Opinions on Colt replica?

[unspellable]

Any opinions on the 1851 Navy Colt (CVA) in 44 caliber as opposed to the other makes?  You can currently get a low price on them.

[filmokentucky]

The original Colt Navy was only available in .36 caliber. So any so-called
replica is by definition going to be incorrect if it is a .44. As for quality, that varies wildly. CVA in particular has had a spotty reputation over the years.  Generally, Uberti and Pietta are the best and it is downhill from there. Brass frames will eventually shoot loose if used with full loads over a prolonged period of time, especially in .44 caliber.

[IntrepidWizard]

Kentucky you covered it all well.

[unspellable]

I was aware that the 44 caliber is not authentic and if I recall correctly, neither is the brass frame.

I am thinking more in terms of whether or not the CVA Colt Navy in 44 with a brass frame would make a half way decent shooter at a cheap price.  (Midway is offering them at $89.99.)  Or should I pass it up and stick to my Ruger Old Army?

[filmokentucky]

I would definitely stay with the Ruger. Its quality is much higher and it
almost certainly is more accurate. It will also stand up to more use without
failure and will retain value better. It can also be loaded to a higher power level.

[Gatofeo]

I'd pass on ANY brass-framed cap and ball revolver, unless you wanted strict authenticity as a Confederate in role-playing. The Confederates made some brass-framed revolvers during the Civil War.
Not only are brass-framed revolvers more apt to wear quicker, but the overall quality on brass-framed gun is generally poorer than their steel-framed counterparts.
I had a brass-framed 1851 Navy in .44 caliber more than 30 years ago. As I recall, maximum I could get in it was about 28 grains. So, if you're thinking you'll get significantly more power from the .44, as opposed to the .36, think again. The capacity to hold more powder simply is not there, compared to a Remington, Colt 1860 or Ruger Old Army.
If authenticity is not your bag, then by all means go with the Ruger Old Army. It 's tough, accurate and has a sterling reputation for quality.
If you'd like something more authentic, get a Remington 1858 or Colt 1860, if you want .44 caliber. Or a repro Colt Dragoon 3rd Model, if you want a smidgen more powder capacity.
A brass-framed .44 will be cheap to shoot, but it's almost certain to have poorer quality, and its accuracy will suffer as a result.
For a first-time cap and ball, I'd suggest a Colt 1851 or 1861 Navy in .36 caliber. The 1861, if well made, is particularly nice.
But the final determinant is your hand and eyes. If it feels good in your hand, and you like its looks, then you'll likely do well with it.

[Ramrod]

 ... the CVA Colt Navy in 44 with a brass frame would make a half way decent shooter at a cheap price.

I don't see why anyone would argue with that statement. Just know that the gun will not last as long as steel before something goes bad. I doubt it would become unsafe, just inaccurate.

[filmokentucky]

Initially  it will make a decent shooter at a cheap price. Maybe so. But its only cheap if it lasts a good long while and gives good results. If it wears out quickly and gives poor results then it ain't cheap. Where I come from that would make it  junk.
  As Gato says, unless you are re-encting as a southerner, you don't need a brass frame. If memory serves, even the original brass framed southern revolvers were in .36 caliber. I expect there's a good reason for that.

[unspellable]

Well I went ahead and bought the 44 brass frame 1851 Navy from Midway.

First, it was never intended to replace my Ruger Old Army, just something to mess around with.

Some observations.  If it will only hold 28 grains of powder, that may all be well and good given the brass frame.  On examining it, I find the cylinder has no neck and the only thing to stop it from moving forward is the cylinder face contacting the rear of the barrel.  Was this the case on the original Colt?  The is very little or no room on the underside of the barrel to allow a cylinder neck.  Perhaps because it's a 36 caliber design bumped up to 44 and they didn't want to scale it up any more than they had to?

With nothing to hold the cylinder back, the hand tends to push it forward.  This means that on firing it will recoil into the frame.  This aggrevates the question of the brass frame holding up and I can see the potential for the endplay to increase.

Any comments on the cylinder neck and the cylinder endplay?

[filmokentucky]

At the moment of firing, the cylinder is stabilized by the bolt locking into the slot in the cylinder. This inhibits movement to a great extent. By neck
I'm guessing you mean a protuberence on the front of the cylinder.  Remingtons don't have one either. Assuming the timing is correct, the hand doesn't take any recoil force at all. The bolt and  the standing breech will take it. With moderate loads and depending upon just which brass alloy your frame  is cast from, your revolver can last for quite a while. I've got an old Uberti Griswold & Gunnison .36 caliber that I've had for years and used with light loads. It's as tight as when it was new but it uses essentially the same load as the pocket .36s and has about the same effective range. This gun is at least 30 years old. A  friend bought one at the same time I did and used standard Colt Navy loads in his. It was dead in less than a year.

[unspellable]

The hand is light in weight and is spring loaded so it will simply be pushed back by the cylinder.  There would be a force on the tip due to the tip moving in an arc as the hand pivots on its pin and pushing upwards against the ratchet.  I don't think that would be worth worrying about.

As for the bolt holding the cylinder either back or forwards I'm pretty dubious.  I'll take a closer look when I get home tonight.

Some one said this revolver would take 28 grains volume of powder with a round ball.  This does not seem like a heavy load for a 44.  The Ruger is supposed to take 40 grains.  If I stick a Wonder Wad under the ball that would reduce the powder charge that much more.

[filmokentucky]

28 grains is not heavy for a .44. I load 33 in my Colt '60 Armies. But they are steel frame guns. I'd go much lighter in a brass framed .44. The only person I know who shoots a brass frame .44 has a Remington style revolver. He loads 20 grains and gets good accuracy. The gun has held up well over the years due to the light loads. Some of the recoil load is taken by the bolt and the rest by the breech face stopping the rear of the cylinder. Case hardened steel holds up  nicely to this force, brass less so. Another common problem is the cylinder arbor becoming loose in Colt style pistols. Light loads seem to prevent this in my experience.

[unspellable]

Went home and took another look.  The bolt does absolutely nothing to locate the cylinder end wise.  With the barrel removed, I can cock the gun and then pull the cylindr off or shove it back against the recoil shield.  Bottom line is the cylinder stops going back when it hits the recoil shield.  It stops going forward when it hits the rear of the barrel.

Is this the case in the original Colt?

This means the minmum cylinder gap is zero.  I thought a black powder revovler was supposed to have a larger cylinder gap than a smokeless revolver.

The Remington appears to have a neck on the frame to restrict forward travel of the cylinder.  The Ruger Old Army has a neck on the cylinder to do the same thing.

When the cylinder recoils it must beat down the raised ring on the recoil shield.  I heard somewhere about somebody putting a steel ring at this location.

If 28 grains is still a heavy load for this revolver, how much would the charge be reduced with a Wonder Wad and the ball seated just barely inside the chamber mouth?  How low do we have to go for powder charge?

[filmokentucky]

The cylinder bolt stabilizes the cylinder rotationally, the boss on the rear of the cylinder locates it lengthwise and to some degree the weight of the hammer and hammer spring probably contribute some resistance. The
problem with the brass frame guns is not the positioning of the cylinder or any movement of the cylinder during firing, it's the softness of the brass frame itself. Some of the old Civil War era guns had frames cast from bell metal which I've been told is actually a form of bronze and is much harder than brass. Yellow brass is quite soft and easily deformed. On my
old Uberti, I can mark it with my thumb nail. I'm fond of it and treat it with care and expect it to last as long as I do. It probably wouldn't last a month using full loads.

[unspellable]

There are really three points of discussion here that should not be confused.  First, brass is softer then bronze or steel and it's to be expected that a brass frame will not be as servicable as a steel frame.

Second is locating the cylinder.  This question applies regardless of whether the frame is brass or steel.  If nothing else, the cylinder being in contact with the rear of the barrel will result in wearing the finish off the face of the cylinder.  What about room for crud build up?  Excessive endplay will beat up any revolver regardless of whether the frame is brass or steel.  This is a hot topic at the S&W forum and they ain't made out of brass.

Third, does the original Colt cap & ball have a better means of locating the cylinder or is it the same as the replica?

[filmokentucky]

In a true copy of the original Colt revolver the cylinder is located in the same manner. My Colts are second generation guns with the exception of one '60 Army which is a Signature series gun.  I'm almost certain that the Italian guns are made the same in this regard as they were originally copied from antique Colts.
  On the Colt, excessive end play is removed by adjusting the wedge to reduce the cylinder gap. You'll notice on the cylinder arbor that there are some grooves machined around it. Some people say they are there to contain fouling. Maybe so. I was taught that they held lubricant and that is the way I've always used them. I use a tallow/beeswax mix half and half and slather it on. This keeps fouling out of this area nicely. The same lube on the base of the cylinder helps. All my guns have a shiny band where the rear of the barrel has polished the cylinder face. I doubt this can be avoided. None of them(steel framed), including my Walkers, has a beat up frame or rear cylinder area and all are used with full loads. I lube over the loaded ball and this seems to keep fouling soft. I've never had a Colt seize up from fouling. I think the barrel just scrapes the fouling to the side
as the cylinder rotates and the blast at the cylinder gap from the next shot blows most of it away. Never really thought about  it before as it wasn't a problem but I will definitely pay it close attention next time out. It
has got to be going somewhere.

[unspellable]

If you grant that the cylinder face is supposed to drag on the rear of the barrel then my replica does not have excessive end play.

Still like my Ruger Old Army better on this point, but then I guess it benifits from a hundred and some years of hind sight in how to build a revolver.