Forged Steel Frame Colts & Remingtons from Uberti

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CaptainCrossman

Moderator
I stumbled across this today, obviously these have been out for a while, Buffalo Arms carries them.

Colts and Remingtons w/forged steel frames- stronger than the cast steel frames, but not quite as strong as stainless steel or chrome moly steel.

but a step in the right direction regardless- see, this is why it pays to call these imports on the carpet and keep them honest, about making brass frame guns, and soft steel guns that shoot loose. They get the message and will respond with better metallurgy in their products.

yes, they cost more- the 1851 Navy is $317- but you're getting a "real" gun

http://www.buffaloarms.com/browse.cfm/4,5170.html


Possible Shop has all Uberti cap/ball pistols now listed as "forged steel frame"- this is a leap forward in quality over a brass frame, or cast steel frame

http://possibleshop.com/pistol-uberti.html


I'd wager that's why they "clearanced" all those "1851 Navy 44" guns at $179, to make way for higher quality forged steel guns

one problem remains- if the barrels are not forged steel, the guns will still shoot loose because the wedge/barrel slot will peen and deform

they're still cutting corners, but we're getting there...slowly...why not make the frame, barrel, and wedge forged steel and be done with it ?
 
Last edited:
Call them on the carpet? Pietta has had remmies with case hardened steel frames for years. I bought mine 2 years ago. Seems Cabelas has them on sale now for $219. Usually $289. I have a standard Pietta steel framed remi as well and it definitely isn't crap, never shot loose. Great cartridge shooter with an R&D cylinder. Been abusing it for over a year and it's still like new. Love my crappy Italian soft metal 6 guns!

http://tinyurl.com/pjtwdz
 
stronger than the cast steel frames, but not quite as strong as stainless steel or chrome moly steel.
Click to expand...
That makes no sense. A forging can be chromoly steel, stainless steel, aluminum or even brass. "Forging" has nothing to do with the material used and for the record, the guns you're referring to are chromoly steel. Most modern firearm steels have chromium and molybdenum in their composition, making them chromoly steels. Stainless simply has much more chromium, IIRC it takes 11% or 12% to make it "stainless". Not to even mention the fact that you can't say that one is stronger than the other without knowing the specific alloy, heat treatment and manufacturing method used.

Far as I know, they've always been forged and nobody casts barrels.

Ruger has proven how strong a casting can be. Freedom Arms frames are also cast and stand up to a lifetime of 65,000psi loads.
 
Unread Today, 10:16 AM #2
noelf2
Senior Member

Join Date: 2008-04-14
Location: Stafford, VA and Radford, VA
Posts: 347
Send a message via AIM to noelf2

Call them on the carpet? Pietta has had remmies with case hardened steel frames for years. I bought mine 2 years ago.




case hardened steel and forged case hardened steel, are 2 different types of steel-

forged is no cast in a mold- it's made in a press by squeezing the metal into a die- and is about 3x stronger

forces that would snap a casting in half, would not even phase a forging- forgings resist cracking, and bend before they crack/break
 
I guess if I ever have a problem, I'll believe in you Captain. Just haven't had a problem yet. My Italian revolvers fit a niche in my shooting pleasure, and have worked flawlessly. I have "real" guns also, but they don't shoot BP. You really need to let go of the hatred. Buy what you like and head to the range! Happy shooting ;)
 
CraigC
Senior Member

Join Date: 2001-11-28
Location: West Tennessee
Posts: 3,011


That makes no sense. A forging can be chromoly steel, stainless steel, aluminum or even brass. "Forging" has nothing to do with the material used and for the record, the guns you're referring to are chromoly steel. Most modern firearm steels have chromium and molybdenum in their composition, making them chromoly steels. Stainless simply has much more chromium, IIRC it takes 11% or 12% to make it "stainless". Not to even mention the fact that you can't say that one is stronger than the other without knowing the specific alloy, heat treatment and manufacturing method used.

Far as I know, they've always been forged and nobody casts barrels.

Ruger has proven how strong a casting can be. Freedom Arms frames are also cast and stand up to a lifetime of 65,000psi loads.




a forging is always stronger than a casting, due to superior density/grain structure- material being the same !

Ruger gets its strength from the material used- not the process.

Forging makes the metal stronger, because the metal isn't poured into a mould- with forging, the metal is squeezed into shape in a die, while it's still hot, and can be made much denser.

i.e. a Ruger made with forged stainless steel, would be stronger than one made with cast stainless steel. Likewise for chromemoly steel. But Ruger chose to only make a cast version, it was strong enough.

the forging process is much more expensive and time consuming, so Ruger made the ROA with investment castings, something Ruger pioneered.

Uberti and Pietta, etc. import guns were cast mild steel ! Only recently 2007 did they change over to forgings, beginning with the Remington.

case hardened is only a surface treatment. Compare a forged case hardened Uberti, to a cast case hardened Pietta- the surfaces may have about the same hardness, but deeper into the part, the forged piece will be much denser, and stronger. Castings tend to crack, forgings don't crack.

a forging is about 2x-3x stronger than any casting, material being the same.

Ruger is strongest because of the high stength MATERIAL used, not the process.

The Ubertis and Piettas do not use chrome moly steel, like the Ruger does.
 
Last edited:
forged is stronger than cast, materials being the same- IN ANY PART- no matter what you're making- to make a casting as strong as a forging, the casting must be much thicker/bigger- basic engineering rule of thumb, to make something stronger, make it out of better material, or make it bigger.

Ruger basically used the best materials, but cast them to save time/money. Those same materials in forged would be even stronger.

Uberti went to forged frames- they are superior to cast frames. In the past, they were using castings.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103588

http://www.esi-group.com/products/casting/Etips/e-tips/eTip16.pdf

http://www.hrewheels.com/hre_in_action/tech_talk/cast-wheels-vs-forged-wheels/
 
Captain;

You must either work in the steel industry or for Ruger firearms because you sure supposedly know a lot about this stuff.

Here is my question:

How was it done in the 19th century when these fine firearms from Remington & Colt produced?

I know of some that are still around & are functioning still perfectly after well over 150 years of being in service & I'm sure that quite a few parts including the frames were not hammer forged.
 
I worked for a jet engine parts mfr. for 2 years, and did the hardness testing, grains structure/polishing, and certs on the steel rings, that went in jet engines- including military F-15, F-16, F-18 fighters. My dad worked there for 42 years. Also have a Degree in Automotive Technology, built many automobile engines as a side business, using various internal parts- cast iron, forged steel, billet steel, cast steel, aluminum & titanium. A close friend owns a machine shop. Through experience and research, I learned the basics.

On the old vs. new Colts, to really know for sure, one would have to do destructive testing on the old guns, to check hardness/tensile strength. The original Walkers started off with 60 grains powder and were blowing up sometimes, so they reduced it to 50 grains with the Dragoons. The Dragoon/Walker was big, because the steel was not the best, and needed size to make it strong and shoot a 44 slug. The 36 Navy came out to make a small, handy, quick draw gun w/6 shots, that was still fairly powerful. Then Colt used a new steel, that would allow the Navy frame to shoot the 44 cal. slug like the Walker/Dragoon did, that became the 1860 Army was made. The whole reason the Army 1860 could handle a 44 slug yet was smaller frame than Walker/Dragoon, was because the steel was stronger in the 1860 Army. Likewise, an original 1851 Navy built in the early 1850's definitely uses inferior steels compared to an 1860 Army built from 1860-on, that is documented. Colt was well aware of it and was improving the steels right along.

The Italian replicas, i.e. Uberti, Pietta, used castings for frames, see pic attached. I'm unsure about all the barrels- I have seen old replica barrels marked "forged steel" because my friend has one, an 1851 Sheriff 36 cal made in the 1970's- the brass frame broke, and I repaired it for him with a steel CVA frame.

The price markdowns/clearances lately on the replica guns, I'd wager are to get rid of cast frame guns, to make way for the new forged frame guns- they know eventually cast frame and brass frame guns will be devalued. That's why we saw $179 1851 44, $169 Cabela's Remington, and now these $398 conversion pistols- if they are built on cast frames, they want to clear them out.

It looks like Uberti raised the bar with forged frames across the board on their Remington and Colt replicas. But if you noticed, a 35 year old Ruger Old Army, is worth more than a new Uberti- because the Ruger used superior material right from the get go.

It's all about metallurgy- unfortunately, try to post this, some people get fired up, because they own a brass frame or cast frame gun. Not putting them down personally, just stating the facts about the metallurgy. I own cast steel guns too- for a long time, that's all there was to buy, besides the ROA. The imports got to make shiny guns that were soft as a crayon, fired low pressure blackpowder- and were able to sell them at premium prices- based on looks and price, not material/metallurgy/strength/reliability.

Bill Ruger saw this right off, and kicked their arses with the superior ROA metallurgy- he didn't use forgings, instead he used superior steels, and an advanced form of casting called "investment casting".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_casting

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • castings.jpg
    castings.jpg
    59.7 KB · Views: 2,965
Last edited:
I know the friggin' difference between casting and forging. No, Ruger does not get its strength from the steel used, they use common 4140 steel for their castings. It IS the process that makes the difference.

Your resume' aside, you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Those castings that "become Colt frames" are clearly Remingtons. :rolleyes:


Only recently 2007 did they change over to forgings
Click to expand...
Where is your proof?


The Ubertis and Piettas do not use chrome moly steel, like the Ruger does.
Click to expand...
Where is your proof? Do you even know what steels the Italians are using?

Assuming for a minute that you are correct, what do you really think is there to gain by going from a casting to a forging in a firearm that operates at sedate blackpowder pressures???
 
Craig, he's obviously got a vendetta and is grasping at straws to prove his point. I don't understand why the mods let him keep on.
 
more- interesting thread:

http://www.cascity.com/forumhall/index.php?topic=17343.0;wap2

quote:
"Other opinions will vary... but here is my 2 cents
The Cabela's offering will in most cases be Pietta made... not a bad thing, and for the price you get Cabela's reputation for returns or replacement should there be a issue...
Pietta's tend to be stamped conspicuosly, with disclaimers " BLACK POWSER ONLY ", Proof Marks , and the Fili Petta logo.
This for me distracts from the looks, much like Ruger's Lawyer pleasing stampings.
Taylor's and Cimarron will have the Uberti's.... Uberti has been my choice for Guns I use in the Film Prop Business.
And I've used both importers...
I find the Uberti's closer to the originals , and the new CNC forged frames appeal to my idea of greater strength & closer tolerances.
I like the Uberti's use of discrete placement of proof marks.
The main difference between Taylor's and Cimirron will be the Importer's Marks. Both use small lettered stamps
Cirmarron tends to place the Fredricksburg TX. mark where the one line Colt Address would be , & Taylor's will have Winchester VA."


"One problem I forsee with the Pietta '58 I have now, is that the frame is pretty durn soft. I had it so that the hammer stopped on the frame just a hair short of the nipples. It worked fine, but even after a few shots, I found that the hammer had battered its way down and had begun to touch the nipples. Well, I went to work again, and filed the shoulders on the frame where the hammer stops so that I would get a better strike on more surface than before. Originally, it was just hitting on the top corner of the hammer and frame. Now I have decent contact on the hammer shoulders about 2/3rds of the way down. Pretty much all I can do (that and reworking the hammer again and case hardening it). I have snapped it many times (not fired yet) since this latest modification, and I can see that even with better contact, I will likely have the same problem, only it will show up more slowly. The frame steel is just not up to taking the impact.
I have read reports that Uberti uses better/harder/tougher steel for their guns. If so, that alone will prompt me to make my next purchase an Uberti."
 
perhaps the conversion cylinders aren't quite what they're cooked up to be either ?

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=434419

my pistol blew up...can i return it?
it was a kirst konverted 1858 remington by pietta with one of the 45 colt cylinders in it. i didnt get hurt but wanted to know if this has happened to anyone else and what they did if i can get it replaced since the barrel on the gun is fine but there cylinder blew up using standard load within there recommendations of 1000fps.

any help or suggestions?






I heard before that 45 Colt in a conversion gun of any type other than an ROA, is a no-no; not enough meat between chambers, and between chambers and edge of cylinder- 44 cal. (.430") is the safe limit

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • 100_0593.jpg
    100_0593.jpg
    137.3 KB · Views: 2,951
good reason to go with a forged frame and cylinder, or stainless, or chrome moly

I hate to admit this, but I laughed my butt off when I just looked at that picture- good thing the guy didn't get hurt

look at that topstrap

obviously it was the cylinder or load, not the gun, but man is that gun nuked
 
Last edited:
HERE we go again,
I have had my 58 for yonks now, and
the conversion cylinder, i have shot bp and smokless and it
is still going strong, what the hells up with some of you guys?
its been posted lots of times how you can load smokless and
bp in conversion cylinders with no probs, read the info on the
guns you get, it gets so old about gun blow to bits because
it was over loaded, well da, i have shot bp for ever not once
have i had a prob if you do its down to you for not been to
smart??????????.:(
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top