Thinking about buying a Remington New Army aka 1858, looking for recommendations.

[DaveInFloweryBranchGA]

Howdy all,

I'm looking at Buying a Remington New Army, often called the 1858. I know there's some differences between what appears to be the currently available brands of Traditions, Pietta and Uberti, but I don't know what they are. I'd like to know and I'd like recommendations on which to buy of the currently available guns.

I'm also looking for information on cylinder size vs. barrel groove diameter, good quality loading tools, a good round ball mold and a good lube-able boolit mold, if such exists. If it's a better idea to shoot just round balls vs. a conical bullet - why.

I don't want to buy any kits for accessories, btw. Rather buy an assortment of good stuff, as I've found that ends up being cheaper in the long run.

Finally, I'd like to get a reverse flap holster, a couple cylinder pouches, a reloading pouch and a belt to hold the whole operation up with.

And above and beyond all that, any information you'd like to share related to this revolver.

Thank you,

Dave

[Good Cheer]

Pietta...
The chambers on mine have been in between bore and groove diameters. Same deal for .36 and .44.

[Fly]

Bud you can't go wrong with a Pietta 1858 Remey .I own many BP guns & have for many years.
For cost & best buy for your buck,Pietta 1858 Remey would be my pick.

Fly:grin:

[DaveInFloweryBranchGA]

Why do you guys like the Pietta vs. the other two? What sets it apart? Price/quality combination? I know Pietta quality has come up a good bit in recent years, with prices still very competitive.

Good Cheer,

What are the dimensions on your .44? That's the caliber I'm likely to go with, as that is what seems to be offered in that particular pistol.

Fly,

Do you have other Remington 1858 revolvers other than Pietta as well? I'm curious as to how they compare construction wise. Fit and finish I'm not as concerned with, as I can re-blue and re-fit a good many things. I like custom pistols and like customizing them.

[Fly]

Well don't take me wrong, there are better c&b revolvers out there, but at a much higher price.
But I think bang for your buck Pietta is tuff to beat.Like you said Pietta has come a long way
from the guns they made in the 70s & 80's.

I shoot my Pietta,s alot & they have held up very well.

Fly

[Battis]

Pietta makes good guns. Uberti might be finished a little smoother but will cost you more. The other alternative is a Spanish-made Santa Barbara Remington. Great guns. The unengraved version will be a lot cheaper.
http://www.cascity.com/forumhall/index.php?topic=21540.0
Just remember that the Remington arbors/cylinder pins don't have grease grooves and tend to bind up.
I sold my repros and bought an original New Model .44. Great shooter.

[Omnivore]

Dave; The most common repros by far, as you probably already know, are Pietta and Uberti. Both are decent for what you pay. Just understand that a 250 or 300 dollar revolver isn't going to be as well built as a 1,000 dollar revolver. Don't expect perfection.

Perdersoli and Pietta both make Remington NMA repros for around a thousand, and both have good reputations among competition shooters.

If you intend to try conicals, understand that the Pietta frame will need to be modified to make room in the frame's loading cutout for just about anything other than a round ball. The Uberti will take conicals without modification.

Both Pietta and Uberti, in their regular repros, have chambers undersized for the barrel. They don't say why and in fact they won't even list the diameters.

The Pietta has a much longer "ball" rifling twist of about 30", while the Uberti has a more modern twist for a 44 or 45 pistol, which is around 18".

My Uberti specs are as follows, but as shown, they are approximate;
Bore; .438 - .440"
Groove; .456 - .458"
Chambers; .450 - .451"
Uberti uses an odd number of lands and grooves, so the barrel is more difficult to measure via conventional slugging.

My Pietta has chambers of .447 - .449". The bore is also about .44 but I don't recall the groove diameter.

If you're ordering ball molds or bullet molds, you'll need to know the chamber diameter, because the Uberti and the Pietta definately have different chambers. The barrel specs are irrelevant here, because the projectile will be sized to chamber diameter no matter what. The Lee 450-200-1R mold, for example, drops bullets that fit very well in my Pietta, and they are too loose for the Uberti. Either gun takes a .454" round ball just fine, but the Uberti MIGHT like a .457" ball better. I've never fired my Uberti, as I got it so as to take it apart right away for another purpose.

Stuff like that. It's probably better not to over-think it. Just buy a new repro and play with it for a while.

If you can afford one of the thousand-dollar repros, that might satisfy you a lot more. Too, there are still some shootable originals out there for not a lot more money.

[Gunor]

Just bite the bullet and find a Ruger Old Army....

[44Vaquero]

Pietta is a fine choice. I own 2 1858's that have been converted to .45 acp using Kirst Konverters, both are equally accurate and smooth functioning.
102947

[DaveInFloweryBranchGA]

Omnivore, responses in the quote in red:


The most common repros by far, as you probably already know, are Pietta and Uberti. Both are decent for what you pay. Just understand that a 250 or 300 dollar revolver isn't going to be as well built as a 1,000 dollar revolver. Don't expect perfection. At the prices they are charging at Cabella's, I figure first, check if it functions in a basic way and is acceptable, if not, trade it out. If it's acceptable, then you have a gun to tune. So I'm looking at the Pietta as a "kit" that is okay when you get it, but needs tuning to work it's best.

Perdersoli and Pietta both make Remington NMA repros for around a thousand, and both have good reputations among competition shooters. I was looking at the Pietta version with stock sights and if I had the cash, that's the one I'd buy now.

If you intend to try conicals, understand that the Pietta frame will need to be modified to make room in the frame's loading cutout for just about anything other than a round ball. The Uberti will take conicals without modification. Thank you for that information. That's important information and could affect my decision, as I'm already considering have the cylinders re-bored to match the barrel.

Both Pietta and Uberti, in their regular repros, have chambers undersized for the barrel. They don't say why and in fact they won't even list the diameters. Which, if you're dead serious about having top notch accuracy, you need to have re-bored and might as well chamber the chamber mouth while you're at it.

The Pietta has a much longer "ball" rifling twist of about 30", while the Uberti has a more modern twist for a 44 or 45 pistol, which is around 18". So the Uberti could be expected to shoot a little better with conical bullets?

My Uberti specs are as follows, but as shown, they are approximate;
Bore; .438 - .440"
Groove; .456 - .458" Pretty deep groove.
Chambers; .450 - .451" Pretty small for such a large groove, looks like they're trying to avoid pressures. Have to research reboring chambers before doing so.

Uberti uses an odd number of lands and grooves, so the barrel is more difficult to measure via conventional slugging. Always a pain to deal with.

My Pietta has chambers of .447 - .449". The bore is also about .44 but I don't recall the groove diameter.I'd be willing to bet it's pretty good size as well.

If you're ordering ball molds or bullet molds, you'll need to know the chamber diameter, because the Uberti and the Pietta definately have different chambers. The barrel specs are irrelevant here, because the projectile will be sized to chamber diameter no matter what. The Lee 450-200-1R mold, for example, drops bullets that fit very well in my Pietta, and they are too loose for the Uberti. Either gun takes a .454" round ball just fine, but the Uberti MIGHT like a .457" ball better. I've never fired my Uberti, as I got it so as to take it apart right away for another purpose. So if you didn't want to re-bore the chambers, but wanted to shoot a bullet in one, you'd have to be real careful in what lead hardness you use or careful in boolit selection/design or both.

Stuff like that. It's probably better not to over-think it. Just buy a new repro and play with it for a while. I generally tend to over analyze and ask a lot of questions up front, get all the information I can and then make a choice and commit to that choice. Doing that, I've found I can live with my purchases better than if I just "jump in." I think I've sold every single firearm I ever "just jumped in" and bought, due to dissatisfaction or lack of real interest. The ones I enjoy the best are the ones I've really researched and come to know/understand, as I can get the performance out of them I want.

If you can afford one of the thousand-dollar repros, that might satisfy you a lot more. Too, there are still some shootable originals out there for not a lot more money. I doubt I could bring myself to shoot an original or even spend money on it, but I would like to have one of the high dollars, as from what I've read, they're much closer to being made like the originals.

Thank you for the information, gives me a lot to think about.

[DaveInFloweryBranchGA]

Just bite the bullet and find a Ruger Old Army....

If Ruger had made a copy of the Remington New Army and had did it reasonably accurately, I'd probably be shopping for one right now. As it is, their Old Army model is as ugly as sin and while I really like Ruger firearms in general, that one doesn't do it for me.

In this case, it's wanting to own something close to the original Remington New Army that I'm wanting. To me, it's a much more elegant gun. Besides, Clint made it cool back in the day.:)

[DaveInFloweryBranchGA]

Pietta is a fine choice. I own 2 1858's that have been converted to .45 acp using Kirst Konverters, both are equally accurate and smooth functioning.

I've looked at those and seriously thought about getting a pistol just to convert to .45LC. Not sure about the .45acp with no rim in a revolver. How is it handling the .45acp case/cartridge?

[44Vaquero]

Dave it handles just fine.

My reasons for choosing the .45 acp route was 3 fold: 1: I already have a dedicated progressive set up for .45 acp 2: No real interest in cartridge black powder (I still have the cap n ball cylinders) 3: Smaller case capacity is more efficient than trying to download the .45 LC.

The cases head space on the case mouth with no issues, no FTF and accuracy is better then expected. I load 160gr RF and 200gr WC both pass over the chrony @ about 825 fps. I never added an ejector rod as the cases tend to fall out when you open the loading gate!

For a period correct look I did purchase some .45 Cowboy Special Brass (Basically a .45 LC cut to .45 acp length)

102999

[DaveInFloweryBranchGA]

Dave it handles just fine.

My reasons for choosing the .45 acp route was 3 fold: 1: I already have a dedicated progressive set up for .45 acp Me too, hence my interest in your setup.

2: No real interest in cartridge black powder (I still have the cap n ball cylinders) So you're using smokeless, something easy to clean?

3: Smaller case capacity is more efficient than trying to download the .45 LC. That can be important.

The cases head space on the case mouth with no issues, no FTF and accuracy is better then expected. Are the cylinders cut internally to handle the .45ACP or how does it headspace? Similar to a 1911 barrel?

I load 160gr RF and 200gr WC both pass over the chrony @ about 825 fps. I never added an ejector rod as the cases tend to fall out when you open the loading gate! With no black powder to gum them up and if you're using a clean powder, I bet they shoot real nice in a heavy pistol like that. The only negative would be you can't do much about matching boolit to groove unless you opened up the cylinders and that would kill your headspacing.

For a period correct look I did purchase some .45 Cowboy Special Brass (Basically a .45 LC cut to .45 acp length) Is it rimmed or what makes it period correct looking? My apologies, cowboy action and black powder guns have never been on my radar before, so I have lots of questions.

Thank you for the information,

Dave

[44Vaquero]

Yes, the Cowboy Special is a rimmed cartridge it's just cut to .45 acp (.898) length. As I recall my 1858's slugged about the same as my 1911 barrel, I need to check my notes. Yes, the kirst cylinder is cut with a shoulder for the case mouth to head space on.

[dondiego]

That Cowboy Special brass sure sounds a lot like 45 Auto Rim brass. .45 AR has been around for many years.

[44Vaquero]

Dodiego,
They are similar in that both cartridges were developed to solve a specific problem and are of .45 caliber. The .45 Auto Rim was developed after WWI when large numbers of 1917 revolvers entered the civilian market. The 1917 was designed to use std. .45 acp cartridges mounted in half moon clips. Half moon clips being a PIA by nature, Remington designed a case with a rim thickness of .090 that allowed for the cartridge to space properly against the cylinder back with out the use of half moon clips

The .45 ACP in contrast has a rim thickness of only .049 and the .45 Colt has a rim thickness of .060.

The .45 Cowboy Special is a gamers cartridge designed allow easy down-loading without the issue of excessive case volume as compared to the .45 Colt and maintains a rim thickness of .060 and the length as a .45 ACP.

A .45 Cowboy Special might not work in a 1917 for which the AR was developed and a .45 AR would certainly not fit in my Kirst Konversion.

[dondiego]

Thanks for that info 44. My 45 AR brass does have really thick rims! Where can I find the Cowboy Special brass? I am going to try some and see if it works in my 1917's. I do not like the moon clips.

[44Vaquero]

Dondiego, Remember it's a low production gamers cartridge so it's not cheap solution.

http://cowboy45specialbrass.blogspot.com/

[dondiego]

They are proud of it aren't they? As you stated, it ain't 9MM!!

[Omnivore]

Pretty small for such a large groove, looks like they're trying to avoid pressures. Have to research reboring chambers before doing so.

The wall thickness between chambers is quite thin already. I wouldn't want to ream very far, especially since you're going to end up with higher chamber pressure. The Pietta, IIRC, has less difference between chamber and groove diameters.

A better solution might be leaving the chambers alone, or only opening them up one or two thou, and replacing the barrel to match the chambers. One of the industry standard 45 cal groove diameters is .451", which is almost exactly the same as the new Uberti chambers. You get a barrel blank, have it machined externally to fit into the Remmy frame and dovetailed for the loading lever catch and front sight... Thus you have total control over things like cylinder gap, forcing cone angle, twist, et al, and I would think the whole project would be less expensive than buying one of the high dollar repros outright. In that case the Uberti would be the way to go because of its slightly larger chambers and its already dovetailed sight and catch.

That's what I'm thinkin' a doin' anyway. I want to end up with a 12" ("Buffalo") Uberti for shootin' heavier bullets at longer distances. We'll see.

Washington State's big game hunting regs call fo a "45, 45, 8" as the minimum handgun, meaning 45 grains black powder or substitute, 45 caliber and 8" of barrel "as defined by the manufacturer". Since I'd be the manufacturer I could specify my own charging and caliber specs.

[Fly]

Whats funny is my c&b Pietta Remmie groups better than any hand gun I own at 15 yds old or new.
I don't own a Ruger thow.
Fly

[DaveInFloweryBranchGA]

Omnivore, in red in the quote again:


The wall thickness between chambers is quite thin already. I wouldn't want to ream very far, especially since you're going to end up with higher chamber pressure. The Pietta, IIRC, has less difference between chamber and groove diameters. What does the wall thickness of the cylinders measure on your chambers? From most of the postings I've read online, the Pietta groove diameters run .457-.458, so one would need to increase the diameter 7 to 8 thousandths and that is what the wall would be reduced by. Depending on cylinder wall thickness, cylinder gap and if your forcing cone is beveled 5 to 11 degrees, it may be do-able, if the wall thickness isn't too thin.

A better solution might be leaving the chambers alone, or only opening them up one or two thou, and replacing the barrel to match the chambers. One of the industry standard 45 cal groove diameters is .451", which is almost exactly the same as the new Uberti chambers. You get a barrel blank, have it machined externally to fit into the Remmy frame and dovetailed for the loading lever catch and front sight... Thus you have total control over things like cylinder gap, forcing cone angle, twist, et al, and I would think the whole project would be less expensive than buying one of the high dollar repros outright. In that case the Uberti would be the way to go because of its slightly larger chambers and its already dovetailed sight and catch. You've been thinking about this for a while, haven't you? I'm not sure what the machine work would run, could be costly, especially if you pay the man to do it right the first time and hire a good conscientious smith. Personally, I wouldn't hire any other for a job like that. Like my hands too much.

That's what I'm thinkin' a doin' anyway. I want to end up with a 12" ("Buffalo") Uberti for shootin' heavier bullets at longer distances. We'll see. Keep me posting on what the barrel blank and smith work ends up running.


Sometimes there's no substitute for paying your money and getting it right the first time.

[Driver man]

I shoot an Uberti 44 Remington and have put many 1000"s of balls down range. They are very accurate. My Ubert likes .457 balls and will group around 3-4 inches at 25 yards. I currently load 23grains fff ,fill just below the rim with semolina and press in the ball sprue down.I top that off with a grease lube and fit a squeezed no 11 cap. I have been very happy with the quality of the Uberti build.

[swathdiver]

It appears that in 2012 Pietta went with a tighter twist and dropped a land and groove from their barrels. Out of 3 2012 Pietta NMAs the oldest has 7 lands and grooves. It's chambers are .4475 and it's groove diameter is .448. Very accurate gun.

The 5.5" Sheriff's model has six lands and grooves and the twist is definitely tighter. It's chambers are .448 and it's groove diameter is .450.

The 3rd and newest 2012 is an 8" barreled sixgun with the same dimensions as the Sheriff's model.

Our .36 cal Belt Model has chambers .002 over groove diameter (.367), exactly the same as our Griswold and Gunnison and only .005 different from the brand new Spiller and Burr.

Mr. Pietta wrote to me once (early 2013) and said the NMAs chambers were .448 and groove to be .4518 with a groove depth of .011.

[DaveInFloweryBranchGA]

swathdiver,

Responses in red in the quote:


It appears that in 2012 Pietta went with a tighter twist and dropped a land and groove from their barrels. Sounds like they were changing/upgrading tooling and looking for ways to reduce costs as the same time. What was the previous twist and what is the new twist?

Out of 3 2012 Pietta NMAs the oldest has 7 lands and grooves. It's chambers are .4475 and it's groove diameter is .448. Very accurate gun. That's not much of a difference at all. Hardly worth it to open the cylinders up. Chamfer the chambers, load of the gun with a heavy duty tool, squish a .448 diameter ball/boolit and be done.

The 5.5" Sheriff's model has six lands and grooves and the twist is definitely tighter. It's chambers are .448 and it's groove diameter is .450. Again, much smaller differences than what I'd read online in my research about the Piettas. Much, much closer. This would make it likely possible to open up, as 0.002" ain't a whole lot. Changing a cutting tool could account for that difference.

The 3rd and newest 2012 is an 8" barreled sixgun with the same dimensions as the Sheriff's model. Again, hardly worth modifying.

Our .36 cal Belt Model has chambers .002 over groove diameter (.367), exactly the same as our Griswold and Gunnison and only .005 different from the brand new Spiller and Burr. Okay, since I've never owned a C&B revolver, I have no idea what you're talking about here. Is the .36 caliber a Rem New Army? When you say "our," who/m are you referring to? My apologies, I'm just too new to C&B to know anything about the "dealers."

Mr. Pietta wrote to me once (early 2013) and said the NMAs chambers were .448 and groove to be .4518 with a groove depth of .011. Did he tell you why they were choosing to have the chamber be slightly smaller than the barrel? That has to be a reason related to safety and liability. I'm guessing related to potential pressure issues and the steels involved.

Thank you for the information, learned a lot.

Dave

[swathdiver]

Point 1: Published literature states that the previous twist was 1:30 and this is roughly what I get measuring with a tight fitted patch. I get about 1:16 with the new barrels, better for shooting conicals and with conversion cylinders. But note, it's a crude measurement but if you put the two 8" barrels side by side, one can definitely see the differences.

Point 2: Not .448, we use .454 round ball. You want a good seal and decent bearing surface and you get that when the balls are about .006 over chamber diameter. I may someday open the chambers up slightly so they run .002 over groove diameter and run them with .457 rb. I'll cut the forcing cone first and maybe crown the barrel before doing that.

Point 3: Older guns of all makes were all over the place. I have Ubertis that are not safe to shoot because the chambers are .009 over groove diameter for example and another that's .006 under. Same with some ASMs, ASPs, etc. which are no longer in production. Pietta has really tightened things up. We have an Armi San Marco Walker that shoots .451s and is .001 over groove diameter, it shoots 1 hole groups all day long.

Point 4: Pietta offers the New Model Army style gun in .36 caliber with a 6 -1/2" barrel. The barrel length is based on the real Remington Belt Model but it shares the same frame as the .44s. It's actually heavier because it's the same size with smaller holes. "we" refers to my family, our children. Some companies call it a police model, not to be confused with the Colt Pocket Police.

Point 5: No. My guess is as good as yours. Either to tame the guns or to reduce fouling. Being that he is also an active shooter, I would figure the latter. When shooting for accuracy, I swab the bore between cylinders to keep the groups tight. They really open up when the guns get dirty.

[DaveInFloweryBranchGA]

swatchdiver,

In red in the quote again:


Point 1: Published literature states that the previous twist was 1:30 and this is roughly what I get measuring with a tight fitted patch. I get about 1:16 with the new barrels, better for shooting conicals and with conversion cylinders. But note, it's a crude measurement but if you put the two 8" barrels side by side, one can definitely see the differences. So should be increased stability, depending on the boolit/ball weight. Patch method is good enough for me, have they published the new twist yet or no? Maybe I should read Pietta's website and see what's there.

Point 2: Not .448, we use .454 round ball. You want a good seal and decent bearing surface and you get that when the balls are about .006 over chamber diameter. I may someday open the chambers up slightly so they run .002 over groove diameter and run them with .457 rb. I'll cut the forcing cone first and maybe crown the barrel before doing that. So with the ball, you shave off some lead on "one side" as it were, then as it is fired, it comes out of the chamber the way it was pushed in, then if it turns/spins any at all as it hits the forcing cone, it'll be at .454" where it wasn't shaved and nicely over groove diameter. On opening the chambers up, there was a concern expressed earlier about cylinder wall thickness. Is there sufficient metal there to safely open up that amount? It seems very reasonable and not a lot to remove. This is what I had in mind if I customized the gun myself.

Point 3: Older guns of all makes were all over the place. I have Ubertis that are not safe to shoot because the chambers are .009 over groove diameter for example and another that's .006 under. Same with some ASMs, ASPs, etc. which are no longer in production. Pietta has really tightened things up. We have an Armi San Marco Walker that shoots .451s and is .001 over groove diameter, it shoots 1 hole groups all day long. Guns like those, you would either have to exchange or inspect in the local store. Could get to be a real pain buying one on the internet. I'm glad Pietta is doing the work they are doing.

Point 4: Pietta offers the New Model Army style gun in .36 caliber with a 6 -1/2" barrel. The barrel length is based on the real Remington Belt Model but it shares the same frame as the .44s. It's actually heavier because it's the same size with smaller holes. "we" refers to my family, our children. Some companies call it a police model, not to be confused with the Colt Pocket Police. Shame they didn't make it in a smaller frame. How is the balance with the shorter barrels vs. the 8 inch barrel? Thank you for answering the "we" question, was driving me nuts with curiosity. My mother had a saying: "Curiosity killed the cat, but the satisfaction brought him back."

Point 5: No. My guess is as good as yours. Either to tame the guns or to reduce fouling. Being that he is also an active shooter, I would figure the latter. When shooting for accuracy, I swab the bore between cylinders to keep the groups tight. They really open up when the guns get dirty. With the wide range of powders and lubes out there today, there isn't a combination that reduces fouling somewhat? Currently, my thinking tends towards having two cylinders, loading off the gun with quality loading components/tools/materials/lubes/powders and not sure how many cylinders we'll shoot. (My wife and I, perhaps children/grandchildren.)

Thank you again for the information, very useful stuff and very helpful in making a decision. Unless I can see a reason not to buy the 8 inch version over the 5.5, I'll probably get the 8 with the extra cylinder. Unfortunately, before I got the cash together (tomorrow), Cabellas took the revolver with the extra cylinder off sale.:(

[swathdiver]

swatchdiver,
Unfortunately, before I got the cash together (tomorrow), Cabellas took the revolver with the extra cylinder off sale.:(

They always do that! They know darn well when we get paid! LOL

Point 1: I have not seen anything about the tighter twist in literature.

Point 2: No, the ball pretty much hits the forcing cone the way it went in. A .454 ball going into a .448 chamber is now a .448 ball. Upon firing it engages the .440 lands and .448 grooves and begins to spin on it way down and out the barrel. For best performance, we want chambers .001 to .002 over groove diameter. Mine are close and my shooting skills not at the point where it'd make a difference anyway!

Point 4: The 8" is the favorite except for the smaller statured shooters, they like the Belt Model but really enjoy the Colts.

Point 5: Yes, using a lubricated felt wad that fits tight will help scrape the bore on its way out. Spent most of last year shooting with lube over the balls and that is how I keep them loaded, but for the range, we're going back to wads, the gun is much more accurate. Recently I ran 14 5-round tests and discovered that our 8" Remmy likes 35 grains of powder under a lubed wad with my Lee cast .454 round balls. Groups were under an inch if memory serves at 25 feet. The next closest was 15 grains of BP with 20 grains Cream of Wheat and 35 grains lube over the ball and both shot groups over an inch larger.

I will complete the tests with Schuetzen (Grafs) powder as that's what we've been using, but will soon be switching to Goex Olde Eynsford. Then I'll test again and sight the gun in for use with the Olde Eynsford powder (adjusting the front blade).

[DaveInFloweryBranchGA]

swathdiver,

In red in the quote again.


They always do that! They know darn well when we get paid! LOLYou would think they got money radar.

Point 1: I have not seen anything about the tighter twist in literature. They don't get a hurry about posting specs, eh? Not surprising, if the new twist isn't popular, they have some deniability.

Point 2: No, the ball pretty much hits the forcing cone the way it went in. A .454 ball going into a .448 chamber is now a .448 ball. I'm thinking kind of an oblong ball at that point.

Upon firing it engages the .440 lands and .448 grooves and begins to spin on it way down and out the barrel. So not a horrible match, but not perfect either. I remember you saying the barrels were .450 groove, so you're fairly close and if the soft lead ball obturates a bit from the gas pressure, you're doing okay. If not, there's accuracy to be gained modifying the cylinder a bit.

For best performance, we want chambers .001 to .002 over groove diameter. Mine are close and my shooting skills not at the point where it'd make a difference anyway! Yes, that's been the known standard here on this forum (Unlike most forums on the net.) that have a lead boolit over groove diameter a "bit" helps the seal, increasing accuracy,preventing gas cutting and the associated barrel leading. I would assume the soft lead does a better job of this, assuming a decent match of ball to chamber/groove.

Point 4: The 8" is the favorite except for the smaller statured shooters, they like the Belt Model but really enjoy the Colts. Sounds like the 8 is the way for me to go, as I'm not at all small statured in any way. "Robust" might be a more generous term for me.:)

Point 5: Yes, using a lubricated felt wad that fits tight will help scrape the bore on its way out. Spent most of last year shooting with lube over the balls and that is how I keep them loaded, but for the range, we're going back to wads, the gun is much more accurate. Interesting, I' was certainly thinking of using the wads in that manner. Made much more sense to me than on top of the powder. Provides lube ahead of the projectile as well as doing a little pre-ball cleaning. How does it lube the rod? (>ot sure I have the term right.) Any effect or do you need to lube that yourself?

Recently I ran 14 5-round tests and discovered that our 8" Remmy likes 35 grains of powder under a lubed wad with my Lee cast .454 round balls. Groups were under an inch if memory serves at 25 feet. The next closest was 15 grains of BP with 20 grains Cream of Wheat and 35 grains lube over the ball and both shot groups over an inch larger. Thank you for posting the load information. Gives me a place to start. Mind if I ask what Lee mold, what brand of wads, what powder, etc.? Sometimes it's simpler to copy the wagon wheel than to reinvent it and these days, my time has gotten much more limited than I'd like.

I will complete the tests with Schuetzen (Grafs) powder as that's what we've been using, but will soon be switching to Goex Olde Eynsford. Then I'll test again and sight the gun in for use with the Olde Eynsford powder (adjusting the front blade). Please keep us posted, I'm certainly interested in the information. Though likely, I'll do the research, buy the powder in an 8 pound can if I can.

Thank you again for the information.

Dave

[swathdiver]

The Lee mold is the one for .454 round ball (90442).

We make our own wads from Durofelt and cut them out with punches made by a fellow named Ohio Ramrod over at the Muzzleloading forum.

And of course we make our own lubricants except for the Ballistol.

As for powder, we're finishing up our supply of Graf's (Schuetzen) which has been good stuff. No complaints but now that Olde Eynsford is out, that's what we're going to be using now. I do have SWISS 4Fg and I have used it in the Belt Revolver under the conicals, boy what a hoot! But really no more powerful than a little more 3Fg.

I'm not aware of any 8 pound powder cans, they come in 1lb plastic bottles now. Grafs & Sons allows you to buy one bottle or 25 bottles in any mix with any purchase with a minimal handling fee and of course the HAZMAT. Great for orders 10lbs or less. PowderInc. has better prices above 10lbs but you can only order in 5lb, 10lb and 25lb increments.

You cannot go wrong with the standard 8" Remington New Model Army. It might be your first sixgun but it won't be your last. Just wait until you hold a genuine Colt 1860 Army or '51 Navy in your hands! Our little Colt Pocket Police is a favorite and excellent pointer as is our Pietta Griswold & Gunnison.

[Alan]

2 ways of handling fouling. 1) Minimize it, or 2) keep it as soft as possible so it is wiped by the next shot. Most of my success has been with #2. Goex 2F with greased felt wad under ball,80+% load capacity.

Older guns, the Uberti's seem a bit better. New ones it's a toss-up, unless you can handle in the store. I like U because of dovetailed sight.

[DaveInFloweryBranchGA]

The Lee mold is the one for .454 round ball (90442). I think somebody makes a six

We make our own wads from Durofelt and cut them out with punches made by a fellow named Ohio Ramrod over at the Muzzleloading forum. Where do you buy the felt or should I just google it?

And of course we make our own lubricants except for the Ballistol. Seems like anybody that casts boolits tends towards making their own lubes and cleaning supplies. I don't think I buy any commercial anything except for an occasional 4 oz. bottle of break free/clp.

As for powder, we're finishing up our supply of Graf's (Schuetzen) which has been good stuff. No complaints but now that Olde Eynsford is out, that's what we're going to be using now. I do have SWISS 4Fg and I have used it in the Belt Revolver under the conicals, boy what a hoot! But really no more powerful than a little more 3Fg. Are any of the powders you just mentioned lower in smoke and "cleaner?" (Cleaner being a relative term to old fashioned black powder.

I'm not aware of any 8 pound powder cans, they come in 1lb plastic bottles now. Grafs & Sons allows you to buy one bottle or 25 bottles in any mix with any purchase with a minimal handling fee and of course the HAZMAT. Great for orders 10lbs or less. PowderInc. has better prices above 10lbs but you can only order in 5lb, 10lb and 25lb increments. I am thinking in terms of what I order in smokeless. I do a lot of research, get a powder that sounds like what I'm interested in shooting and order enough of it to do some shooting for a while. By the time I'm through that much powder, I know if it's exactly what I want or not. In any case, with large containers of powder in the storage cabinet, running out of powder/primers and such during peak demand periods tends not to be a problem.

You cannot go wrong with the standard 8" Remington New Model Army. It might be your first sixgun but it won't be your last. Just wait until you hold a genuine Colt 1860 Army or '51 Navy in your hands! Our little Colt Pocket Police is a favorite and excellent pointer as is our Pietta Griswold & Gunnison. I think I'm going to order one of the Remmies when opportunity presents. I've heard the Colts point a little better, but are a bit more delicate.

Thank you again for the information.

[DaveInFloweryBranchGA]

excess650,

Responses in red in the quote:


My own 1858 is a Uberti. I was thinking that I wanted a '62 Navy because they were sleek, but after handling every revolver in the shop, this Uberti went home with me.Sometimes the quality of a gun or the gun itself just speaks to us.

I checked dimensions a while back and the cylinders are .001" over groove diameter.A very good thing, you could load for better accuracy with no mods to cylinder.

I never tried the reduced loads. I shot only .454" RBS and Lyman 450229 (hollow based conical) over 35+gr Swiss fffg and a grease lube over the ends of the chambers. Which did you find more accurate, the RBS or the hollow based conical?

The gun didn't foul in more than 40 shots, and 5 shot groups at 25 yards were a ragged hole with both projectiles. This one is a keeper!The joys of a well matched cylinder/barrel always seem to bear fruit, regardless of revolver and/or time period. What year did you buy your revolver?

Thank you for the information.

[DaveInFloweryBranchGA]

Alan, responses in red in the quote:


2 ways of handling fouling. 1) Minimize it,Methods of doing that? (A link to an information source would be great, I don't mind reading.) or 2) keep it as soft as possible so it is wiped by the next shot. Most of my success has been with #2. Goex 2F with greased felt wad under ball,80+% load capacity. Doesn't this affect your powder? Or do you put a dry felt wad under the greased one?

Older guns, the Uberti's seem a bit better. New ones it's a toss-up, unless you can handle in the store. I like U because of dovetailed sight. I like the dovetailed in parts as well, makes it easier to adjust/modify if one needs to change sight height. Elevation is important to me in a pistol and I like it dead on at 25 yards and will adjust anything closer or farther. There was something else Uberti dovetailed that Pietta didn't, wasn't there? Do the high dollar Piettas have the dovetailed parts and are closer to original? I think I read that somewhere.

Thank you for the information.

[swathdiver]

Yes, Track of the Wolf offers the Lee .454 round ball in six-cavity form.

Durofelt is the name of the company and on their products list, at the end of one it says WADS, that's the one you want. Pick the size that suits your wallet, we order from the first three offerings and not the bigger ones.

Well, the Graf's (Schuetzen) powder is slightly cleaner burning and lower in smoke than regular GOEX. Can't say about Olde Eynsford as we haven't burned any yet. Personally, I like the smoke, the more the merrier! Love the smell too!

[Alan]

Minimize fouling by using light charges of 3f and filler such as CoW or corn meal. I never had the patience for this. Google Gatfeo's NRA .22 lube. It is waxy rather than greasy, and will not affect a powder charge over at least days, if not months.

My preferred loads use a nearly full charge of 2F, a ball large enough for a healthy ring of lead, the lubed felt wad, and a good bit of ramming pressure. Such loads shoot "soft", give good power, excellent accuracy, and are much easier to load in the field. I don't punch much paper.

[Omnivore]

Measuring (again) just now.

My Uberti, purchased new about a year ago;
Chamber diameter; about .450 to .451"
Wall thickness between chambers; .049 to .050"

My Pietta, I bought it new several years go, maybe five or six years?
Chamber diameter; .448 to .449"
Wall thickness between chambers; about .049"

So there's little difference between the two in that regard.

I really wish the manufacturers would give us more information.

Here's from my old notes on the Uberti"
=============
Bore; .438 - .440
Groove; .456 - .458
Chambers; .450 - .451

Twist; greater than 16", closer to 20".
Factory suggests 18"
(Ruger 45 Colt revolvers are 16")
=============

I've slugged the Pietta several times but didn't take notes. If they've been changed by the factory recently than it doesn't matter so much anymore anyway.

As for the machine work on a new barrel; it's just basic, rudimentary lathe work, except for shaping the octagon exterior. Anyone with an indexer and a milling machine could make short work of that. Otherwise there is the fact that people have been shaping octagon barrels by hand for centuries.

Then you have two little dovetails to cut, and anyone, whether they think so or not, can cut a good dovetail by hand with basic tools. I've only done a few so far, but they all turned out fine.

These are very simple machines by 20th century standards. If the Wright brothers could build their own airplane, including the engine and props, you can take a pre-bored and rifled barrel and fit it to a 19th century pistol.