Break over, the Uberti 1862 is back.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'd love to "shrink" that "gap" for ya !!! Lol
Not to mention, all that "other stuff ( including a cap post)" and make it an uneventful shooter for you ! Mike
 
I am a bit curious if others with that pistol are experiencing the same problems. the 1862 is on my short list of wants (not needs) but was hoping to be able to just buy a shooter that did not need a lot of work to make reliable.

Now I wonder if it would be better to get the 1849 Remington in .31 instead of the 1862 though I really like the looks of the pocket police.

I wonder if anyone else is having issues at this level? Also, UglySauce, if you had it to do over, would you still by the 62?

d
 
Last edited:
webrx said:
I am a bit curious if others with that pistol are experiencing the same problems. the 1862 is on my short list of wants (not needs) but was hoping to be able to just buy a shooter that did not need a lot of work to make reliable.

Now I wonder if it would be better to get the 1849 Remington in .31 instead of the 1862 though I really like the looks of the pocket police.

I wonder if anyone else is having issues at this level? Also, UglySauce, if you had it to do over, would you still by the 62?

d
Click to expand...

I think it's true that most BP revolvers will be out of time or have other problems. My pistol came out of the box with the fit and finish beyond critique, but right out of the box the cylinder was over-rotating.

I ordered my pistol knowing that some tuning would be required. However, I would have gladly paid Uberti one or two hundred more if I knew that function would be perfect. The next pistol I buy will be shipped directly to one of the revolver wizzards here, then to me when it's done. I just don't think the low prices these guns go for justifies a poorly functioning pistol. I would not buy a new Smith & Wesson revolver that had to go to a 'smith because it had a low price tag. I'd rather pay the full Smith & Wesson price. ?

The '49 is a neat gun, and as the frame is the same it won't have more problems, I would imagine. I saw the "Duelist" on U-tube shooting one recently, it was quite accurate. With slugs, they can actually produce a bit of a punch. But yeah, if you are talking Uberti, the '62 is a beautiful thing to behold.
 
I am with you on this, I have Rugers that I paid less than the cost of a 62 for that function perfectly. Heck, my Hi-Point does also and I paid less than $100 for it (Though i have put an M Carbo trigger spring upgrade in it).

The cheapskate part of me feels any gun I am paying a few hundred or more for should function adequately out of the box. All my current BP revolvers have functioned out of the box, all my conversion cylinders for the 58s have functioned in all my 58s and the 51/60 .45 colt conversion cylinder functioned in my steel frame 51 without issue - it did under rotate in my brass frame, but I am not shooting it in that revolver anyway so I have not investigated why, maybe the hand is a tad longer.

I could afford to buy a 49 or 62 and send to someone to tune, but I feel tuning should not be necessary to be able to shoot them.

Aside from the typical 51 cap jams (pietta 51s in army caliber .44s - I know - not historically correct), I seem to have mostly avoided cap jam issues by just smoothing out the edges of the hammer slot (removing the sharp edges and burrs), all my .44s are reasonable shooters with C&B and Conversions. Maybe I just got lucky.

Guess I got some figuring to do, but as you say, the 62s are a beautiful revolver.

I wish you luck getting it where you want it to be.

I am watching this thread so I can see how it goes.

d
 
So being functional and functioning properly are definitely 2 different animals. You can most likely shoot one of these revolvers right outta the box and it will go bang and fling a chunk of lead out of the barrel, the question remains is it right and living up to its full potential and doing it safely without trying to wreck itself?
 
Jackrabbit1957 said:
So being functional and functioning properly are definitely 2 different animals. You can most likely shoot one of these revolvers right outta the box and it will go bang and fling a chunk of lead out of the barrel, the question remains is it right and living up to its full potential and doing it safely without trying to wreck itself?
Click to expand...
I agree but it should function properly is my point. If you buy a revolver today for 300-400 dollars you should be able to expect it to function properly. And I realize this is a replica but it is a replica made in a more modern environment than the originals. So it should function properly. Now, if you are going to compete with it, of course it may need some upgrades or tuning.

yes the originals may have had cap jam problems, but we know how to fix that now so, why is that impediment to function not resolved at the factory? I would pay 100 more to have it function fully.

really I am not trying to argue here. I want one, just have to figure into buying one the cost or time to make it reliable if this is systemic to this revolver.
 
After searching a bit several have reported treso nipples due to having a smaller flash hole have solved blowback issues on their 1862. Just an fyi.
 
I wonder about that. I've seen the hammer blow back just from snapping a cap. If the flash hole is too small, the cap-blast could might would also blow the hammer back. ?

You would think the Slix-Shots, with the holes in the cones, each hole being bigger than the flash hole, would stop that. I have not tried snapping a cap with the Slix-Shots, but it did happen with the nips that the gun came with. So that issue is kind of a mystery to me.

Looking through my collection of cones, I see I do have a set of Tresco nips that were on the '62, and did not work. They do have a smaller flash hole than any of my other revolver nipples, which all seem to be about the same. I'm beginning to wonder if there is some "sweet spot" as far as flash hole size, where the cap-blast, nor the ignition of the main charge blow the hammer back. Now there is a question.

And that leads me to wonder if modern caps are way hotter than they need to be.
 
webrx said:
I agree but it should function properly is my point. If you buy a revolver today for 300-400 dollars you should be able to expect it to function properly. And I realize this is a replica but it is a replica made in a more modern environment than the originals. So it should function properly. Now, if you are going to compete with it, of course it may need some upgrades or tuning.

yes the originals may have had cap jam problems, but we know how to fix that now so, why is that impediment to function not resolved at the factory? I would pay 100 more to have it function fully.

really I am not trying to argue here. I want one, just have to figure into buying one the cost or time to make it reliable if this is systemic to this revolver.
Click to expand...

Well, I still look at it this way, $500 to $600 would not be excessive, compared to most modern revolvers, for a fully functioning out of the box C&B revolver. Methinks we've been a little spoiled by $300-$400 guns. I think the factories figure that at a low price they can sell more, and "build them to that price". I think that is wrong, and that they would sell more, if they were of higher quality, and priced higher.

However, I totally agree that they should function properly, now matter where they are priced.

The solution though, that I see, is to pay a 'smith to make it fully functional, and then one would/will have the gun as it should be, at the price it would have to be, to achieve that. !!
 
My suggestion would be to return any revolver that fails to function. I know it sucks to buy something new that doesn't work but a company that makes "these" revolvers on the scale of volume they do, some are going to slip through the cracks.
There may be a "make it run" market but it would hardly be worth doing for the one doing the service. And, I doubt folks would pay very much for it. Personally, I couldn't send a revolver out that I didn't think it would last a lifetime. Just getting it running is absolutely of no interest to me. My passion is in mechanical perfection and my customers expect that.
When you correct a problem or "fit" a part that is going to fail or cause another part to fail (a bolt arm and hammer cam for instance) what happens when it does fail say a week later, 2 months later a year later . . . how's the conversation going to go? The revolver functioned?
Sure, some folks shoot a little and their revolvers " never have a problem ". Some shoot 50 rounds and the cam is all but gone . . . (happened to a new Pietta I received for a magazine article years ago! That's when I learned to NOT cycle any revolvers except for evaluation!! Lol). So, there is the dilemma. If it works and you're happy with that, that's great. Ride it till it breaks. If it doesn't work out of the box, send it back or if it means enough to you, get it " tuned" and you'll have something for a lifetime . . . or at least a revolver that works well for you to sell!!

Mike
 
Last edited:
45 Dragoon said:
My suggestion would be to return any revolver that fails to function. I know it sucks to buy something new that doesn't work but a company that makes "these" revolvers on the scale of volume they do, some are going to slip through the cracks.
There may be a "make it run" market but it would hardly be worth doing for the one doing the service. And, I doubt folks would pay very much for it. Personally, I couldn't send a revolver out that I didn't think it would last a lifetime. Just getting it running is absolutely of no interest to me. My passion is in mechanical perfection and my customers expect that.
When you correct a problem or "fit" a part that is going to fail or cause another part to fail (a bolt arm and hammer cam for instance) what happens when it does fail say a week later, 2 months later a year later . . . how's the conversation going to go? The revolver functioned?
Sure, some folks shoot a little and their revolvers " never have a problem ". Some shoot 50 rounds and the cam is all but gone . . . (happened to a new Pietta I received for a magazine article years ago! That's when I learned to NOT cycle any revolvers except for evaluation!! Lol). So, there is the dilemma. If it works and you're happy with that, that's great. Ride it till it breaks. If it doesn't work out of the box, send it back or if it means enough to you, get it " tuned" and you'll have something for a lifetime . . . or at least a revolver that works well for you to sell!!

Mike
Click to expand...
Notice that I didn't say that those other pistols didn't need your talent, just that Treso nipples and #10s help a lot. None of my other pocket pistols compare to the one you did.
 
I could put the Tresos back on, but I'm about out of Rem #10's (which do seem to work better). I think if I come across some, it would be worth a try, but at the moment I've got a ton of CCI #11's, so I kind of have to make them work. And that is assuming the caps are the problem.

Does whoever makes Remington #10's still make them? That could give me some hope. Some say the supply chains are so damaged that such items will always be difficult to find.

On the other hand, the Tresos's blew-back before, although I don't remember what caps I use. I'm pretty sure I used all the caps I had.

I think the '62 is unloaded, maybe tomorrow I'll snap some caps and see if I get any blow back. If she do blow-back with just a cap, that might suggest that a tiny flash hole might not be such a great idea. I wonder what the flash holes size in the cones was on original pistols?

Now I could go down the rabbit hole of drilling out spare cones to see what happens. !!!!! Somebody stop me!
 
Question - are CCI caps harder then Remington? I was thinking “Maybe” the cap is not blowing out as easily as it should allowing pressure to go straight back at the hammer instead of around the nipple. Maybe sacrifice an oem nipple - v-notch it and check for improvement.
 
I think a lot of it has to do with how the cap fits the nipple, trying to use #11 caps on a #10 nipple for example. I personally have not seen #10 caps for sale for a really loooong time. Since I am too cheap to order nipples for my stuff I have learned to make # 11 nipples out of # 10s.
 
funny, i was just looking at how to make my own percussion caps :)

In the meantime, I have a bunch of CC! 10s, which did not fit anything I had so I modified some old pietta factory nipples so they do. When #11 CCI or #10 Remington become available again, I will swap them out on the couple of shooters I did this too.

d
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Ugly Sauce
  • Locked
Positive progress with the 1862.
Replies
6
Views
478
44 Dave
44 Dave
F
  • Locked
Nipple size for 1862 Uberti Police
Replies
11
Views
2K
arcticap
arcticap
Ugly Sauce
  • Locked
One last, I hope, observation with the 1862. Hammer blow back.
2
Replies
29
Views
1K
45 Dragoon
45 Dragoon
Ugly Sauce
  • Locked
Continued saga of the Sixty-Two.
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
sigwally
S
Ugly Sauce
  • Locked
Hope for the 1862, I seemed to have done something right.
Replies
13
Views
882
Ugly Sauce
Ugly Sauce
Back
Top