I don't need conversion cylinder. In that case, I will have to reclassify this revolver as center-firing. In EU laws are different than in USA. Much easier to get muzzle loading firearm than center-firing one. If I want 45 Colt, I will just get Ruger Blackhawk, simpler and faster than find conversion cylinder. BTW, I already have 3 revolvers in 44 Magnums; 5,5 and 7.5 Bisley-s, and 7.5 Redhawk.Since you have the "modern" target sights, why not go all the way and get a cartridge conversion cylinder? This gun practically cries out for one.
When considering fit and finish, this Remington 1858 is on a par with Ruger Old Army I have. As for quality of the steels Uberti is using, I cannot comment. I would appreciate info about that. In that respect, Ruger Old Army is superb. As far as I found, Ruger was using same steels as on Blackhawk and Super Blackhawk.I've got six 1858s but none of them have adjustable sights or stainless steel. Really nice looking gun. The stainless is very appealing to me. Back in the 70s when I shot matches the Lyman NMA just seemed to shot right on except for the higher front sight I put on it. They were off hand matches and I loaded 20grs for 25 yards and 28 grains for 50 yards. At 25 I could shoot in the 90s with an occasional 100, but 50 yards was another story. If I stayed in the 80s I was happy. The NMA is a copy of the originals and they had short front sights because they were sighted in for a 100 yards. So a higher front sight is in order. It always amazed me how close to the X ring they'd shoot with just the grove in the top of the receiver. I had to buy a Witloe to get one with adjustable sights.
I’m going out on a limb here and saying that Uberti uses steel which is superior to that used in the originals.I don't need conversion cylinder. In that case, I will have to reclassify this revolver as center-firing. In EU laws are different than in USA. Much easier to get muzzle loading firearm than center-firing one. If I want 45 Colt, I will just get Ruger Blackhawk, simpler and faster than find conversion cylinder. BTW, I already have 3 revolvers in 44 Magnums; 5,5 and 7.5 Bisley-s, and 7.5 Redhawk.
When considering fit and finish, this Remington 1858 is on a par with Ruger Old Army I have. As for quality of the steels Uberti is using, I cannot comment. I would appreciate info about that. In that respect, Ruger Old Army is superb. As far as I found, Ruger was using same steels as on Blackhawk and Super Blackhawk.
I found info about steels Pietta is using, and apparently, parts were made from fairly soft steels. However, somebody quenched some parts from Pietta revolver, and got them quite hard. Looks like steels used were of good quality, just not heat treated.
I’m going out on a limb here and saying that Uberti uses steel which is superior to that used in the originals
For sure everything before 1850s or so…No argument there I would think. Certainly the purity of the steel would be way better. The old steels had a lot of goobers in it. (I forget the technical term) Weren't the very early revolvers made of iron? And some Confederate pistols?
View attachment 1080809
Love the Remington design. I love my Colts, but my Uberti Remington sure has been reliable and trouble free, and no such thing as a cap jam.
I have an uberti 58 that I proclaimed the most accurate handgun that I own.
29gr 3f (.45acp brass) under a .454 ball lubed with unsalted crisco.
Just an FYI......
Uberti centerfire revolvers are equally good.
Just curious, are those revolvers "historically correct" regarding fluted cylinder, or this is something added by manufacturers of modern copies?
These are 1969 Uberti built for Dixie Gun Works. Flutes or 1/2s give you better grip when you have run so many through it the cylinder needs a bit of help for those last few rounds.View attachment 1080950 There are full fluted and some 1/2 fluted 1860s. These are older Uberti '60s