Uberti/Pietta exactness (or lack) of their replica percussion revolvers

Good morning,
In the interests of fairness and avoiding turning your thread into a festering anger pool, you should also ask: What did Pietta get right? and What did Uberti get right? Gives Folks reasons to be happy that they own either one.
regards!

If I remember correctly, the original Colts, both 1851 and 1860, had several versions of the backstrap shape - some more straight and some more curved, just like modern Piettas. The Italians just made a poor choice for a not so favorable shape, but it's definitely historically correct. Barrel's land & groove diameters on Pietta replicas are a close mach to the originals, not so with Uberti - they have taller lands with the same groove diameter. But Uberti makes a more historically correct gun all in all - size, parts dimensions and etc. (well, except the arbor length).
A word about CNC, because many people consider it the be all, end all kind of machinery - the simple fact of owning a CNC guarantees one exactly nothing. There are much more variables to take into account - tools and allowable tolerances, proper calibration, good programmer, good operator... Just an example - a friend of mine worked for couple of years in the Arsenal factory (the old "10-in-circle" plant), CNC operator. He is a very good CNC programmer also. So he shared with me one time, that he has trouble following a 0.1 mm (0.004") tolerance. On a simple elongated hole. He can write the program and calibrate the machine without any difficulty at all, but both the CNC & the tooling were just not up to the task.

This is a rabbit hole but it is a subject near and dear to my heart. There are so many differences, both small and large, between the current repros and the originals. For the most part though, I think Pietta and Uberti are doing a fantastic job. I think some of the differences are quite intentional. In the past the mere thought that someone should make a repro was controversial, let alone one with the exact same dimensions.

"I think some of the differences are quite intentional."

I have read some of the differences are deliberate to foil a counterfeiter from "aging" a modern repro and passing it off as a genuine antique. "Made In Italy" can be buffed off, but not measurable differences in part dimensions.

Capandball YouTube videos has some where he shoots and compares originals and clones. as I recall there is a difference in ball size needed, but some parts interchange.

ClemBert said:

I thought I'd start a new 2018 discussion thread regarding faithfulness of replications by Uberti vs Pietta.

I'll start by calling into question the Pietta grips/backstraps...not accurate?....and why do they continue to do this?

In your opinion....What did Pietta get wrong? What did Uberti get wrong?

Click to expand...

You bring up a very good Pietta point.

Prior to 2015 (date code CM), Pietta had what has been referred to as the "tail" grip style. The backstrap and the trigger guard were somewhat exaggerated so as to make the grip wide at the butt. In 2015 (CN) Pietta went to a more "conventional" grip style, for what that is worth.

The "tail" grip:



The "non" tail grip:



And the original Colt 1851 Navies had many different grip styles.

Clem, have a good day!

Jim

As much as I enjoy Balazs Nemeth videos (Cap&Ball), he is not much into technical details - just like Ian from Forgotten Weapons he regularly skips important technical aspects of the firearm in question for the sake of more historical trivia. I mean - I enjoy watching their videos, but both gentlemen lack the technical background and cannot provide the information I'm looking for. Their videos are purely for entertainment, nothing more.

The Uberti Walker is overall very good but some things I have noticed are the grip shape is a little bit longer and narrower and angles downward a little bit more sharply than the original, the trigger is a bit longer, the loading cutout is a little smaller(although the originals varied quite a bit in this area) and the cylinder notches are more oval.

ClemBert, I don't have an original Walker. Those are just some differences I noticed studying pictures of originals. Here is a link to a bunch of original Walker photos: https://www.tgca.org/Parade_of_Walkers.html

ClemBert said:

While not perfect this is what I came up with when I overlayed the two 1851s with different grip styles. The non-tail version is overlayed on top of the tailed version and the thin blue line is meant to help visually see the non-tail version.

View attachment 781681

View attachment 781682

Click to expand...

That is pretty darned accurate, sir!

Look at the shape of this grip on this original Walker of Company C, Number 10.



I mean doesn't that have a slight 'tail' shaped grip? And Pietta's have the correct sized arbor on them. If you want a half fluted cylinder get the Pietta, I wouldn't waste the time or effort looking for an 'out of print' ASM or older Uberti repro.

Carl N. Brown said:

I have read some of the differences are deliberate to foil a counterfeiter from "aging" a modern repro and passing it off as a genuine antique. "Made In Italy" can be buffed off, but not measurable differences in part dimensions.

Click to expand...

I was reading through an old Dixie Gun Works Catalog yesterday and some of their descriptions mentioned differences in their replicas designed to make them hard to fake.

I don't have any BP revolvers at this time. I did have a Colt 44 that didn't stay with me very long. After two cylinders you had to break it down for cleaning because it was starting to bind up. I don't remember the maker. Then I had a Pietta Remington 1858 copy that was just a pure joy to shoot. And it seemed you could shoot half a box of balls without cleaning it. And it was one of the best fitted, best timed revolvers I have ever owned and that includes the moderm made guns I own from Ruger and S&W.

I have no idea how close to the original it was. It didn't matter to me. Just the fact it worked and shot so well was good enough. And that may be all most users care about. I know my "Hawken" rifles are not true to the originals by Sam and Jake. But they are made and work in the same spirit as the originals and that satisfies me. Plus I have read those originals weighed 10+ pounds. I did get to handle an old original plains rifle once and it weighed 12 pounds if it weighed an ounce. Nope I am not going to carry that around.

Ephraim Kibbey said:

I was reading through an old Dixie Gun Works Catalog yesterday and some of their descriptions mentioned differences in their replicas designed to make them hard to fake.

Click to expand...

I think that may have been the reason for Pietta to do the "tail" grip frame, but I am only speculating. It is very nice that we have many different repros to speculate about and collect. Thanks be to Dr. Jim Davis!

Jim

The Pietta 1858 Remington models have a fatter grip with a more rounded backstrap. The originals have a more sweeping backstrap. I have 3 Pietta Remington's so I'm definitely not knocking them but I handled an original Remington at a gunshop and the grip was super nice, just as comfortable as an 1851 Colt Navy to me. I do agree with the concept of making the repros slightly different dimensions to make it harder for counterfieters.

I ll tell you what uberti got wrong,
Their prices..
They are already paying for it.
I d say pedersoli seems to have a pretty amazing copy of the Rem. Army.tho I m not sure it looks like the originals in every ways.
Also,
I don't think anyone would desagree that even tho it's a pietta fantasy piece, the 1860 snubnose with the grip from a later model dressed in nikel/(chrome?) Is pretty f✓!%ing amazing.. ; )