CAS TOPICS > Gun Reviews

Questions About Current Percussion Replica Revolvers

<< < (2/8) > >>

Abilene:
Crooked River Bob, I'm going to do some reminiscing here about stuff I'm not 100% on, so don't take this as gospel.  Several years back when Uberti started producing the '58 conversion, they beefed up the frame and cylinder a bit, size-wise, and I think that's when they went to the forged frame.  When first announced (pre-production) in the gun rags, the gun was supposed to come with (or be available with) a percussion cylinder as well.  But it turned out to take too much fitting for them both to function well so they dropped the dual/purpose setup.  But they continued to use the new frame for the percussion guns.  I was part timing at Cimarron then and recall there being two separate bins of '58 percussion cylinders, for the new/larger and old/smaller guns.  Seemed to me at the time that this could cause a headache for guys who like a lot of pre-loaded cylinders and end up with mixed size guns, but I haven't heard people complaining.

Professor Marvel:
Say Abilene, have you ever considered moonlighting as a "consultant" to wander over and "hand pick" for folks?

yhs
prof mumbles

Abilene:
Might be fun, but it's a hundred mile wander.  :)

Advertising:

45 Dragoon:
First of all, thanks  for the recommendation Professor !!

 CRB, I basically agree with all the others here. The revolvers made in the '70s were basically abysmal. They had big chuncky parts that appeared to whittled out with a hatchet. This includes the Colt 2nd gens as well.
Today's Italian offerings are much better and for a class "A" shooter, a much better foundation to work with. Since I work on Uberti's and Pietta's, I'll not pick a favorite.  Suffice it to say Pietta's don't have the arbor problems (just some adjustment) but action parts need more work while the Uberti's have very nice action parts but have the arbor problem to deal with. As for the Remington pattern (and also mentioned), Pietta's are physically larger but Uberti has the adjustable front sight and the forged frame. Personal preference. 
   So I guess what everyone is saying is, if having a "pony" isn't the most important thing, new is best!!! (Otherwise, your screwed!! )

Mike
   

Professor Marvel:
I am happy to beat the drum for you Mike!

Whilst cooking some Brats for dinner I reminisced over forging vs casting and a couple of thoughts burbled
to the top of the swamp brain, to wit:

which is more desirable,
 a cast axe head or a forged axe head
 a cast knife blank or a forged knife blade
 a cast cold chisel or a forged cold chisel
etc etc.

I generally prefer forged over cast for the following reasons:
  they start with hot rolled steel stock - this squishes and aligns things nicely ( "grain" if you will )
 - they take the hot rolled steel stock , heat it red, and feed it into giant hammer forging machines, thus squishing it more and
   "compacting" the steel. 

forging is admittedly an old-school process, and as an amatuer blacksmith I am prejudiced in favor of it.

here is some propoganda from an an tique metallurgical handbook/textbook

Advantages of Drop Forging:
(1) Good grain flow is achieved.
(2) Faster speed of operation.
(3) Good strength of material is obtained.
(4) Little or no wastage of material.

Disadvantages of Drop Forging:
(1) Die preparation is a costly process.
(2) Die impression requires a good skill of work.
(3) Die maintenance is costly.

yhs
prof mumbles

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page