Author Topic: COLT?UBERTI? (Read 1751 times)

m-g Willy · « **on:** December 20, 2003, 02:33:46 PM »

Does anyone know for sure about this?--Been hearing this for a long time.--Uberti makes the cap and ball revolvers then sends them in parts form to Colt and Colt puts them together and puts a finish on them and sells them as Colts.-- I also heard that the S&W Schofield frame is made in Italy then was sent to S&W for S&W to put their own innards in them. So to me it's why buy a Colt or S&W when I can buy the same gun for less just without the name. Sorta like buying a 92 win. made in South America instead of one made in Japan and stamped with the name Winchester! If I want to by American CAS guns looks like I got to stick to Marlins.--Willy

simonkenton · « **Reply #1 on:** December 20, 2003, 03:08:01 PM »

Yes, if you buy a "Colt" cap and ball it will smell like spaghetti sauce.

Another thing I don't like about them is they got that signature on the handle.

Colt ought to start a plant down here in Dixie. They can get a bunch of non union mountain boys who work cheap and make good pistols to sell at a reasonable price.

filmokentucky · « **Reply #2 on:** December 20, 2003, 04:06:50 PM »

I'd have to look it up to be sure, but I believe the second series Colt's were built using rough barrel and frame forgings provided by Uberti. Lou Imperato actually did the assembly and I think there's even a connection to the old Iver Johnson Company. Colt basically did quality control. What you get for your money (in theC and F series guns) is a very high degree of fit and finish. You also get Colt's beautiful bluing and real bone charcoal case hardening, which is very costly. The actions on mine are also very crisp, with no burrs.
As for the "Signature Series" guns---I only have one. It is a poorly fitted piece of junk. Not only was the signature a dumb idea, but the gun is covered with polishing marks going every which way. The case hardening has the look of a cheap chemical process. It had the grottiest action of any firearm I've ever owned. Didn't pay much for it and it tuned up O.K. But I'd recommend a used second generation Colt over a new "Signature Series" anyday.

simonkenton · « **Reply #3 on:** December 21, 2003, 02:00:46 AM »

Are you saying that today Colt is making cap and ball pistols that don't have that signature on the handle?
I got a Colt catalog a few years back and every pistol in it had the signature. Even while assuming they were actually made in Connecticut, I didn't want a gun with that signature and so I wrote off getting a "real" Colt.

filmokentucky · « **Reply #4 on:** December 21, 2003, 06:47:07 AM »

They don't make black powder Colt's anymore. The ones you see in the on line auction houses are left overs. The last new "Signature Series" guns were made in Brooklyn, N.Y. over a year ago. I'd rather have a Uberti, myself.
The earlier guns---the so called "C" and "F" series guns are very different animals. Collectors will pay absurd amounts for unturned guns in their orignal boxes. I guess they have dreams of someday buying a Ferrari with their profits. Mere mortals such as myself just have dreams of a time long ago when you couldn't do better than having a square back Navy in your hand. And, one of these earlier guns without its box and maybe some wear silvering on its surfaces can be had very reasonably. These guns are marked as real Colts and are considered to be real Colts. And, they're good shooters.
As far as I know, all of the last run of black powder Colts were "Signature Series" guns.

Flint · « **Reply #5 on:** December 21, 2003, 09:24:58 AM »

As mentioned, the Colt 2nd gen percussions were made by Uberti in the 70's and were assembled and finished by Iver Johnson in the USA. They are/were probably the finest revolvers you could get your hands on for fit and finish, and authenticity. Unfortunately, when Colt decided to continue the series, they started the "Signature Series", and turned to less expensive makers in Italy, Pietta etc, you can tell by the parts and details they aren't Uberti. The guns are not authentic to detail, for instance, the 51 Navy has a full sized triggerguard in the squareback, which the originals were not. Also seem to be nickel rather than silver plated backstraps and TG. That's a small part of the list of errors. I have a second gen 1860 Army, and a Signature Series as well, the difference is amazing. (or apalling) The Signature Series was assembled in Brooklyn by a company that would have been better used to make shoes. They are polished before they are smooth (polished tool marks) and rounded corners, the list goes on. If you can find a second gen Colt at a reasonable price grab it. Otherwise, get an Uberti.

Gatofeo · « **Reply #6 on:** December 21, 2003, 09:33:18 AM »

I own a Colt reissue 1851 Navy I puchased new in 1982 or thereabouts.
It is a second-generation Colt and a very well-made firearm. I've put about 2,000 rounds through it and never had a problem.
Yes, some parts were made by Uberti. And yes, it is a REAL Colt --- contrary to what some believe.
There is no signature on the backstrap. The second generation didn't have this decoration, nor would I care for such a thing.
Here's why Colt used Italian-made parts, as I've understood it:
Colt would have had to do a tremendous amount of tooling to produce the frames for the Navy, Army, Dragoons and such. Instead, it chose to contract the building of some parts to Uberti.
However, Colt oversaw the specifications for the parts and accepted only the best work.
Colt originally wanted to have the great Italian gun maker build the guns entirely. However, Italian law mandated that any working firearm had to be proof-fired before it left Italy and bear Italian proof marks attesting to same.
Well, Colt couldn't have its revolvers bearing Italian proof marks. So, to get around that, some parts were made in Italy. They were shipped to America and assembled by Colt, or under Colt supervision.
Yet, some would claim this Italian connection invalidates it as a real Colt.
So, Winchesters made by Miroku in Japan are not real Winchesters? Brownings made in Belgium are not real Brownings? (after all, John Browning was an American).
I've heard that the later signature series Colts were pieces of junk. That may be but place the blame where it belongs: squarely on Colt! After all, it was Colt's responsibility to maintain quality, even by contractors.
The world's oldest gun-making firm is in Italy: Beretta. It dates to the 1500s. The Italians have a long history of making firearms, both good and bad --- and America has made great fireams and pieces of crap.
I don't want some good ol' boys making my firearms. I want craftsmen. Besides, how long would it be before a union got organized at that plant. Then come the demands for higher wages and more benefits. To compensate, the company would have to raise prices.
And we're back to square one.
If I had my druthers, I'd have a Colt made by Americans but I don't have that choice. I think Colt is making a BIG mistake by not tooling up for the black powder revolvers, and offering them as a regular item at a competitive price.
I also wonder why Remington has never offered its famous handguns. Seems to me, it would be a money-maker for the company.

filmokentucky · « **Reply #7 on:** December 21, 2003, 09:55:49 AM »

Absolutely! It would be great to be able to buy an 1863 Remington made here by Remington --- or any other C&B Remington, for that matter. I'm sure Remington could buy the rough frame casting from Uberti and take it from there. Maybe we should start writing letters to Remington?

Full House · « **Reply #8 on:** December 21, 2003, 11:00:10 AM »

Check these people out www.hartfordarmory.com/ you may get them to listen...I would like an American made '63 NMA.

Fives and Kings

The Shrink · « **Reply #9 on:** December 22, 2003, 01:27:17 AM »

One point ot clear up -- The Uberti Model 3 and the Smith Model 3 are not the same gun. Uberti lengthened the cylinder to accept the longer cartridges, Smith stayed with the original length cylinder and retained the cylinder bushing that Uberti had to change.

Wayne

Flint · « **Reply #10 on:** December 22, 2003, 06:21:50 AM »

Agree with the Shrink, there are NO interchangable parts between the S&W Schofield and the Uberti/Navy Arms Schofield. The differences go way past the cylinder length, the barrel is thicker, the rib is taller, the topstrap is thicker, the latch is more robust, and more. I would be more inclined to believe the castings (if they are cast) came from Ruger than from Italy.

simonkenton · « **Reply #11 on:** December 22, 2003, 12:13:59 PM »

If y'all want to pay top dollar for a "Colt" made by Uberti, go ahead.

According to Gatofeo, even Colt would not accept having the Italian proof marks on their gun, though they didn't mind if the pistol was entirely made in Italy. Why did Colt not want these Italian marks on their pistol? Would Colt have been embarassed to admit that their pistol was not made in America?

I know about Italian arms making. I have a Beretta 92f and it is a great pistol. If you read about the tests that the US military put all pistols through before deciding on the Beretta to replace the .45 1911, you will realize what a great semi auto pistol the Italians make.

Colt has always been a quinessentially American product. When Samuel Colt took his pistols to the world exposition before the civil war, it made a major statement that America was a big player in the Industrial Revolution. The gun that fought the Comanches with the Texas Rangers, the cavalry weapon of the Civil War, the gun used by Alvin York, all made in America.

I would rather pay $150 and get a real Pietta, which it is admitted from the start is a fake Colt. At least it is honest.

Gatofeo, it is very unlike you to say that southerners would not be craftsmen enough to make a Colt. Usually you have something intelligent to say.

m-g Willy · « **Reply #12 on:** December 22, 2003, 01:42:39 PM »

Hey thanks for all the info,this has got to be the best web site when ever I need answers about ANY gun! Thanks again for all the replies--Willy

Gatofeo · « **Reply #13 on:** January 07, 2004, 03:59:54 PM »

Simonkenton, I never said a thing about Southerners. I know that the South has a long and hallowed tradition of craftsmanship.
I've known "good ol boys" in Washington, Idaho and Utah that I wouldn't let load a percussion revolver, let alone work on it.
My point was, that when a company locates to any area solely for cheap labor, the product's quality almost always suffers. Witness the thousands of American brand names now manufactured in third world countries whose products are a cheap vestige of what they once were.
Italy is an exception, however, since it has a long history of quality craftsmen. Sure, there are pieces of junk coming out of Italy but there is also junk coming out of American makers too. A few years ago, I had to return a Colt Mustang because the trigger jammed in the rearward position after about 7 shots. I've seen Smith & Wesson revolvers with chambers so rough that cases stuck with factory .38 wadcutter loads.
I meant no slur against Southerners and I apologize if anyone was offended by my general use of the term, "good ol boys."
It is interesting to note that Samuel Colt sailed to jolly ol' England in late 1835 to secure a patent for his revolver. Then, he traveled to Scotland and got a patent there (Scottish and English patents were separate from each other). Before returning to America, Colt secured a patent in France.
Upon returning to America, he secured a patent here, in 1836.
Belgium, a major arms maker today, made many copies of Colt's revolvers. Most were unauthorized but it is believed that some were made with Colt's permission.
And let's not forget Sam Colt's factory that made cap and ball revolvers from 1852-1857 in London, England.
I still fail to understand why Colt isn't turning out cap and ball revolvers at its current plant. The demand is there, in earnest.
I think we can agree, Simonkenton, that Colt and Remington are making major marketing blunders by not offering the cap and ball revolvers for which they were once famous.

simonkenton · « **Reply #14 on:** January 18, 2004, 11:49:00 AM »

I am with you Gatofeo, I can't see why Colt isn't making a top quality cap and ball at its plant. If they would make one I would love to buy it.
I really wanted an original Colt. I bought a catalog of SAA originals for sale. I fainted when I saw the prices. When I woke up I went to see my banker, he said I didn't have enough equity in the house to buy a Colt SAA.
Bonus, the cap and ball is not governed by federal firearms laws.

skpp108 · « **Reply #15 on:** February 17, 2004, 05:01:57 AM »

Hey all. New to this site. It's fantastic. Lots of info here. I have a Colt 2nd gen 1860 army myself and have been looking for info about it for some time. I found out more here in five minutes than I have been able to find out searching the net. Anyway, I managed to get mine for 2 bills with accessories, but no box. It is unfired but I aim to fix that in short order. I didn't get any paper work with it so I was lost as far as information goes. I certainly learned something here. I, too, am impressed with the overall look and feel of this gun. Something about a nice BP pistol that can't be described. My only previous experience with BP is an Italian job from Bass Pro (I think) that I thought wasn't too bad until I got the Colt. Still fun to shoot though. Looking forward to exploring this site (in between visits from the boss, fortunately he can't see my screen from outside the office)!!!!

Gatofeo · « **Reply #16 on:** February 18, 2004, 09:27:42 AM »

Awwwwwwww hell, Skpp 108 ... that 2nd generation 1860 Colt is no good .... lemme take it off yer hands for $50 before ya hurt yerself with it ... trust me ... I work for Uncle Sam ... heh heh ... :twisted: