44 Pietta Snub

[Desperate Lee]

A long time back I was chatting with someone who was fluent in chopping these guns and I recall him stating he found that it took 3.5” to use up service charge of 30-35 grns.

Myself, I mostly carried a 5” early 20h century piece and felt that or a 4” revolver was about ideal for a sidearm for hunting or busting through the bushes. In fact I traded a 4” modern revolver for my ROA. It’s just a nice sight picture and just handy enough. I’ve measured my NMA and see it can go back to about 4.25” and still pull the cylinder unless a pivot point was used on the base pin, and I keep contemplating the worthwhile of spending money on an inch or so.

My brother you cant go wrong with 3" barrels either. First 2 pictures my 36 cal. The other is my 44 cal. Both have 3" barrels. Now the 44 i also have an 8" barrel for it, depends on my mood. Set this 3" 44 snubby off at dusk with 22 grns and a .454 rb and man what a light show. I love it.
DL

 

[Bad Karma]

Why .456”?

I’ve long contemplated reaming my Pietta NMA cylinder further (it’s .449” now) but those slim cylinder walls just look thin to me. I’ve been told .453” using energetic powders and bullets is doable, but there’s still that hesitation. We read of obturation fixing any small chamber issues but we also see lead bullets these days are always .001” over bore. So why .005” over?

Because that’s how Mr. Hahn cuts them...

My brother you cant go wrong with 3" barrels either. First 2 pictures my 36 cal. The other is my 44 cal. Both have 3" barrels. Now the 44 i also have an 8" barrel for it, depends on my mood. Set this 3" 44 snubby off at dusk with 22 grns and a .454 rb and man what a light show. I love it.
DL

Hah! The light show is one of the best reasons to touch one off!

 

[rodwha]

Because that’s how Mr. Hahn cuts them...

Will this be just a conical shooter?

I looked back and noted you mentioned a .457” ball along with conicals. Not much of a bearing surface with .456” chambers. I look at my Pietta with current 0.449” chambers and have been quite hesitant to take it to .452-3” with those scrawny walls. I’ve had a few people state they’ve gone to bore or further and use energetic powder with conicals, but I’m still concerned. I’m guessing he stops just shy of the bolt stops?

 

[Bad Karma]

Will this be just a conical shooter?

I looked back and noted you mentioned a .457” ball along with conicals. Not much of a bearing surface with .456” chambers. I look at my Pietta with current 0.449” chambers and have been quite hesitant to take it to .452-3” with those scrawny walls. I’ve had a few people state they’ve gone to bore or further and use energetic powder with conicals, but I’m still concerned. I’m guessing he stops just shy of the bolt stops?

Yes, he does stop short of the bolt stops. So far the.457 ball woris well. It didn’t in my Pietta Shooters model. Chainfired. First time that’s ever happened to me.

 

[Sparkitoff]

I have a separate post regarding some velocity testing with a 3.5” 1851 and a 3” 1858. I had heard a lot of “500 FPS” talk, but that’s with a light target load. I got between high 600s to mid 800s with little effort and nothing fancy. If interested, read that post “chronographing the revolvers” down a few topics

 

[Treestalker]

I believe I’m gonna chop a Pietta. Torn between 3 and 4 inches but I’m leaning heavily towards 4. I’m a tall lanky guy and a round butt 4” unmentionable disappears on me. The 1860 isn’t much bigger...

I cut a Pietta Navy brass to three inches and added a post front sight. I have been amazed at it's accuracy at 25-30 feet. Feels good in the hand, also. Go for it!

 

[Dickydalton]

I did do one of my own back in 2016. I just wanted a new one.

 

[Stantheman86]

Yeah, I’m looking for four inch tube I think, maybe even 4-5/8. My 8, 6, and 5.5” pistols handle nicely but I’m up for something different.

Speaking of which, the Pietta came today... oh boy... I’m an Uberti fan from the 60’s on and, although I have owned Pietta Shooters model ‘58’s, I’ve never owned an 1860 Pietta. This one is new in the box, of recent manufacture and although the finish is very nice, (bluing is deep and clean, the case hardened frame has pleasing color and the grips are beautiful ) I’m pretty disappointed in the action and fit of the revolver. The wedge is ill fitted, with barrel/cylinder gap uneven from top to bottom, the action is well timed with no play in lockup but the hammer pull is atrocious, easily 10# of effort to cock the piece. The trigger pull is 6.5# and as creepy as Biden at a kindergarten. This thing needs serious attention to be even close to a functional revolver. Well, now I have another project.

I only buy Ubertis from here on out.....the 4 Pietta Navies I bought to put together a "Confederate Raider" rig are ok, functional and all but they're nowhere near as solid as my Ubertis.

 

[Black Powder Jack]

I got mine and finally took it out last week. At 15 yards I hit a target box rouhly 5" X 6" every shot after the first two. I shot 5 different cylinders that i had laoded for other revolvers in advance. it was fun.
I was shooting 454 RB over a lubed wad and 30 grains of Swiss 3F.

Very nice ,I have this one on my "Need one list"

 

[Bad Karma]

Will this be just a conical shooter?

I looked back and noted you mentioned a .457” ball along with conicals. Not much of a bearing surface with .456” chambers. I look at my Pietta with current 0.449” chambers and have been quite hesitant to take it to .452-3” with those scrawny walls. I’ve had a few people state they’ve gone to bore or further and use energetic powder with conicals, but I’m still concerned. I’m guessing he stops just shy of the bolt stops?

Btw, the Pietta Shooters model has identical dimensions to the standard and the chambers are bored .456”... or, they were on the 3 I’ve owned.

 

[rodwha]

Btw, the Pietta Shooters model has identical dimensions to the standard and the chambers are bored .456”... or, they were on the 3 I’ve owned.

That seems so odd to me since .460” balls aren’t a thing. Sure not much bite in those chambers, but they wouldn’t make their best shooter that way if it didn’t work I suppose. Maybe it’s because most match shooters use such light loads there just isn’t much recoil to work loose the other chambers?

My ROA has .453” chambers and that aligns with the typical 0.001” over bore we see common with lead bullets. I’m wondering how a Shooter’s Model would handle hunting loads with bullets. Being 0.004” over bore seems like it would be stressful going through the forcing cone being pushed by a nice charge of energetic powder.

 

[Bad Karma]

That seems so odd to me since .460” balls aren’t a thing. Sure not much bite in those chambers, but they wouldn’t make their best shooter that way if it didn’t work I suppose. Maybe it’s because most match shooters use such light loads there just isn’t much recoil to work loose the other chambers?

My ROA has .453” chambers and that aligns with the typical 0.001” over bore we see common with lead bullets. I’m wondering how a Shooter’s Model would handle hunting loads with bullets. Being 0.004” over bore seems like it would be stressful going through the forcing cone being pushed by a nice charge of energetic powder.

I shot a boatload of the 220 grain Lee bullet through two of them. The third got a diet of .460 round ball (I’ve got a mold for that) and a variety of .458 bullets from an Accurate mold. No problems using 3f Swiss.

 

[rodwha]

I shot a boatload of the 220 grain Lee bullet through two of them. The third got a diet of .460 round ball (I’ve got a mold for that) and a variety of .458 bullets from an Accurate mold. No problems using 3f Swiss.

I’m rather curious about this Accurate Molds bullet and load.

 

[Bad Karma]

I’m rather curious about this Accurate Molds bullet and load.

They’re your 195 and 245 grain bullets but the diameters have been changed. I use them in everything these days.

 

[rodwha]

They’re your 195 and 245 grain bullets but the diameters have been changed. I use them in everything these days.

Hmmm… I have been a bit skeptical as to whether my shorty 170 grn version would track straight, and even a bit of concern with the 195 grn version. Another fellow who shoots matches was interested so I sent him some to chronograph for me. He was concerned with stability. The 195’s were stable, but I don’t recall the yardage he tested at. I had spoken with a guy who works with ballistics, having an online calculator too, and he said despite being “over stabilized” by being so short in a faster twist it should fly well. I only created the 170 grn version as I read long ago someone post about their interest in loading the Lee 160 RNFP by modifying the base and noting it seemed a little shorter than a ball, and because I thought my Pietta would come in the old 1:30” twist, and what prompted a bullet the length of a ball. I wonder if the 195 hits heavy or angled bone if it would plow straight through.