SAA Cattleman vs. S&W 1911 Video

[Foto Joe]

Since I've been spending too much of my time up in the oil fields in North Dakota, I haven't been able to shoot as much as I like.

I managed to get home a couple of days early while my youngest daughter, son-in-law and grandkids were visiting up here in Wyoming and did get the son-in-law out to play with a new Uberti Cattleman. The Cattleman is one of two that are replacing a less than decent performing Uberti Schofield that was purchased last year. So far I have only received the Nickle 7.5" 45 Colt. Still on the way is a blued 7.5" in 44-40.

The Cattleman revolvers seem to shoot Black Powder very well although you might want to wipe the front of the cylinder off with Moose Milk every couple of times just to keep from binding. I fired 50 rounds without pulling the pin and just wiping the front of the cylinder down with no problems.

Although not Black Powder (and I have no desire to try it), I also took my "New To Me" Smith & Wesson 1911 out for exercise.

The video has both "Gallery Loads" and 30gr-230gr LRN rounds being fired. Personally I'll stick to the Gallery Loads for plinking.

YouTube Video

 

[[email protected]]

Good Video. Here is a "Still" for you from the video.

 

[Tomahawk674]

NICE.

 

[Foto Joe]

[email protected],

You have a knack for grabbing stills off of video and that's a GOOD one, I'm gonna use it for a desktop background for a while.

 

[1KPerDay]

Cool vid. Subscribed

 

[Old Fuff]

If you have a chance to examine a Colt Single Action Army revolver made before 1935 (date approximate) and can remove the cylinder, you'll find an oval cut made in the front/bottom of the topstrap. It's called a "fouling cup," and its purpose was to give black powder fouling a place to build up, or escape, so the cylinder wouldn't bind. The reason that your new Uberti replica is giving you trouble is because it's intended to be used with smokeless powder, not black.

This is also why Colt stayed with their open-top models until 1873, even though competitors such as Remington were making revolver with a topstrap.

Stills from video: There are software programs (some of which are free) that will capture all of the frames in .JPG format in a short video segment. Pick the few you like and delete the rest.

 

[Foto Joe]

If you have a chance to examine a Colt Single Action Army revolver made before 1935 (date approximate) and can remove the cylinder, you'll find an oval cut made in the front/bottom of the topstrap. It's called a "fouling cup," and its purpose was to give black powder fouling a place to build up, or escape, so the cylinder wouldn't bind.

Interestingly enough, the Uberti Cattleman "does" have that fouling cup, as does the old Dakota that I have. Both of those guns eat Black Powder with few if any problems with just a little bit of attention given to what you're doing. The gun I had issues with was a Uberti Schofield, pretty gun but after going through 4 of them I gave up. The issue wasn't Black Powder with the Schofields, it was lousy quality control.

As I said, this Uberti will eat a steady diet of Swiss but to reduce problems I usually shoot only "Gallery Loads". The Dakota (circa 1980) needs to get the cylinder pin pulled every three cylinders or it's like pulling teeth from a rabid cat trying to get it out. The Uberti went 50 round (35 Gallery - 15 30gr/230gr LRN's) and the pin pulled just like it had not been fired, I'm impressed.

I'm heading out now to push another 50 Gallery Loads through it.

 

[Old Fuff]

I'm surprised that the one you have has the fouling cup because some I've examined don't...

Anyway, be sure the cylinder bushing is free to turn in the cylinder, and the base pin is equally able to turn in the bushing. I always make a point of polishing both the base pin and bushing, and both should be lubricated before you go out.

 

[Foto Joe]

Typically I take an oiler filled with Ballistol and put a few drops down the front by the blast ring on the cylinder and at the back by the hand ratchets ever couple dozen rounds or so. This afternoon I forgot the oiler but I did have a squirt bottle of Moose Milk (1:1) with me. It's not as good but it'll do in a pinch.

I think that one of the problems that Uberti has with its SAA clones is that they use a "Ruger Style" hand spring. Unfortunately I learned this the hard way. When the gun came in I did a complete tear down and cleaning and realized right after I pulled the hammer and hand that something was amiss. Suffice it to say it was a task re-assembling the thing because I'd never seen one. I was lucky I didn't lose that little piston thingy when it hit the floor.

Anyway, it may be a more durable spring system but I think it has more drag on the hand as the hand moves up. Having had broken or deployed hand springs before I do think it's an improvement, it just might not be the best thing for Black Powder.

The gun shoots great, the trigger is perfect and I couldn't be happier with this gun. But like all guns that you are going to shoot real powder out of, it's gonna be a learning experience.

 

[Old Fuff]

Back in '73 Colt went to the cylinder bushing design expressly so the cylinder would have two ways to turn, either on the bushing and/or the base pin. But it's not unusual the find a bushing that's so tight it won't turn in the cylinder, so that leaves the base pin. Unquestionably having two ways rather then one is a much better alternative.

 

[Foto Joe]

Back in '73 Colt went to the cylinder bushing design expressly so the cylinder would have two ways to turn, either on the bushing and/or the base pin.

Hmmmm...

This has got me thinkin'. That old Dakota with the 12" barrel has what appears to be a "non" moving bushing/blast ring. I've often wondered if that thing was pressed in or what. Given that the Dakota wasn't the most expensive gun in the world it wouldn't surprise me that the cylinder only turned on the pin. I'll have a little closer look the next time it gets dirty. As a side note: It might not have been the most high quaility gun the Italians ever made but the thing shoots like a dream. It was originally purchased by me in 1980 to hunt coyotes with because I was tired of sewing up exit wounds from a 22-250. The 45 Colt round very seldom came out the other side, thus cutting my work in half regarding fixing holes in pelts. Besides, once hit with a 45 Colt, the coyote usually didn't feel like running any more.

 

[Foto Joe]

Thanks to Old Fuff for "enlightening" me so to speak.

I pulled the Cattleman down yesterday for cleaning and punched that bushing out of the cylinder.

It's my experience that when I get a new gun it gets stripped and cleaned. Since I didn't realize that the bushing was removable or that it even turned, it didn't get pulled and cleaned prior to firing the gun.

Unfortunately Uberti in their infinite wisdom used some sort of petroleum based oil/grease etc. on the thing. The problem is that after 100+ rounds of Swiss filled cartridges going through it, that lubricant turned to.....you guessed it, TAR!!

It was quite the battle to clean it up but it did finally work. It's now lubed with Ballistol and will be part of the general cleaning process. When Uberti sends me my final replacement gun (Cattleman in 44-40), I will make sure to include the cylinder bushing in my initial tear down and cleaning.

 

[Old Fuff]

Glad to be helpful.

Be aware that 3rd Generation Colt's have a non-removable bushing and Ruger single actions have non at all.

Also Brownell's (www.brownells.com) have so-called "bearings (think washers) that can be used as a drop-in on Colt's and exact clones that have removable bushings to correct excessive cylinder end-shake, which is common on these revolvers.

 

[Pulp]

Nice video, and some pretty country.

 

[SAA]

And here I thought you were going to be shooting black powder in the 1911 as well. Oh, well. Any day at the range is a good day. Thankyou for sharing your day at the range shooting guns essentially designed 38 years apart.

Old Fluff, please don't think me impertinent, but a couple items need to be clarified.

Firstly, only 3rd generation SAAs made from 1976 to 2003 had the pressed-in bushing. Current 3rd generation SAAs have removable bushings.

Secondly, it is my understanding that the removable bushing was expressly designed to fill the space between the center hole in the cylinder which had to be large enough to take a sufficiently strong manrel for machining the cylinder, and the base pin which had to be small enough to clear the bottom of the barrel for removal. The third bearing surface created was simply found to be a side benefit.

 

[Old Fuff]

Firstly, only 3rd generation SAAs made from 1976 to 2003 had the pressed-in bushing. Current 3rd generation SAAs have removable bushings.

I am under the impression that when Colt returned to using a removable base pin bushing they were assigned a 4th generation designation, and I am not at all sure we aren't up to generation 5. These are all because of collector/researcher assignments and not the Colt company. My point was that you can't use Brownells' handy bearings to correct common cylinder end-shake unless the bushing can be removed.

Secondly, it is my understanding that the removable bushing was expressly designed to fill the space between the center hole in the cylinder which had to be large enough to take a sufficiently strong manrel for machining the cylinder, and the base pin which had to be small enough to clear the bottom of the barrel for removal. The third bearing surface created was simply found to be a side benefit.

That's a new one on me. Remington didn't seem to have any problems making cylinders for their New Army, New Navy, etc. models. They did however have issues of the top strap causing cylinder binding because of trapped powder fouling. This was one reason Colt stayed with an open-top design for as long as they did. By the 1870's they were well aware of Remington's troubles, which were confirmed by Army reports from the field. It is far more probable that this was the principal reason for the bushing. If a larger hole and base pin had been necessary, Colt could have slightly redesigned the frame in the first place.

 

[SAA]

I am under the impression that when Colt returned to using a removable base pin bushing they were assigned a 4th generation designation, and I am not at all sure we aren't up to generation 5. These are all because of collector/researcher assignments and not the Colt company.

Ah! Now I see where you were coming from. Some also refer to the "S"-"A" split in the serial number as being the advent of a "4th generation". The fact is that there hasn't been a break in production of the 3rd generation SAAs since they started in 1976 which would historically be necessary for the naming of a new "generation", and Colt's still refers to current SAAs as "3rd generation" regardless of self-imposed definitions made up by individual collectors.
http://www.coltforum.com/forums/colt-revolvers/37142-4th-generation-single-action-army.html
http://www.coltforum.com/forums/colt-revolvers/26849-please-define-4th-generation-saa.html

 

[SAA]

That's a new one on me. Remington didn't seem to have any problems making cylinders for their New Army, New Navy, etc. models........By the 1870's they were well aware of Remington's troubles, which were confirmed by Army reports from the field. It is far more probable that this was the principal reason for the bushing.

Good point about the Remingtons. All I know is what was described as the reason for the bushing under William Mason's Patent No. 158,957 of January 19, 1875 (as stamped on the frame of the SAA). The advantage of a third bearing surface was mentioned though, but not described as the original purpose of the bushing:

"As there is, practically, very little strain upon the center-pin H, it may be of as small diameter in large as small arms, and such small diameter is desirable in order to keep the cylinder of small diameter, and yet permit the projecting end of the center-pin to clear the barrel, so that the pin may be withdrawn toward the muzzle; but in the manufacture of cylinders for the larger class of pistols an opening through the cylinder no larger than that required for the pin is too small for practical purposes, as a mandrel or arbor of that diameter would be too weak for practical use. To overcome this difficulty in the manufacture and still preserve the desirable small center-pin, the cylinder is center-bored of sufficient diameter for the requirements of manufacture; and into this center-bore a sleeve, L (our "bushing"), is fitted, as seen in Figs. 4 and 5, the internal diameter of the sleeve corresponding to the diameter of the center-pin, the sleeve loose both on the pin and in the cylinder, and the pin loose in the frame, so that the cylinder will turn freely on the sleeve, and the sleeve as freely on the pin or the pin in the frame.

"This construction has an additional advantage over a construction without a sleeve- that is, as there are three bearings, upon either of which the cylinder may revolve, there is less liability of the cylinder sticking than in case of a single bearing."
---------------------------------

The advantage of the 3rd bearing surface was also mentioned in the "Description and Rules for the Management of the Springfield Rifle, Carbine, and Army Revolvers" (at least in the 1898 version), but only in regard to "dirt or rust", not combustion fouling (for whatever reason), unless fouling also consituted "dirt" by definition:

"The center-pin bushing affords a third surface of revolution for the cylinder and diminishes the chances of sticking from dirt or rust. The cylinder and bushing may both revolve on the center-pin, which in turn may revolve on its own bearings."

 

[SAA]

Foto Joe, I love how you showed both full-house BP rounds along with gallery loads. I made up some 15 grain reduced BP loads with filler and a round ball so my young son could try his hand at shooting the "cowboy gun". I wish I knew how to post video, but all I have right now as far as a digital camera is a little pocket camera. I know it will take video clips, but I've never tried it as I don't want to burn up a lot of memory on the card.

 

[Old Fuff]

I know it will take video clips, but I've never tried it as I don't want to burn up a lot of memory on the card.

Shouldn't be a problem, because you can upload the video on the card to your computer hard drive or an external USB-attached drive. Then erase the card in the camera so you can use it for other things.

You can also buy an extra card or two (they are now much less costly then they used to be) and switch cards in the field. Then move the video/pictures to the computer and erase all of the cards later.

You can also make still photographs from selected frames in your video.

All of this should be explained in the instructions and/or CD that came with the camera, or go to the camera manufacturer's website.

 

[SAA]

Thanks, Old Fluff. You inspired me to give it a try. I made my first digital video today, and uploaded it to my computer. I couldn't figure out how to capture still frames though, and I'm clueless about getting a video onto YouTube, but it's a start.

 

[Old Fuff]

I couldn't figure out how to capture still frames though,

Once you have moved the video to your hard drive it becomes a video file, which can be viewed on your computer using any number of video players. Some of these players will allow you to take a short segment of the video and copy it to a new folder where each frame is made into a still .JPG photo, which is the same thing as the individual pictures you are used to. Be careful! unless you have a lot of free space on a large hard drive the frames from the video will use a lot of space very quickly. At this point you can use whatever program you use to look at regular pictures. Pick a few to save to your "My Pictures" folder, and then delete the rest to reclaim your hard drive space.

As for YouTube, someone else will have to help both of us on that point.