The Revolver Family has Grown.

Ugly Sauce

Ugly Sauce

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2020
Messages
6,197
DSC07804.JPG
Can you spot the new kind on the block. Or...the chair? Second from left, the stubby barrel 1863 New Model Army Remington in .44". My VAST collection of FOUR! Dang, where will I put them all?

It's a Pietta, first one I've ever owned. No offense Pietta fans, but my Uberti does seem to be of slightly better quality. The action on the Uberti just feels "better". Of course, the Uberti Remington .36 was a sample gun, so it's a "ringer" for sure. I have not shot the new kid yet, I had to crown the muzzle. The muzzle had absolutely no crown. The pistol seems to be new, and possibly only fired a few times. The person I got it from/traded had it for three years or so without ever firing it.

However, she's loaded up and just waiting for me to step out on the back porch and pop off six. That depends on when I'm not too lazy to clean it. :) The cones on it are way way too small, so she's not ready for field duty until I get some replacements from TOW. In the field, I will not tolerate caps falling off the cones from recoil.

Comparing apples to oranges, for two guns that are supposed to be replicas of an original gun, the frame dimensions vary quite a bit between the Uberti and Pietta. The Pietta has a longer and thicker frame, where the barrel threads into it. The Pietta shows more threads where the barrel comes out of the frame. The loading port on the Pietta is not done well, I could not load a combustible cartridge with bullet, a round ball cartridge would load, I think. The hammers also have quite different contours/shapes.

The barrel on the Uberti is much smaller/thinner. You can actually see that in the pic. I find that interesting as the .36" is supposed to just be a .44 barrel bored to .36". ? That is true of the cylinder I'm sure, but now I suspect they use a different barrel of smaller dimension.

Anyhow, been wanting a Remington in .44", not sure why, won't do anything my 1860 can't do, the little extra powder the Remington holds isn't enough difference to make a difference, to my mind. Had I the choice, I would have gone with the longer barrel, but this one feels good in the hand, fits in my one size fits all (revolvers) flap holster and is just a pretty cool pistol. I mean, what's not to like? And now my Uberti Remington isn't lonely anymore, and out-numbered by the Colts. :) That situation had to be corrected.
 
Started out with the 8” but
I’ve had one of those 5.5” .44 Pie-eddy’s since 2011. My boys each have one too. We love ours and you’re gonna feel the same way. Handy as all hell. Good score. Congrats.
 
I thought the original 36 was on a smaller frame so slimmer barrel? Colt used the same frame and barrel for the 1861, just cut for 36.

Kevin
 
StrawHat said:
I thought the original 36 was on a smaller frame so slimmer barrel? Colt used the same frame and barrel for the 1861, just cut for 36.

Kevin
Click to expand...
Yes, the original Remington .36"s were a smaller frame revolver. The Italians decided just to take the .44 frame, and make smaller holes in the cylinder and barrel. Some don't like that but I've been very happy with the Uberti .36". I've had it many many years and it has served me well. And fed me a few times. :)
 
Bazoo said:
Nice collection. I have always wanted a cap and ball revolver. Perhaps someday I'll take the plunge.
Click to expand...
Cap-n-ball revolvers are quite the "rabbit hole". I prefer them now, carry one most of the time when hiking/hunting/trekking/exploring.
 
Captain*kirk said:
I second that opinion. The 5.5 balances better, weighs less, and is a much better carry piece. And nice little family you're growing there.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I think that just about rounds the cap-N-ball family out. I've found the 5.5"-6" barrels are pretty ideal when you carry them all day, hiking and/or hunting. Stuff like that. I kind of prefer an extra 1/2" over the 5.5 inchers, but that's a very minor point or difference. Pretty much all my revolvers, cartridge ones too, are in that barrel range, with the exception of my EDC revolvers.

The .36 Remington is actually 6.5", but feels shorter, and the 1860 is 5.75".
 
Ugly Sauce said:
View attachment 1188368
Can you spot the new kind on the block. Or...the chair? Second from left, the stubby barrel 1863 New Model Army Remington in .44". My VAST collection of FOUR! Dang, where will I put them all?

It's a Pietta, first one I've ever owned. No offense Pietta fans, but my Uberti does seem to be of slightly better quality. The action on the Uberti just feels "better". Of course, the Uberti Remington .36 was a sample gun, so it's a "ringer" for sure. I have not shot the new kid yet, I had to crown the muzzle. The muzzle had absolutely no crown. The pistol seems to be new, and possibly only fired a few times. The person I got it from/traded had it for three years or so without ever firing it.

However, she's loaded up and just waiting for me to step out on the back porch and pop off six. That depends on when I'm not too lazy to clean it. :) The cones on it are way way too small, so she's not ready for field duty until I get some replacements from TOW. In the field, I will not tolerate caps falling off the cones from recoil.

Comparing apples to oranges, for two guns that are supposed to be replicas of an original gun, the frame dimensions vary quite a bit between the Uberti and Pietta. The Pietta has a longer and thicker frame, where the barrel threads into it. The Pietta shows more threads where the barrel comes out of the frame. The loading port on the Pietta is not done well, I could not load a combustible cartridge with bullet, a round ball cartridge would load, I think. The hammers also have quite different contours/shapes.

The barrel on the Uberti is much smaller/thinner. You can actually see that in the pic. I find that interesting as the .36" is supposed to just be a .44 barrel bored to .36". ? That is true of the cylinder I'm sure, but now I suspect they use a different barrel of smaller dimension.

Anyhow, been wanting a Remington in .44", not sure why, won't do anything my 1860 can't do, the little extra powder the Remington holds isn't enough difference to make a difference, to my mind. Had I the choice, I would have gone with the longer barrel, but this one feels good in the hand, fits in my one size fits all (revolvers) flap holster and is just a pretty cool pistol. I mean, what's not to like? And now my Uberti Remington isn't lonely anymore, and out-numbered by the Colts. :) That situation had to be corrected.
Click to expand...
whats the barrel lenght on that stubby one you just got??
 
midland man said:
whats the barrel lenght on that stubby one you just got??
Click to expand...
It's the 5.5" looks shorter than that. I do wish they had standardized on an even 6". The extra half inch would look better, but would not effect "handiness" or weight to any noticeable degree. But, I think 5.5" is light years ahead of a 4" barrel, both in terms of ballistics, and having enough loading lever so that ramming does not get a little difficult.
 
midland man said:
i love my 8in but now am looking to raise more green backs to get a remmy 58' in 5.5in barrel lenght...
Click to expand...
A man should have both! Since all my revolvers are now 6" or a little less, I was thinking about getting an 8" model. But, this came along with an offer I could not refuse.

The pistol seems to be new. But it has some issues. The mainspring feels a bit weaker than I'd like. The hammer nose just barely drops into the safety notches, but I know exactly what the problem is. And, the cones need replacing, the cap fit is way too loose. When on half-cock, there's no click or feel of any resistance to the hand, so that needs a looking at. (I think the hand-spring just needs to be bent out a bit) Otherwise it seems to be timed fine, locks up, functions okay. None of that will stop me from shooting it a bit, and seeing what level of accuracy it has, but before we hit the wilderness that will all have to be corrected. :)
 
And the new kid on the block passes the accuracy test:
DSC07805.JPG
Kind of makes it a keeper I believe. I'm still not impressed with Pietta, but she can be brought up to 100%. I took it out to the garage after and trimmed the hammer, or bottom of the hammer so that it travels fully forward. It had been coming to rest on the "ratchet boss" of the cylinder, or whatever you would call that. Now the nose sits in the safety notch nice and secure. And of course, smacks the cone fully. I wasn't sure if it was even going to fire. But it did. Six times without a hiccup. I have new cones on order, which are also slightly longer that what is on the pistol now. Loose fitting caps. That's a no-go for sure. A miss-fire "waiting to happen". !!!

The weak and funny feel of the mainspring turned out to just be the strain-screw. It was loose. Now it feels good. My only other complaint is the "loading port" in the frame. It was not cast or cut right, or both, and paper cartridges (combustible) with slugs are a no-go. A round ball cartridge will probably load, but haven't tried that. With the like new blue on it, (gun looks brand new) I kind of hate to grind it out. If it will take round ball cartridges, I may just live with it. Carry it loaded with slug, reload with ball. But I hope to use my 207 grain bullet in it, as the 1860 likes ball. "Diversity". !!!

The New Kid says: "thanks for listening". :)
 
Last edited:
Ha ha, just tried it. Yes the ball cartridges will load. Might have to take one little sharp corner off the frame, in the port.
 
Well, I done took the new kid to the garage, did some filing on the port. Not much, but it made a difference. I did have to fiddle-fudge the round ball cartridges around a bit when loading, as the one sharp corner still interfered a little as I rotated the cylinder to get the ball under the rammer. Now it doesn't. Same with the 207 grain flat point slug, but now it's a straight in, put the base of the bullet in the hole, rotate and ram.

To load a paper cartridge with a bullet would take much more serious relieving of the port. Without making the rammer shorter, I don't think the pistol could ever load one of the long bullets, like a Johnson and Dow, or something like that. I could get it to work with my short 207 grains slug, but no need to, not going to, I'll carry it loaded with slugs, but when the wolf pack closes in I'll just reload with ball.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

O
  • Locked
"58 Rem. Euroarms/Uberti(Carbine)/Pietta Comparison.
Replies
10
Views
1K
Old Dragoon
O
D
  • Locked
1861 pietta or uberti
Replies
18
Views
2K
RecoilRob
R
GMRevolver
  • Locked
Percussion Revolver Questions
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
TheOutlawKid
TheOutlawKid
D
  • Locked
Uberti & Pietta Cylinder interchange
Replies
3
Views
3K
azyogi
A
M
Uberti 1858 carbine barrel interchangeable with pietta 1858 revolver
Replies
11
Views
624
paul harm
P
Back
Top