Mike Harvey, set the standard for today’s replicas, but in my opinion, from a very personal perspective. He got the guns made as he thinks they should be, not as they were.( and probably the old timers were rigth, not Harvey).
What Harvey seems not to understand, is that no one in those old times wanted a weak hammer spring with slow hammer fall...so they were not obsessed with “slick actions”.
No one wanted “speed”, even less the military, when shooting a revolver. They wanted a hammer that will crush any percussion cap or primer, and that’s why, if you observe an original 1858 Remington hammer spring, they are extremely thick and stiff...and the same in a Nagant, a Webley, a Colt SAA or a SW no3. They are hard to cock.
“Slick actions” are a thing of the postmodernist aficionado.....introduced by Harvey as an “advance”..not present in original revolvers of the time.
Today, and thanks in a great deal to Harvey, no one in the USA will buy a revolver with a stiff hammer spring. Yes, the action will be delicious to cock, but that comes at price, like everything in life : a slow hammer, in a serious bulls eye target shooting competition, where you shoot at a distance 25 meters, one hand hold, that doesn’t forgive a single mistake in sigths alignment, means less points...as any shake and unwanted movements of the hand will be multiplied on target,
Then people will show me their targets proving how accurate their revolvers are,,,,shooting two hand held, many times supported, in their backyard. What is ok in “ones backyard” is not valid in competition. And I am talking here toabout “practical accuracy”, what you can get one hand hold, not “potential accuracy”, what the gun can get if you were a robot.
When it comes to the finishes. he obsessed everybody with the wrong idea that corners had to be sharp and square at all times, and that some modern production Colts were, in that aspect, inferior to the italian clones..a quite arguable idea...specially when the finish in modern Italian replicas is not as durable as Colts, but people still believe that.
in my opinion, importers and distributors should have focused on improving riflings instead, not allways adequate for black powder shooting in the modern SAA replicas....and in making a bigger variety of clones, not only the same clone in different “invented” versions, but it’s a business, I understand that....if you can make people buy the same gun 3 times, it pays off.
I say improving the riflings, because all original guns are far more accurate than the Italian clones, both in the cap and ball and the Single action. as Mr Harvey does nor practice serious bulls eye shooting, ( he shoots at 20 yards for accuracy while the international distance is one hand held 25 meters and 50 meters, distances that “dont forgive”), he never paid attention to this aspect.
Example: Inhave an old Orbea Ona, a copy of a SW double action revolver, far more accurate than any Uberti Schofield or SAA I have owned, 2, and tested, several. Deep progressive riflings versus modern Italian clone riflings.
The final result is a Colt SAA and. Remington 1858 clone very good for CAS, but useless for serious bulls eye and MLAIC internacional competitions...unless one removes many of “Harvey’s improvements”, in actions.
The Germans and the Spanish took a opposite path when they built their Feinkwerbau and Santa Barbara 1858 clones, as Harvey was not there “advising”, but collectosrs and target shooters instead ( Santa Barbara hired a World MLAIC champion and the Army Museum to develope their 1858)and they made super accurate revolvers...they centered on riflings, chamber/ muzzle diameter relationship, steel quality and insisted on quite hard hammer springs.....they didn’t pay much attention to case hardenied frames, nitre blued barrels and cilinders, and super smooth hammers.
The Santa Barbara revolver was the most accurate revolver I ever had, rivaling my SW K14....much time spent inside the barrel and cilinder, by its designer, finally paid off.
The result: top revolvers. And the latter, the Santa, cost little more than a Uberti in its time or around that.
On the other side, we have the same gun, the SAA, in 150 versions...overwhelming and monotone,,,..( still waiting for a British Bulldog replica).
As far as I know, I must admit that the manufacturer has the last word when making “other clones”. The itlalians rejected to make a Merwin Hulbert replica...too expensive and required much investment.
Talking about clones, here is clone by Orbea, extracted from “Colt Brevette Revolvers”, whose authors, Ron Paxton, and Roy Marcott, who, by the way, experts as they are, no doubt, however failed to identify its origins, despite de clear Orbea Trade Mark. and the barrel legend in basque ( reading: “ this is the strongest revolver made in the Basque Country) and the well documented literarure written about them in Europe ...... a result, I take in a relative way the rest of the info contained in this book,
Yes, the basque made this “advanced” replica, 140 years ago.....Low Hammer, simplified action with less parts, 1858 type, progressive rifling, ligth weigth. I prefer this revolver, to 3 Italian replicas....