Cattleman .45LC Taylor or Uberti?

Lest there be any misunderstanding, here is a comparison of a "pinched frame Colt" with the later style Vee shaped rear sight:

Well, couldn't get the photo to come in. I Googled "Pinch Frame Colts" and found a comparison of the top straps of Colts, one the rare "Pinched Frame Model" compared to the early blackpowder frame with Vee type rear sight. Note the in the pinched frame model, the rear sight is actually about 1/2" in front of the hammer.

Incidentally, the Colt "Pinched Frame" is found only on civilian models numbered below serial number 200.

Bob Wright
 
Last edited:
Well Bob, apparently the misunderstanding is mine. Somehow, in all my years of research and study, this little detail escaped me. I was under the impression that the V-notch 'was' the pinched frame.

Either way, the point remains that the blackpowder frame with the setscrew basepin retention, will typically have the V-notch sights. Whereas crosspin guns will usually have the square notch sights. Which, unless I'm suffering from more misconceptions, was something that didn't come about until the 2nd generation SAA's.
 
Sorry about the image sizes, I tried typing in different sizes in Imgur but it would apply different sizes than what I set automatically for some reason.

Some of you guys are mentioning safeties on your colts/clones, mine doesn't seem to have any kind of safety that I can see. The pin is set (kind of loosely, springloaded?) into the hammer itself with just a hole through which to strike the primer. Is this normal or should my cattleman have something else that maybe was taken off of it? Let me try some more images with proper sizing.

kv2gmOL.jpg

hwBEcma.jpg

pP8cwij.jpg

HxN19Ar.jpg


Also need to brush that action out and oil it soon.
 
Last edited:
Your last photo shows the safety, the bar that is just below the firing pin on the face of the hammer.

When the hammer is drawn back to the first notch, the safery notch, the trigger sear pushes up a rod inside the hammer, pivoting this bar down so that it impinges between the hammer face and frame. Like the Ruger transfer bar, you don't "do" anythiong to engage it, other than placing the hammer in this position.

I believe Skeeter Skelton tested this by placing a live (or blank) round under the hammer and engaging the safety. He then used a wooden hammer handle to strike the hammer spur repeatedly trying to fire the round. It didn't fire.

Here are two of my Ubertis. The one on the left has the hammer block safety:

100_9981-1.jpg


Bob Wright
 
Last edited:
Good to know Bob, thank you for clearing that up. I still keep the hammer down on an empty cylinder but it's reassuring that the gun doesn't seem to be missing anything.
 
I dearly wish I had not sold that Cattleman I had, since it had been given lots of attention by a good gunsmith and had a great trigger pull and a beautiful dark wood grip. Dang me!

The safety in the hammer is a very nice addition. You can have all the fun of the traditional Colt loading method and yet have the ability to safely carry 6 rounds.

What, you say! IIRC the Uberti manual says that it is safe to carry 6, if you just draw the hammer back a short distance after loading. The safety is then engaged and blocks the hammer from moving forward enough to fire the round, as mentioned above.

Let me be the first to mention the brass grip frame on the OP's gun. That is not authentic to the real cartridge Colts of the 1800s and it is a sign of this one being the cheap version of the Cattleman.

Colts certainly did make cap-n-ball revolvers with brass grip frames.

Bart Noir
 
Bart Noir said:
Let me be the first to mention the brass grip frame on the OP's gun. That is not authentic to the real cartridge Colts of the 1800s and it is a sign of this one being the cheap version of the Cattleman.
Click to expand...

While it is not authentic to the old Colt's, its not necessarily a sign of a cheap Uberti. The Cattleman revolvers made by Uberti and imported by Iver Johnson all had brass trigger guards and backstraps. I bought one of these, a .44 Magnum, about 1975 and it was certainly not cheap. In fact it was a very well made revolver. And my more recent Stallion from Uberti has the brass trigger guard and backstrap, and again, is not a "cheap" gun.

In fact, I like the brass so well, my Colt SAA sports a brass backstrap, as does my Ruger Super Blackhawk and Hy Hunter.

100_9992.jpg


Bob Wright
 
I got a Uberti Cattleman in 2004 that had been imported in the 70's by Iver Johnson.

I have shot a steady diet all these years of 1220 fps 250 gr XTP with the 4.75" barrel. This has plenty of safety margin given the chamber walls are at least .059" to the outside and .044" between chambers.

But the cylinder rotation is getting loose. Not as bad as a new Ruger Blackhawk, but not as good as when I got it.

This year I finally wore out the trigger/bolt spring, and while replacing it, found out that all these years someone had put the wrong screws in. They replaced the unusual 8-32 with scope mount 6-48 screws.

The screws and the spring are available.
Brownells may charge $4 for a screw, but it beats having to make them.

My cattleman shot high, so I welded in the front sight.
 

Attachments

  • UbertiCattleman reduced.jpg
    UbertiCattleman reduced.jpg
    61.6 KB · Views: 41
If the brass on my cattleman was an indicator of it being a cheap gun then by all means they can make it as cheap as they want. I personally think it gives a distinct look of elegance to a solid piece of hardware. Besides I already have a 1911A1 1942 WW2 Army issue Colt .45 so i'm not hard up for an authentic Colt, nor do I expect to ever have the money to afford one.The cattleman is by far my favorite gun I own, matching or even surpassing my Bushmaster .223 carbine. I would have liked to have gotten some idea of its history as far as who owned it and where it's been since being made but I don't think I can get that.

Besides I don't think there is a 'cheap' version of a cattleman. It's either a cattleman or it isn't as far as I know. The 1800 colts were peacemaker/army models IIRC or navy models for the cap and ball. I could be wrong of course, history isn't my strong point. Point is "cattleman" is just what Uberti calls the gun. Uberti makes Colt replicas but I don't think anyone makes Uberti replicas.

As for those 'custom' welded sights, well, I personally think you would have been better off taking it to a professional smith to have that done. But of course if you couldn't afford to go that route than each to his own.
 
P.S. Bob that gun in your picture, the third from the left. What kind of grips are those? Polished cherry wood? They're beautiful, I wouldn't mind swapping mine for those but then I also really like what it came with.
 
Glock 31
The cattleman is by far my favorite gun I own,
Click to expand...

I own lots of guns, and the Cattleman is top tier.
I am trying to understand why I like it so much.
I think it is the shootable version of the Colt SAA.

The Cattleman revolvers I see at gunshows are ~~$300
The Colt SAA I see at gunshows are ~~$2,000

It is hard to enjoy shooting a gun while concentrating on not scratching it.

But my cattleman is killer fun to shoot.
 
Glock31 is asking: P.S. Bob that gun in your picture, the third from the left. What kind of grips are those? Polished cherry wood? They're beautiful, I wouldn't mind swapping mine for those but then I also really like what it came with.
Click to expand...

All the grips on these guns are walnut. This particular one is European walnut, the one on the right is southern black walnut as is the one to its left. The other on the left, is walnut from the west coast.

Bob Wright
 
Definitely agree Clark. Collectibles are good and all, but like a real good knife or tool, some guns should be used instead of being kept under glass their whole lives. I derive so much more enjoyment from something if I use it regularly and it serves me well. Having a super mint condition, rare and valuable thing would just cause me stress with every small blemish it accumulated.

Thanks Bob, i'll look into walnut grips next time I have some spare cash.
 
It is hard to enjoy shooting a gun while concentrating on not scratching it.
Click to expand...
And that's the gun's fault? If you're constantly worried about scratching something, you probably shouldn't have bought in the first place. I shoot and enjoy all my guns, be it a $200 Single Six or a $1500, Colt, USFA or custom Ruger.
 
To clarify the old model from the new model
And the bullseye vs. the half moon ejector rod

The 1873 began in that year 1873 of course.

In about 1899 the change was made to the New model frame (with the push button cylinder pin release). Because the changeover from black powder strength steel to stronger smokeless powder steel happened at almost the same time, about 1899, the old model is sometimes called the blackpowder frame model, and the new model the smokeless frame model.

So, if you are looking to replicate an 1800's era gun, then the old model is correct. There were no 'new models' made until just before 1900.

The change from the old (bullseye) to new (half moon) ejector rod grip came very early, about 1883. After that there were no more bullseye models made (but some were still sold to use up Colts old parts).

This change was made because the bullseye model wore a groove in leather holsters, and the Army complained to Colt. The Bullseye is slightly easier to grip to use, the half moon is easier on holster wear.

The bullseye is a replica of 1873 to 1883/1884 only.

Uberti's US parts distributer sells bullseye and half moon ejector rods for about $20 and they can be swapped. You can then sell the old one to recoup most of the price of the changeover. To buy that part from Colt for a real Colt would I imagine cost about $100 !!b The swap is very easy, 5 minutes, no skill required...
 
I was trying to decide if I liked the half moon ejector rod over the bulls-eye variation and could't honestly come to a conclusion. I like the aesthetics of the half moon, but the bulls-eye also has its own appeal. Now however, reading your post, I do indeed think that the bulls-eye would probably not work well in the holster I have for the gun. I'd rather avoid the damage to the holster as well as any potential damage to the gun itself over simple aesthetic desire.

And that's the gun's fault? If you're constantly worried about scratching something, you probably shouldn't have bought in the first place.
Click to expand...

I don't believe he was talking necessarily about blaming the gun. Just that some people don't have the 'kit gloves' collector mentality that some owners might. On the other hand if you do have high end pieces that you do shoot, that's great and nothing wrong with that either. It's just that some collectors do have the mentality that, past a certain value, it is foolish to actually fire a collector's item since it would diminish its overall value and compromise its potential 'mint condition' quality. No position is wrong really. It all comes down to why you have it and what you have it for I guess. :)
 
I greatly prefer the bullseye ejector. It's easier to manipulate and looks better. I find there to be no downsides and it has never affected holster use. Or damaged one but 10-15,000rds a year out of such guns may not be sufficient case study.

There's nothing collectible about a 3rd generation Colt. If you bought one ten years ago you got hosed because the new guns are better and cost the same. The difference is perception, of both guns and money.


I have shot a steady diet all these years of 1220 fps 250 gr XTP with the 4.75" barrel.
Click to expand...
No authority on the subject would recommend such loads in a Colt SAA or replica.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top