I received my new Uberti 1861 Navy revolver today and I wonder when it was manufactured. Serial #D61934 and CZ is in the square.
Thank you for posting this, as it came in very handy to figure out that my Uberti Cattleman revolver was made in 1974.Welcome to the forum
Regards,
Jimfrom the Left Coast of WA State!
I like the Uberti 1861 better than the Pietta 1861 because as both are 4-screw frames CFS (cut-for-stock) but the Pietta does not have the bottom backstrap cutout for the shoulder stock. Go figure, and I am a big Pietta 1851 Navy "type" revolver fan.
CZ is 2020. Here is the current Italian date code list.
We all like photos of revolvers so show us yours!
That's new to me. I'm glad they're tucking those markings away in hidden spots - it's not something that needs to be in plain sight, like a serial number. But no, this is an old one from before all those ugly markings like BP ONLY, bunches of proof marks, etc. I'm guessing it's from the beginning when Navy Arms first started importing these guns.Date may be under the trigger guard. Been seeing a lot of Uberti dates under the guard, it's laser etched on the newer ones.
Sourdough has been gone for a while… still finding ways to make himself useful. RIP Jim…Thank you for posting this, as it came in very handy to figure out that my Uberti Cattleman revolver was made in 1974.
If it has the Navy Arms Co on the left side of the the frame it is 1963 or earlier. The first 2,500 or so did not have date codes or other proofs. With a serial number of 1573 I would say it is 1960. That is not A.U. in script. It is G.U. in script. Gregorelli & Uberti is what the letters stand for.I'd like to know when my Uberti 51Navy was made. Serial #1573. Navy Arms CO. stamped on the left side frame.
Above the wedge on the right side of the barrel is Made in Italy, and just below that - AU in script.
Top of the barrel near the cylinder - --- Navy Arms Co. ---
Those are the only markings on the gun - no proof marks, nothing. It doesn't appear to have been defarbed, so I'll bet this is how it was new. In fact, it probably hadn't been touched by a technician, because the loading lever was extremely stiff barely moving requiring fitting (not due to old grease) and the main spring was so stiff it was a two-thumb hammer.
Enter your email address to join: