Uberti 1858 NMA sights

G

Georgian

New member
Hey yall. I've noticed the front sight of my Uberti 1858 NMA
is machined higher than the pictures I've seen of original
1858s. Is this yet another Italian replica thing or ? Since
receiving my Uberti NMA, I have noticed that to shoot POA, I
must align the sight so that with my sight picture, the top of
the front sight is aligned with the bottom of the V in the frame.
If I align the sights on target so that the front sight is even with the rear notch in the frame, I noticed I shoot high. Idk if this is just me or if these
revolvers just naturally shoot high. I know with the Pietta Navy .36 I have
it shoots slightly low with the short, stubby bead sight. Any help would be appreciated!!
 
Howdy

I can tell you for a fact that when I bought my EuroArms Remmie in 1975 it had a much shorter front sight than all the Remmies I see today. I can also tell you for a fact that it used to shoot high because of the short front sight.

When I was considering buying a cartridge conversion cylinder a bunch of years ago the first thing I did was have a smith mount a new, taller front sight in it. I was not going to invest $200 in the gun for the cylinder if it was going to be shooting so high. He had to open up the dovetail in order to mount the new front sight, which was a standard Uberti front sight that I bought from Uberti. With the new, taller front sight the gun was shooting where I wanted it, it was printing dead on at about 10 yards, which is what I wanted. I then went ahead and bought the conversion cylinder and it also prints dead on at about 10 yards with cartridges now.

So..........when discussing shooting POA it helps if you mention what distance you are shooting at. POI is going to vary at different distances.
 
The originals had short sights and were sighted at 75 yards. The early repros all copied that and if I'm not mistaken Uberti still does. Newer Pietta Remingtons have such tall sights they look absurd but they do bring POI down to more reasonable levels at short ranges. Pietta has always been on the cutting edge of making things that never were but they still make Colt's with short sights.:confused:
 
Maybe I havent quite figured out how the revolver shoots quite yet then. From what yall are saying taller sights should print either POA or slightly low depending on the distance. I have been shooting from 7yds out to 25yrds
 
From what yall are saying taller sights should print either POA or slightly low depending on the distance.
Click to expand...

You are correct. My 51 navy shoots close to POA with the small cone but the 60's shoot high.
 
My Pietta 1858 shoots about 4 inches low, but I'm happy with that as I can always cut down the sight to make it high again.

Unfortunately, it also shoots about 4 inches to the left. I have bought a dovetail replacement but I'm waiting for my smith to get his mill going again.

Steve
 
Howdy

A taller front sight depresses the muzzle more than a short front sight. So all other things being equal, a gun with a taller front sight will tend to shoot lower than the same gun with a shorter front sight. I have heard various distances given for the old revolvers, I have heard 50 yards quoted, as the distance the old Colts were regulated to, meaning that is the distance at which they would shoot point of aim.

Typical front sight on an original Remington. Yes, this is one has a conversion cylinder, but the front sight is typical.

800px-Remington_Conversion.jpg


New front sight on my old 1975 EuroArms Remmie. This is a standard Uberti part, ordered directly from VTI, which used to be Uberti USA. Sorry, I don't have a photo of what the original sight looked like, but it was lower.

Remmie.jpg


Close up of my front sight.

RemmieFrontSight.jpg


Screen capture of current Uberti production Remington front sight.

UbertiRemington_zpsba2a96ce.jpg
 
My question is, why the heck were the original guys sighting these things for 75 yards? Heck, in competition with my best tuned loads I'm doing good to hit the target at 50 yards. Were these guys better shots back then or what?

Steve
 
Howdy Again

Good question. My take on it is that I seem to remember part of the qualifications for the 45 Colt load was that it be able to take down a horse. If you take down his horse, you disable a cavalryman. I have no factual evidence of this, but I suspect the SAA was regulated to 50 yards in case one was shooting at a target as big as a horse.
 
My question is, why the heck were the original guys sighting these things for 75 yards? Heck, in competition with my best tuned loads I'm doing good to hit the target at 50 yards. Were these guys better shots back then or what?
Click to expand...

You have to remember these were military weapons not target pistols. They were designed to hit enmassed targets at as far a range as would reliably incapacitate a man. If you sighted on a mans belt plate at 25 yards you would make a good chest shot. If you sighted on that same belt plate at 75 yards he would either be in a world of hurt from a close miss or he would have a belt plate with a hole in it. I know the Walkers and Dragoons were designed to disable horses but I'm not sure it was a requirement for the 1860 or 73.
 
I've had to replace the stock front sights on 3 different Euroarms 44s with higher sights I got from S S supply. They were Euroarms sights but about 1/8" taller than the stock ones. I have had to file a little off Pietta and Uberti Remingtons to raise the POI to hit on zero at CAS ranges.
 
I know the Walkers and Dragoons were designed to disable horses but I'm not sure it was a requirement for the 1860 or 73.
Click to expand...

Again, I'd sure like to see a citation for that.

I've been researching this since I got my Walker at Christmas.

I am taking back The History of Colt Firearms to the library today and will pick up another inter library loan book on the subject while there.

I have gone over all the surviving correspondence between Walker and Colt and have seen nothing of design requirements from Walker concerning firepower requirements. In fact, Walker's input into the design seems minimal.

I still have to read through the patents.

Steve
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top