Italian reproduction metal quality

[JackAubrey]

Is the metal in the Italian reproduction revolvers equal in quality to actual 19th century arms? How does the reproduction steel compare to modern firearms steel? Best regards, JA

 

[napolean]

The steel itself is probably better than 19th century metal due to more modern smelters and mill technics. Northern Italy has been known to produce very high quality steel for a long time.
What happens to it after it leaves the steel mill and how it's treated by the firearms industry? I'm sure that varies, but in general, I would still say some what better.
Jon D

 

[F.G. Ford]

I do not believe you can compare the steel of the firearms of the 19th century to the steel and manufacturing techniques of Uberti (of Italy)
Uberti has very modern quality control standards, and finishing standards.
I believe Barretta now owns Uberti, and that in it's self says it all.
Old Ford

 

[CoyoteJoe]

The internal parts of Italian C&B revolvers are dead soft, they wear and batter easily. Original Colts, I don't know, I've never worked on an original C&B Colt but Colt or S&W cartridge revolvers have much harder internals than the Italian C&B revolvers.

 

[Zonie]

Coyote: Your comment about the internal parts of an Italian C&B got my curiosity up so I decided to find out if it was true.

Rather than selecting one of my Uberti's which most folks agree is the best built reproduction C&B I choose to take apart my Pietta brass framed .36 figuring that if any Italian gun that I own would be made like you suggest, it would be the one.
This is the revolver and it has been "aged".

I used a new 3-corner file to test the parts hardness.

Hammer: Hard
Hammer Mainspring wheel: Hard
Mainspring: Hardened & tempered
Trigger: Hard
Cylinder Stop (Bolt): Hardened & tempered
Trigger&Cylinder Stop spring: Hardened & tempered
Cylinder Hand: Soft
Cylinder Hand spring: Hardened & tempered
Cylinder Pin: Soft
Barrel Wedge: Soft
Barrel Wedge spring: Hardened & tempered
Barrel: Soft
Cylinder: Soft
All Screws: Soft

This would seem to contradict your comment about the internal parts being left dead soft.

 

[napolean]

Joe,
I bought my A.S.P. replica 58 Remington in "78"
So about 32 years and thousands of rounds later, I have yet to replace anything except nipples. Must some other makers your talking about.
Zonie,
Your check was interesting, I would think the hand & wedge would need to be somewhat hardened.
Jon D

 

[F.G. Ford]

Consider if the hand is hard, it would wear the cylinder as it rotates.
They are soft not to do damage to the cylinder.
The hand can be replaced quite easily, also the trigger return spring often breaks on both the Colt, and Remington design, so a few spares are nice.
The Colt wedge is designed to wear first, instead of the barrel, or the cylinder pin.
My Uberti revolvers have hardened internal pieces, other than the hand and wedge.
If the cylinder and barrel were hard, they would be subject to cracks.
Old Ford

 

[pargent]

I think the steel is much better all around .Modern manufactures down rate their products strength to allow a built in saftey margin.We all know of people who load up their black powder era guns with modern smokeless.Back in the day there was no smokeless,Darwins theory sorted out the IIs, not like today where they are protected.

 

[Dphar]

Is the metal in the Italian reproduction revolvers equal in quality to actual 19th century arms? How does the reproduction steel compare to modern firearms steel? Best regards, JA

SFAIK the Pedersoli and Uberti (Beretta) arms are made with gun barrel quality steels for the barrels etc.
Others?
I would never buy a low end percussion revolver.

People need to remember that the majority of Colt Walker revolvers burst or bulged in service.
By the time of the 1860 Army steel making had improved to allow putting a 44 on a 36 frame and a 36 on a 31 frame.
There was another advance just after the Civil War as I recall. But the percussions were largely dead from the manufacturing stand point when the bored through cyl patents expired.
So unless some pretty poor material is used the modern guns are made of better stuff.

Dan

 

[Dphar]

I have had to reharden more italian gun internals than otherwise, recut notches etc. The last was a 62 police I bought direct from Uberti back 15 years ago or more. Trigger and hammer were both too soft to stand up to 100 rounds of shooting.
This used to be the norm rather than the exception at least for me.
Some of the SAAs were junk internally too. Might still be. I have not bought a SA or C&B in quite some time.

Dan

 

[David Teague]

I have a Uberti 1861 Navy that has stood up to 2000ish rounds to date with only failed hand springs. While the barrel might rattle a bit on the frame, it still shoots like a laser. :bow:

I have a few other Ubertis that I've had since the early 1980s that haven't had any failures. I don't shoot them as much.

I have one of the 45 Colt conversions that they make on a 1860 frame and I had the hand fail after about 1000 full house black powder loads but thanks to VTI gunparts it's back in the shooting stable again.

Cheers,

David

 

[Leatherbark]

I had to reduce the full cock notch in the hammer of my Pietta 58 in 36 caliber. A file just glided across the notch until I really beared hard then it started to cut. I reduced it to remove the creep. Seemed like it was surface hardened. Now I am sure the full cock notch may wear until the trigger is dangerous, but I believe it will take a lot of shooting.................Bob

 

[junkman_01]

People need to remember that the majority of Colt Walker revolvers burst or bulged in service.
Dan

Ah, but the Walker cylinders were made of iron not steel as the later Colt guns were, so that model is an unfair comparison.

 

[Pete Gaimari]

I'm not sure if there's any truth to this story about Walkers.

I read that when conicals were used in the Walkers they thought the tapered end was to ease loading, and loaded them backwards. This was supposed to be why the guns were failing. :idunno:

 

[junkman_01]

There is no reason why loading a conical backwards would damage a gun. It might play havoc with accuracy but would not damage a gun.

 

[Pete Gaimari]

Providing it entered the barrel the way it's suppose to.

I'm just the messenger. I read it in more than one place.

 

[Zonie]

I too have read that the Walkers were known to blow their cylinders occasionally and read that there was speculation by some that it was due to loading the conical bullets backwards.

Then, I have my own theory about the cause of the problem.

The Walkers and the subsequent "Whitneyville Hartford Dragoon" were all made by the Ely Whitney gun company for Colt.
At the time, Colt didn't have a manufacturing company to build these so he contracted Whitney to do it.

The Whitney gun company had produced Military arms from the late 1700's. In fact, the company made 10,000 1798 U.S. Contract Muskets.
In the mid 1800's Whitney's company was known to have bought leftover parts from other suppliers and condemned parts from the U.S. arsenals to produce some of his guns calling them "Good and Serviceable Arms". In other words, it might be said that his company sometimes put profit ahead of quality.

With that in mind it may be that he wasn't too picky about the iron used to make Colts Walker cylinders?
It wouldn't surprise me at all to find that his company used the cheapest materials he could get for the Colt contract.

 

[Norinco]

Back then, batches of iron and especially steel were not too consistent.

 

[CaptainKirk]

Providing it entered the barrel the way it's suppose to.

I'm just the messenger. I read it in more than one place.

Capper, there are several theories floating about in cyberspace on the Walkers.
The conicals you refer to were termed "picket bullets" and were pointed rather that round on one end. If loaded backwards, this could have two effects:
1) If the pointed end were facing down, it could theoretically allow more powder to be loaded, as opposed to the flat side down. Some speculate the burst cylinders were overcharged
2) As above, if the flat side were to tip and jam or wedge itself while going through the forcing cone, this could possibly cause the cylinder to over-pressurize and burst. Personally, that one sounds like a stretch to me.
More likely, the bursting problems could be traced to inferior steels (iron) as Zonie mentioned, or inconsistencies among powder manufacturers. QC wasn't what it is today, back then.

 

[StrawHat]

It wasn't only Walker cylinder that burst or bulged. The early 1860s were plagued with bursting cylinders. The ones that burst were the full fluted ones and Colts replaced them with the unfluted style. Not sure if it was an early "recall" but any returned to the factory were replaced. I don't know if the full fluted 61s were subject to bursting. So far, my Uberti 61s have not burst, full flutes on both cylinders.