Printable View
I have carried the Uberti 1860 army in 44 cal for about 30 years hunting small game and just carrying in the woods and I like everything about it no complaints at all haven't even looked at other cap and ball revolvers. Now I watched a few videos about the Uberti 1851 navy 36 cal and how so many people liked them over a hundred years ago and still today they are well-liked.
My question is what am I missing by not having one?
Not much. Smaller grip, a little lighter, smaller caliber. Otherwise they pretty much do the same thing. I do like the way the Navy points a little better but wouldn't drop an Army to pick one up.
I have a 44 calibre navy (yeah I know colt didnt make one but ASM did) best of both worlds - I like the 51 navy grip betterQuote:
Originally Posted by Nobade
another plus my son has a 44 Army - the gears under the barrel stripped out (creeping loading lever) on an otherwise good gun - I did a hybrid remington style loading lever to fix it - repairing the gears was above my pay grade at the time
I’ve had a 44 Navy for years and love it, but I am really seriously looking at the Colt Walker. 60 grs of 3Fg on a round ball delivering 1200 fps, and 50 grs with a conical giving 1000 fps. That is outstanding performance for a black powder revolver making it an ideal companion for my 50 cal on deer hunts. I never hunted large game with my navy because I felt it was lacking. The navy worked well on small game though because it is a very accurate shooter.
Another consideration would be an 1861 Navy - .36 cal in an 1860 Army style...
I don't think there is any way I can get 60 grs in my Uberti Walker, but it will take 50 with a round ball - and my homemade BP will make about 1200-1250 fps. My top chronograph reading was 1260 but most shots were slightly lower.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boerrancher
I always liked the 1860 Army over any other percussion revolver, but the 1858 Remington is not a bad choice either - although I will agree the Colts just seem to point better.
The only thing I didn't like about my Remy was the grip shape, just too narrow for my hands. The Colts fit me better. Later I chopped the barrel to about 5 1/2" and made the grip into a bird's head. I liked it a lot after that. My gunsmith did too. He shot a Remy in SASS and bought my mini-Remy as his off side gun.
I do love the sleek look of the 1860 Army and 1861 Navy. At one time my wife had a "sherriff" model of the 1860/61. Really nice little gun, I think it was a .32. I wish I had kept it.
The small version of the '61 is called the '62 Police and was also a .36 caliber but was a 5 shot .Quote:
Originally Posted by charlie b
Thanks. Yep, 5shot. For some reason I thought it was smaller bore.
The 1849 Colt was a .31.
I have the pocket navy model, small frame, 5 shot, 36 cal, rebated cylinder, octagonal barrel, navy style front end --its minature of my 44 cal x 1851 navy - they make a cool pair ,Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie Southgate
straight cylinder = 31 cal ......rebated frame stepped cylinder = 36 calQuote:
Originally Posted by charlie b
the 36 cal in these little guns is a strong shooter for the size of em.
Thanks. Yes, the one I had used the stepped cylinder.
Have owned and used them all since the 80's, Remington's as well. I never liked the grip on the 60' Army. The Navy is ok, but lacking in bullet. Both have dainty little frames, and the pocket models even more so. I like something that will 'sit' when I aim instead of being so lightweight that it wants to look everywhere else but where I'm wanting to shoot. Settled on a 2nd model dragoon and life was far better, I'll never use anything else, ever. The Walker however, approaches the other side of the spectrum, and while it sits ok, there is too much up front, a bit more is needed in the grips, it eats more powder than is needed for a tiny 50-bore ball.
I have had a good number of Pietta .36 cal. 1851 Navies as well as a Pietta .44 cal. 1851 Confederate Navy (nickeled brass frame), plus a 3rd Generation .36 cal. Signature Series 1851 Colt Navy that is made up of select Uberti parts. Also have an original .36 cal. 1861 Colt Navy made in 1867.
The two Colts sure seem to point better for me vs the Pietta models, which seem to point just a bit high. I have always enjoyed the 1851 style Navies and they shoot decent enough, but although I only recently got it, I have really gotten to like that old original 1861 a whole lot lately. It does point true.
For me, it seems that the 7-groove bores did appear to be more accurate, or at least they have been in most of my revolvers. I remember that the earlier model Pietta 1851 revolvers, 1976 & 1981 had 6-groove bores and my later 1999 model 1851 had a 7-groove. Both my Colts have 7-groove Left hand twist with the original Colt having a gain twist I do believe. Could be more of the quality of manufacture at the time, rather than the type of bores though.
Agreed. The sights are better on the Remington and the solid frame is arguably stronger. However, the Remington also binds up from fouling far more easily than the Colt. It helps immensely to pull the cylinder pin and wipe it down when reloading the Remington.Quote:
Originally Posted by charlie b
The top strap Remington in fact isn't the stronger design when the open-top is built correctly, as in Colt instead of "Italian" reverse engineering ( short arbors). The top strap is a "perimeter" frame as opposed to an "internal" design. The internal layout is a more compact use of the same materials rather than spread out like the top strap design. The "screw in barrel" is obviously cheaper to manufacture ( which is why that is still seen today) rather than the integral barrel assy of the open-top platform.Quote:
Originally Posted by one-eyed fat man
Just pointing out "wives tale" "history" . . .
Mike
Don’t bet any money on that statement you are not prepared to lose.Quote:
Originally Posted by one-eyed fat man
Kevin
Just curious, how does one document the strength one way or the other? I am only asking. I am not looking to be put in my place ...[smilie=l:.Quote:
Originally Posted by StrawHat
I am a Colt fan having at least one 1851 since I was in high school in 1970. It is the gun that starting me casting. The Remington's are great but just not my cup of tea. I have had three ROA's and though clunky, we enjoy shooting them as well.
Simple. Measure the amount of metal that is holding things in the frame vs the arbor and key. Determine shear strength of each (assuming that the arbor is sufficiently anchored to the frame as in the original design).
FYI, the bottom portion of the Remy has cutouts for trigger and trigger guard that must be taken into account.
Well Mr. Chill Wills . . . Just kidding . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by Chill Wills
I document it by shooting ammo that can be tolerated by the open-top platform that a particular top strap can't handle. Such as firing 45acp +p ammo in my Uberti '60 with its Kirst conversion cyl that my Pietta '73 Mod.P can't handle.
The release of the 45acp cylinder for the '60 Army is an excellent setup to explore the possibilities of the open-top platform. That's what I've been doing for the last year and a half. I've always thought the ot was the "better" design ever since I bent my Remington loading/shooting too hard lead balls. Never bent an open-top . . .
Mike
Hey Kevin !!!
Never bent the Remy, but, I did used to shoot full cylinders of 3f behind a round ball. Don't remember how many grains that was but it was a lot. Shot really well with that load. So, it was 'strong enough'. But, I suspect a properly made open top would do just as well based on measurements I made of the cylinder arbor a long time ago. The amount of steel holding things together is about equal, as long as the arbor is sufficiently attached to the frame at the rear.
It really is not about how the arbor is attached at the frame. The most important part of the equation is how the arbor interacts with the barrel. The arbor must bottom out in the receiving hole or recoil will batter the revolver. 45 Dragoon and others, can explain the details much better than I. The top strap on the Colt came into being at the insistence of the Army.
Kevin
Well I got my Walker finally after waiting a week and a half for the USPS to deliver it express priority mail, exactly 183 miles. It is 110 miles to the USPS sorting house in Columbia MO to the sorting house in St Louis MO, and 73 miles to my local post office from the ST Louis Sorting house. Rant over.Quote:
Originally Posted by HWooldridge
The Walker will easily handle 50 gr of 3F with a 200 gr Conical, and 60 gr with a round ball. It is one heck of a side arm. It actually shoots best with a round ball, at 35 yards I was able to put them all in a group of about 3.5 inches. I’m good with that. Haven’t tried the chronograph yet maybe Monday if the weather is decent.
"It really is not about how the arbor is attached at the frame".
To some extent, it is. My Centaure is prone to chainfires. The second time all six fired at once, the arbor became sloppy loose. Even with the wedge tight, when you shake the pistol you can see the barrel wiggling on the frame.
Your arbor is poorly attached. You can not blame the design if the builder did not follow the specifications.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimCunn
If it were mine, I would rebuild it into a first class revolver. Want to sell it?
Kevin