Comparison of the most popular reproduction Remington New Model Army revolvers to the originals. Visit the Eras Gone Bullet Molds website at: www.erasgonebullets.webstarts.com
This is by far the most comprehensive video I have seen on CZcams about the Remington New Army and all it's reproductions. My take away is, if you are willing to do a little filing, get the Pietta and make the opening and loading lever to a more accurate size to accommodate conicals. If you don't want to, simple get the Uberti. Thank you for taking your time to make this video.
I know this post is a year old, but pietta Remington clones have had a 1:16" twist for years now. They changed the rate years ago, but I don't remember the year. All of my newer ones have the 1:16" while my older ones had 1:30"
Outstanding work and fascinating results, Mark, thank you. Interesting that the Uberti handgun has a 1:18 rifling twist; I read somewhere that the twist rate for the Uberti 1866 carbine is 1:30. Should you come across a Pedersoli replica please add those measurements to the comparison table. The Pedersoli is supposed to have the gain twist rifling that the originals had.
A few years ago, Uberti switched to forged frames and the dimensions were supposedly made much closer in size to the originals. I’m not sure if your 2008 Uberti is a good representation of this or not. Great video!
We need more of these original/repro comparisons, I am sure the simple reason for the variations to original are to stop repro guns being "converted" to originals and sold at a high price to the unsuspecting, that is why many of the dimensions are under size, if they were oversize it would be a simple matter of machining them to correct dimensions, keep up the good work, and stay safe ! Chris B.
I have several of both the Uberti and Pietta. The Uberti seems to shoot better but not by much. I modified all my plungers to match the J&D conical using a form tool on my lathe. It’s takes no time to do it and it helps get all conicals in straight. Still works with balls just fine. Good video Mark.
Great job. Your self and capandball are the only ones doing original and reproduction comparisons. It's great and long overdue. Your new Kerr bullet mould arrived today so I'm off to do some casting. Thanks again.
Excellent comparison and a lot of work you put into it. I can't really say that I'm surprised by the results though. Keep the excellent videos coming, I always enjoy your content. -Madd Man
My first "Remington" was a Pietta in blue finish. Gun was very well put together. My next was a Pietta in SS. This one looked as though someone had machined the rifling with a rock found out in the front yard! Three exchanges and a good one was had. My biggest gripe is the cylinder bore is way smaller then grove diameter. I had done some machining on some spare cylinders I had purchased BUT have yet to do some shooting owing to a move from Colton Ca to Atlanta Ga. This is with the blued version, I want to see if the work was worth it.
Pietta did the same thing to their 1860 Army and it's loading port. If you plan to use conical bullets your will have to file fit the loading port. (Duelist1954 has a good video on that procedure) If Pietta did just a little more work on their revolvers like hiding all the stamps fixing loading ports on their revolvers and ditch that Pietta tail on it's Colt revolvers it would improve their sales.
This is a really useful and informative video ! Many thanks for giving us this comparative detail, one thing is certain, it will be much better than the mongrel ruger army, which is a replica of nothing, I think the reason these are very slightly different to the original is there is always a great worry that a replica will be "doctored" and sold as original for much inflated prices, that, I think, is why they are very slightly under size so they cannot be modified into original dimension guns. We have not had many videos from you but this one makes up for that! Chris B.
Hello. At the end of your video you mention the copy of the Remington New Model Army made in Spain by Santa Barbara. It is the copy that is made with the best steel. Much harder and more resistant than the Italian copies. Santa Barbara made those revolvers in the 1970s and 1980s with the same steel used to make machine guns like the German MG 42 and Mauser rifle barrels. The Santa Barbara Remington has a small grip, which is easy to fix and weighs less than the Uberti and Pietta copys. You can use the .451, .454 or .457 round ball. In Spain for years we used the 457. It is very precise and with the 451 ball and 17 grains of Swiss black powder 3 fff and 17 semolina as filler, at 25 meters it makes 93 to 96 points in the hands of a good shooter. He has won many championships in Europe. You can put 13 impacts in a diameter of 2.5 inches (at 25 meters, 27,5 yards). I live in Oviedo where the military factory is where those revolvers were made. Greetings from Spain. Saludos desde España.
@@erasgonehistoricalmolds2400 Hello. Thank you very much for answering. In Spain, quite a few second-hand Santa Barbaras are still sold among muzzleloader shooters, although this is a very minority sport. There are those who have a Santa Barbara and have barely used it. This week I bought two myself and one has very little use. The Santa Barbara have very good steel. But the essential thing is that the size of the chambers is the same as that of the barrel at the bottom of the rifling. The caliber is 11.4, that is 0.4488 inches. If you use Swiss black powder No. 2 (3fff) you will get very good accuracy at 25 meters (27.35 yards). I recommend the following load: 16 grains of Swiss black powder No. 2 (3 FFF), on top of that 16 grains by volume of wheat semolina, and a .451 spherical bullet (although most shooters in Spain use the 454 or 457 ). You will see how accurate it is. You must first fine-tune the trigger, supplementing the hammer notch, I mean the trigger notch, to leave the gun at a pound or pound and a half of trigger weight. You'll also need to increase the front sight a couple of millimeters. You can remove the one that comes with it, which is like the Remington original, and weld on a longer Pietta one. Then you just have to file so that the shots go to the center of the target. We aim 10 to 12.5 centimeters below the black of the bullseye (4 to 5 inches). Also, as the grips are small, you can supplement them by lining them inside with cardboard one millimeter thick (one millimeter for the right grip and one for the left). If you do all that, you will have a very accurate revolver. You can ask me anything you like about the Santa Barbaras. They have not been manufactured for more than 25 years, but until recently in the factory, and I live 25 km from where it is, there were still some luxury models, engraved, unsold. I hope you will make a video about the Santa Barbara, both with spherical bullets. as with Lee's ogival, as with his Eras Gone. The Santa Barbara, as it is made of very good steel, can match the 45 long colt in power, but as a muzzleloader. Surely equal in power to the 45 Schofield with those ogival bullets Kind regards from Spain. Saludos amistosos desde España.
Petti sold me on the modal sixty one and it was gorgeous until trying to get the wedge out . Some kind of Lacquer had welded it in . Ruined several brass and plastic tools trying not to damage it's beautiful finish . I got it out in a fit of rage with a two pound ball peen hammer . Thanks Petti
Concerning the Pietta. As far as the 'loading plunger' goes; can it be "ground down/cut off" shorter to "give back" the space under the loading port to allow the accommodation of conical projectiles? Or will this make it where you cannot get enough depth of seating of the projectile into the chamber? Either ball or conical projectiles? I mean if the conical will seat deep enough does that make it where the ball projectile will be seated too shallow? I guess I'm asking if the length of the 'loading plunger/bullet seater' is uber critical, to the point of; if you shorten it where a conical bullet will fit under the loading port, then have you made the plunger sooo short that you cannot seat the bullet deep enough? Lord God I hope I have made this clear enough to be understood. Hopefully, Matt
Didn’t expect that, I always heard the Piettas were “oversized” but had nothing to compare it to. Have a blued recent production pietta, it’s a gorgeous gun.
Two years ago, I purchased an original new model army in serial number range of 120 000 (quite late production). When comparing this to my Pietta gain twist "shooters" new model army, I was surprised to see,that they actually are very similar regarding frame dimensions and grip size. I always heard, the Piettas were oversized, which bothered me,since I chose the Pietta because of bettter handling characteristics, while "knowing" they were off dimensionally. They are not.
I bought my uberti specifically because they hide the markings. No regrets such a good feeling piece. A little more attention to detail would be nice. Only negative is the grip size in my hand ( hardly their fault)
I have a pair of Uberti 1858s mostly because Pietta puts all those modern Italian markings on them but Pietta is impervious to criticism. I wish someone would make a 1858 Navy with the correct frame size or better yet a Remington belt model. I am mostly a Colt clone guy love um. Great video.
hey Mark, great video. i have a 1973 Euroarms 1858 NMA, i am in need of a replacement cylinder in 44c. you got any idea what would fit the best or where to find one?
I have been holing off of getting a 1858 remington as I was unsure which to get. that and I keep spending my money on revolving carbines and bullet molds. I think I will keep an eye out for a pietta not. a loading plunger should not be too difficult to swap or modify to make it more like the original.
I own an original 1862 produced Old Army 44… with all the bad parts of that model… excellent shape. I did fire it live… no issues. I also own two (2) Navy 1862 made Remingtons. All of these have some parts updated transitions to the late 1863 New Model Navy. One beat up but good to show public at CW events. One is silver plated and engraved in a 1890’s style. I have details of the internal grooving and such but you can not interchange parts with my Uberti and Pietta reproductions… mostly the Old Models have thinner bore for the cylinder to rotate on.
Sir, Thank you!! You may never know how much I have been looking for this information. Would you happen to know if a Pietta built in 2019 would have these same measurements? Either way, Thank you, again. Have a Great Weekend!! My & my Son-In-Law's Pietta 1858 New Army, and Sheriff's models, both with extra cylinders, are still on Layaway. Should get them the 1st week of April. Layawayed them from EMF Company, Inc., Santa Ana, CA when they were on sale for $234.00 each in January(NO lie!!). And I am not affiliated with EMf in any way, other than being a customer(I wish I was!!). TMI?
It would be useful to know if the stroke on the pietta is long enough to remove 4 or 5 mm and still push a ball far enough. It would be fairly simple on even a mini lathe to shorten it and adjust the contour to fit conicals, balls should still work.
Excellent video Mark! However, the results were quite shocking. I naturally figured that since Uberti replicas are more expensive they would be the closest to the original. And by the same flawed logic, I thought Pietta would be the least of the repros. Boy was I wrong! It would be interesting to compare Colts 1860s, Walkers, etc. The same way!
I would have to have an original to measure to make the comparison meaningful. Obviously, an original Walker is outside of most peoples grasp. However, If I could buy or borrow an original Model 1860 or Model 1851 I could do a similar comparison.
@@erasgonehistoricalmolds2400 I totally understand. Maybe some one will read this and loan you them? I would, but I don't have any originals. Sadly all my stuff is repros, probably like most people. Hopefully someday the oppertunity will present itself to you and we can all learn from it!
I bet the reason for the larger plunger on the pietta is they thought more people are shooting light loads with round ball and need to be able to ram the ball deeper into the chamber than they would have back in the 1860's. I doubt the original designed thought people would be shooting little 20gr with a round ball loads in these big 44 cal pistols.
The plungers are almost identical, so I think the issue is with the loading lever screw on the Pietta. Perhaps its location in the frame results in how deep the plunger goes into the loading port.
I tried switching them. The Pietta would fit in the Uberti, but not vica-versa. However, on the Uberti, the Pietta plunger also extended into the loading port. I think the issue on the Pietta is where the loading lever pivot screw is located on the frame.
so now what about the remington`s 36 cal gun do you think the euro arms of america "44" are closer to the 36 , i have an euro arms of america and it is small
You are correct. The Euroarms is significantly smaller, and is closer in size and frame shape to the earlier Remington-Beales model that came out in 1861. Some folks believe that Euroarms used a Beales as the model and added the 1863 loading lever and safety notches. The Euroams .36 is probably the only reproduction Remington .36 that is close to the size of the original .36. The Pietta and Ubertis are simply the .44 version with a .36 cal bore and chambers.
I think that would be the only way to fix it. The plungers on the Pietta and Uberti are almost idenitcal so the problem must be in the pivot screw location in the frame. The plunger can be replaced for less than $10, so it if it does not work, there is very little risk.
@@markhubbs1964 Well Mark I only have one Uberti and it is the 1873 Model P and it is a work of art. So is there any way that you could measure the pivot screw location on both the Pietta and the Uberti ? and let know. I am a Heavy truck tech and am about to retire, and I have been putting together a small backyard Machine Shop. So I can play the rest of my days. I could Mill a new loading plugger to spec. Been a long time viewer and have about all your Bullet molds and just love Black powder weapons and the like. I corn my own Black powder, its fun easy safe and cheap. Thanks for your time Mark, means a lot to me and my Pards here in AZ.
Alexander, as I mentioned in the video, the Pietta actually is very similar to the orginal in weight and size. The big thing that could be done to improve it would be to shorten the ramming plunger so that it does not extend down into the loading port. That would allow the gun to take almost any size conical bullet. Other than that, "defarbing" the gun is an option, that is removing modern markings and replacing them with the correct 19th century Remington markings, however that is an expensive project.
@tacfoley Do you mean ownership in general, or "defarbing?" I can understand removing markings. I suspect some of our more resticitive states may have similar laws. That is why it is good for each person to be familiar with their local requirements.
@@erasgonehistoricalmolds2400 I think what tacfoley means is that it is not legal to remove the proof marks on a firearm, that would make it illegal to sell on, it can still be used by the owner but would need to be submitted to proof before it could be sold, that is not a problem, you just take it to the proof house and they proof it for you, and stamp the proof marks in a hidden part.
@@453421abcdefg12345 Yes, I understood that from Tacfoley. Too bad, the regulations are so restrictive. US Federal law does not consider replica black powder arms a "Firearms." Most of us here in the USA can alter replica black powder guns at will. But there are a few states that have more restrictive regulations.
Sorry for a long winded question but I am currently looking to buy 2 revolvers. One 1851 navy and one 1858 Remington and plan on getting some of your molds to cast with and make paper cartridges. Will the Uberti models load paper cartridges with those bullets without modifying the guns and is there a mold you suggest for them. Thanks.
David, I have a 2008 production Uberti NMA and I can load paper cartridges made with the Johnston & Dow. I have a video doing so. You should be able to find it in my video list. Thanks
Those close ups show me some of those pistols are WAY out of time. Those drag marks on the cylinders should not be there, the Pietta seems to be the worst. Timing a revolver is tricky, but worth the effort. Done right, the bolt drops into the notch in the cylinder just a few thou of hammer movement and a fraction of a degree of cylinder rotation before clicking into full cock. It's a bit of a juggle between the hand, the bolt ears and the cam on the hammer, especially without a jig. Our pistols are so cheap these days because the machines are so good that hand fitting is not absolutely necessary, where on the originals they would all have been hand fitted. My Ubertis were both surprisingly good from the factory, in fact as close as one could expect for a mass produced single action, so it didn't take a lot to get them just right..... Perhaps I am too fussy.... :-D
You are correct. The Pietta was locked up when I bought it used. I had to file away a millimeter or so of the top of the bolt for it to operate correctly. The Uberti has hardly any cylinder drag. However, did you notice the pronounced cylinder ring on the original? It seems that the originals are not immune from that problem either.
@@LarryTalbot_1313 Most of mine have been OK-ish, although it's not too hard to get them right if you know how. The ASM '73 Colt that I once had was dead on... wish I still had it, but I've fixed a few that were a bit out. While it's better for the cylinder bolt to come up a tad early rather than late, one can have too much of a good thing. I've never seen on that badly out of time from the factory though. If it wasn't new when you got it, I'd say it has been 'got at'...... Revolvers are not things to fiddle with unless you have the tools and the skills....
Do yourself a favor and get yourself an OLD Army; not historic, i know, but if you put quality, strength, accuracy, and function first, the Ruger Old Army is in a class by itself. It wasnt designed as a military arm like the Remington New Army was, so the Old Army is significantly slower to reload. I love all those reproductions of historic revolvers; i have a walker colt, and a .31 cal Remington pocket pistol that i plink and shoot target with, but if i need a tool for hunting, then the Ruger is my go to choice. I'm not comparing anything; i am only saying that i can see you love black powder revolvers, so as a brother that loves the BP revolvers too, i heartily recommend you try out the R.O.A. The sights and tight tolerances make it very accurate. And using .457 round ball, I've never used wads or grease, and never had a chain fire. It's a seriously high quality gun. Hey! I like the channel; I'm subscribing. Peace.
Thanks VMAXBX, I don't have a ROA. Since I'm in it more for the historical aspect, I suspect I will never have one unless a really killer deal comes my way. No hit on the ROA. I know they are the best designed black powder revolver that has ever been made. But they are a modern design. If I need to carry a modern revolver, it will probably be my S&W 29.
ROA's are definately top end highly sought after cap n ball guns but they don't peak my interest because I prefer historical guns and reproductions of those guns. 1851 Navy's are my weakness. Lol
“Metric is more precise”?! NO no no! Accuracy is the ability to measure or produce to an exact value. Tolerance is the amount of deviation from an exact value. Precision is the ability to measure or produce repeatedly to some value with minimal variation. As such neither metric nor SAE are more precise or accurate one against the other. Rather, a mechanism such as a gun produced using metric measures should be measured in that system to avoid minor deviations in the conversion of units. And likewise SAE or “english” to SAE. This is why there are “metric” and “inch” FN/FALand while the same gun from different makers, parts dont always interchange. The Italian makers of repop guns use the metric system. Their original samples were of course inch guns. They reverse engineered them into metric. None too carefully it seems. Regardless comparing original and repop parts is interesting but only significant in limited context. Final thought. No nation using the metric system every put a man on the moon.
something my high school math teacher once told me, Metric makes the math easier. its easier and faster to crunch decimals with a common 10 base system then convert fractions to decimal.
@@remiel3315 well. I agree. Thats why SAE uses decimals based upon the inch. Not the meter or centimeter. No machinist uses 1/1000. They use 0.001 inch. Just like in metric 1/100 meter is 0.010 meters. Neither system offers any real advantage. Both calculate in decimals. Its just what your used to. I think “inch”. Now the big push is for metric. But which one. A meter 200 years ago is not the same meter we use today. An oh! Opps! The meter was originally defined IN old English inches. Now they tell you its the “standard”. A “natural” unit. Its not. It could be worse. The Russian arshin was a unit based upon the length of the Czars male “member”. It changed quite a bit with cold drafts and such. One thing is clear. Dont measure important things with a rubber ruler.
Re the moon. Wasn't much point after it was determined that it was of little use to any one in the mean time. I also note the Chinese space program seems to be making good progress of late.
@@35southkiwi16 what?? Of no use? Every new place that is “discovered” is of questionable value at first. Because the cost of getting there exceeds the perception of the value of what IS there. But that soon changes. In every case so far. The moon is no exception. As to China. And India. And a dozen other metric countries. They follow where the inch has tread. Will the inch follow the arshin or the cubit into obscurity? Maybe. Maybe not. Time will tell.
This is by far the most comprehensive video I have seen on CZcams about the Remington New Army and all it's reproductions.
My take away is, if you are willing to do a little filing, get the Pietta and make the opening and loading lever to a more accurate size to accommodate conicals. If you don't want to, simple get the Uberti.
Thank you for taking your time to make this video.
Thanks for comparation! I must add that twist rate of Uberti is 1:18" vs 1:30" on Pietta. That makes difrence when using conical bullet, too.
I know this post is a year old, but
pietta Remington clones have had a 1:16" twist for years now. They changed the rate years ago, but I don't remember the year. All of my newer ones have the 1:16" while my older ones had 1:30"
Outstanding work and fascinating results, Mark, thank you. Interesting that the Uberti handgun has a 1:18 rifling twist; I read somewhere that the twist rate for the Uberti 1866 carbine is 1:30. Should you come across a Pedersoli replica please add those measurements to the comparison table. The Pedersoli is supposed to have the gain twist rifling that the originals had.
Nice video, thank you, you made me a little happier with my Pietta replica :-)
A few years ago, Uberti switched to forged frames and the dimensions were supposedly made much closer in size to the originals. I’m not sure if your 2008 Uberti is a good representation of this or not. Great video!
I think the Uberti was made after the switch to a forged frame. It also has the faster twist 1:18 rifling.
We need more of these original/repro comparisons, I am sure the simple reason for the variations to original are to stop repro guns being "converted" to originals and sold at a high price to the unsuspecting, that is why many of the dimensions are under size, if they were oversize it would be a simple matter of machining them to correct dimensions, keep up the good work, and stay safe ! Chris B.
This is a very interesting video. I probably won't be the first to say this, looking at the Colt Armys in this fashion would be a fun video.
If I can get my hands on a good condition original, that might be a possibility.
I’m happy about your result. I chose to buy the Pietta and I love it!
Thank you for taking the time to do this and for compiling the results. Very interesting.
Thank you for your careful and thorough analysis.
Thank you for the informative videos. I always look forward to the next video.
Excellent. Thank you for posting.
I have several of both the Uberti and Pietta. The Uberti seems to shoot better but not by much. I modified all my plungers to match the J&D conical using a form tool on my lathe. It’s takes no time to do it and it helps get all conicals in straight. Still works with balls just fine. Good video Mark.
very interesting video! Thank you Mark!
Great job. Your self and capandball are the only ones doing original and reproduction comparisons. It's great and long overdue. Your new Kerr bullet mould arrived today so I'm off to do some casting. Thanks again.
Excellent comparison and a lot of work you put into it. I can't really say that I'm surprised by the results though. Keep the excellent videos coming, I always enjoy your content. -Madd Man
My first "Remington" was a Pietta in blue finish. Gun was very well put together. My next was a Pietta in SS. This one looked as though someone had machined the rifling with a rock found out in the front yard! Three exchanges and a good one was had.
My biggest gripe is the cylinder bore is way smaller then grove diameter. I had done some machining on some spare cylinders I had purchased BUT have yet to do some shooting owing to a move from Colton Ca to Atlanta Ga. This is with the blued version, I want to see if the work was worth it.
Pietta did the same thing to their 1860 Army and it's loading port. If you plan to use conical bullets your will have to file fit the loading port. (Duelist1954 has a good video on that procedure) If Pietta did just a little more work on their revolvers like hiding all the stamps fixing loading ports on their revolvers and ditch that Pietta tail on it's Colt revolvers it would improve their sales.
Awesome, now I know what to do to make my piety’s more like the original!
How you don't have more views I don't understand always good info
This is a really useful and informative video ! Many thanks for giving us this comparative detail, one thing is certain, it will be much better than the mongrel ruger army, which is a replica of nothing, I think the reason these are very slightly different to the original is there is always a great worry that a replica will be "doctored" and sold as original for much inflated prices, that, I think, is why they are very slightly under size so they cannot be modified into original dimension guns. We have not had many videos from you but this one makes up for that! Chris B.
great vid
pietta changed alot, dove tail sights, idk about the loading lever latch. got mine a few months ago, havent shot it yet, cant wait too.
Hello. At the end of your video you mention the copy of the Remington New Model Army made in Spain by Santa Barbara. It is the copy that is made with the best steel. Much harder and more resistant than the Italian copies. Santa Barbara made those revolvers in the 1970s and 1980s with the same steel used to make machine guns like the German MG 42 and Mauser rifle barrels. The Santa Barbara Remington has a small grip, which is easy to fix and weighs less than the Uberti and Pietta copys. You can use the .451, .454 or .457 round ball. In Spain for years we used the 457. It is very precise and with the 451 ball and 17 grains of Swiss black powder 3 fff and 17 semolina as filler, at 25 meters it makes 93 to 96 points in the hands of a good shooter. He has won many championships in Europe. You can put 13 impacts in a diameter of 2.5 inches (at 25 meters, 27,5 yards).
I live in Oviedo where the military factory is where those revolvers were made. Greetings from Spain. Saludos desde España.
Thanks, since I made the video I've acquired a Santa Barbara NMA. It is a fine weapon. I've not yet shot it, but will soon as I'm able.
@@erasgonehistoricalmolds2400 Hello. Thank you very much for answering. In Spain, quite a few second-hand Santa Barbaras are still sold among muzzleloader shooters, although this is a very minority sport. There are those who have a Santa Barbara and have barely used it. This week I bought two myself and one has very little use. The Santa Barbara have very good steel. But the essential thing is that the size of the chambers is the same as that of the barrel at the bottom of the rifling. The caliber is 11.4, that is 0.4488 inches. If you use Swiss black powder No. 2 (3fff) you will get very good accuracy at 25 meters (27.35 yards). I recommend the following load: 16 grains of Swiss black powder No. 2 (3 FFF), on top of that 16 grains by volume of wheat semolina, and a .451 spherical bullet (although most shooters in Spain use the 454 or 457 ). You will see how accurate it is. You must first fine-tune the trigger, supplementing the hammer notch, I mean the trigger notch, to leave the gun at a pound or pound and a half of trigger weight. You'll also need to increase the front sight a couple of millimeters. You can remove the one that comes with it, which is like the Remington original, and weld on a longer Pietta one. Then you just have to file so that the shots go to the center of the target. We aim 10 to 12.5 centimeters below the black of the bullseye (4 to 5 inches). Also, as the grips are small, you can supplement them by lining them inside with cardboard one millimeter thick (one millimeter for the right grip and one for the left). If you do all that, you will have a very accurate revolver. You can ask me anything you like about the Santa Barbaras. They have not been manufactured for more than 25 years, but until recently in the factory, and I live 25 km from where it is, there were still some luxury models, engraved, unsold. I hope you will make a video about the Santa Barbara, both with spherical bullets. as with Lee's ogival, as with his Eras Gone. The Santa Barbara, as it is made of very good steel, can match the 45 long colt in power, but as a muzzleloader. Surely equal in power to the 45 Schofield with those ogival bullets Kind regards from Spain. Saludos amistosos desde España.
Petti sold me on the modal sixty one and it was gorgeous until trying to get the wedge out . Some kind of Lacquer had welded it in . Ruined several brass and plastic tools trying not to damage it's beautiful finish . I got it out in a fit of rage with a two pound ball peen hammer . Thanks Petti
The Swedish government litterly stole my Remington. That has to have a price.
I have a 58’ with absolutely no markings! It only has a serial number under the barrel. I wish I knew who made it…
Concerning the Pietta. As far as the 'loading plunger' goes; can it be "ground down/cut off" shorter to "give back" the space under the loading port to allow the accommodation of conical projectiles? Or will this make it where you cannot get enough depth of seating of the projectile into the chamber? Either ball or conical projectiles? I mean if the conical will seat deep enough does that make it where the ball projectile will be seated too shallow? I guess I'm asking if the length of the 'loading plunger/bullet seater' is uber critical, to the point of; if you shorten it where a conical bullet will fit under the loading port, then have you made the plunger sooo short that you cannot seat the bullet deep enough? Lord God I hope I have made this clear enough to be understood. Hopefully, Matt
I understand you completely. Stay tuned, I hope to have a video out in the next few days that will show how I trim the legnth on a Pietta plunger.
Didn’t expect that, I always heard the Piettas were “oversized” but had nothing to compare it to. Have a blued recent production pietta, it’s a gorgeous gun.
Two years ago, I purchased an original new model army in serial number range of 120 000 (quite late production). When comparing this to my Pietta gain twist "shooters" new model army, I was surprised to see,that they actually are very similar regarding frame dimensions and grip size. I always heard, the Piettas were oversized, which bothered me,since I chose the Pietta because of bettter handling characteristics, while "knowing" they were off dimensionally. They are not.
I bought my uberti specifically because they hide the markings. No regrets such a good feeling piece. A little more attention to detail would be nice. Only negative is the grip size in my hand ( hardly their fault)
I had a feeling that when you hear people say pietta makes a bigger frame because people have bigger hands now was garbage.
Can you please do a video on the Euroarms? Can you please see what parts are compatible between the Euroarms/ASP vs. Uberti?
I have a pair of Uberti 1858s mostly because Pietta puts all those modern Italian markings on them but Pietta is impervious to criticism. I wish someone would make a 1858 Navy with the correct frame size or better yet a Remington belt model. I am mostly a Colt clone guy love um. Great video.
hey Mark, great video. i have a 1973 Euroarms 1858 NMA, i am in need of a replacement cylinder in 44c. you got any idea what would fit the best or where to find one?
I have been holing off of getting a 1858 remington as I was unsure which to get. that and I keep spending my money on revolving carbines and bullet molds. I think I will keep an eye out for a pietta not. a loading plunger should not be too difficult to swap or modify to make it more like the original.
I own an original 1862 produced Old Army 44… with all the bad parts of that model… excellent shape. I did fire it live… no issues. I also own two (2) Navy 1862 made Remingtons. All of these have some parts updated transitions to the late 1863 New Model Navy. One beat up but good to show public at CW events. One is silver plated and engraved in a 1890’s style. I have details of the internal grooving and such but you can not interchange parts with my Uberti and Pietta reproductions… mostly the Old Models have thinner bore for the cylinder to rotate on.
So if you where to machine the plunger flush with the port it will not seat the round all the way?
Sir, Thank you!! You may never know how much I have been looking for this information. Would you happen to know if a Pietta built in 2019 would have these same measurements? Either way, Thank you, again. Have a Great Weekend!!
My & my Son-In-Law's Pietta 1858 New Army, and Sheriff's models, both with extra cylinders, are still on Layaway. Should get them the 1st week of April. Layawayed them from EMF Company, Inc., Santa Ana, CA when they were on sale for $234.00 each in January(NO lie!!). And I am not affiliated with EMf in any way, other than being a customer(I wish I was!!). TMI?
This Pietta was made in 2016. I suspect that it will be the same as your 2019 made gun
Will the Johnston & Dow bullets still fit under the plunger of an unmodified pietta?
Who thumbed down this video? Or any of Mark's videos?
It would be useful to know if the stroke on the pietta is long enough to remove 4 or 5 mm and still push a ball far enough. It would be fairly simple on even a mini lathe to shorten it and adjust the contour to fit conicals, balls should still work.
You can always use filler (cream of wheat) when shooting round balls. Or use 30 plus grains of powder.
Excellent video Mark! However, the results were quite shocking. I naturally figured that since Uberti replicas are more expensive they would be the closest to the original. And by the same flawed logic, I thought Pietta would be the least of the repros. Boy was I wrong!
It would be interesting to compare Colts 1860s, Walkers, etc. The same way!
I would have to have an original to measure to make the comparison meaningful. Obviously, an original Walker is outside of most peoples grasp. However, If I could buy or borrow an original Model 1860 or Model 1851 I could do a similar comparison.
@@erasgonehistoricalmolds2400 I totally understand. Maybe some one will read this and loan you them? I would, but I don't have any originals. Sadly all my stuff is repros, probably like most people.
Hopefully someday the oppertunity will present itself to you and we can all learn from it!
What about the Armi San Marco/ CVA New Model Army, or would one of the other models cover the ASM?
CVA was an importer, and I think they mainy bought Pietta made guns. Armi-San Marco was a maker and would be a good candidate to look at
I bet the reason for the larger plunger on the pietta is they thought more people are shooting light loads with round ball and need to be able to ram the ball deeper into the chamber than they would have back in the 1860's. I doubt the original designed thought people would be shooting little 20gr with a round ball loads in these big 44 cal pistols.
Can photos be added to posts? Thank you!
I don't think that is possible, unfortunately.
Don't have it anymore but what about the old ASM 1858? (Army San Marco). It was a good pistol but don't know how acurate to a real Remington it was.
I have not yet added a ASM New Model Army to my collection. I've been keeping an eye out for a nice one.
Couldn't you swap out a uberti plunger and replace the pietta plunger?
Yes. You would improve the plunger face but it would still be too long. Look for my vid on altering the Pietta Remington.
Would the Uberti Plunger fit in the Pietta and make it better?
The plungers are almost identical, so I think the issue is with the loading lever screw on the Pietta. Perhaps its location in the frame results in how deep the plunger goes into the loading port.
Will the Uberti plunger fit on a Pietta loading lever?
I tried switching them. The Pietta would fit in the Uberti, but not vica-versa. However, on the Uberti, the Pietta plunger also extended into the loading port. I think the issue on the Pietta is where the loading lever pivot screw is located on the frame.
@@erasgonehistoricalmolds2400 Okay. Thanks.
Can you use a Uberti plunger on the Pietta ?
You can, but the result will be the same. The issue is with the location of the screw where the lever pivots instead of the length of the plunger.
so now what about the remington`s 36 cal gun do you think the euro arms of america "44" are closer to the 36 , i have an euro arms of america and it is small
You are correct. The Euroarms is significantly smaller, and is closer in size and frame shape to the earlier Remington-Beales model that came out in 1861. Some folks believe that Euroarms used a Beales as the model and added the 1863 loading lever and safety notches. The Euroams .36 is probably the only reproduction Remington .36 that is close to the size of the original .36. The Pietta and Ubertis are simply the .44 version with a .36 cal bore and chambers.
Can u put a uberti loading plunger on the pietta?
Yes, but it will not improve the stituation. The problem is not the length of the plunger but where the lever pivots in the frame.
HOW GOOD WOULD IT BE IF WE DREMIL THE SIDES OF THE PLUNGER?
Hey Mark, Would it work to mod the loading plugger to be more like the original, you know shorten it ?
I think that would be the only way to fix it. The plungers on the Pietta and Uberti are almost idenitcal so the problem must be in the pivot screw location in the frame. The plunger can be replaced for less than $10, so it if it does not work, there is very little risk.
@@markhubbs1964 Well Mark I only have one Uberti and it is the 1873 Model P and it is a work of art. So is there any way that you could measure the pivot screw location on both the Pietta and the Uberti ? and let know. I am a Heavy truck tech and am about to retire, and I have been putting together a small backyard Machine Shop. So I can play the rest of my days. I could Mill a new loading plugger to spec. Been a long time viewer and have about all your Bullet molds and just love Black powder weapons and the like. I corn my own Black powder, its fun easy safe and cheap. Thanks for your time Mark, means a lot to me and my Pards here in AZ.
Is there any way to modify a pietta 1858 to make it more accurate to the originals?.
Alexander, as I mentioned in the video, the Pietta actually is very similar to the orginal in weight and size. The big thing that could be done to improve it would be to shorten the ramming plunger so that it does not extend down into the loading port. That would allow the gun to take almost any size conical bullet. Other than that, "defarbing" the gun is an option, that is removing modern markings and replacing them with the correct 19th century Remington markings, however that is an expensive project.
@tacfoley Do you mean ownership in general, or "defarbing?" I can understand removing markings. I suspect some of our more resticitive states may have similar laws. That is why it is good for each person to be familiar with their local requirements.
@@erasgonehistoricalmolds2400 I think what tacfoley means is that it is not legal to remove the proof marks on a firearm, that would make it illegal to sell on, it can still be used by the owner but would need to be submitted to proof before it could be sold, that is not a problem, you just take it to the proof house and they proof it for you, and stamp the proof marks in a hidden part.
@@453421abcdefg12345 Yes, I understood that from Tacfoley. Too bad, the regulations are so restrictive. US Federal law does not consider replica black powder arms a "Firearms." Most of us here in the USA can alter replica black powder guns at will. But there are a few states that have more restrictive regulations.
Sorry for a long winded question but I am currently looking to buy 2 revolvers. One 1851 navy and one 1858 Remington and plan on getting some of your molds to cast with and make paper cartridges. Will the Uberti models load paper cartridges with those bullets without modifying the guns and is there a mold you suggest for them. Thanks.
David, I have a 2008 production Uberti NMA and I can load paper cartridges made with the Johnston & Dow. I have a video doing so. You should be able to find it in my video list. Thanks
Those close ups show me some of those pistols are WAY out of time. Those drag marks on the cylinders should not be there, the Pietta seems to be the worst. Timing a revolver is tricky, but worth the effort. Done right, the bolt drops into the notch in the cylinder just a few thou of hammer movement and a fraction of a degree of cylinder rotation before clicking into full cock. It's a bit of a juggle between the hand, the bolt ears and the cam on the hammer, especially without a jig. Our pistols are so cheap these days because the machines are so good that hand fitting is not absolutely necessary, where on the originals they would all have been hand fitted.
My Ubertis were both surprisingly good from the factory, in fact as close as one could expect for a mass produced single action, so it didn't take a lot to get them just right.....
Perhaps I am too fussy.... :-D
You are correct. The Pietta was locked up when I bought it used. I had to file away a millimeter or so of the top of the bolt for it to operate correctly. The Uberti has hardly any cylinder drag. However, did you notice the pronounced cylinder ring on the original? It seems that the originals are not immune from that problem either.
Sadly, every replica revolver I've ever owned had the same problem.
@@LarryTalbot_1313 Most of mine have been OK-ish, although it's not too hard to get them right if you know how. The ASM '73 Colt that I once had was dead on... wish I still had it, but I've fixed a few that were a bit out. While it's better for the cylinder bolt to come up a tad early rather than late, one can have too much of a good thing. I've never seen on that badly out of time from the factory though. If it wasn't new when you got it, I'd say it has been 'got at'...... Revolvers are not things to fiddle with unless you have the tools and the skills....
Do yourself a favor and get yourself an OLD Army; not historic, i know, but if you put quality, strength, accuracy, and function first, the Ruger Old Army is in a class by itself. It wasnt designed as a military arm like the Remington New Army was, so the Old Army is significantly slower to reload. I love all those reproductions of historic revolvers; i have a walker colt, and a .31 cal Remington pocket pistol that i plink and shoot target with, but if i need a tool for hunting, then the Ruger is my go to choice. I'm not comparing anything; i am only saying that i can see you love black powder revolvers, so as a brother that loves the BP revolvers too, i heartily recommend you try out the R.O.A. The sights and tight tolerances make it very accurate. And using .457 round ball, I've never used wads or grease, and never had a chain fire.
It's a seriously high quality gun. Hey! I like the channel; I'm subscribing. Peace.
Thanks VMAXBX, I don't have a ROA. Since I'm in it more for the historical aspect, I suspect I will never have one unless a really killer deal comes my way. No hit on the ROA. I know they are the best designed black powder revolver that has ever been made. But they are a modern design. If I need to carry a modern revolver, it will probably be my S&W 29.
ROA's are definately top end highly sought after cap n ball guns but they don't peak my interest because I prefer historical guns and reproductions of those guns. 1851 Navy's are my weakness. Lol
I find the complaint of using metric instead of inches incredibly inconsiderate. I find using metric much easier to deal with.
Well yeah of course one's divisible by 10 and the other one can't make any sense out of
“Metric is more precise”?! NO no no!
Accuracy is the ability to measure or produce to an exact value.
Tolerance is the amount of deviation from an exact value.
Precision is the ability to measure or produce repeatedly to some value with minimal variation.
As such neither metric nor SAE are more precise or accurate one against the other. Rather, a mechanism such as a gun produced using metric measures should be measured in that system to avoid minor deviations in the conversion of units. And likewise SAE or “english” to SAE. This is why there are “metric” and “inch” FN/FALand while the same gun from different makers, parts dont always interchange.
The Italian makers of repop guns use the metric system. Their original samples were of course inch guns. They reverse engineered them into metric. None too carefully it seems. Regardless comparing original and repop parts is interesting but only significant in limited context.
Final thought. No nation using the metric system every put a man on the moon.
something my high school math teacher once told me, Metric makes the math easier. its easier and faster to crunch decimals with a common 10 base system then convert fractions to decimal.
@@remiel3315 well. I agree. Thats why SAE uses decimals based upon the inch. Not the meter or centimeter. No machinist uses 1/1000. They use 0.001 inch. Just like in metric 1/100 meter is 0.010 meters.
Neither system offers any real advantage. Both calculate in decimals. Its just what your used to. I think “inch”. Now the big push is for metric. But which one. A meter 200 years ago is not the same meter we use today. An oh! Opps! The meter was originally defined IN old English inches. Now they tell you its the “standard”. A “natural” unit. Its not.
It could be worse. The Russian arshin was a unit based upon the length of the Czars male “member”. It changed quite a bit with cold drafts and such.
One thing is clear. Dont measure important things with a rubber ruler.
Re the moon. Wasn't much point after it was determined that it was of little use to any one in the mean time. I also note the Chinese space program seems to be making good progress of late.
@@35southkiwi16 what?? Of no use? Every new place that is “discovered” is of questionable value at first. Because the cost of getting there exceeds the perception of the value of what IS there. But that soon changes. In every case so far. The moon is no exception.
As to China. And India. And a dozen other metric countries. They follow where the inch has tread. Will the inch follow the arshin or the cubit into obscurity? Maybe. Maybe not. Time will tell.
You are a big ignorant
metric more precise?!?!?! poser.
This is America... we don't use metrics, BTW I have a caliper and it is in hundreds of a inch not mm