'61 Colt Navy by Pietta - question

[historynut]

I've been lurking on this site for a while and have a question for the board...

I've got an 1861 Navy Colt Signature Series (Uberti, I presume) and I'm looking to get a Pietta '61 Navy to use as a shooter as I no longer want to fire the Signature Series - too many reasons to list.

Anyway, my only knowledge of Pietta is that the quality has gone up over the years, but every photo I see of a Pietta '61 Navy looks odd because either a) the barrel is too long, or b) the loading lever is too short. The '61 loading lever should extend to close to the end of the barrel like the '51 and in every image I've seen of the Pietta '61 it has the look of an 1860 Army when it comes to the loading lever/barrel measurements.

Has anyone recently purchased a '61 Navy by Pietta and can you tell me if they've fixed this situation?

I know it seems petty to quibble about such a thing but it matters to me before I drop the dough into a new revolver. I would go with another Uberti, but am trying to save a little money and keep the peace at home and I've heard that the Pietta sometimes has a better "feel" and the newer ones are a joy to shoot.

On a related note, if anyone knows of a good used '51 or '61 steel frame Colt Navy (.36 cal) that needs a new home please send me a private message.

 

[mec]

I don't believe i've ever seen a Pietta 61 in real life but on of my favorite revolvers is this 61 Uberti

 

[Old Fuff]

I'm not sure who by, but my understanding is that some maker(s) are turning out 1861 Navies using 1860 (8") barrels bored to .375 caliber. Such would be incorrect of course, as the original 1861 and '51 Navies had 7 1/2" barrels.

If one is in the market to buy a '61 model it might be a good idea to check with the seller first.

 

[historynut]

Me too w/the Uberti '61. My wife bought me my Signature Series '61 to be a companion to the one I dug while relic hunting a few several years ago near Stones River, Murfreesboro, TN. The dug '61 is fully loaded and capped, #3097. Per Colt's records it was 1 of 100 '61 Navy's sent to JC Grubb & Co., Philadephia, PA in November 1861. See pics below.

Thus the reason for not wanting to shoot the Signature Series anymore and get something just for the range. Pietta is more reasonably priced, but I am baffled by the loading lever/barrel length question I posed above...

 

[historynut]

Old Fluff - It's the Piettas that have the longer barrel and incorrect look/construction. I know it won't effect the shooting much and the average person wouldn't know... but I was hoping that it had been corrected and that all the pics I am seeing on the various vendor websites were old. I was hoping someone had recently bought one and could give me the scoop. I have talked to several of the vendors about inspecting one for me before purchase and I get a varied response to the request. I guess one could buy the weapon and have the barrel cut and the sight moved but then you've exceeded the cost of a Uberti when it's all done and it's still not "right".

 

[RON in PA]

The price differential between the Uberti and the Pietta isn't that great, get the Uberti.

 

[Old Fuff]

I suggest that you check with Cimarron Firearms (www.cimarron-firearms.com). They show a correct 1861 Navy (made by Uberti) and their description specifies a 7 1/2" barrel. Quoted MSRP is $298.00, but a dealer might do better. It may also have an iron backstrap and trigger guard which would add to the cost, although they don't say. Apparently your original 19th century relic also had iron straps.

 

[historynut]

The relic '61 actually has a brass triggerguard and backstrap. It's brown on the piece because it's been colored/coated by the parafin that seals the gun. Finding a brass triggerguard and backstrap on a good repro '61 is harder than one might think. CVA marketed them a few years ago and others do now but they're few and far between compared to other models.

 

[Old Fuff]

Cimarron listed a brass trigger guard/backstrap option as well as iron, and it is unclear what they are currently offering. I prefer the iron straps, but I can see that you have a good reason for wanting brass. Incidentally, your relic is a commercial model (not cut to use a detachable shoulder stock) so the brass parts were likely silver plated.

I don't know that it matters to you, but the only difference between an 1851 and 1861 Navy is the barrel assembly (meaning the barrel and bullet/ball rammer). The newer model followed the 1860 Army style. I have considered picking up a less expensive '51 plus an extra '61 barrel, and having both depending on which ever barrel was mounted to the frame. Beats buying two guns.

 

[historynut]

I've never considered the 2 barrel option - interesting thought. I had a '51 years ago and loved the way it handled. The letter from Colt tracing the relic's history gave no mention of silver plating on the brass, but you're right in that it might have been plated and I'm 99% sure it's civilian in origin.

From my research into war time '61 Navys, they were rarely "issued" and were often the preferred weapon of officers who would buy their own sidearms. The area that I found the revolver was the site of an ambush where some SC infantry got the drop on a battalion of the 15th Pennsylvania Cavarly (the Anderson Troop). The 15th was a group of Philadelphia socialites (not all, but the majority were well-to-do Philadelphians) originally mustered into service to be General Anderson's escort troop. The regiment was issued 1860 Army 44s. There were two majors (Ward & Rosengarten) from high profile Philadelphia families killed on the spot where I found the revolver. It's a stretch, but it just might be that one of these gentlemen was the owner of the revolver. I'll never know for sure....