foolzrushn
New member
My 1981 Navy Arms 1851 Colt Pietta is .44 caliber. I have read on this forum that Pietta just took the .36 caliber barrel and drilled it out to .44 caliber for marketing reasons. I believe that and see how that could cause the machining on the .44 caliber barrel to have a wall thickness that is thinner than that of the .36 caliber. Unfortunately bigger means more powder to those who just fill the cylinder chamber to the top. Is it safe?
What I am wondering is if the later (newer) Piettas have the same thin spots in the construction of the barrel that my 1981 version has. The three spots that concern me are: the front sight dovetail cutout, the cutout in the bottom of the forcing cone for the cylinder arbor and the wedge screw cutout (threaded hole) inside the arbor cutout.
I don't know how much thickness is required...that would depend on the charge. Perhaps even .060 is plenty. That's what I measure at the cone. It looks like the screw cutout would make that even thinner though. At least on my gun. I suppose that the configuration has remained the same because of the limits of the Colt shape.
What say ye?
FRN
What I am wondering is if the later (newer) Piettas have the same thin spots in the construction of the barrel that my 1981 version has. The three spots that concern me are: the front sight dovetail cutout, the cutout in the bottom of the forcing cone for the cylinder arbor and the wedge screw cutout (threaded hole) inside the arbor cutout.
I don't know how much thickness is required...that would depend on the charge. Perhaps even .060 is plenty. That's what I measure at the cone. It looks like the screw cutout would make that even thinner though. At least on my gun. I suppose that the configuration has remained the same because of the limits of the Colt shape.
What say ye?
FRN
Attachments
Last edited: