That Isn't a Holster Dear Uberti/Taylors 1862 Pocket Police

[Johnm1]

I did have less problems with the Remington caps

I read that these Ubertis preferred the Remington #10 caps so I used them. Unfortunately I used the last of them today. I have boatloads of the CCI #11's and some CCI #10's. But I figure I better figure out how to make this one shoot what i have the most of.

And I did confirm that the arbor is short. What a surprise. I can bind the cylinder if I drive the wedge in all the way.

So first things that need to get fixed:

- Over rotation
- Short arbor

I may opt for different nipples so it will ues the CCI #11's better. I'm not sure if I want to upgrade the hand spring to the Ruger standard or not. But I am leaning towards the wire springs for the bolt/trigger.

 

[ClemBert]

That's a great price and a beautiful piece.I love the 1862 Pocket Police even though my hands are a bit larger. Kind of dainty compared to Walker...just a tad bit. Here's what it looks like next to a boat anchor. Those are both Uberti revolvers. My 1862 ain't as purty as yours.

 

[ClemBert]

BTW, my notations shows that my cylinder chambers on my Uberti pocket police measure out at 0.372 which is interesting since your's are that a tad different. Mine was made in 2015 so perhaps they changed the specs a little bit.

 

[ClemBert]

The finish on the Uberti's are very nice. Really no room for improvement. Mine is very accurate.

Did you remove the bead and replace it with a blade sight?

 

[Johnm1]

my Uberti pocket police measure out at 0.372 which is interesting since your's are that a tad different. Mine was made in 2015 so perhaps they changed the specs a little bit.

For my measurements you have to take into account who is doing the measuring. Consider I spend equal amounts of time in Ace Hardware and Harbour Frieght. I'm confident that the throats and forcing cones aren't smaller than the groove size. Well, close to the same.

So don't put a lot of faith in the exact measurements.

 

[ClemBert]

I'll have to check but the lands and grooves (hard to measure) I believe are 0.360 and 0.379, respectively. Slight chance there was whiskey involved while making notations though....LOL.

p.s. This is a Cimarron Uberti, not that that should make any difference.

 

[Johnm1]

I believe are 0.360 and 0.379

It has 7 grooves so unless I can come up with a set of ring gauges I'm never going to be able to measure it accurately. And what Uberti is producing on Thursday could be totally different the next Monday depending on when they change a worn tool. I'm happy that the groove diameter is at least close to the smallest of the three dimensions. It actually could be a tad larger but apparently it isn't enough to make a difference. I can't shoot any better than those groups.

If I fail with this arm I won't be able to blame the firearm.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

Did you remove the bead and replace it with a blade sight?

View attachment 1061477

Yes, I got that sight for my musket, but never got around to putting it on. It is silver. Gave the pistol a POA/POI at 25 yards with no filing. Now I need another one for my musket!

 

[Ugly Sauce]

And what Uberti is producing on Thursday could be totally different the next Monday depending on when they change a worn tool.

Yep, bores and chambers get smaller as reamers and cutters get smaller and duller.

 

[Johnm1]

One last thing before I turn in for the evening. The cylinder cut the slightest ring when seating the ball. I mean hard to see slight. But it was always there. I assume that with these dimensions the 0.375" ball is the correct sized ball. Is that correct?

At this point I'm not interested in eeking out a little more accuracy.

 

[Jackrabbit1957]

Hey John, all that stuff can be fixed, I am a firm believer in a slight chamfer at the chamber mouths so the ball is compressed into the chamber rather than having lead cut off of it. I have seen those little rings thicker on one side as opposed to the other so how does an off center ball contribute to best accuracy? I have never seen any mention in Colt's original loading instructions about making sure you cut a ring off the ball. I would like to know where and when that became a standard for loading a cap and ball revolver. Hey Arcticap, you out there?

 

[Ugly Sauce]

The Rabbit is right, I always (almost always) chamfer the chamber mouths to get a squeeze rather than a ring. On the other hand, I've never noticed that not shaving a ring has ever resulted in a lack of accuracy, or made the gun more prone to chain-fire.

The chambers on my '62 have not been chamfered, and it neither shaves the ring, chain-fires, or lacks in accuracy.

 

[Johnm1]

The chambers on my '62 have not been chamfered, and it neither shaves the ring, chain-fires, or lacks in accuracy.

I’m not really concerned about chain-fires. I suppose if I ever have one that might change. As long as it solidly holds the projectile in place, I’m more concerned that the throat doesn’t squeeze the projectile down to where it is smaller than the groove size. My Hopkins and Allen XL-8’s throat squeezes the projectile down to 0.425” leading to a groove diameter of 0.436”. I can’t remember the bore diameter. Needless to say it isn’t very accurate and that kind of spoils it for me.

Although my measurements may not be completely accurate they lead me to believe that the projectile is sized just at or above the groove diameter. And the groups indicate that the projectile isn’t rattling down the bore.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

I was concerned about chain fires for a while, but the only one I ever had was with 777, and never one before or after with black powder. So lately I've stopped worrying and have gone back to just seating a ball directly over the powder, when I use a ball. I've gone to slugs with my 1860 and New Model Army Remington in Navy caliber, as in those bigger guns I think a slug is a bit more effective/powerful (regardless of energy figures/formula) plus a lubed bullet seals the chamber better, I think, as far as chain fires go. (assuming a chain fire can come from the front of the cylinder)

 

[Ugly Sauce]

Those are both Uberti revolvers. My 1862 ain't as purty as yours.

I like the looks of that '62 in the white. I bet it will age into a very nice looking gun.

 

[ClemBert]

I like the looks of that '62 in the white. I bet it will age into a very nice looking gun.

That's how it came from the factory. Oddly enough, Uberti calls it "original finish" but there's nothing original about it. If anything it should be called "worn and weathered finish". I bought it with that finish just because all my others have nice prestine factory finishes. BTW, here's a picture of her above a Colt original (not mine).

 

[Ugly Sauce]

I still like it. Better lighting in the above pic.

 

[Zulch]

The pockets of mens coats were larger then. And there trousers had larger pockets and fit looser. Much more comfortable than what is worn today.

I also like the Pocket Police revolver.

View attachment 1061289

I had the chambers reamed to accept a .380 ball. Accuracy improved a good bit.

Kevin

Beautiful array ya got there StrawHat.

 

[ClemBert]

One last thing before I turn in for the evening. The cylinder cut the slightest ring when seating the ball. I mean hard to see slight. But it was always there. I assume that with these dimensions the 0.375" ball is the correct sized ball. Is that correct?

At this point I'm not interested in eeking out a little more accuracy.

I use 0.380 balls. But again, my cylinder throats are 0.372....just doubled checked it with the caliper. According to your measurement 0.375 can work but you can do 0.380 too if you want to. I don't know if your lead would move during recoil. It's relatively small charge you are using so proabably just fine.