bigmike said:
Who makes the better revolver?
Hi, I'm Steve, and I'm new to BP shooting and this Forum. Here's my story. Sorry it's so long. :redface:
I've always been fascinated by Civil War revolvers, and have owned a couple non-firing replicas. I wanted to get a version of the Colt 1860 Army, and I discovered that firing replicas weren't much more than non-firing wall hangers made of pot metal. So I set about trying to figure out which one to order. In the meantime, I started studying up on the real thing.
Because I thought I could save a few bucks, I went with the Pietta 1860 Army over the Uberti. When it arrived, I was very excited--my first-ever actual BP revolver! The weight felt great in my hand, and the sounds it made when cocked were like music to my ears! The bluing was deep and dark, and I thought the finish was great. At first, I was very happy.
But...
A big part of the appeal of the Colt 1860 to me was the almost "sexy" curves and shaping of the barrel. As I studied originals more, I noticed that the Pietta did not have that curve--the barrel shaping almost had an edge to it, and it didn't curve back up toward the forcing cone, as originals appeared to do. The curve ended abruptly near the front of the cylinder.
Then I noticed that the cutout in the barrel for loading conicals didn't seem to extend as far forward as originals--it seemed too short. Other details didn't seem "right" to me either--the trigger guard didn't have bevelled edges, and the hammer only had parallel thumb grip lines on it, as opposed to a neat crosshatch pattern as on the originals. As I studied it more and more, the stamped manufacturer and warning nomenclature on both sides of the barrel and the deep proof marks on the frame became an eyesore that I couldn't avoid looking at. I defarbed what I could, but that CNC-machined barrel shape--so sharp and straight-- stuck out like a sore thumb to me.
Then I started looking at the Ubertis. I started reading that certain parts, like the cylinders, could actually be interchanged with actual period Colts. I read that they did the castings for the 2nd and 3rd Gen Colts. They had that sexy, curvy barrell, with no sharp edges--it had soft curves like an original. I figured even at $285, that was a lot cheaper than a 1st, 2nd or 3rd gen, and that I should check one out.
When it arrived, I couldn't have been happier--everything about it just seems so "right." Authentically curved barrel that glistens in the light; crosshatch on the hammer, bevelled trigger guard edges, long conical hole under the wedge, and manufacturer information under the loading lever. Even the proofmarks on the barrel are so faint as to almost be invisible. It is truly a work of art.
Now, as for the mechanical part--the bolt on the Pietta did need some work so it wouldn't peen the cylinder notches. And the Uberti does have a short arbor. Both these problems are apparently common with each respective manufacturer.
That said, for me the cosmetics of the gun are paramount, and the Uberti is everything I could want in a Colt 1860 Army. The only thing that would be better would be owning the "real thing." I have yet to fire the Pietta or the Uberti, but for my money, the Uberti Colt 1860 Army is my favorite. My only regret is that I should have just bought the Uberti first. It was only $35 more than the Pietta (at that time), and I should have just paid that slight amount more to get what I consider a far better piece, and saved $250 in the process.
Whew! OK, so much for my first post!