• This community needs YOUR help today. We rely 100% on Supporting Memberships to fund our efforts. With the ever increasing fees of everything, we need help. We need more Supporting Members, today. Please invest back into this community. I will ship a few decals too in addition to all the account perks you get.



    Sign up here: https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/account/upgrades
  • Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.

    We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.

    Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103

Continual trouble inserting Uberti 1858 cylinder

L & R
muzzle loading side side shotguns
Shop deals on ebay
Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Smokerr said:
Oddly enough the Remington design won out to this current day and the Colt style was dropped.
Click to expand...

Well not really. The Military requested a top strap design. The '71/'72 Open Top was to be Colts entry. Of course the Model P was then offered.

Smokerr said:
So there may be some and some, Colt better for BP and Rem for cartridges? Yea verily where does that leave us with Cartridge conversions?
Click to expand...

Again, not really. Turns out the open-top platform is quite capable of handling 45acp+p loads . . . better than many modern "top strap" revolvers . . . ( the Colt Mod P for instance!)
Remington's do very well with conversions but I haven't had a chance to test any "heavy" loads yet ( it's in the very near future . . . like maybe next week).

Smokerr said:
Now with all due respect the Colt style looks like something out of the depths of the ocean for not aesthetically pleasing (sometimes known as ugly)

That said the biggest baddest one of all (Colt Walker) is the one that appeals to me. Sometimes ugly just has beauty of its own.

And sometimes beauty can be in the eye of the beholder.
Click to expand...

Yes, the eye of the beholder. I for one think they are by far the finest looking revolvers ever produced.
20240205_152656.jpg

20240205_152850.jpg


This is all I can show of this one since it's. . well . . unmentionable . . .
 
That is what I find funny about myself in regards to a Walker Colt. To me it looks crude as a stone ax, but dang it appeals!

You could put on on the end of a wood shaft and use it to beat someone to a pulp (or just reverse the gun or hit them with the barrel)
 
I can change a cylinder (if i had an extra cylinder) way way faster on my Colt 51 than my Rem 58.
I can never get the cylinder back into the Rem without a fight in under 10 minutes. Ive watched every utube and it just won’t happen.
There is a very fine line where both the hand and bolt are recessed. Infinitesimally small.
I can change the Colt in under 5 seconds.
As for looks, I always wanted the Rem, now that i have both, the Colt is my favorite. The Colt gets attention at the range, it looks like something from the 1850’s. The Rem looks very modern and until it smokes nobody knows its BP.
 
Last edited:
CaptainVane said:
I can never get the cylinder back into the Rem without a fight in under 10 minutes. Ive watched every utube and it just won’t happen.
There is a very fine line where both the hand and bolt are recessed. Infinitesimally small.
Click to expand...

Unbelievable!! If you roll the cylinder while inserting it, it will push the hand out of the way and move on in. I've never had a problem with it.

Holding the hammer back "just so" ( like some videos suggest) invites "Beauty rings" on your cylinder.
 
45D said:
Unbelievable!! If you roll the cylinder while inserting it, it will push the hand out of the way and move on in. I've never had a problem with it.

Holding the hammer back "just so" ( like some videos suggest) invites "Beauty rings" on your cylinder.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I discovered this roll technique by accident but the "just so" helps and luckily I don't care about rings on the cylinder. Those are put there so the next owner can cuss me.
 
Smokey Plainsman said:
I agree.

The Colt’s is such a superior design, I oft wonder why the Remington is even still produced. The Colt’s handles fouling perfectly, has a strong loading lever, cylinders go on and off with no fuss, look 100x better, the list goes on and on.

Ditch the ugly stupid Remington trash and pick up a Colt’s. You won’t be going back!
Click to expand...
That is a hoot even Colt disagrees with you as well as every other revolver manf. in the world. knowledge is the watchword.
the simple easy solution is to learn the proper way to use a tool . Many things are difficult at first so get some inst. from a knowledgeable person .
There are plenty on this forum.
Don`t be imperial and kill the messenger, or you will never be knowledgeble.
It`s so easy a caveman can do it
 
Unbelievable!! If you roll the cylinder while inserting it, it will push the hand out of the way and move on in. I've never had a problem with it.

Holding the hammer back "just so" ( like some videos suggest) invites "Beauty rings" on your cylinder.
Click to expand...

You should never dismiss someone else issue when you don't have it, far to many variables involved and these are far from precision mfg guns (see Uberti and the arbor issue)

1. Cylinder do vary in length as can all the dimensions it sits in and the barrel into the frame.
2. Timing is very variable to the point its way off.
3. Hand length can factor in.

I was a mechanic/technician/engineer positions for 35 years.

While not as bad, I do have issues with the cylinder install and removal and rotating the cylinder does not solve that.

And you clearly do get get the hammer hold back. The ASP NMA required that until I fixed it (the bolt was back out at half cock). The ROA developed it and I have the so called "ring" on the cylinders now. Partial cock has the bolt down and lets me remove and install the cylinder.

Confirmation Bias is a bad thing, just because it does not happen to you does not mean it does not happen.
 
Smokerr said:
You should never dismiss someone else issue when you don't have it, far to many variables involved and these are far from precision mfg guns (see Uberti and the arbor issue)

1. Cylinder do vary in length as can all the dimensions it sits in and the barrel into the frame.
2. Timing is very variable to the point its way off.
3. Hand length can factor in.

I was a mechanic/technician/engineer positions for 35 years.

While not as bad, I do have issues with the cylinder install and removal and rotating the cylinder does not solve that.

And you clearly do get get the hammer hold back. The ASP NMA required that until I fixed it (the bolt was back out at half cock). The ROA developed it and I have the so called "ring" on the cylinders now. Partial cock has the bolt down and lets me remove and install the cylinder.

Confirmation Bias is a bad thing, just because it does not happen to you does not mean it does not happen.
Click to expand...

Rolling cylinders while installing has always been the technique. It forces the hand back to allow insertion. You do that with the hammer in the half cock position. If the bolt head is proud of the bolt window ( at half cock), you have a wear issue, timing issue or a dimension tolerance issue. Correct timing and setup allows "correct " installation. Of course, your free to do as you want with your own revolver but it's never "bad" to do things "correctly".
As for the ROA (and Rugers in general), the biggest design problem is the weak spring and plunger which allows throw-by ( cylinder over rotation) and exacerbated with the NM feature allowing cyl rotation by just opening the loading gate. It's become common practice to close the gate and roll the cyl to lockup = accepted beauty rings.

Mike
 
45D said:
Unbelievable!! If you roll the cylinder while inserting it, it will push the hand out of the way and move on in. I've never had a problem with it.

Holding the hammer back "just so" ( like some videos suggest) invites "Beauty rings" on your cylinder.
Click to expand...
good for you, dont work for me.
 
mahd776 said:
I also have a Uberti 1858 that I purchased about a year and a half ago. Same problem as above. It never goes back into the frame without a fight. Has the same sharp pointed hand that seems to catch the rear of the cylinder. This 1858 has been a problem child from new. Loading lever link broke loading the second cylinder full. Have a loading press but with the PIA getting cylinder back in not inclined to use it. I much prefer the ease of removing and replacing the cylinders on the Colts. This particular revolver has ruined me on the Remington.
Click to expand...
Just as post #2 says works the best for me.
 
Smokerr said:
You should never dismiss someone else issue when you don't have it, far to many variables involved and these are far from precision mfg guns (see Uberti and the arbor issue)

1. Cylinder do vary in length as can all the dimensions it sits in and the barrel into the frame.
2. Timing is very variable to the point its way off.
3. Hand length can factor in.

I was a mechanic/technician/engineer positions for 35 years.

While not as bad, I do have issues with the cylinder install and removal and rotating the cylinder does not solve that.

And you clearly do get get the hammer hold back. The ASP NMA required that until I fixed it (the bolt was back out at half cock). The ROA developed it and I have the so called "ring" on the cylinders now. Partial cock has the bolt down and lets me remove and install the cylinder.

Confirmation Bias is a bad thing, just because it does not happen to you does not mean it does not happen.
Click to expand...
I have 3 remington pattern revolvers so called 58s and there is a learning process just as with Colts .
the most troublesome for me was the 1849 Wells Fargo . they all take some education and getting used to , so I do not blanket one design with ridicule. Just have patience and learn about your equipment.

Blitz
 
Smokey Plainsman said:
I agree.

The Colt’s is such a superior design, I oft wonder why the Remington is even still produced. The Colt’s handles fouling perfectly, has a strong loading lever, cylinders go on and off with no fuss, look 100x better, the list goes on and on.

Ditch the ugly stupid Remington trash and pick up a Colt’s. You won’t be going back!
Click to expand...
I own both and am going no where. Love the Colt on range day. The Remy for fields. One of the reasons Remy goes to the field is when you change a Colt cylinder you have too many pieces in your hands. At a bench you just set them down.
 
Like anything with pistols it requires practice and lots of it. i may be the only one who does it this was but I put on half cock and don't touch the hammer after that. I slide in from the left and rotate counter clock wise. I can do it at a dead run with both my 1858's
 

Similar threads

M
Double checking the arbor end fit on my 2022 Pietta 51
Replies
2
Views
216
earlwb
E
Jappo
  • Locked
SOLD Uberti 1858 Remmie 44 Cylinder
Replies
4
Views
440
Jappo
Jappo
T
New Model Army Cylinder Insertion
Replies
15
Views
702
nick_1
nick_1
Blackpowderart
Did uberti ever make a small frame 1858 navy?
Replies
12
Views
726
Jim in Wisconsin
J
M
New cylinder fit to a Uberti 62 Police
Replies
7
Views
395
Curtis Lee
Curtis Lee

Latest posts

Back
Top