NM Blackhawk or Uberti El Patron in 45 Colt?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The 45 Colt within standard pressure range does not shoot hard cast without leading. The 10% antimony alloy works fine. I wonder if you r bullets were too hard. Of course there are many other factors with leading, but my El Patron eats up Brinell 12 with no problems. The rifling is well defined and shiny and looks better defined than my USA guns.

The same loads used in my Cattleman were also used in my Ruger New Vaquero. Both were commercial hard cast RNFP over 8 grains of Universal. What shot very accurately in my Vaquero shot very poorly in my Cattleman. I experienced zero leading in the Vaquero.
In common with a Rossi 92 carbine that also had very shallow rifling, both were very inaccurate with cast bullets. The Rossi even keyholed some bullets.

Really, I think that it's more a case of both manufacturers failing to retire a worn rifling tool soon enough, and simply squeezing as many barrels as they can out of an expensive piece of tooling, regardless of the results.
Perhaps their rationale is that it should shoot okay with jacketed factory loads so it is acceptable for sale.
If you happened to get a barrel rifled with a fresh tool however, no problems with cast.
I owned a Uberti 1866 short rifle in .45 LC which had rifling of normal depth and shot fine using the same hard cast bullets.
 
The same loads used in my Cattleman were also used in my Ruger New Vaquero. Both were commercial hard cast RNFP over 8 grains of Universal. What shot very accurately in my Vaquero shot very poorly in my Cattleman. I experienced zero leading in the Vaquero.
In common with a Rossi 92 carbine that also had very shallow rifling, both were very inaccurate with cast bullets. The Rossi even keyholed some bullets.

Really, I think that it's more a case of both manufacturers failing to retire a worn rifling tool soon enough, and simply squeezing as many barrels as they can out of an expensive piece of tooling, regardless of the results.
Perhaps their rationale is that it should shoot okay with jacketed factory loads so it is acceptable for sale.
If you happened to get a barrel rifled with a fresh tool however, no problems with cast.
I owned a Uberti 1866 short rifle in .45 LC which had rifling of normal depth and shot fine using the same hard cast bullets.
My El Patron does not have poor rifling, and I don't know that anything else should be represented as typical, expressed or implied. Any bad gun should be returned, if it hasn't already had the Bubba treatment, voiding any reasonable warranty.
 
My El Patron does not have poor rifling, and I don't know that anything else should be represented as typical, expressed or implied. Any bad gun should be returned, if it hasn't already had the Bubba treatment, voiding any reasonable warranty.

As I said in my first post, my revolver was just one sample. How you somehow infer that I am suggesting that your revolver has poor rifling, I can not fathom. And, I have in no way represented shallow rifling as being typical, expressed or implied of Uberti firearms. However, that one sample was what it was.

I also don't know what the hell the "Bubba" comment is meant to infer. I did nothing to alter it. I sold it in almost factory new condition.

While you may regard Uberti as being somehow beyond criticism, their production does vary, and some individual specimens do have problems, just as with any other manufacturer.

And, since it passed Uberti quality-contol, and proofing, and was mechanically sound, and was safe to shoot, it wasn't a bad gun. It just didn't shoot cast bullets worth a damn.
So, if I preferred to sell it rather than screw around with warranty games, that's my business.
I doubt very much if Uberti would have replaced the barrel anyway.
 
sounds good and im sure it gets a big ole thumbs up from craigc, however, thats not max’s point. When asked which one would he buy he stated that the ruger could be pressed into service that the uberti could not be. This is true. He stated there isnt much difference in weight, there isnt much. A little less than 3 ounces. He stated that adjustable sights make it a more versatile gun, and they do. Not much there about the need to kill cape buffalo. The uberti wont even run keiths 44 special level loads safely. Not sure why you are quoting him.

Yes, and likewise if you want to buy an F-350 King Ranch to pull your single axle lawnmower trailer, a machete to cut your steak and a 2 lb. sledge hammer to drive pins out of guns, then you'll evidently reach the pinnacle of versatility.

I own several revolvers with adjustable sights. The procedure has always been to sight them in for hunting loads and leave them alone. My Flat Top Blackhawk .44 Special uses the same sight settings for the Keith load out to 100 yds. as it does for loads duplicating the original load with which one can use at short range for practice and small game. I cannot for life of me imagine being in the field, seeing a grouse or rabbit I want for the pot, switching to a light load for the shot, then pulling a screwdriver out of my pocket and adjusting the sights so I can make the shot. But hey, if that's someone's idea of versatility, I suppose that's OK.

What information leads you to believe Uberti's won't run the Keith load safely? Pre-war Colt's did/do and their cylinders are smaller with thinner chamber walls than those in Uberti's. In fact Dave Scovill, in his book "Loading the Peacemaker" includes loads for the .44 Special that run a 250 gr. cast SWC just a little south of 1300 fps. A couple of years ago in Handloader Magazine Bryan Pearce, in answering a readers question regarding loads for 45 Colt Uberti's, ended his answer stating- "Most manufactured since the late 1990s have tested at 34 (Rockwell hardness) and are constructed of quality 4130 series chrome-moly steel. The Uberti revolver features a more or less .020-inch larger diameter cylinder ( 1.670 inches) than the Colt SAA ( 1.650 inches); however, the distance from the axis of the cylinder and the center of the bore is the same. This adds significant steel to the outside of the cylinder, as well as over the bolt notch ( effectively doubling that thickness), which is the SAA pattern revolver's weak link. If your Uberti is of late manufacture, it will handle .45 Colt loads that generate similar pressures as .45 ACP factory loads that are industry rated at 21,000 psi, or 23,000 psi for +P loads." So if they will handle 23K psi 45 ACP loads, why would they not handle .44 Special loads at the same, or greater, pressures??


Craigc — dont care what you like or why. Thats your business. Its disingenuous to claim a difference of a few ounces is a deal breaker but then take the position you take on glock weights. Heck you got your lil taffin book there, i have two copies as well, and you have manipulated his whole concept of a packing pistol. Now a short barreled fa83 and ruger blackhawk isnt a packing pistol? 2-3 ounces makes a gun “huge” and another packable and svelte? Pushing it a bit i think

its fair to just like a saa clone or the real thing. Its fine to want one and carry it. The advantages to the ruger are still there and still real. Hope the op enjoys the uberti and ends up with both

Again, away from the recliner and the pickup truck, a few ounces can make a big difference. But maybe you're super athletic and a few ounces, or even a pound or two doesn't matter to you. (FYI, I killed my first bull in Benito Canyon in the San Juan Wilderness, so I'm fairly familiar with the area to which you referred)

My favorite example of how all "that" power is not necessary is from a buddy of mine. Now retired, his morning ritual is to take his Model 69 and drive out to his farm and practice shooting. A couple of years ago he happened upon the big boar pictured below which he quickly dispatched with his .44 Magnum. The load, his practice load, consists of a case-full of Trail Boss and a commercial cast 240 gr. SWC. If you look closely below the tip of the boars ear, you can see the blood of the entrance wound.

Chriss%20boar-red_zpsgmokw0uq.jpg

And for crying out loud can we get your Glock out of the revolver forum????

35W
 
Which glock? I have 20 or so of them. Its not like driving an f350 to tow the above mentioned trailer, its like spending a couple hundred bucks to get a tow worthy slightly larger engine that gets the same gas mileage so you could tow a bigger trailer. Whatever, i just find it funny that craigc posts pics of what he calls “packing” pistols when some of them weigh more than the “big ruger” that was named at the beginning of this thread. I think its more just being consistent and not creating non existent advantages when none exist or ignoring real advantages when they really do exist. If thats what ya like go for it and love it. No more justification needed.
 
I just mentioned in another thread and will add it here. Please make all the Glockieness stop. This is the revolver forum and as the OP of this here thread if I cared about Glocks I would go to the semi auto forum to discuss them there.
Robust discussion of the merits of different SA revolvers is great. That's why I'm here.
 
...He stated there isnt much difference in weight, there isnt much. A little less than 3 ounces. He stated that adjustable sights make it a more versatile gun, and they do. Not much there about the need to kill cape buffalo. The uberti wont even run keiths 44 special level loads safely. Not sure why you are quoting him.

Craigc — dont care what you like or why. Thats your business. Its disingenuous to claim a difference of a few ounces is a deal breaker but then take the position you take on glock weights. Heck you got your lil taffin book there, i have two copies as well, and you have manipulated his whole concept of a packing pistol. Now a short barreled fa83 and ruger blackhawk isnt a packing pistol? 2-3 ounces makes a gun “huge” and another packable and svelte? Pushing it a bit i think

its fair to just like a saa clone or the real thing. Its fine to want one and carry it. The advantages to the ruger are still there and still real. Hope the op enjoys the uberti and ends up with both
I apologize for the delayed response as I've been out of town for a funeral. You obviously do care or you wouldn't be arguing with me but yes, let's have some intellectual honesty and I'll once again repeat much of what I've already posted. I don't reckon you actually read the "lil Taffin book" (condescension duly noted) or you'd know the guns I'm outlining are the epitome of "packin' pistols".

The blued .45 4 5/8" Blackhawk is something of an anomaly. It has big holes and aluminum parts and that makes it much lighter than most of its counterparts. My new Carryhawk, which is as light as a .45 convertible Blackhawk ever was, comes in at 38oz. However, that is with a plowhandle grip frame and for me (and a lot of folks) that makes it only good for Colt-level loads. The plowhandle is simply too uncomfortable with anything much heavier. Since I'm commenting from my own perspective and my own purposes, this is 100% valid and not up for interpretation. So in this context, the two guns would perform the same functions using the same loads, with the large frame Blackhawk coming in 2oz heavier. The only advantage on paper is the Blackhawk's adjustable sights, which are also present on the custom .44Spl I also posted a picture of. The subjective advantage is that the SAA has better balance and handling, due to having a better balance of steel throughout its construction.

Only when the Blackhawk is fitted with a Bisley grip frame does "versatility" change at all, with regards to loads and with that comes a big increase in weight. In which case it is not 3oz heavier but 8-10oz heavier, which is half to three quarters of a pound. Now let's cut the nonsense. This is not a "deal breaker". It is not a huge difference and it was never claimed to be. It is not to say that 10oz is going to keep anyone from doing anything (other than bragging :confused:). It is to say that it is significant enough to be a factor in one's decision on what sixgun to carry. Especially if that added 10oz serves no useful purpose. In this case it doesn't. This is how I distinguished between the general purpose "packin' pistols" from the first post and the "big Rugers" which constitute heavier guns for heavier loads in the follow-up.

Light (packin' pistols)
USPFA .45x4¾" - 36oz
Ruger Blackhawk .45x4⅝"- 38oz
Ruger GP100 .44x5" - 38oz

Heavy (hunting guns)
Ruger Bisley Vaquero .45x4⅝" - 44oz (adjustable sights)
Ruger Bisley Vaquero .44x4⅝" - 44oz (fixed sights)
Ruger Bisley Blackhawk .45x5½" - 45oz
Ruger JRH Bisley .44x4⅝" - 49oz
Ruger JRH Bisley .500x4⅝" - 48oz

The Ruger Alaskan falls right in there at 44-45oz. :confused:

If you or anyone else do not make this distinction, that is your prerogative. Just don't tell me I'm doing it wrong because my choices do not align with your own.

What is "disingenuous" is to throw out the Glock 21 example as an example of a lightweight alternative based on its 30oz unloaded weight. My numbers are based on unloaded weights but adding five or six rounds to a revolver does not result in a huge change. A loaded G21 (bought mine in 1992) becomes 10oz heavier and that is significant. Especially when it gets to 40oz and is touted as a lightweight alternative to other 40oz guns. In this case, a loaded G21 is 1oz HEAVIER than a loaded Colt SAA .45x4¾". I shot Glocks for 15yrs but no longer own any because I found somethings I liked better. Here's some other interesting numbers with empty/loaded weights.

Springfield XDM .45 - 31oz/41oz
Springfield XDM 10mm - 32oz/43oz

As you can see, they're about 1oz heavier than a Glock. So not exactly lightweight alternatives to all steel revolvers, huh? Who cares anyway??? This is the revolver forum. If we wanted Glocks, that's what we'd have. IMHO, combat pistosl do not belong in the role of the outdoorsman's packin' pistol.


The uberti wont even run keiths 44 special level loads safely.
How did you come up with this?


Whatever, i just find it funny that craigc posts pics of what he calls “packing” pistols when some of them weigh more than the “big ruger” that was named at the beginning of this thread. I think its more just being consistent and not creating non existent advantages when none exist or ignoring real advantages when they really do exist. If thats what ya like go for it and love it. No more justification needed.
See the above for what I find "funny", along with the humorous assumption that I've spent little time contemplating this subject. I'm pretty sure I pictured what I labeled "big Ruger" in a follow-up post but you must've missed it. I always struggle to not take it personally when the person arguing with me has obviously NOT spent much time at all thinking about the subject at hand.

The advantages are real, not perceived, whether you want to consider/accept them or not. In the context of a general purpose sidearm, the Colt SAA and similarly sized guns like my mid-frame Ruger .44Spl serve perfectly well in the role while being lighter and somewhat smaller than the large frame guns. If you still want to choose a large frame gun for these purposes, that is your choice and no one will argue with it. I only ask that you do not argue with mine. I tend to think it did not come lightly or out of ignorance.
 
I came up with it by the number of em jack has to fix. That said. 6 rds of 360 gr 45 colt rounds is a whole 3 oz lighter than 15 10mm. I didnt say glock 21. I just said what i would carry were weight important. I get the ounces thing craig. I really do. To some it matters to others not so much. No biggie.
 
You did an apples to oranges comparison.

With that being said, I recommended you get the Blackhawk over the Uberti.

Comparing a Blackhawk to a Uberti Cattleman is not apple's to orange's, more like comparing a Red Delicious to a Granny Smith. And the OP was referring to a Glock being thrown into the discussion, a turd-in-the-punchbowl sort of thing in a revolver discussion area.

Evidently you didn't read the entire thread as he chose the Uberti.

35W
 
Comparing a Blackhawk to a Uberti Cattleman is not apple's to orange's, more like comparing a Red Delicious to a Granny Smith. And the OP was referring to a Glock being thrown into the discussion, a turd-in-the-punchbowl sort of thing in a revolver discussion area.

Evidently you didn't read the entire thread as he chose the Uberti.

35W

He should have compared the Uberti to the Vaquero. The Blackhawk or Vaquero would have been a better choice over an Uberti IMO.
 
I'm really liking the Uberti. If my plan was to hot rod my hand loads I probably would have gone with the Blackhawk but I don't so I'm perfectly satisfied with my choice.
A Blackhawk is still probably in my future but for the price of a Vaquero they can keep them.
 
As I play with this new Carryhawk and have configured it to have the same aluminum parts as a standard blued Blackhawk, I am reminded of just how different these guns handle. The scale doesn't tell the whole story. While a scant 2oz apart in weight, the difference in balance and handling is subtle but no less remarkable. The XR3-RED grip frame feels distinctly different. It has more room behind the trigger guard. That coupled with aluminum construction shifts the balance more forward making it nose heavy. While the SAA just sits in your hand. The frame and cylinder are significantly chunkier and that affects how it handles. In no way will a large frame Blackhawk ever handle like a svelte Colt SAA or replica. These are prices you pay when you need more power than the Colt SAA is capable of. If you don't need it, why pay the penalty?

Sure, you can carry and get used to anything. Just like I grew rather accustomed to Super Redhawks and even heavier Dan Wessons. Then I grabbed one of my 29's and thought I'd grabbed a K-frame. So if all I need is a 240gr at 1100fps, why would I pack a Redhawk instead of an N-frame??? If all I need is a 240gr at 950fps, why would I pack a 29 instead of a 24? On the scale the difference is 5oz, small but noticeable. Some appreciate these minor differences and others don't care. It's all for the individual to decide.
 
As I play with this new Carryhawk and have configured it to have the same aluminum parts as a standard blued Blackhawk, I am reminded of just how different these guns handle. The scale doesn't tell the whole story. While a scant 2oz apart in weight, the difference in balance and handling is subtle but no less remarkable. The XR3-RED grip frame feels distinctly different. It has more room behind the trigger guard. That coupled with aluminum construction shifts the balance more forward making it nose heavy. While the SAA just sits in your hand. The frame and cylinder are significantly chunkier and that affects how it handles. In no way will a large frame Blackhawk ever handle like a svelte Colt SAA or replica. These are prices you pay when you need more power than the Colt SAA is capable of. If you don't need it, why pay the penalty?

Sure, you can carry and get used to anything. Just like I grew rather accustomed to Super Redhawks and even heavier Dan Wessons. Then I grabbed one of my 29's and thought I'd grabbed a K-frame. So if all I need is a 240gr at 1100fps, why would I pack a Redhawk instead of an N-frame??? If all I need is a 240gr at 950fps, why would I pack a 29 instead of a 24? On the scale the difference is 5oz, small but noticeable. Some appreciate these minor differences and others don't care. It's all for the individual to decide.

It certainly makes a big difference how the guns balance when swapping to aluminum. My new model flattop with the aluminum grip/ejector rod installed feels WAY different than my stainless Blackhawk. It also is 5oz lighter coming in at 37oz. The flattop is a 44special with a 5.5" barrel, while the stainless is 45 colt and 4 5/8. I thought the short barreled full size/steel Blackhawk balanced and pointed great, but man when I got the flattop back from JRH I couldn't believe how much nice it felt.
KIMG1313.JPG
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top