Agree. There were many good replicas produced during the 'period of soft parts'. I've only owned one bad one and worked on a few others; the majority of what crossed my bench was good stuff. And the new Piettas sure look like they're up to snuff. But of course anyone is capable of producing the occasional lemon, and it doesn't take very many to create a bad rep. Too many people take one bad apple as being proof the whole orchard is bad.
Right Choice for a Cap & Ball Revolver
- Thread starter dlbarr
- Start date
Been shooting cap and ball revolvers for about 40 years.
I would not buy a brass frame. Not only are they less resistant to higher pressures, brass-framed revolvers tend to be less better made.
Their fit and finish is often not as good as the steel-framed guns. It's as though the factories don't put the work into brass-framed guns, and that's why they're sold at a cheaper price.
Spend a little extra money and get a steel-framed gun.
I have Uberti, Pietta, Colt 2nd generation, ASM and Cimmaron guns.
The Colt 2nd generation, Uberti and Cimmaron are by far the best made.
My understanding is that Cimmaron purchases the best Ubertis, and then slicks them up a bit. The gaudy Italian proof marks found on Ubertis and other Italian-made guns are not as evident on Cimmaron guns. They're generally hid under the rammer, apparently by request from Cimmaron.
Cimmaron roll-marks its own name and address, in old-timey script, along the top of the barrel. It looks more authentic that way.
Uberti is very well made too.
The Colt 2nd generation is the standard by which reproductions are judged. It is not considered a reproduction, but a reissue. The frame and a few other parts were made by Uberti in Italy, then shipped to Colt for finishing.
Yet, detractors refer to them as "Italian made" and "Spaghetti Colts." Funny how these same detractors never mention "Limey Colts" made in London in the 1850s, or "Sushi Winchesters or Brownings" made by Miroku of Japan.
Ah well ...
Go with Uberti or Cimmaron if you can afford it. You'll end up with a revolver that, properly cared for, will last for generations.
Colt or Remington design? I shoot both. The Colt is far better balanced. It will also shoot longer before fouling causes the cylinder to drag: the Colt has a larger diameter cylinder pin, upon which the cylinder revolves. It is also machined with grooves to hold lubricant, and to allow someplace for fouling to collect.
The Remington has a small diameter cylinder pin, smooth, providing no place for grease to remain or fouling to collect.
The Colt and Remington are amply strong for black powder and its substitutes. The Remington is stronger than the Colt, if you foolishly try to exceed charges listed for the stronger Hodgdon 777, but staying within recommended loads of 777 (see the Hodgdon site) will keep both revolvers operating without accelerated wear.
The Colt 1851 and 1861 Navies have been proclaimed as one of the best-balanced revolvers ever made. The Remington is not nearly as well balanced, some find it very ill-balanced. It feels clunky in my hand, in both the .36 and .44 version, but it is accurate.
The Colt is far more forgiving if you load too much in a chamber and can't seat the ball deep enough for the cylinder to clear the barrel. Pop off the barrel, hold the cylinder back by hand, carefully cock it, and fire the protruding ball out of the chamber.
The Remington will require you to remove the nipple, scrape out the excess powder with a stick or brass pick (something that can't produce a spark), replace the nipple, seat the ball deeper and shoot it out.
The Colt is more prone to get cap fragments in its mechanism, tying it up. Some shooters reduce this tendency by carefully polishing the face of the hammer to slick smoothness, so the hammer can't grasp cap fragments.
The Remington is not so prone to pull caps back and drop them into the action, but it is more likely to get caps stuck between the frame and cylinder, tying it up.
By now, you're thoroughly confused.
Frankly, it's a matter of what feels good in your hand and appeals to your eye.
For newcomers, if they can afford it, I suggest a stainless steel Remington in .44 caliber (to my knowledge, no one makes a stainless steel .36 Remington).
I like the .36 caliber, but I also swear by the use of .380" diameter balls, not the recommended .375 inch. Alas, .380 balls are not usually available on the shelf, and require special ordering or casting your own.
However, with the .44 caliber, I recommend .454 inch balls. These are commonly available.
I don't use a separate loading device. I don't see the need for one. Either revolver is amply strong to withstand any sane seating pressure applied to balls or conical bullets with its attendant rammer.
Folks got along fine with the revolver's rammer for 150 years or so. I just don't see the need for more gear.
If you can find it, or order it, use real black powder. FFFG grade is preferred, but FFG will do in a pinch. It's the most accurate propellant I've found.
Felt wads soaked in a stiff, all-natural (non petroleum-based) lubricant such as SPG, Lyman Black Gold, lard, a mix of beeswax and lard, or the homemade lubricant named after me -- Gatofeo No. 1 -- are preferred between ball and powder. Hard felt is needed. You can buy Wonder Wads and soak them, but they cost about a dime apiece. If you buy hard, wool felt from Durofelt, off the net, and a punch, you can make your own wads for a penny or less.
In summation: Remington .44 caliber. Stainless steel if you can afford it. Avoid any and all brass frame guns. Use real black powder. The choice of Colt or Remington is a personal choice because both designs have benefits and failings. Don't feel obligated to purchase a separate loading device because the revolver's rammer works just fine.
Also, wear eye and ear protection. Never let anyone stand to the side when firing. While firing, keep all powder and caps behind you, out of the range of sparks. Keep your fingers away from the front of the cylinder when placing caps on the nipples. Don't judge the revolver's accuracy until you've put at least 100 rounds through it; it sometimes needs time to settle in (I can't explain this last statement, but I've seen it happen with some revolvers).
Be safe. Have fun. Carry more than a few grains of salt for all the suggestions and historical lore you'll hear at the range. A fair portion of it is fabrication, guesswork, fable or bragging.
I would not buy a brass frame. Not only are they less resistant to higher pressures, brass-framed revolvers tend to be less better made.
Their fit and finish is often not as good as the steel-framed guns. It's as though the factories don't put the work into brass-framed guns, and that's why they're sold at a cheaper price.
Spend a little extra money and get a steel-framed gun.
I have Uberti, Pietta, Colt 2nd generation, ASM and Cimmaron guns.
The Colt 2nd generation, Uberti and Cimmaron are by far the best made.
My understanding is that Cimmaron purchases the best Ubertis, and then slicks them up a bit. The gaudy Italian proof marks found on Ubertis and other Italian-made guns are not as evident on Cimmaron guns. They're generally hid under the rammer, apparently by request from Cimmaron.
Cimmaron roll-marks its own name and address, in old-timey script, along the top of the barrel. It looks more authentic that way.
Uberti is very well made too.
The Colt 2nd generation is the standard by which reproductions are judged. It is not considered a reproduction, but a reissue. The frame and a few other parts were made by Uberti in Italy, then shipped to Colt for finishing.
Yet, detractors refer to them as "Italian made" and "Spaghetti Colts." Funny how these same detractors never mention "Limey Colts" made in London in the 1850s, or "Sushi Winchesters or Brownings" made by Miroku of Japan.
Ah well ...
Go with Uberti or Cimmaron if you can afford it. You'll end up with a revolver that, properly cared for, will last for generations.
Colt or Remington design? I shoot both. The Colt is far better balanced. It will also shoot longer before fouling causes the cylinder to drag: the Colt has a larger diameter cylinder pin, upon which the cylinder revolves. It is also machined with grooves to hold lubricant, and to allow someplace for fouling to collect.
The Remington has a small diameter cylinder pin, smooth, providing no place for grease to remain or fouling to collect.
The Colt and Remington are amply strong for black powder and its substitutes. The Remington is stronger than the Colt, if you foolishly try to exceed charges listed for the stronger Hodgdon 777, but staying within recommended loads of 777 (see the Hodgdon site) will keep both revolvers operating without accelerated wear.
The Colt 1851 and 1861 Navies have been proclaimed as one of the best-balanced revolvers ever made. The Remington is not nearly as well balanced, some find it very ill-balanced. It feels clunky in my hand, in both the .36 and .44 version, but it is accurate.
The Colt is far more forgiving if you load too much in a chamber and can't seat the ball deep enough for the cylinder to clear the barrel. Pop off the barrel, hold the cylinder back by hand, carefully cock it, and fire the protruding ball out of the chamber.
The Remington will require you to remove the nipple, scrape out the excess powder with a stick or brass pick (something that can't produce a spark), replace the nipple, seat the ball deeper and shoot it out.
The Colt is more prone to get cap fragments in its mechanism, tying it up. Some shooters reduce this tendency by carefully polishing the face of the hammer to slick smoothness, so the hammer can't grasp cap fragments.
The Remington is not so prone to pull caps back and drop them into the action, but it is more likely to get caps stuck between the frame and cylinder, tying it up.
By now, you're thoroughly confused.
Frankly, it's a matter of what feels good in your hand and appeals to your eye.
For newcomers, if they can afford it, I suggest a stainless steel Remington in .44 caliber (to my knowledge, no one makes a stainless steel .36 Remington).
I like the .36 caliber, but I also swear by the use of .380" diameter balls, not the recommended .375 inch. Alas, .380 balls are not usually available on the shelf, and require special ordering or casting your own.
However, with the .44 caliber, I recommend .454 inch balls. These are commonly available.
I don't use a separate loading device. I don't see the need for one. Either revolver is amply strong to withstand any sane seating pressure applied to balls or conical bullets with its attendant rammer.
Folks got along fine with the revolver's rammer for 150 years or so. I just don't see the need for more gear.
If you can find it, or order it, use real black powder. FFFG grade is preferred, but FFG will do in a pinch. It's the most accurate propellant I've found.
Felt wads soaked in a stiff, all-natural (non petroleum-based) lubricant such as SPG, Lyman Black Gold, lard, a mix of beeswax and lard, or the homemade lubricant named after me -- Gatofeo No. 1 -- are preferred between ball and powder. Hard felt is needed. You can buy Wonder Wads and soak them, but they cost about a dime apiece. If you buy hard, wool felt from Durofelt, off the net, and a punch, you can make your own wads for a penny or less.
In summation: Remington .44 caliber. Stainless steel if you can afford it. Avoid any and all brass frame guns. Use real black powder. The choice of Colt or Remington is a personal choice because both designs have benefits and failings. Don't feel obligated to purchase a separate loading device because the revolver's rammer works just fine.
Also, wear eye and ear protection. Never let anyone stand to the side when firing. While firing, keep all powder and caps behind you, out of the range of sparks. Keep your fingers away from the front of the cylinder when placing caps on the nipples. Don't judge the revolver's accuracy until you've put at least 100 rounds through it; it sometimes needs time to settle in (I can't explain this last statement, but I've seen it happen with some revolvers).
Be safe. Have fun. Carry more than a few grains of salt for all the suggestions and historical lore you'll hear at the range. A fair portion of it is fabrication, guesswork, fable or bragging.
That's because they were manufactured in London at the COLT factory, that was owned and opened by Sam COLT. They were not manufactured by another company.
Yes they do. Read this thread. A lot of Miroku-chester (and Japan, for some reason) bashing in here.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=460762
madcratebuilder
New member
Sam Colts BIL ran the European operation. He's reported to have been a drunken fool who skimmed the books. That is why Sam closed up the over seas operation.
OutlawJoseyWales
New member
Thanks Gatafeo,
your info helped me get started and has helped me along the way the last couple of years.
OJW
your info helped me get started and has helped me along the way the last couple of years.
OJW
dlbarr asked me to elaborate on what damage was done to my brass frame 51 and what I did to fix it.
The first problem I had was that the arbor was loose. (it wiggled) To fix this I first had to get the pin out of the arbor.
I had a machinist friend of mine drill it out and thread it so that I could replace the pin with a set screw. I then turned out the arbor with a screw driver. cleaned it up and applied some lock tight, then turned it back in and installed the set screw.
The next issue was that the raised "ring" on the recoil shield was battered beyond recognition. This allowed the cylinder to move about a 1/16" backward with every shot. A dangerous situation because every shot had the potential to set off all of the caps!
With the arbor out I took my dremel and ground the ring off so that the recoil shield was flat. I then made a new ring out of a steel washer. The ring is just about ready to go in this photo.
I also had to harden the steel ring by heating it red hot with a torch and dropping it in oil. It was suggested that I solder the ring in place, but I found that the cylinder holds it in place just fine. I'm not sure the gun is salable in it's current condition, but it shoots just fine.
The first problem I had was that the arbor was loose. (it wiggled) To fix this I first had to get the pin out of the arbor.
I had a machinist friend of mine drill it out and thread it so that I could replace the pin with a set screw. I then turned out the arbor with a screw driver. cleaned it up and applied some lock tight, then turned it back in and installed the set screw.
The next issue was that the raised "ring" on the recoil shield was battered beyond recognition. This allowed the cylinder to move about a 1/16" backward with every shot. A dangerous situation because every shot had the potential to set off all of the caps!
With the arbor out I took my dremel and ground the ring off so that the recoil shield was flat. I then made a new ring out of a steel washer. The ring is just about ready to go in this photo.
I also had to harden the steel ring by heating it red hot with a torch and dropping it in oil. It was suggested that I solder the ring in place, but I found that the cylinder holds it in place just fine. I'm not sure the gun is salable in it's current condition, but it shoots just fine.
One BP revolver?
I'd have to go with a 5 1/2" Stainless '58 Remington! I feel that the Stainless Steel is a better base metal to make Revolvers from.
My personal carry gun is a .357 Magnum, 4 5/8", Stainless, New Vaquero. It has the most power available in this short revolver and affords the ability of shooting .38Special Ammo for pratice and/or actual Social Work. The high end .38 Special is a proven manstopper through decades of Police work.
However for BP use, the Remington design has few Cap misfires/failures and the closed frame seems to keep Cap fragments from falling into the action! You can count on heavy loading the Remington cylinders and not experiencing problems.
I would advise the use of a round ball for your bullet of choice as they are really accurate and pack a good whollop to boot!
The stainless prevents rust and stains and will make clean-up less of a chore.
Besides they are shiney!!!
ZVP
I'd have to go with a 5 1/2" Stainless '58 Remington! I feel that the Stainless Steel is a better base metal to make Revolvers from.
My personal carry gun is a .357 Magnum, 4 5/8", Stainless, New Vaquero. It has the most power available in this short revolver and affords the ability of shooting .38Special Ammo for pratice and/or actual Social Work. The high end .38 Special is a proven manstopper through decades of Police work.
However for BP use, the Remington design has few Cap misfires/failures and the closed frame seems to keep Cap fragments from falling into the action! You can count on heavy loading the Remington cylinders and not experiencing problems.
I would advise the use of a round ball for your bullet of choice as they are really accurate and pack a good whollop to boot!
The stainless prevents rust and stains and will make clean-up less of a chore.
Besides they are shiney!!!
ZVP
OK, well I'm set up for awhile now....
So I bought a brass-framed Pietta '58 Remington with an extra cylinder on gunbroker. The seller offered me a companion to it after the sale so I have the Rem and a brass '51 Navy which was NIB. Both in .44 and he sent along a BUNCH of extras: 4 tins of caps, 4 boxes of .454s, a brass flask (with BP in it), cleaning patches. I probably shouldn't say what I paid for this - it will only make you mad. I got a real deal it seems to me. (didn't even have to pay shipping) Needless to say the seller was very generous.
Now it's off to the range to see how these shoot for me.
So I bought a brass-framed Pietta '58 Remington with an extra cylinder on gunbroker. The seller offered me a companion to it after the sale so I have the Rem and a brass '51 Navy which was NIB. Both in .44 and he sent along a BUNCH of extras: 4 tins of caps, 4 boxes of .454s, a brass flask (with BP in it), cleaning patches. I probably shouldn't say what I paid for this - it will only make you mad. I got a real deal it seems to me. (didn't even have to pay shipping) Needless to say the seller was very generous.
Now it's off to the range to see how these shoot for me.
Last edited:
Rawg the Huug
Inactive
I nerdily bought a pair of 12" barreled '51 Pietta Navies from EMF, switched the brass frames to steel, installed square-backed trigger guards & had Elen Hunting carve up one-piece stag grips. Gonna have 'em converted soon (was gonna do it myself, but Kirst Konverters are not what I'd hoped they'd be) as I can afford it.
I've also got a pair of Uberti 2nd Model Dragoons & a handful of other 51's & 61's, all Piettas. BP is a filthy load of fun, though having to step to the side to see around the smoke if I hit my target becomes tedious. I practice at a distance of at least 25 yards & don't have steel to ring my answer back at me.
From time to time I carry a black powder revolver because it's better to have a gun & not need one than to need a gun & not have one. You may sneer at my choice, but it sure beats relying on The James Brown Car Alarm.
I've also got a pair of Uberti 2nd Model Dragoons & a handful of other 51's & 61's, all Piettas. BP is a filthy load of fun, though having to step to the side to see around the smoke if I hit my target becomes tedious. I practice at a distance of at least 25 yards & don't have steel to ring my answer back at me.
From time to time I carry a black powder revolver because it's better to have a gun & not need one than to need a gun & not have one. You may sneer at my choice, but it sure beats relying on The James Brown Car Alarm.