Uberti Cattleman Hombre?

[GRIZ22]

As I said- Uberti uses the same blade height on all barrel lengths, and you can NEVER expect a Uberti clone to be regulated to any standard.

You're lucky if you get one that's centered for windage.
Elevation is rarely right on.
Denis

I guess I'm lucky then. My Uberti is dead on with 158 38 loads and abut an inch high with 158 357 loads at 25 yds.

 

[DPris]

You lucked out.
Enjoy it.
Denis

 

[RealGun]

As I said- Uberti uses the same blade height on all barrel lengths, and you can NEVER expect a Uberti clone to be regulated to any standard.

You're lucky if you get one that's centered for windage.
Elevation is rarely right on.
Denis

If you say so, but I was meaning that if they were using a single blade, it ought to be the one that shoots right on the de facto standard model.

 

[the Black Spot]

As I said- Uberti uses the same blade height on all barrel lengths, and you can NEVER expect a Uberti clone to be regulated to any standard.

You're lucky if you get one that's centered for windage.
Elevation is rarely right on.
Denis

Aint that the truth!

 

[DPris]

When it comes to Uberti handgun clones, there is no de-facto standard model.

It's quite possible they use a blade height dimensioned for a 5.5 barrel as a middle ground on short, middle, and longer barrels.

In 40+ years of shooting Italian repros, I've only run into one that was actually properly regulated.
And that one was an early USFA Rodeo built in the US from Uberti parts.
Somehow USFA managed to set it up dead-on at 25 yards with a 250 at around 850 FPS in .45 Colt.
Denis

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

That Uberti D-cam was never a safety device.

It was created (you have to understand how the Italians operate & think) as a method of salvaging a large run of bad frames.

Rather than junk those frames, the company modified the hammer cams to allow their use.
Once used up, the D-cam disappeared.

I had one years ago, not a bad gun. It had the cam, but pre-dated the in-hammer safety.

The D-cam is one of several horror stories any importer bringing in Italian repros could tell you.
They don't think quite like we do.

Howdy Again

Apparently I really don't know what the D Cam was. I stand corrected. I will have to look into that further.

However I did used to have an Uberti/Cimarron Cattleman that had the spring loaded hammer block in the hammer that served as a safety device. I have been mistakenly thinking this was the D-Cam. Here is a photo of an Uberti hammer, so equipped.





I have not had that revolver for quite a few years now, so perhaps I will be forgiven my error. In my defense, the visible part of the hammer block was kind of D shaped.

I may be incorrect, but I suspect this hammer block was a type safety device required to allow the revolver to be imported into this country, much like the current two position cylinder pin.

Would love to hear more about it if anybody knows the D-Cam.

 

[DPris]

Look at the typical hammer cam on one of your Colt or clone hammers.
Round, right?

The D-cam was D-shaped, not fully round.
The story was that it was done to save a run of frames where a hole was drilled slightly off of its normal location.
Somebody at Uberti sat down & slightly altered the guts to allow the frames to be used, and the D-shaped cam was part of that.
Rather than scrap the frames (expensive loss, relatively speaking), it was a simple matter to alter the cam on the necessary number of hammers to use up those frames.

On a D-cam Uberti clone you'll notice the trigger angles a bit farther forward in the guard, and that's why.

The in-hammer safety you show was introduced entirely to meet import point requirements.
Nothing whatever to do with the D-cam.
Denis

 

[BobWright]

Of all the safety mechanisms, I'm not familiar with the "D-Cam." My first Uberti, a Cattleman imported by Iver Johnson ca. 1975, had the hammer block safety built into the hammer. When the hammer was drawn back to the safety (first) ntch, the trigger sear activated a T-shaped pivot in the face of the hammer that bore on the mainframe and prevented the firing pin striking the primer. Skeeter Skelton tried to make a Uberti fire while this safety waus engaged, with no success. He repeatedly struck the hammer spur with a hammer (a claw hammer) handle.

The two position base pin was developed by Hammerli of Switzerland when they were making the Virginian, and was dubbed the "Swiss Safe" system.

This from my rather dim memory.

Bob Wright

(Driftwood Johnson's post was made whil I was typing.) e

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Look at the typical hammer cam on one of your Colt or clone hammers.
Round, right?

The D-cam was D-shaped, not fully round.
The story was that it was done to save a run of frames where a hole was drilled slightly off of its normal location.
Somebody at Uberti sat down & slightly altered the guts to allow the frames to be used, and the D-shaped cam was part of that.
Rather than scrap the frames (expensive loss, relatively speaking), it was a simple matter to alter the cam on the necessary number of hammers to use up those frames.

On a D-cam Uberti clone you'll notice the trigger angles a bit farther forward in the guard, and that's why.

Howdy Again

I hope I can be forgiven for taking this thread a little bit further off topic in the interest of education.

Here are a couple of photos of a 2nd Gen Colt hammer. For those who do not know, the cam is the round part mounted in the hammer. Yes, it is round, it is a separate part, pressed into a hole in the hammer. The cam on an Uberti hammer is a cast in detail, integral to the hammer.





My question now is, what hole was drilled inproperly in those Uberti frames? Trigger pivot screw hole? Hammer pivot screw hole? Bolt pivot screw hole? None of the above?

And where was the alteration on the cam to make it D shaped? Upper edge or somewhere else?

Thanks

 

[Speedo66]

For what it's worth, mine has the hammer with the piece below the firing pin as seen in post 31, plus the sliding cylinder pin safety. As mentioned previously, proof mark shows the gun to be a 2016 product.

 

[Speedo66]

[QUOTE="DPris, post: 10407525, member: 55369"
In 40+ years of shooting Italian repros, I've only run into one that was actually properly regulated.
And that one was an early USFA Rodeo built in the US from Uberti parts.
Somehow USFA managed to set it up dead-on at 25 yards with a 250 at around 850 FPS in .45 Colt.
Denis[/QUOTE]
Unless I'm confusing them with something else, I'd heard that the USFA guns were some of the best, and very desirable. I had no idea they were made from Uberti parts. Is there another brand that sounds familiar to that that I may be confusing it with?

If not, did they later go on to manufacture their own parts to build that stellar reputation?

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

The early USFA guns were made with Uberti parts. Later, USFA made their own parts.

 

[bannockburn]

Speedo66

You might be thinking of the AWA (American Western Arms), single action revolvers which I believe were made by ASM (Armi San Marco), quite a few years ago.

 

[CraigC]

I would expect a 5 1/2" SAA clone to be regulated to a standard.

I don't expect ANY SAA or replica to be regulated. Nor do I want them to be.

 

[CraigC]

[QUOTE="DPris, post: 10407525, member: 55369"
In 40+ years of shooting Italian repros, I've only run into one that was actually properly regulated.
And that one was an early USFA Rodeo built in the US from Uberti parts.
Somehow USFA managed to set it up dead-on at 25 yards with a 250 at around 850 FPS in .45 Colt.
Denis

Unless I'm confusing them with something else, I'd heard that the USFA guns were some of the best, and very desirable. I had no idea they were made from Uberti parts. Is there another brand that sounds familiar to that that I may be confusing it with?

If not, did they later go on to manufacture their own parts to build that stellar reputation?[/QUOTE]
The early guns were made from Uberti parts. Then they went to all domestic parts and raw forgings. They did as much in-house as possible. The domestic USFA's are the finest SAA ever produced. They were as beautifully finished on the inside as the outside.

 

[BobWright]

Unless I'm confusing them with something else, I'd heard that the USFA guns were some of the best, and very desirable. I had no idea they were made from Uberti parts. Is there another brand that sounds familiar to that that I may be confusing it with?

If not, did they later go on to manufacture their own parts to build that stellar reputation?

The early guns were made from Uberti parts. Then they went to all domestic parts and raw forgings. They did as much in-house as possible. The domestic USFA's are the finest SAA ever produced. They were as beautifully finished on the inside as the outside.

[/QUOTE]


Never miss a chance to show that beauty, do you Craig?


Bob Wright

 

[CraigC]

Nope!

 

[Speedo66]

Is the Cattleman series OK to regularly shoot .357, or should I mostly be shooting .38Spl.? I know even some S&W don't prefer a steady diet of .357.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Is the Cattleman series OK to regularly shoot .357, or should I mostly be shooting .38Spl.? I know even some S&W don't prefer a steady diet of .357.

This is an often asked question.

The 357 Magnum cartridge was chambered in the Colt Single Action Army shortly after S&W developed the cartridge way back in 1935. In order to do so, Colt had improved the metallurgy of their cylinders with a then new fine grain, high tensile strength steel. Other than that, although the Colt was not as massive as later Ruger single action revolvers, they were still taking a cylinder designed to hold six 45 caliber cartridges and boring smaller diameter holes for 357 diameter bullets. So the old Colt chambered for 357 Mag was already a very strong gun for the new cartridge. Your Cattleman has essentially the same dimensions as a Colt, the steel is modern heat treated steel, and if you can put up with the recoil and the loud report, you can safely fire factory 357 Magnum cartridges in it all day long without any problems. I will add the caveat that it should be inspected by a competent gunsmith to be sure it is in proper mechanical condition.

The issue with some S&W revolvers and 357 Magnum cartridges is the shape of the forcing cone. Here is a photo of the forcing cone on a Model 19. The Model 19 was the first 357 Magnum revolver built on the K frame. The K frame was originally designed for the 38 Special cartridge. Because of size restrictions, on all K frame revolvers the forcing cone had to be narrowed a bit at the bottom in order to clear the cylinder gas ring. If you look very closely at this photo you can see that the forcing cone has a flat spot at the bottom. This means there is less metal at that spot than at any other place on the forcing cone. So sometimes with high velocity 357 Magnum loads with light bullets the forcing cone will crack right at that thin spot. The forcing cone on your Cattleman does not have that problem, it is much more massive, and will not split from lots of high speed 357 Mag ammo.





Now take a look at this photo. On the left is the Model 19, on the right is a Model 27. The Model 27 is built on the larger N frame. Notice how much larger the cylinder of the Model 27 is. Notice too how much more metal there is surrounding each chamber of the Model 27 than there is on the Model 19. The Model 27 is the same size frame the original 357 Magnum cartridge was developed for in 1935. It was chosen specifically because the cylinder was big enough to leave lots of metal behind when the 357 chambers were bored. And the large N frame forcing cone did not need to be shaved down, it is full diameter. Since 1935, metallurgy has gotten even better. K frame 357 Magnum revolvers do not fail because of a failure of the cylinder, they fail because of the compromise of the design of the forcing cone. The Model 27 cylinder is roughly the same diameter as your Cattleman cylinder, and your cylinder will have roughly the same amount of steel surrounding each chamber as the Model 27. Shoot all the 357 Mags you want out of your Cattleman.

 

[bannockburn]

BobWright

Never miss a chance to show that beauty, do you Craig?

Well I for one never get tired of seeing it or for that matter any of the other finely finished revolvers Craig has!

 

[DPris]

Bob,
Again- The D-cam WAS NOT A SAFETY.

DJ,
I never bothered to ask which hole was drilled slightly off, and the D-cam I had here was a while back, I do not recall which section of the Uberti cam was modified with a flat.

I do recall discussing the D-cams with Mike Harvey at Cimarron, and I do recall the trigger on mine being slightly forward in the guard at rest.

I'm not sufficiently intimate with the engineering geometry inside the Colt action to understand where that flat would be placed to address the internal parts mating required to allow whatever mis-located hole to function.

It was a mildly interesting side-note in Uberti history, the guns shot well (at least mine did), and it disappeared once those frames were used up.

That's all I can tell you.
It's called the D-cam because it looks like a D (or roughly half a circle), instead of the normal full-circle cam.
NOT a safety, NOT a part of the in-hammer hammer-block safety.

Uberti is well-known for....variational variances, and in recent years they've shipped guns with the hammer block, with the hammer block and double-notched basepin, and with just the double-notched basepin.
All of which were developed strictly to make import points.

And now they have the NEW hammer safety system, just to add more flavor to the mix.
Denis

 

[Speedo66]

DJ, thanks for the explanation re: firing .357 in the Uberti, and the info about the Smiths, once more, much appreciated! Lots to learn about this segment of firearms.

Haven't had a revolver since we transitioned over to Glocks in the middle 90's. At that time, almost all the LEO agencies in the city had already transitioned over to semi-autos, the state agency I worked for was one of the last. Couldn't get rid of a revolver to save your life, nobody wanted them. As you can imagine, the market for hand guns in NYC is pretty small. Sold both a S&W model 10 4" heavy barrel and a very nice model 36 3" heavy barrel for $25 each to a correction officer and a probation officer, respectively, just to get rid of them.

 

[Speedo66]

I've been firing .38's and .357 intermittently. I've read about the possibility of a residue ring forming in the cylinder holes from shooting .38's. Would shooting .357 after do away with this ring?

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

I've been firing .38's and .357 intermittently. I've read about the possibility of a residue ring forming in the cylinder holes from shooting .38's. Would shooting .357 after do away with this ring?

No.

This is common with all 357 Magnum revolvers. 44 Mags too. Every time a cartridge with a lead bullet is fired, as the bullet leaves the case, the intense pressure and heat causes a small amount of vaporized lead and carbon to be deposited right at the mouth of the case. This happens every time, with every cartridge, no matter what the caliber is. Normally it is not a concern because the thin ring of vaporized lead and carbon will be up at the mouth of the chamber. But with a combination such as 38 Special and 357 Magnum, when a 38 Special is fired the ring will be at the end of the 38 Special cartridge case. In extreme cases, the ring will build up thick enough to make it difficult to fully insert the longer 357 Magnum cartridge.

Firing 357 Magnum cartridges will not eliminate the ring, because the ring is behind the mouth of the 357 Mag. A thorough cleaning with a good stiff copper bristle brush and a good bore solvent will remove the problem.

 

[Speedo66]

Thanks, so this does not happen with jacketed bullets? All the rounds I've fired so far, Prvi and Geco, have been copper, not lead.