Uberti quality
- Thread starter Dustin746
- Start date
Quality is good. Yes they are worth the $$$. Depends on what you want. They are good for SAAMI spec 14k psi. I think the Ruger Vaquero would be worth considering as it is has a safety and is good to 20k psi. The Cimarron's made by Urberti are good choices as well. Check out Long Hunter as they sell tuned guns for not much more than stock guns. http://www.longhunt.com/ The Taylor guns from Long Hunter are worth consideration as well.
Last edited:
Bob Wright
New member
Uberti single actions DO have a safety. There is a trigger acuated hammer block built into the hammer. When the hammer is drawn to the safety notch, a lever engages the hammer block located just below the firing pin and bears against the frame. This is an effective and unobtrusive safety, and really I prefer it over the transfer bar safety of the Ruger, as it gives the hammer a more pleasing profile.
The one I just bought last week is my third Uberti Single Action, and by-and-large, I've had good experience with these guns.
Bob Wright
The one I just bought last week is my third Uberti Single Action, and by-and-large, I've had good experience with these guns.
Bob Wright
Bob Wright said:
" Uberti single actions DO have a safety. There is a trigger acuated hammer block built into the hammer. When the hammer is drawn to the safety notch, a lever engages the hammer block located just below the firing pin and bears against the frame. This is an effective and unobtrusive safety, and really I prefer it over the transfer bar safety of the Ruger, as it gives the hammer a more pleasing profile.The one I just bought last week is my third Uberti Single Action, and by-and-large, I've had good experience with these guns."
While I would agree that the recent years' Ubertis especially are fine guns--I love my ca 2008 Cimarron Model P--the "safety" in no way equates to Ruger's transfer bar in that I'd never suggest loading six in the Uberti (not talking the Beretta Stampede line here). In that respect, these "safeties" have entirely different functions.
If you want SAA look and feel and are on a sub-$850 or so budget, Ubertis are hard to beat. Not a problem one with mine.
" Uberti single actions DO have a safety. There is a trigger acuated hammer block built into the hammer. When the hammer is drawn to the safety notch, a lever engages the hammer block located just below the firing pin and bears against the frame. This is an effective and unobtrusive safety, and really I prefer it over the transfer bar safety of the Ruger, as it gives the hammer a more pleasing profile.The one I just bought last week is my third Uberti Single Action, and by-and-large, I've had good experience with these guns."
While I would agree that the recent years' Ubertis especially are fine guns--I love my ca 2008 Cimarron Model P--the "safety" in no way equates to Ruger's transfer bar in that I'd never suggest loading six in the Uberti (not talking the Beretta Stampede line here). In that respect, these "safeties" have entirely different functions.
If you want SAA look and feel and are on a sub-$850 or so budget, Ubertis are hard to beat. Not a problem one with mine.
Uberti
I've not shot any I've owned enough to break them. However, one aspect of Uberti has been outstanding. Every one I've owned shot close to the aiming point. This has been the exception with "Cowboy" type revolvers I've owned. Almost all were not sighted "in" from the factory and needed work on the front sight, barrel turning etc. to shoot to point of aim. None of the Uberti products did, all shot to point of aim from the factory. I'm talking about Italian reproductions, not Ruger. All the Ruger's have been quite good.
I've not shot any I've owned enough to break them. However, one aspect of Uberti has been outstanding. Every one I've owned shot close to the aiming point. This has been the exception with "Cowboy" type revolvers I've owned. Almost all were not sighted "in" from the factory and needed work on the front sight, barrel turning etc. to shoot to point of aim. None of the Uberti products did, all shot to point of aim from the factory. I'm talking about Italian reproductions, not Ruger. All the Ruger's have been quite good.
Bob Wright
New member
Both safties are designed to prevent accidental discharge if the gun is dropped or the hammer is struck in such a way as to possibly fire the gun. In this respect both work the same way, to prevent hammer movement enough to fire the round. The Uberti safety is akin to the Colt Positive safety, in that it serves as a hammer block. True, with the Uberti, the hammer must rest in the safety notch, but is is nonetheless safe.
As for me, I never rely on any safety device, load only five rounds, empty chamber under the hammer, Ruger, Colt, Uberti or whatever.
Bob Wright
Clint Eastwood seems to like them a lot LOL. Transfer bars and hammer blocks do use different methods to achieve the same function but both work equally well. And the hammer block doesn't degrade the trigger pull nearly as much. S&W has used them since before most of us were born and no one complains much about their SA trigger feel. IMO S&W's trigger will always be much better than Ruger's although the Ruger can be improved considerably by a skilled smith. But if you try to take all of the creep out of a Ruger SA's trigger the transfer bar usually ends up lacking enough travel to really cover the firing pin. My experience with parts breakage on "spaghetti guns" has been limited to only the flat springs they use. But the orginal Colts were just as bad in that regard. Bill Ruger solved that problem by using coil springs in his design. Coil springs have much longer life. A Ruger with a transfer bar is perfectly safe with a round under the hammer but loading only five is a very old tradition that will probably never die. Just like the SA revolver.
Last edited:
I certainly "rely" on a properly designed "safety device", which is why I carry a da revolver fully loaded, a 1911 pistol "cocked and locked", a Glock pistol with a round in the chamber-and a Ruger Vaquero loaded with six rounds.
No, I do not trust any safety device so implicitly that I would ever abandon common sense safety rules, i.e., no finger on the trigger until ready to shoot; never pointing a gun at something you don't want destroyed; always treating a gun as though it was loaded, etc.
dgludwig, loading 5 rounds in a SA revolver was done for safety in case the gun was dropped and landed on the hammer and while it's not really necessary with most modern SA revos it had been accepted practice for almost 150 years. A great many people over the years managed to hurt themselves (and their horses) by not following the practice. It's going to take a very long time for the practice to go away. And it doesn't hurt anything to only load five. And you have to admit a revolver with an empty chamber under the hammer is safer than a Glock or a 1911.
And that's my only point.
If you practice the rules of gun safety-and there's no excuse for not doing so-a revolver equipped with a transfer bar (which is the configuration I addressed when referencing "relying" on a "safety device") with the hammer over an empty chamber is no "safer" than a loaded Glock or 1911 pistol-or a Vaquero loaded with six rounds. If we were to follow your line of thinking to the extreme, we wouldn't load the gun at all. And you have to admit that an unloaded gun is safer than a loaded revolver with an empty chamber under the hammer...
Last edited:
Bob Wright
New member
As to my statement, I was referring to western style single action revolvers. As to modern Smith & Wessons, I have carried them fully loaded with no qualms.
Sorry if I misled onyone.
As to loading five rounds in my Blackhawks, I reckon my many years experience with traditional single actions has ingrained my practice of loading only five rounds to the point where it carries over to the newer Ruger single actions.
Bob Wright
Bob Wright
New member
How did you arrive at that?
My uncle carried a Colt Navy in making his "rounds" (delivering moonshine) and one night emptied his Colt of all five rounds shooting at an apparition.
Bob Wright
Bob Wright
New member
I
I hate to dispute your word, but I knew of men who carried single actions long before anyone ever heard of Ruger, and they all loaded an empty chamber under the hammer.
Even with the old top-break Belgian revolvers it was advised to do the same, as they had no safety devices at all.
Bob Wright
I hate to dispute your word, but I knew of men who carried single actions long before anyone ever heard of Ruger, and they all loaded an empty chamber under the hammer.
Even with the old top-break Belgian revolvers it was advised to do the same, as they had no safety devices at all.
Bob Wright
Bob Wright
New member
I've heard of folks doing that, but it left the bolt pressing against the cylinder side instead of resting in the locking notch. Never trusted that way of carrying.
Bob Wright