Pietta vs Uberti - Which is built better??

[bubbapug1]

I have just got into BP, and I have three Pietta revolvers. The quality between the three units is astonishing to say the least, and even the best one has some questionable quality issues, such esy to bend loading levers, soft steel on critical parts, and inconsistant diameters in the cylinders.

What is a Uberti BP pistol like? They are priced a bit more. Are they more durable? Do they have better fits and higher quality steel?

I like the Pietta's for what they are, but I am wondering how durable the guns will be in the long run. A springfield 1911 they are not.

[Hellgate]

Which revolvers do you have? Steel frames or brass? In times past 2-3+ years ago the Colt versions made by Pietta were not as good as their more recent guns. The Pietta Remingtons have had a pretty good reputation all along (compared to their Colts). The Ubertis have been better thought of up until recently. Not that the Uberti quality has didminished but that the Piettas have gotten better. The Ubertis have had excellent quality all along compared to the ASM & Euroarms guns.

If you are bending levers then something is wrong in the ammo department: i.e. too hard or way too large of a diameter ball/conical or both. Or you are putting too much powder in the chambers and have to ram the balls too hard to get them below the chamber mouth. I have no hardness tester but I suspect the Uberti parts are harder. My Uberti Remingtons have not needed any replacement parts after extensive shooting. The one Uberti 1860 Army I had seemed of harder steel than the Piettas I have owned. I have owned maybe 35 different models and makes of C&Bs (ASM, Uberti, ASP/Euroarms) and have gotten rid of those that wern't just right. I went through 6 different '51Navy 44s from ASM before getting a good pair for SASS matches. Not so much with ASP/Euroarms other than one "lemon". My Uberti Remingtons, Walkers, & a Dragoon have ben fine from the start. The Piettas I had problems with were several years ago.I no longer have them. If your guns are recent vintage Piettas and you are having problems then go with the Ubertis. I don't have any recent vintage Piettas bought new so I can't comment on them.

[bubbapug1]

I have these two.





Both are Navy 1851's. I use the cylinder from the US Marshall in place of the gold one when I shoot it. It works fine. The loading lever has bent on the US marshall a small bit, but seems to be fine now that the gun has been shot many rounds. The first loads in the cylinder were pretty tough.

I also had the 1858 break on the second ball I was loading. I used Hornandy 0.545 soft lead balls. They work great in the US Marshall, but no so good in the 1958 Army for a few of the chambers.

I did mic the cylinder in the 1858 and there were two chambers slightly smaller than the other 4, but not any smaller than the 1851 chambers. The balls got stuck when they were slightly longer than flush with the cylinder...so it wasn't from powder or wads, they were a good 1/2" farther down.

It just seems the Pietta's are a bit lose in tolerances and the steel is very soft with a low yield point.

I'll try to get my hands on a Uberti to see how it works. Thanks for the advice.





This was covered in another thread. I had the gun replaced by Cabela's and sold off the new one I received.

I am thinking a Ruger Old Army would be a very tough gun as Rugers tend to be over built, but it has no historical significance.

[Tom-ADC]

In the Colt style revolvers I like Uberti they just seem to disassemble easier for me, I have had brand new Pietta's that took some patience to get apart, but never with a Uberti. For the Remington 1858's either work just fine for me.
I do use a cylinder loader and make sure my RB's are pure lead.

[Boerrancher]

Now I am sure there is one or more out there but I have never owned or seen a bad Aldo Uberti firearm. The same with a Davide Pedersoli made piece.

Best wishes,

Joe

[Hang Fire]

The Pietta Remmy I have is top quality in all respects and accuracy is rather amazing.

Ten shots from rest at 25 yards, RB with 25 grains 3f, two taped were sighters.

[Omnivore]

I used Hornandy 0.545 soft lead balls.

^ Well there's your problem right there. That's almost a full tenth over the recommended ball size

OK I assume that was a typo. Seriously though; it's near impossible to accurately measure a small hole, such as a chamber, using a caliper. You should have a hole gage or a small snap gage for that. Using a caliper, you're placing flat surfaces, of some length depending on how far you go into the chamber, inside a round surface, and at some angle to the chamber axis unless you're holding the caliper perfectly aligned to the hole. At the very best you'll get to about a thou or two under the actual size when measuring a 44 caliber chamber, depending on how hard you force it. I don't mean to insult you, but you're probably just testing your ability to get a consistent reading in a difficult to impossible situation. If you did use a hole gage, well, my appologies.

[docone31]

Yeah, I saw that, just a little busy to respond.
Your Remmy should take .454 balls. Those .545 must have been a bear to load! The .454s go in quite nicely actually. Smear Crisco on top and fire away.

[bubbapug1]

Ha Ha...well, I'm dyslexic at times I guess. They are 0.454 balls...I've spent my whole life wondering if there is a dog....

I realized I was dyslexic when I went to a toga party dressed as a goat.

[Geraldo]

The balls got stuck when they were slightly longer than flush with the cylinder

That's the point at which you're shaving a ring of lead off the RB.

When you posted elsewhere about the 1858 lever breakage I was sure it was a defect. If you're bending a lever on one of these pistols I'm starting to rethink that a bit.

There are really only three possibilities if you have difficulty loading a ball into a C&B pistol:

1-The ball itself is oversized or too hard. Swaged Hornady balls eliminate the hardness issue as they're dead soft. They're also right to size.

2-The chambers are far smaller than the RB being seated. My Piettas don't run tight, in fact I've been using .457" cast RB in them. The newest of them seem to run large on chambers, not small.

3-Your technique. It's easier than one might think to catch the edge of a chamber when loading the cylinder on the frame. If the ball seems overly tight I always make sure I'm just trying to push lead, not steel. Keep in mind that while loading a Colt style revolver, if you have to really crank on the loading lever you're working the arbor of the gun as well as the lever.

As to your original question, I really don't get into the "who's better" thing any more. I've bought several recently made Piettas as well as some Ubertis and they're close, with the edge on finish/bluing going to Uberti. I also have a couple of Euroarms that work very well.

[bubbapug1]

At the point the balls got stuck the lead ring had already been shaved. The ball has traveled another 0.20 - 0.215" down the cylinder, and there is just a small bit left protruding, which keeps the cylinder from turning. After I took the cylinder out and drove the ball past the tighest part the ball seemed to have a very easy going down the rest of the cylinder. It was as if there was a small ridge of some sort in that small area which made seating so diffucult.

I have learned that if I get to that point again, I will remove the cyclinder, drive the balls home with a wooden punch, and not stress the loading lever.

After the gun was shot I tried to run balls down the same cylinders which were problematic the first time. The cylinders didn't exhibit the smae resistance. Only two of the six cylinders were tight in that one area.

My question is more or less which is more durable, a Uberti or a Pietta. I also think the more exclusive "special" peitta's have a bit more beefiness to them than the 1858 unit I purshased. They are running two different grade of guns it appears.

I'm new to this side of the sport, I am trying to tap into the knowledge base of the shooters who have done this for a while. I am not trying to run down any maker, but I also have never had a gun break on me in 44 years. Its not a witch hunt, its an attempt to get a robust gun which looks authentic.

[Geraldo]

bubba, I should have phrased that last part better, and I know you're not on a witch hunt. I don't think either one is more durable at this point. Small parts breakage does happen in all of them. By small parts I mean the internals, not the loading levers, etc.

It's interesting that you see the Pietta Colt you have as beefier than the Pietta Remington. The recent Pietta 1858s I have are much heavier and thicker guns than the older Euroarms. I also find the Pietta Navy frames and grips to be on the large side.

You also mentioned Rugers. They are tanks, but I really didn't like mine. I prefer historical looking (if not historically correct in every detail) revolvers, so I got rid of the Ruger and got Dragoons instead.

[higgins]

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/show...hlight=higgins

Here's a thread I started a couple of years ago after my first outing with my Pietta .44 1860 Colt replica. Don't assume chambers and bore are "standard" dimensions. Slug the chambers and bore before you buy a mold or balls, use soft lead, and be patient. Everything finally worked out for me.

What caught my eye was the "excessive force" part-exactly what I thought I was getting into.

[bubbapug1]

Higgins I read the thread. I am not familiar with the term "slug the chambers", but I would assume its a way to measure them. How do you do it??

As to the US marshall 1851...I have a lot of handguns, but this particular guns balance and weight just fits me perfectly, better than my 1911's, berettas, DE's, Rugers, and my one glock.

Its a bit hairy to reload in a hurray however.