Questions on arbor with new 1851 Uberti London model

[oncewas]

I know not again huh. So I just got this Uberti 1851 Navy London model and I know Uberti's have an issue with short arbors. But does that include the London models? I have to ask because I can get my barrel on enough to check against the frame. It's just ever so slightly, just a smidgen a past the frame. Maybe I'm not able to get the barrel all the way down on to the arbor putting it on at an angle but it sure looks and acts like it is. I know there are some big gunsmiths on this site so please lend me your experience. I'm only talk the Uberti London models as I know the others have short arbor issues.

 

[45D]

You people gotta quit doing that!! It's not a valid test!!

Yes, no matter what model it is, if it's anything other than a late made Pietta, it has a short arbor.

I must have said that a thousand times by now!!

Oh, and put the calipers up, put away the slide rule.
It's so simple to fix and you don't need to measure anything until you start thinning the spacer . . . which means using a feeler gage to measure the endshake.

So, make a fat spacer, thin it down till you get the endshake you want. It's that simple.

 

[oncewas]

okay got it. thanks

Oh what end shake should I shoot for? Or is there no set fast rule? I read someone posted .002-.005. But that wasn't you so I would like your expert advise if you please. Then I'll slink away back into the dark.

 

[45D]

okay got it. thanks

Oh what end shake should I shoot for? Or is there no set fast rule? I read someone posted .002-.005. But that wasn't you so I would like your expert advise if you please. Then I'll slink away back into the dark.

I set them between .0025" - .003".
You don't have to slink anywhere. But I will say just in the last couple of months I've explained the whole process several times in a few threads in this forum. I know I sound like a broken record to most here . . .
Maybe take a peek at my posts? I know I explained it to a tee to Mr M deLand in a rather long back and forth thread.
Mike

In fact, just look below this post and you'll see some suggested posts . . . and the one I mentioned above is the first one listed! How's that?

 

[bang]

My Uberti dragoon was same way. Had to use wood block and mallet to get it apart.
Marked the arbor with ink and polished the spots untill it fit. Then fix the arbor depth issue.

 

[cynthialee]

I notice some are worse than others.
most are intolerable to me, but I did run across one that was short, but acceptable

 

[M. De Land]

I know not again huh. So I just got this Uberti 1851 Navy London model and I know Uberti's have an issue with short arbors. But does that include the London models? I have to ask because I can get my barrel on enough to check against the frame. It's just ever so slightly, just a smidgen a past the frame. Maybe I'm not able to get the barrel all the way down on to the arbor putting it on at an angle but it sure looks and acts like it is. I know there are some big gunsmiths on this site so please lend me your experience. I'm only talk the Uberti London models as I know the others have short arbor issues.

Mike (45D) and I don't happen to agree on short arbors being an issue of accuracy or strength but most of the other stuff he says about them I'm on board with. I'm going to run some accuracy tests in a Ransom rest when I get healed up from a hand in table saw accident to see if my 60 Pietta accuracy is effected negatively by being short and then corrected an retested. May have to change my thinking on that issue or perhaps not.
Mine has always seemed accurate and there are literally thousands of short arbor guns out there in regular use that have worked for decades without issue.
I have made quite a lot of mods on mine but never felt the need to end fit the short arbor but this testing just may change my thinking .

 

[M. De Land]

Mike (45D) and I don't happen to agree on short arbors being an issue of accuracy or strength but most of the other stuff he says about them I'm on board with. I'm going to run some accuracy tests in a Ransom rest when I get healed up from a hand in table saw accident to see if my 60 Pietta accuracy is effected negatively by being short and then corrected an retested. May have to change my thinking on that issue or perhaps not.
Mine has always seemed accurate and there are literally thousands of short arbor guns out there in regular use that have worked for decades without issue.
I have made quite a lot of mods on mine but never felt the need to end fit the short arbor but this testing just may change my thinking .

I am curious as to how well an open top gun responds to a Ransom rest. I've not seen or read of it being done before but surely it must have been tried. I'll also be doing some bench/sandbag shooting of both ways for comparison.
I get the pin pulled out of the end of the severed finger on Monday so should be able to get back to the pile of gun projects staking up in the next few weeks . I have two 60s to overhaul , a barrel liner to install , a rim-fire firing pin to make/ install and several rust blue jobs to do, oh my , how stuff builds up !
Sure don't realize how much one uses there digits until their out of commission!

 

[M. De Land]

okay got it. thanks

Oh what end shake should I shoot for? Or is there no set fast rule? I read someone posted .002-.005. But that wasn't you so I would like your expert advise if you please. Then I'll slink away back into the dark.

What your really after is even cylinder gap/end shake, around the clock in co-axis with the bore, when the light comes on, ball hits the cone, all the square seat tolerances tighten up and steel stops compressing and elongating "flexing". I like about .006 when the gap is even top to bottom side to side . The gap you measure at rest is nothing like what you have under load of firing in open frame guns. The gap at the bottom ( at rest) is usually the closest to what is actually happening under the stress load of firing. Most open frame guns shoot high from wedge induced pull up with the lower lug being to high. The cylinder gap will almost always be tighter on top when the gun shoots high and the front sight will get all the blame.
Colt purposely made these revolvers to shoot high ( I've read, to Army spec) as man and horse killers. An aim point from crotch to breast bone would usually resulted in a lethal hit. The pin front sight was made short to facilitate this but the lower lug was made proud to aid this effect as well, in my opinion ,
If I had to fight on horse back with percussion revolvers I'd take a brace of Colt 60s over any other make or model !

 

[CyrusP]

Heal up fast.

 

[smoothshooter]

What your really after is even cylinder gap/end shake, around the clock in co-axis with the bore, when the light comes on, ball hits the cone, all the square seat tolerances tighten up and steel stops compressing and elongating "flexing". I like about .006 when the gap is even top to bottom side to side . The gap you measure at rest is nothing like what you have under load of firing in open frame guns. The gap at the bottom ( at rest) is usually the closest to what is actually happening under the stress load of firing. Most open frame guns shoot high from wedge induced pull up with the lower lug being to high. The cylinder gap will almost always be tighter on top when the gun shoots high and the front sight will get all the blame.
Colt purposely made these revolvers to shoot high ( I've read, to Army spec) as man and horse killers. An aim point from crotch to breast bone would usually resulted in a lethal hit. The pin front sight was made short to facilitate this but the lower lug was made proud to aid this effect as well, in my opinion ,
If I had to fight on horse back with percussion revolvers I'd take a brace of Colt 60s over any other make or model !

I never really bought that part about Colt intentionally making their Navies shoot high.
I think the use of a tiny, low front sight allowed them to save on production costs by drilling a small hole and driving the sight in with pin-setting punch and hammer. Cheap sight. Cheap installation.
Sam Colt, being the master salesman he was, turned a negative into a positive using a good dose of BS.

 

[Bad Karma]

I never really bought that part about Colt intentionally making their Navies shoot high.
I think the use of a tiny, low front sight allowed them to save on production costs by drilling a small hole and driving the sight in with pin-setting punch and hammer. Cheap sight. Cheap installation.
Sam Colt, being the master salesman he was, turned a negative into a positive using a good dose of BS.

Why then would he go with the mortise and blade used in almost every revolver beginning with the 1860?

 

[smoothshooter]

Why then would he go with the mortise and blade used in almost every revolver beginning with the 1860?

Probably due to complaints in the field, and the possible acquisition of a piece of tooling to cut the slot/mortise in the barrel to drive the sight blade into.
Still cheap and easy to do. Easier than cutting a dovetail and fitting a sight in the slot.
I would hazard a guess that maybe Colt was losing some business to
Remington because the taller Remington sight allowed the point of impact to coincide with the sights at the more realistic close ranges.
My comment about Colt possibly losing some sales is pure speculation on my part, and I could be totally wrong.

 

[M. De Land]

I never really bought that part about Colt intentionally making their Navies shoot high.
I think the use of a tiny, low front sight allowed them to save on production costs by drilling a small hole and driving the sight in with pin-setting punch and hammer. Cheap sight. Cheap installation.
Sam Colt, being the master salesman he was, turned a negative into a positive using a good dose of BS.

Well, I think that virtually all originals tended to shoot high and I know most modern reproductions do as well along with off to the side one way or the other. The first thing to do to a new gun is clean and lube it then fire it with full house loads from sand bags for a 100 rounds or so to see what it does and to settle in. Most will need some help to reach their full potential !

 

[Bad Karma]

Probably due to complaints in the field, and the possible acquisition of a piece of tooling to cut the slot/mortise in the barrel to drive the sight blade into.
Still cheap and easy to do. Easier than cutting a dovetail and fitting a sight in the slot.
I would hazard a guess that maybe Colt was losing some business to
Remington because the taller Remington sight allowed the point of impact to coincide with the sights at the more realistic close ranges.
My comment about Colt possibly losing some sales is pure speculation on my part, and I could be totally wrong.

Other than target arms, I suspect most pistols of the era would use a similar cheap and easy front sight. The Remington is a post, S&W, etc. these guns were meant to hit men. A man is a tall vertically oriented target. If my only concern is hitting the torso at unknown ranges from 5 to 100 yards or so, I would want that pistol hitt higher than if it’s only used at a fixed (or nearly so) distance. Sam Colt may have invented Maximum Point Blank Range…