front sight on colt 1860

[chuck-ia]

just curious if anybody has removed the front sight on an uberti 1860? looks like it is pressed in, but just how tight? reason for removing would be to make a taller front sight. I remove about as much as I want to from the hammer and still shoots high, about 6 inches high at 15 yards. flinch

 

[Charley Hart]

Not sure about how it is attached. But it would seem that the filing of the notch in your hammer would make sense to me. If you muck it up, you can just put a new on in there.

Shouldn't need that much off to fix that problem.

I know on my rem I cut the sucker just above half and it seems pretty dead on at 25 yards... I assume you have already played with the loads and that did not help.

Well I would double check before mucking with the sight, but as a last resort I guess it would work too.

 

[Musketeer]

The front sight is press fit into the barrel, but I don't know how snug. The main trouble I can see from observing my own Uberti 1860 is that the sight itself is going to be hard to really grab onto. If you can figure out some way to grab it, then I would say give it a shot. I would bet that removing it will enlarge the cutout in the barrel some, though, so take that into account when fabricating the new sight. :winking:

 

I've experienced the same thing will every 1860 I've owned and here's what I did. Took the revolvers to a good, local gunsmith and he installed blade front sights he manufactured from brass. I took them home and filed in the front sight just as you would a rifle. The sight looks as if it belongs on the revolver and shoots dead on at 25 yards. I'd played with loads and filed the hammer notch to very little avail. Cost was $25.00 per revolver about 15 years ago.

Vic

 

[rebel727]

I was under the impression that most of the Colt style revolvers had case hardened hammers. I've owned a couple of them over the years and they were case hardened.

 

[chuck-ia]

filed off a little more on the hammer last night, hopefully get a chance to shoot it this weekend and see if I lowered the group enough. if not satisfied, I will attempt to take the front sight off. flinch

 

[CoyoteJoe]

It's really not that tough. You may notice that the steel on each side of the blade is peened in but only slightly. Grasp the blade at its' rear, taller, end with a pair of sidecutters as close as possible to the barrel. Grip the sight tightly and press the sidecutter handles downward toward the barrel to lever the sight blade upward. You may find you don't need to entirely remove it. Just prying it up a bit may be enough.
If you have calipers you can measure the height of the sight above the barrel as a reference before moving it. At your 15 yard range it will take .019" change in the front sight to move the point of impact one inch. Have fun! :grin:

 

[LRB]

Rebel, the case hardening on most imports is very thin. Mostly just cosmetic.

 

[chuck-ia]

shot a few cyls. through it today, about 6"high at 25 yards. gonna take the front sight off one of these days and make a new one, thanks for the suggestions on how to take the front sight off. the gun actually doesn't shoot a bad group, just too high for my liking. flinch

 

[rickystl]

Hi all. Getting in this thread a little late. The front sight on the 1860 Army - like the original - was set for 75-yards. I've never really understood why. The taller front sight, filed to where you like it, makes ALL the difference. It shoots where you point it. The 1851 Navy is the same. In fact, I've found the Springfield and Enfield musket sights are also this way. Why the originals were done this way has always been a mystery to me.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

The originals were cavalry weapons and intended for use at longer ranges than most folks are apt to fire at today. Once you adapt to the longer zero these pistols are very effective.

 

[rickystl]

Hey Russ, thanks for the info.about cavelry use. That may answer the question. Rick. :thumbsup:

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

All my Colts and my Remington shoot high at close range. I guess folks didn't tend to do much close in shooting if they could help it. In a military situation in those days a man armed with a revolver no doubt found it comforting to drop an enemy at a distance.
Hickock's 75 yard shot that killed Dave Tutt is one of the more famous shots made with a percussion revolver. While there is some question as to which Colt model he used, I've often wondered just how much hold-over he needed to use.
Maybe not as much as people think.

 

[CoyoteJoe]

That wasn't really a remarkable shot but it sure was remarkably cool of him to make that shot with Tutt shooting back!

 

[rickystl]

Hi Russ. I have seen some original Armies and Navies that some civilian (I assume) had dove-tailed a taller front sight. In the NRA museum there is a 1860 Army that came from the Colt factory as a civilian model with no screw for a butstock, AND a taller silver blade front sight. The Remington comes with a taller fron sight and generally shoots where you point it. But the Colts....you would have to aim at his crotch to hit him in the chest at 25-yards :haha:

 

[coaster]

It is my under standing that the reason for the pistol shooting high was that using the waist on the human body as the aiming point you could get a hit somewhere on the body from point blank range to 100 yards or more.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

Yup. If you aimed at the center of mass, you had a good chance of a hit at these ranges.

 

[crockett]

The originals were cavalry weapons and intended for use at longer ranges than most folks are apt to fire at today. Once you adapt to the longer zero these pistols are very effective.

Sixguns by Elmer Keith mentions this. Troops were to aim at a belt buckle. The ball would then likely hit the opponent and cause enough damage to take him out of the fight. The Colts used by shootists on the frontier sometimes had the sights modified to shoot to the point of aim.