Pietta vs Uberti

[NorthFork]

I know this likely has been asked three hundred thousand times but.....

Which is currently better in terms of #1 mechanical function and #2 cosmetics? I have heard in the past Uberti's were better built than the Pietta's but I also have been hearing lately that Pietta may now be better mechanically than the current Uberti's. I'm mostly interested in steel frame 1851's but would consider an 1858 steel frame.

edit- this will be shooter not a 'display' piece.

 

[ZUG]

They are pretty much the same in both fit and finish now but I still think Uberti is better in both areas

 

[Phil Coffins]

The current Pietta has less mechanical issues then Uberti but Uberti is a bit better copy of the Colt. The only issue with Uberti is the fit of arbor which is easy to remedy. Both can be made into fine shooters.

 

[Blackpowderwarrior]

Im a Pietta man Myself. I have 0 complaints about the cnc routed piettas.

 

[Columbus]

I was in the Uberti fan club for a long time but the guns I've bought in the last year or so seem to have rough internals. I bought an 1860 from DGW that felt like it had broken glass inside and I have a poor arbor fit/wedge fit issue on the 1848 baby dragoon, I've been a bit disappointed. Conversely, the three guns I bought from Pietta were great.

 

[jonathan butcher]

I must admit I like both makers and it really comes down to the individual gun. Both makers have and continue to make some quality stuff though it's possible to get a lemon from either. I think they're about equal.

 

[ADK Bigfoot]

I have been a Uberti fan for some time, based on past experience. With advances in manufacturing and machining, and the ever-present factor of good assembler/bad assembler, I would recommend handling and cycling each available gun to see which has the best action/trigger.

Just my 2.

ADK Bigfoot

 

[sourdough]

I prefer the Pietta 1851 Navy .36 "type" revolvers over the Uberti revolvers because I have an affliction known as "parts-changer-syndrome", which is very contagious if one decides to start creating Confederate revolvers using parts from VTI and Taylor's. Only two Confederate 1851 Navy "copy" revolvers were brass frame: the Schneider & Glassick and the Griswold & Gunnison, both in .36. The rest were steel frame: Leech & Rigdon, Rigdon & Ansley, Augusta Machine Works, Columbus Fire Arms Manufacturing Company, J.H Dance & Brothers, L.E. Tucker & Sons, and George Todd.

Both Uberti and Pietta have used CNC machining since ~2002, so parts from either manufacturer are pretty much a "drop-in" fit within the respective brands since then. Some folks dislike the Pietta "billboards" on the barrel; Uberti is much more discreet. Uberti's are more expensive than Pietta's. IMO, Pietta is better mechanically (arbor fit, internals, et al).

If you do get into parts changing with the Pietta CNC 1851 Navies, be advised that there are two different 3-piece grip assemblies (trigger guard, backstrap, and wood). The first, manufactured ~2002/BS - 2014/CM, is known as the Large Tail grip. The second, manufactured 2015/CN - 2020/CZ, is known as the Non Tail grip. (The gripframe assembly manufactured prior to the CNC guns is known as the Small Tail grip.)

If you are interested, I have studied this for a few years and created a thread about them here:

https://blackpowdersmoke.com/colt/index.php/topic,3474.0.html
NorthFork, I you get to the affliction stage that I have, all it takes is money. My L&R started out as a Pietta 1851 Navy steel (CP/2016) and I substituted the Pietta G&G .36 part round/part octagon barrel and smooth/plain/non-engraved cylinder. All off-the-shelf Pietta parts from VTI. I also found some wood with figure on Ebay to replace the plain quarter-sawn straight-grained factory wood. This is probably the easiest parts-changer revolver to create: plug-'n-play, to borrow an old Microsoft adage.



I agree with everything posted here prior to my post. It just depends upon your preferences and the route you wish to take.

If you want a shooter and like smoke and report, stay away from brass frames.

Regards,

Jim

 

[William P Sepessy]

Generalizing will not answer your question, however in my experience with both brands I have found:
Uberti-you will usually have to fix the short arbor(or too deep of a hole in the barrel lug, however you explain it)
Pietta-you will probably need to correctly fit the bolt head to the cylinder notches.
In both cases I'm referring to the full size guns. The little pocket guns are another matter. Either way both Uberti and Pietta guns will need some attention if you plan to shoot them on a regular basis.

 

[smoothshooter]

I know this likely has been asked three hundred thousand times but.....

Which is currently better in terms of #1 mechanical function and #2 cosmetics? I have heard in the past Uberti's were better built than the Pietta's but I also have been hearing lately that Pietta may now be better mechanically than the current Uberti's. I'm mostly interested in steel frame 1851's but would consider an 1858 steel frame.

edit- this will be shooter not a 'display' piece.

I personally do not like the “ Pietta Bugle “ flare that Pietta uses on the grip frame of their Colt copies. Changes the feel of the gun quite a lot.
One of those annoying artistic license things that the Italians tend to do when the original shape was just fine.

 

[sourdough]

I personally do not like the “ Pietta Bugle “ flare that Pietta uses on the grip frame of their Colt copies. Changes the feel of the gun quite a lot. One of those annoying artistic license things that the Italians tend to do when the original shape was just fine.

Pietta used that gripframe style from ~2002 -2014 only. In 2015 Pietta went to a blocky gripframe assembly which you think might be the "original" shape.

Nothing could be further from the truth. If you have access to a copy of Nathan Swayze's book " '51 Colt Navies" you will find that Colt had many variations of grip frame styles, as the 1851 Navy was produced from 1850 until 1872.

This is only one of many different photos concerning this.



Many folks believe that Colt produced only one type of grip frame assembly, and that is what they stick with concerning modern repro guns.

Regards,

Jim

 

[smoothshooter]

Pietta used that gripframe style from ~2002 -2014 only. In 2015 Pietta went to a blocky gripframe assembly which you think might be the "original" shape.

Nothing could be further from the truth. If you have access to a copy of Nathan Swayze's book " '51 Colt Navies" you will find that Colt had many variations of grip frame styles, as the 1851 Navy was produced from 1850 until 1872.

This is only one of many different photos concerning this.



Many folks believe that Colt produced only one type of grip frame assembly, and that is what they stick with concerning modern repro guns.

Regards,

Jim

m

I am referring to the profile view as seen from the side.

 

[JCKelly]

1998 bought a used Spiller & Burr, one made in GA under difficult circumstances. I thought it a cool gun, and bought a Pietta S & B, S/N B7239 Aug '09 to shoot. Hope Pietta has improved over these last 11 years. OK so long as I cocked it s-l-o-w-l-y, but at any normal cocking speed chambers would not line up with the bore. Sent it back, but the Warranty guy said it was just fine. Bet it was quite a surprise to whoever did finally shoot the thing.
Georgia made

 

[BullRunBear]

I've found Pietta C&B revolvers to be fine, sometimes excellent, for the last 10 or 12 years. Certainly better than they were from further back. Their Remington 1858s gets high praise at Cabelas and MidwayUSA. Also, at least until recently, Piettas had better sale prices than Uberti.

Jeff

 

[sourdough]

I am referring to the profile view as seen from the side.

I know you are, sir. I proffered only 3 examples, end view. If you look through Swayze's photos you will find that there is no one "original" shape.

Regards,

Jim

 

[SDSmlf]

There was a time not that long ago where it seemed to be ‘common knowledge’ that Uberti handguns were superior. Not sure that is the case today. As others have mentioned, all of the recent Ubertis I have come into had short arbors, and when I say short, they are short in the range of .100” or more. Short arbors were a problem with Piettas, but that was over 20 years ago, at least in my experience. Late bolt timing still seems to be a problem at times for both manufacturers. And I have found rough actions on Ubertis the same as others have. Latest Uberti Walker I came into, supposedly NIB, felt like it was full of sand. After ultrasonic cleaning (found grit and a few matching chips in my cleaner afterwards) and deburring, action felt smooth. Wasn't impressed with what I received, but it cleaned up nicely. Arbor was about .120” short, and I corrected it. Both Uberti and Pietta, at least in my opinion, have issues that need attention to make them shooters, but overall I find current Piettas have an edge over current Ubertis.

 

[B P Arn]

I know you are, sir. I proffered only 3 examples, end view. If you look through Swayze's photos you will find that there is no one "original" shape.

Regards,

Jim

I see differently shaped wooden grips, but it would appear that the frames are identical.

The tail on the Piettas looks like nothing I have ever seen on the originals, or good replicas of them.

 

[sourdough]

I see differently shaped wooden grips, but it would appear that the frames are identical.

If the profile of the wood is different, how can they have the same backstrap and trigger guard (gripframe assembly) in order for the wood to fit?

The Colt 1851 Navy was produced from 1850 to 1872 in numbers to exceed 250,000. No CNC machining in that era. Colt machinists varied as time went on, and they produced parts according to drawings/"blueprints" provided by Sam Colt. He died in 1862, and his capable widow took the reins.

How could there be not any variations with the gripframe assemblies? The TG and BS were stamped with assembly numbers, and the wood had the same numbers in pencil in the backstrap groove and sometimes in the trigger guard groove, and were finished as an assembly. No modern plug 'n play.

Sam Colt was a miser, and that is how he made his riches. He would use any parts in his stock to produce a revolver for his assembly line, no matter if it looked like the previous revolver or the next revolver.

This is a scan of page 73 from Swayze's book. It shows an 1851 Navy 4-screw CFS revolver with an 1861 Navy 4-screw CFS revolver. The grip assemblies are very different. Do you really think that Colt redesigned the gripframe for the 1861 Navy? It looks like someone used the revolver butt as a hammer due to the uplift at the rear of the butt, but the Confederate Griswold & Gunnison revolver had the same uplift geometry on every one of the 3600 revolvers produced by them. Coincidence? I think G&G had access to a Colt revolver with the same gripframe geometry to produce their revolvers. Is there another explanation for this?

IMO, there is no such thing as a "true original one-size-fits-all" gripframe/profile. The photos of originals tell all.

Regards,

Jim

 

[B P Arn]

^^^ Exactly, and none of them have the Pietta tail, which illustrates the point I was trying to make.

 

[sourdough]

^^^ Exactly, and none of them have the Pietta tail, which illustrates the point I was trying to make.

Point made, and there are at least two different Pietta "tail" profiles. There is still no one "original" profile which you seem to espouse. Your turn.