHat - I enjoyed reading your post and your comments.

+1! ;D

 

Quality control is probably the biggest problem with replicas. Over the years Uberti has been the most consistent, followed by Pietta and ASM. ASM made some nice models with good fit and finish but had problems with the correct heat treat of the small parts. It was hit or miss if the hands, hammers, triggers would have wear issues. Most guys don't want to have to deal with the hassle of hardening parts, don't blame them. I'm the odd duck that likes to take a old POS revolver and rebuild it to better than new condition.

Today's replicas are made from steel and the originals from iron then later 'silver steel'. In 1851 a new Colt cost about a months pay, what does today's replica cost? If these replicas cost a months pay they would not sell well but the quality would surly be better.

 

You guys enjoy reading my ramblings? Well, gosh, your welcome I guess! I might have to get a bigger hat!

The way I see it between MCB and myself, we cover a vast base of knowledge. He knows all the useful stuff and I know the rest.

As for the question about why some are better than others? If you accept that a lemon can get by, do you not also have to allow for the ocassional peach?

I think the different revolvers are made on different lines. (Like Corvettes and Suburbans, different lines, maybe different factories) And take in to account the Monday or Friday piece. I am not sure how much hand work is done on todays replicas but nowhere near what was done on originals. Same with pay, back then there was a good deal of piece work, You made so many pieces you got so much $$$. Now it is a wage per hour regardless of how much or what quality. I can life with that. It saves us money. And with what I save I can afford a good set of files and stones. I have worked on most of the Italians and many originals. When I first got involved in shooting, the target shooters were mounting S&W rear sights on Remington revolvers. And boring out cylinders to achieve proper fit of projectile to bore. The originals were not all that perfect but they were perfect for what they were intended, to put the enemy down at a reasonable range. We use our revolvers for a much different purpose. We shoot them, a lot. With the exception of a Cival War soldier, most gun toters of the 1800s did shoot in a lifetime what we do in a year. Because of this we have a diiferent expectation of our revolvers. (Same with rifles but that is a different hot stove topic.) I also have no idea what the labor force is like in Italy. Do the companies rotate workers through the factory or is it Luigi at the same post until he retires? It shouldn't matter, but it obviously does. QC was very high in the 70s (at least by Uberti) then BP got popular and companies sprang up to fill the need. The good ones stayed. Today we have a good supply of reasonable quality revolvers. Yeah, some of them need work but the details are what runs up the price.

 

Thanks StrawHat for your comments - they make a lot of sense. Your outlook on the revolver's original intended use and the number of rounds that were put through them versus our use today also makes perfect sense. Part of my outlook on the quality aspects stems from my upbringing - something we all suffer from whether we want to admit it or not. I was taught that if you did a job, you did it so it was "right". I've shot BP for over 45 years - mostly rifles. I've built my fair share of caplocks and flintlocks - and when I do, I strive to inlet carefully and make it as perfect as I can. My wife tells me I am too much of a perfectionist and she is probably right - I'm my own worst critic. I guess we sometimes forget that we all are "human" and not perfect - we make mistakes and have bad days. I'm sure that some of those pistols that aren't the best WERE made on a Monday or Friday. I understand manufacturing methods and when it comes right down to it, I guess we are fortunate that we DO have pistols available for the hobby at a reasonable price. If they need some "tinkering" - so be it as it helps us to be more familiar with how they work and why. If the repros were all like some of the nicer 2nd generation Colts and had their price tags, how many of us could actually enjoy the hobby? More power to those that can afford one like that - not everybody can and the whole purpose of this hobby is to have fun and enjoy it. If the pistol has some machining marks, maybe the fit isn't the best or the grips not the best - but it functions well - who cares if you can shoot it and have fun? We're all lucky to have a board like this and folks with knowledge like a lot of you have in "tuning" up a revolver that are willing to share and help others. A tip of the hat to you and the rest of 'em for sharing. Many thanks!

 

The biggest problem I find with the Italian copies is the cones, getting replacement cones is a pain and I wish they would tighten the QC so the problem would go away.

Thanks fer your comments Strawhat. The biggest problem I have with the Eyetalian clones is not the cones...it's those BLANKITY, BLANK, frixen, fraxen chambers!!! Why, in the name of all things holy, do all of the companies making reproduction C&Bs make them with undersized chambers!?!?!?! Every reproduction ".44" C&B I've ever had needed the chambers reamed out to .451 in order to get any kind of real accuracy out of them! (note: this is NOT true of the Rugers, but then Rugers are not a reproduction)

 

The biggest problem I find with the Italian copies is the cones, getting replacement cones is a pain and I wish they would tighten the QC so the problem would go away.

Thanks fer your comments Strawhat. The biggest problem I have with the Eyetalian clones is not the cones...it's those BLANKITY, BLANK, frixen, fraxen chambers!!! Why, in the name of all things holy, do all of the companies making reproduction C&Bs make them with undersized chambers!?!?!?! Every reproduction ".44" C&B I've ever had needed the chambers reamed out to .451 in order to get any kind of real accuracy out of them! (note: this is NOT true of the Rugers, but then Rugers are not a reproduction)

That is also true of originals. Many needed to be reamed out to 451 or 452 to get the acurracy that was needed to win matches during the 1960 and 70s. And a set of good sights. One of the fellows I shot with cut his chambers with a distict ledge and used either 185 or 200 grain SWCs (not sure which one anymore) that would have normally gone into the 45ACP cartridge. He did quite well with them and the ledge gave him a consistant point to load to. So... perhaps the Italians are making them closer t the originals than we think!

 

In Italy, much of the production was from Cottage Industries. Therefore, the quality could vary depending on who, in the Gardone Valley, actually made and finished the guns. Uberti, and then Pietta went to more in-house and modern machining methods and improved their products. ASM was always hit or miss, and their good ones were very, very good, the bad ones were terrible.

 

Yep to ASM. And it seems there were more Bad ones than Good ones. I always seemed to get Bad ones.

 

Each gun is an individual, no matter what make, model or design. Some shoot better than others.
With my cap and balls, I take the time to load them with care. None of the slap-and-chunk method for me, that I see too many others do.
I use a flask to measure each charge. Once deposited, I seat the greased felt wad firmly on the charge. Then I seat the .380, .454 or .457-inch ball (.36 or .44 caliber respectively) firmly on the seated wad.
I also use a loading stand. This gives me a consistent feel for how much pressure I'm applying with the loading lever.
By using greased felt wads, I don't have to put lubricant over the ball.
This extra care pays off. I have some revolvers more accurate than others, but none I'd classify as inaccurate.
Any of my revolvers will put five or six balls into at least 4 inches at 25 yards, from a benchrest. That's at worst. My Uberti-made Remington will put six balls into 2 to 2-1/2 inches at 25 yards, from a benchrest, all day long.
My Colt 2nd generation 1851 Navy will do nearly the same -- if the wedge is in tight. With Colt designs, I tap in the wedge while turning the cylinder. When the cylinder begins to drag, I stop. Then, I very lightly tap the wedge out again while turning the cylinder. As soon as the cylinder no longer rubs, I stop. This is the sweet spot of the Colt.

 

Every reproduction ".44" C&B I've ever had needed the chambers reamed out to .451 in order to get any kind of real accuracy out of them!

I wondered about that! My 44's chambers measured (with a caliper) .445! Haven't measured the 36 yet. :-\

I decided I'd wait till after I shot it a bunch but my first thought was reaming the throats like I had to do with my Taurus.

 

My Armi San Paolo is a very good shooter.It's Chambers measure.451