Relative Quality: Original vs. Repro

[John C]

All;

Common knowledge is that the quality of reproduction cap'n ball revolvers has varied over the years from okay to downright abominable. However, the quality of recent repros has increased by leaps and bounds.

So my question is this: How does the quality of the BEST repro cap'n ball revolvers compare to an original gun? I know that hand finishing is completely lacking on the current crop of revolvers, but CNC machining has negated the need for the TLC lavished on the original guns. Also, today's steels are dramatically better.

If you walked into a hardware store in St. Louis in November of 1869, and you saw in the case a complete selection of original pistols, and next to it a selection of the BEST modern C'N B guns, what would you pick on the basis of quality alone?

Thanks,

-John

 

[Yankee John]

I own an original Colt 1860 and an original Remington New Model Army. Both are in tight, working/firing condition (although I have never fired them).

My impression of the quality of the mechanics/action is that they are extremely close in fit & function to the modern replicas, with a very slight nod to the new-made revolvers in smoothness of the mechanics. The new revolvers seem to be timed slightly better than my originals.

I will tell you this: I firmly believe that the main springs in both ORIGINAL revolvers are made from the leaf springs from a 2-ton dump truck! VERY VERY stiff!!

John

 

[pohill]

Would you count relatively new "authentic"' Colt Colts (Signature Series, etc), as repos? If so, I can't see how an "original" would be better. The best, top of the line Ubertis, Piettas...that's a tough one. What kind of shape will Ubertis and Piettas be in in 140 yrs from now? I handled a few original Colts at a pre-1898 gun show and they just feel more like the "real deal" than a repo, probably because they are...

 

[John C]

Pohill;

Yes, I consider the "signature series" colts repros. For the purpose of this thread, I would say anything made after 1900 is a repro.

I agree that there is a mystique to the original guns, but in this thread I'm more concerned with raw quality, fit, finish and durability.

So who makes the best repros? Pedersoli, Uberti, Pietta?

-John

 

[John C]

Yankee John;

Thanks, your reply is exactly what I'm looking for.

Do you think the timing on your originals is slipping from usage, or just that the guns weren't timed to perfection to begin with? What brand of repros are you comparing them against?

Thanks!

-John

 

[Yankee John]

Best observation that I can give you John is that on my original Remington, and to a lesser degree my original 1860 Colt, both have lines on the cylinder where the cylinder stop contacts the cylinder as it advances.

My very-recently manufactured Pietta 1860, Uberti Remington revolving carbine, and Pietta Remington 1858 all are timed just about perfectly and have little-to-no cylinder scoring due to cylinder stop contact.

John

 

[RyanM]

Just because "today's steels" are better, doesn't mean the repros are. Today's plastics are strong enough to make gun frames out of, and they will often last longer than steel-framed guns, but that doesn't mean that today's plastic garbage cans are stronger than yesteryear's metal ones.

From what I've seen, most of the originals are much better quality than most Pietta and Uberti repros. Although Pedersoli's revolvers are quite good.

 

[pohill]

I'd have to say that it just doesn't get any better (for me) than a "new" Colt Signature Series, which, ironically, was made (partly, or mostly) by Uberti, to Colt's standards. I cannot see how an original, even in the 1860s, was better made. The downside is the price.

 

[Yankee John]

Not to get into an argument, but there is absolutely no question that the materials and metal used in today's modern reproduction BP revolvers is heads-and-shoulders above the quality of original 19th century firearms.

The ability to control the purity and material composition, and custom-taylor the metallic properties of modern steel alloys, is infinately better than the technology of the 19th century firearms makers.

That being said, My original revolvers definately feel much more "solid" and substantial than my replicas do. Maybe it's just my perception?

John

 

[mec]

If you have a caliper, how about measuring your chamber mouths. guy I know has this original that measures .452. the first time he shot it, he got multiple discharge. Next time he went to .457" balls and it shot very well:

 

[Old Fuff]

Over time I have owned both original and reproduction Colt and Remington revolvers, and I have also shot both - including an 1847 2nd. Model Dragoon. I have also handled a number of original cased guns that were like new, and had never been shot.

The overall metal work and fitting of the best reproductions come close to the originals, and sometimes surpass them, but the methods used to finish them (blue, case hardening etc.) then vs. now are entirely different, and the older (but more labor intensive) ways were better.

Most of the older revolvers were better timed. For example the hammer hit the backstrap at the same time the trigger engaged the full-cock notch so that the hand and bolt wouldn't suffer any extra shock. How this worked is seldom understood today because most of the originals are worn enough so that they are no longer perfect.

The steels are much better then those used originally, and we no longer have to worry about seams in the cylinders and barrels.

An original 1851 Navy could shoot a group the size of a silver dollar at 25 yards. The best reproductions can do the same. Col. Colt as very proud that his revolvers had gain-twist rifling. No one duplicates that today.

It should be understood that life during the 19th century was entirely different then it is today. Those gunmakers had the advantage of having highly skilled craftsmen that worked for (by modern standards) very low benefits. When taken in the context of modern economics the cap & ball reproductions are a very great value.

 

[RyanM]

Not to get into an argument, but there is absolutely no question that the materials and metal used in today's modern reproduction BP revolvers is heads-and-shoulders above the quality of original 19th century firearms.

The ability to control the purity and material composition, and custom-taylor the metallic properties of modern steel alloys, is infinately better than the technology of the 19th century firearms makers.

Maybe, maybe not. People who've done serious custom work on the repros have said that the consistency on many of them is absolutely terrible. You may get one gun that's heat treated rock hard, and then another of the same brand that's still dead soft! And just because good steel is available doesn't mean that it's used. Who says the repros aren't made out of whatever was on sale that week at Bob's Metal Mart? Or just made out of a bunch of scraps melted together in a pot?

And even if they do use a high quality steel, who says it's the right steel for the job? Manufacturers of sword-like objects often use 440A stainless steel, which is an ostensibly "better" steel than the as-dug-out-of-the-ground junk that medieval smiths were forced to use. But take an authentic sword and a stainless wallhanger and whack something real hard with both. Which will survive unscathed?

Plus there's construction. If you make a bunch of parts on a machine, unless you use prohibitively expensive manufacturing techniques, there will always be some variation. Enough that the gun will need to be designed so that any combination of sizes (within the acceptable tolerance limits that the machine tries to stay within) will work. This inevitably results in a certain amount of slop. In the old guns, every part was hand fit for that particular gun, and were also usually made to work the best they possibly could. But nowadays, manufacturers just go for just good enough that people will buy them. After all, very few people's livesl rely on a cap and ball revolver.

There is a lot more to "quality" than potential material quality and potential precision of manufacture.

Overall, I'd say that the top end repros, like those made by Ruger and Pedersoli, do have much better materials and are more precisely made. But they aren't nearly as finely tuned as the few actual BP pieces I've handled.

 

[John C]

Thanks, everyone, for the replies.

I agree that many/most of the repros out there are basically garbage. However, many/most of the originals were garbage as well. We all speak highly of the vintage Colts, Remingtons, etc. But the vast majority of guns produced were Iver Johnsons, H&Rs, etc. Those guns, being of lower quality, just haven't survived the test of time.

In the context of this thread, I am looking at the highest quality repros, not your $150 Armi San Marco. From what I understand, you can get a Uberti for $350. How does that compare to an original? I think the Ubertis are pretty well made guns, although I haven't shot one of their C&B pistols.

MEC, I enjoyed your latest article in GUNS.

-John

 

[pohill]

You know what they say about one man's garbage...
I have a Colt Signature Series. Perfect. I'd ask for no more out of a gun built on 1861 technology. Used, under $400.
I have an Uberti Walker, under $300. Aside from the question of how much powder to use (ha ha )...perfect. All that I'd want out of a Walker.
Same with my used Pietta 1851 .36 Navy (under $100).
1860 .44 Pietta...needed some wedge work. Looks great and what a shooter (cheap money, too).
1862 Uberti Pocket Police...excellent.
Spiller & Burr brass framed...no complaints.
1836 Paterson...there's a challenge. Very accurate.
I had an Uberti Remington that I traded to Smokin' Gun. I still wake in the middle of the night calling out to her...
I'd love an original just to look at and dwell on, but not to shoot.
I cannot point to one of my BP revolvers and call it garbage. What are the odds? If you want high quality, get a Colt Colt (Uberti). If you want just some safe fun, Pietta or Uberti.

 

[Old Fuff]

Referring to the better reproductions…

I think “garbage” is an unfair description. Over the years the Italian companies that make most of them have continually improved their products, both in the materials they use, and workmanship, which was always good.

The original Colt’s were preliminary assembled by workmen called “filers,” who would assemble blank barrels, backstraps and trigger guards to a frame, and then hand-file the parts to obtain a perfect fit. This is the reason those parts were serial numbered to insure the right ones would get back onto the right frame after finishing. Wood one-piece stocks were also had fitted to the straps to insure a perfect wood-to-metal fit.

The reproductions were (and are) made the same way, by workmen who were originally trained to make high-quality double-barreled shotguns.

About the only parts in the original guns that were heat-treated are springs, and the process was not exactly consistent. Cylinders were made from bar stock that sometimes had seams in it. Carbon particles could get trapped in barrel and frame forgings. None of this is the case today.

In a 19th century economy the gunmakers could lavish handwork on their revolvers. If that was done now it’s unlikely most buyers could afford to by them.

As a product, modern cap & ball revolvers offer some excellent values.