Uberti Leech & Rigdon

[ShotgunDave]

There seems to be a bit of a trend in Confederate pistols lately and a little debate about Uberti vs Pietta. Well yesterday, I acquired this Uberti, Leech & Rigdon model. First off, the quality of this pistol vs my Pietta guns is very noticeable. It is VERY well fitted and finished. You can feel the difference in your hand. As you can tell, I'm very impressed with it.

It's basically built on the 1851 Navy frame. The cylinder has no roll engraving and the cross hatching on the hammer looks different. Maybe they did it that way to make it stand out a little from a Navy. The barrel is of the half octagon, half round variety. According to the date code, it was manufactured in 2010.

The front sight is incorrect I believe. I'm pretty sure the original had a brass bead. This gun has what looks to be and shorter version of the sight used on 58 Remingtons. It sure does present a nice sight picture though. The gentleman that I got it from said, the gun shoots to point of aim at 25 yards. He may have put the sight on there, I didn't ask.





I'll be shooting it real soon and will report back when I do.

 

[Tommygunn]

Nice.

What year was it made? IIRC, modern L&Rs have the engraved cylinder, I think you have an old one. I have a late 1980s Uberti L&R and it has the brass bead sight, and the loading aperture is bigger.
Your's has nicer wood for the grip.

 

[ShotgunDave]

Nice.

What year was it made? IIRC, modern L&Rs have the engraved cylinder, I think you have an old one. I have a late 1980s Uberti L&R and it has the brass bead sight, and the loading aperture is bigger.
Your's has nicer wood for the grip.

Thanks Tommygun.

It's a 2010 model according to the date code. The NMA sight that the previous owner installed sure gives a nice sight picture. I know it's not historically correct but it sure seems to work well.

 

[Fingers McGee]

Great find.

 

[TheOutlawKid]

In the past If i replaced a site on a 51 navy i have used a reminton site just like ur L&R has...its convenient bcuz if u get the right front sight part that has a small hole drilled under it u can just slip it over the front bead post. That way its perfectly centered..i attached them with jb weld...looked great. Thats a nice looking gun....ima straight pietta kinda guy do to parts being interchangeable and easy to find, but ur gun has me wanting to purchase an Uberti. Can u actually "feel" a difference in quality? I always replace my pietta 51 and 61 navy plungers with Uberti plungers due to working best seating conicals without deforming them...but i always noticed their color case hardening on the plunger was of way higher quality. So what did u actually notice was an obvious upgrade in quality compared to an uberti gun?

 

[ShotgunDave]

In the past If i replaced a site on a 51 navy i have used a reminton site just like ur L&R has...its convenient bcuz if u get the right front sight part that has a small hole drilled under it u can just slip it over the front bead post. That way its perfectly centered..i attached them with jb weld...looked great. Thats a nice looking gun....ima straight pietta kinda guy do to parts being interchangeable and easy to find, but ur gun has me wanting to purchase an Uberti. Can u actually "feel" a difference in quality? I always replace my pietta 51 and 61 navy plungers with Uberti plungers due to working best seating conicals without deforming them...but i always noticed their color case hardening on the plunger was of way higher quality. So what did u actually notice was an obvious upgrade in quality compared to an uberti gun?

OutlawKid, just the way it feels is noticeable. I know that doesn't say much, so let me try to describe it. The metal has a "softer" feel to it. Like it's polished more before bluing or case hardening. I guess "silky" describes it best. The wood too. The grips are finished much smoother and clear coated to a high shine. I know some may not like that but it definitely stands out. All of my Pietta guns have matte finished grips, and I like that. They seem to stay put in the hand better. But the way this gun looks, is beautiful. The wood to metal and metal to metal fit are better as well. Like for instance, the transition between the trigger guard and the frame is hardly noticeable. Very well fitted. On my Pietta guns, there's a small step between the two metals. Not ugly or anything, it's just there. I hope no one takes any of this as bashing Pietta, nothing could be further from the truth. I absolutely love all my Pietta pistols. And none of them have given me any real trouble. A little stone work here and there, and they're ready to go.

Sorry for being so long winded. Hope my meager attempt at a description helps you.

 

[arcticap]

It's basically built on the 1851 Navy frame. The cylinder has no roll engraving and the cross hatching on the hammer looks different. Maybe they did it that way to make it stand out a little from a Navy. The barrel is of the half octagon, half round variety. According to the date code, it was manufactured in 2010.

The front sight is incorrect I believe. I'm pretty sure the original had a brass bead. This gun has what looks to be and shorter version of the sight used on 58 Remingtons. It sure does present a nice sight picture though. The gentleman that I got it from said, the gun shoots to point of aim at 25 yards. He may have put the sight on there, I didn't ask.

That's a very beautiful gun and its quality is evident.
To me, it resembles a .36 dragoon in many respects which is neat.
I do question whether the cylinder is original to the gun, especially since as you say the front sight is incorrect.
As Tommygunn may have already alluded to, perhaps the cylinder is not only older but also isn't original to that gun.

Reading the reviews on the Dixie site, someone mentioned how their first & older pre-2005 L&R did not have cylinder roll engraving, yet his 2nd one did have roll engraving.
All of the reviews written in 2005, 2009, 2010 and 2014 all mention that their L&R had roll engraving which leads one to believe that your gun may have an
older non-engraved cylinder that was made prior to 2010 and prior to 2005, and perhaps from an older gun.

Also interesting to note is that most of the Dixie reviews state that their L&R uses and shoots great with .375 balls despite the manual and other Uberti .36's which
mostly all use .380's.

That will make it interesting to hear if your cylinder uses the same .375 balls as all of the reviews from the time period on Dixie's site do.
If not, that might also verify that your cylinder is an older one that was made during the pre-engraved cylinder period.
(Although we have no reference as to whether the pre-engravrd cylinders used .380's or not)

However, this in no way detracts from the beauty or functionality of your gun, it just makes it more unique and a puzzle to be investigated.

The Dixie reviews of the L&R are here:--->>> https://www.dixiegunworks.com/index..._name/RH0611+Uberti+Leech+and+Rigdon+Revolver

One never knows when the gun they are submitting a review for was purchased, we only know the date that the review was written.
So that's another variable to consider when reading the Dixie reviews.
But they do seem to establish a pattern that roll engraving the cylinders was not recently restarted by Uberti,
and that it seems to have been added to the L&R cylinders for many years now.

 

[TheOutlawKid]

Shotgundave, i understand ur description perfectly. Thanks! Ive never owned an uberti..have handled a few of their parts but thats it. Maybe ill look into one.

 

[Cowhide Cliff]

That's a great find there. The roll engraving is what is keeping me from purchasing a new Uberti L&R

 

[riflee]

Uberti feels better in the hand since the shape of the grip is more correct to originals and Pietta is more flared without that concave curve to the rear of the grip. People say the Pietta having the flared grip makes them shoot high when point shooting. A note....the Pietta 1861 has a grip more like Uberti and I guess that "61" grip could go on the "51" Pietta.

Side note......I use multiple size round balls in my 36's and cast the .380's and I'm thunkin someone is making store bought .380's. True and who??????

I have some 36's with reamed chambers to be a little larger than the barrel grooves. I have a Uberti Paterson that has a .382 barrel grooves so I reamed the chambers to 384 and use .390 roud balls in it. It shoots real well. Originally most Uberti 36cal. have chambers close to .372. When the Paterson had .372 chambers and .382 barrel grooves it didn't shoot well. I think I'm just getting around to saying maybe the .380 ball with the smaller chambers may be small fer the Uberti barrel in the beautiful gun this post is about.

Anywhoooo…..I like to use chuckin reamers in my mill to size my chambers in my cap&ballers to be better suited fer accuracy from their barrels. Once again.....does a manufacturer of lead balls make .380 size? I seem to be forgettin stuff on a regular basis. I'm thunkin maybe Speer could be makin the .380 balls.

Anywhooo...I have to compliment ShotgunDave on a purchase well made fer a beautiful cap&baller revolver. Wonder what ole Shotgun had to pay fer it????

 

[bannockburn]

ShotgunDave

Your Leech and Rigdon sure is a beauty! One is definitely on my short list!

 

[ShotgunDave]

That's a very beautiful gun and its quality is evident.
To me, it resembles a .36 dragoon in many respects which is neat.
I do question whether the cylinder is original to the gun, especially since as you say the front sight is incorrect.
As Tommygunn may have already alluded to, perhaps the cylinder is not only older but also isn't original to that gun.

Reading the reviews on the Dixie site, someone mentioned how their first & older pre-2005 L&R did not have cylinder roll engraving, yet his 2nd one did have roll engraving.
All of the reviews written in 2005, 2009, 2010 and 2014 all mention that their L&R had roll engraving which leads one to believe that your gun may have an
older non-engraved cylinder that was made prior to 2010 and prior to 2005, and perhaps from an older gun.

Also interesting to note is that most of the Dixie reviews state that their L&R uses and shoots great with .375 balls despite the manual and other Uberti .36's which
mostly all use .380's.

Which will make it interesting to hear if your cylinder uses the same .375 balls as all of the reviews from the time period on Dixie's site do.
If not, that might also verify that your cylinder is an older one that was made during the pre-engraved cylinder period.
(Although we have no reference as to whether the pre-engravrd cylinders used .380's or not)

However, this in no way detracts from the beauty or functionality of your gun, it just makes it more unique and a puzzle to be investigated.

The Dixie reviews of the L&R are here:--->>> https://www.dixiegunworks.com/index..._name/RH0611+Uberti+Leech+and+Rigdon+Revolver

One never knows when the gun they are submitting a review for was purchased, we only know the date that the review was written.
So that's another variable to consider when reading the Dixie reviews.
But they do seem to establish a pattern that roll engraving the cylinders was not recently restarted by Uberti,
and that it seems to have been added to the L&R cylinders for many years now.

I agree that it looks like a .36 cal Dragoon. May well be why I like it so much. I am partial to the round barrel on the Dragoon.

You may well be correct about the cylinder on this gun. The face of the cylinder is shiny bare metal. I'm sure it's been fit to this gun. The action locks up like a bank vault. It has no slop in it at all. Someone spent some time on this pistol, smoothing it up. The trigger releases with no creep and crisp as broken glass. It's by far the slickest pistol I now own, and I own 7.

I'll keep you posted on which ball works best in it. Later today, I'll get it out and measure the chambers with my caliper.

 

[ShotgunDave]

[QUOTE="riflee,

Anywhooo...I have to compliment ShotgunDave on a purchase well made fer a beautiful cap&baller revolver. Wonder what ole Shotgun had to pay fer it????[/QUOTE]

Thanks riflee!

I actually did a trade for L&R and an equally as nice Uberti 1860 Army. I gave my Uberti 49 Pocket model and $175 cash for these two guns. I think I did pretty good.

 

[expat_alaska]

Uberti feels better in the hand since the shape of the grip is more correct to originals and Pietta is more flared without that concave curve to the rear of the grip. People say the Pietta having the flared grip makes them shoot high when point shooting.

I really want to know what the correct original grip shape is on an original Colt 1851 Navy.

The following plates are from Nathan L. Swayze's book " .51 Colt Navies" (1967). Choose the grip profile you like best and that can be your go-to style.









I am assuming the Pietta "flared" grip profile you refer to is what folks used to call the "tail" grip (and on the 1851 Navy only). The last year Pietta made those was 2014 (date code CM). Starting in 2015 (date code CN) and later Pietta used a different grip style.

Pietta 1851 Navy .36 Second Model [CM] ("tail"):



Pietta 1851 Navy .36 Third/Fourth Model [CP] (non-"tail"):

A note....the Pietta 1861 has a grip more like Uberti and I guess that "61" grip could go on the "51" Pietta.

The Pietta 1851 Navy .36, the Pietta 1861 Navy .36, and the Pietta 1860 Army .44 are all created using the same frame, except that the 1860 has a cut water table to accommodate the .44 rebated cylinder. All grip profiles will interchange on any of these frames when used as a 3-piece unit (backstrap, trigger guard, wood).

And I have no Idea what you mean by point shooting. That is what one does with a shotgun.

Regards,

Jim

 

[Jackrabbit1957]

I ran across an article on point shooting a while back, biggest crock of BS I ever read. I tried what the author suggested, couldn't hit the broad side of a town.

 

[LonesomePigeon]

I think point shooting can be done. I tried it just the other day with a Walker, not exactly from the hip, more like a bit lower than the shoulder. All 6 rounds definitely went down range, lol.

riflee, Track of the Wolf sells cast .380 roundballs.

 

[Jackrabbit1957]

The guy that wrote the article in question claimed minute of beer can at 20 yards right out of the gate. I have seen a few guys that could point shoot, but took massive amounts of practice.

 

[riflee]

Point shooting is just pointing and shooting without using the sights. Point shooting is kinda like pointing yer finger at something except you point the gun. The story of Wild Bill Hickock talks about the uncanny ability of him shooting just pointing at targets still and moving with unbelievable accuracy. There were others back in the day that were deadly point shooters.