Pietta??

[dlhumphrey]

Pietta

I was hoping I could get some input on Pietta revolvers.

I have been thinking about trying BP revolvers. I don’t want to spend a lot to try it out, so have been looking at the Pietta 1858 New Army from Cabela’s. They are on sale now, for $199.99. I don’t want to go with the “kit” as I figure the quality of items included is not that great.

I have handled (not shot) several and they felt O.K.? The finish was not as bad as I had been led to believe. I know there are better guns out there but am curious if I will just be wasting my money?

Any thoughts or problems with the Piettas I should know about?

 

[CaptainKirk]

Can't say as I don't own any......
However, I vastly improved the fit, finish and action of my Excam Navy in .36 simply by spending a few evenings polishing and sanding the hammer and sear, smoothing and polishing the brass, and a good general disassembly and cleaning.
It's darn near impossible to overcharge a C&B as the chamber will only hold so much (as long as you stick with BP or an approved substitute!) so you don't really have to worry about inferior barrels and such. You will certainly become more intimate & knowledgeable about the inner workings of your gun...a huge plus...and also learn what does what.
Me, I say...go for it! :thumbsup:

 

[dlhumphrey]

Thanks CaptainKirk

I think at that price I will just give it a try.

I did look at a Pietta 1858 in .36 cal. today. It was a brass frame and the the dealer only wanted $165.00. Just not sure about the .36 cal. I think I might want the .44 cal. instead. Although, just for plinking and a little target shoting the .36 should be fine.

Thanks again

 

[Zonie]

IMO, the .36 and the .44 are both fun to shoot.

The big thing is to try to get a steel framed pistol. They are considerably stronger than the brass framed guns and, if you ever want to sell it they will maintain their value better.

If you are interested in having a historically accurate gun you should know that the .36 and .44 caliber guns built by Remington were all steel framed guns.
The only brass framed gun that Remington sold a lot of was the tiny 5 shot .31 cal Pocket Revolver and even with this model they offered a steel framed version.

 

[Rhett Griffith]

I have a Pietta 1858 Remington in .36 with a steel frame that I bought about 20 years ago. I have put thousands of rounds through it and never had any problems. When I was starting out, I was not so diligent about cleaning and caring for it, so it has a few spots of rust in the chambers and the front sight had to be replaced when I broke it off trying to adjust the point of impact, but it is still very accurate and reliable. On a good day, I can keep all of its shots inside a 2 inch circle at 25 yards. At the time I got it, it cost me $99.99 :shocked2: and it has been well worth the money!

Rhett

 

[Celt5494]

Never had any issues with mine. I have three different models of their .44's. You can shoot them all day long on the cheap and have a heck of a lot of fun doing so.

 

[mykeal]

Pietta is a long established and well known producer of black powder firearms. They have a bit of a checkered past, contributing to the tainted reputation of the Italian replicas for 'soft' parts and occasional lemons in the 90's. However, they invested heavily in new production machinery and quality improvements a few years ago and have recently earned a reputation for quality parts and workmanship. I would not hesitate to recommend a recent build Pietta to anyone (the usual caveats about buying used bp guns are still applicable, of course).

That being said, understand that you're not paying for a Ruger. They aren't perfect; some minor gunsmithing is to be expected if your standards are at the level of a contemporary $600 gun.

 

[Pete Gaimari]

The Pietta guns aren't that bad now. Don't buy an unrealistic model. They mix up parts from different models to come up with them, and the fit is horrible. Don't get a brass frame model.

If you have small hands you may like the 1858. It doesn't have enough clearance between the grip and the back of the trigger guard. It may feel ok just handling the gun, but when you shoot it you'll see what I mean. It beats my finger to a pulp. I won't shoot them anymore. Uberti's have a more realistic profile on the grip and it's not quite as bad, but still too tight for my mitts.

The most comfortable gun for me is the 1860 Colt. It points much better than the 1858 too. The Remington feels clunky to me. Colts are natural pointers that just feel right.

Some say the Remington is easier to get the cylinder out. I don't agree. Two cylinders shot with BP and you can barely move the pin to get the cylinder off. With a proper fitting wedge in the Colt I can get the cylinder off much faster than a Remington. Plus you have the barrel off for easier cleaning.

As you can tell. I love Colts, but there is one disadvantage to the Colts. The sights are not very good. They shoot high because the army requested that they zero them for 75-100 yds. So, you need to do some modifications to get them to zero at shorter distances. It's not a problem for me, because i just use them to shoot CAS. It's fast shooting and I don't even look at the sights. I just point shoot.

So, there's your options. Get the Remington 1858 and have good sights, but bang your finger up shooting it and have difficulty taking it apart when it's dirty.

Or, get the Colt with cruder sights, but is comfortable to shoot and is the best pointing gun gun made.

It's an obvious choice if you want a shooter.

If all you want to do is punch paper and have smaller hands. You may like the Remington.

If you want a gun that's accurate down to the last detail. Spend another $100 and get a Uberti.

 

[Vtsmoker]

I have the 1851 confederate navy from Cabellas. Fit and finish is great and althought it's a brass frame I haven't had any problems with it loosening up. Shoots good after tinkerin with the sights a little. Just remember to hold muzzle up when cocking after each shot!

 

[dlhumphrey]

I thank you for all for the replies.

I have been doing a little research which has led to a little more confusion. I was leaning towards the 1858 Army. Not for any particular reason. I was just apprehensive about the open top frame design. Now am considering one of the Navy models. I like their looks, and for my purposes I don’t think the ability to change cylinders quickly is an issue. As Capper pointed out it may not be an issue. Looking at the models on the Cabela’s web site, it looks to me like the 1851 Colt and the 1860 Colt are very similar. The 51 has a brass frame and the 60 a steel.

Some of my research has led me to believe the 51 Colt Cabela’s sells is actually more like .44 Walker with a brass frame. The 51 Colt was originally produced in .36 cal. if I am not mistaken.

So, instead of the 1858 Army, at this point I might just order the 1851 Colt. for $150.00 dollars. The difference in money will buy me the caps, balls, and powder. Even if the brass frame isn't as strong as the steel, I figure by the time I wear it out I will know if I want to continue with the BP revolvers.

Then again, I could change my mind in the next 30 seconds. :hmm:

Thanks again.

 

[guad42]

I have a very reliable Pietta 1851 Navy in .36 with Steel Frame and I have always been very happy with it. In fact, my first BP gun was another Pietta '51 Navy in .36, back in the early 1990s and it never failed me.

Like others on this thread, if buying the Remington, I suggest staying clear of Brass Framed models. Like Zonie said, Remington made very few weapons with brass frames (Colt made none) and anything steel is to be preferred to brass.

I once owned a Pietta 1858 Remington Army in .44, this was in the late 90s. I found the gun fouled quite a bit (though I liked the fit to hand and accuracy better than on the '60 Army I had), residue built up quick around the base pin and it was just generally more work and maintenance than my faux Colts. In fact, I traded that '58 for my current Pietta Navy.

I think most folks rate Pietta above ASM, but perhaps slightly lower than Uberti.

 

[dlhumphrey]

Cabela’s does have a steel framed 1851 Navy in .36 cal. It is about the only one not on sale ($249.99). Wouldn’t the 1860 Army ($199.99) be about the same thing other then .44 cal. as opposed to .36 cal.? It is still an open top steel frame.

 

[Pete Gaimari]

I thank you for all for the replies.

I have been doing a little research which has led to a little more confusion. I was leaning towards the 1858 Army. Not for any particular reason. I was just apprehensive about the open top frame design. Now am considering one of the Navy models. I like their looks, and for my purposes I don’t think the ability to change cylinders quickly is an issue. As Capper pointed out it may not be an issue. Looking at the models on the Cabela’s web site, it looks to me like the 1851 Colt and the 1860 Colt are very similar. The 51 has a brass frame and the 60 a steel.

Some of my research has led me to believe the 51 Colt Cabela’s sells is actually more like .44 Walker with a brass frame. The 51 Colt was originally produced in .36 cal. if I am not mistaken.

So, instead of the 1858 Army, at this point I might just order the 1851 Colt. for $150.00 dollars. The difference in money will buy me the caps, balls, and powder. Even if the brass frame isn't as strong as the steel, I figure by the time I wear it out I will know if I want to continue with the BP revolvers.

Then again, I could change my mind in the next 30 seconds. :hmm:

Thanks again.

I don't think Colt ever made a brass framed 51 or any other model for that matter. During the war the south made some 51's. They used brass, because they were short on steel. Unlike what Pietta makes. ALL 51's were .36 cal.

Once again. The 51 has a small grip. The 1860 has a bigger grip frame and is much more comfortable. The grip profile Pietta makes for the 51 is wrong. Compare it to the Uberti, or any real colt whether it's a 51 or a 73 which uses the same grip and you'll see the Pietta is flat compare to the curved real Colt.


Just so you'll know. Go to the Uberti web site and look at the guns he makes. He only makes guns that were real. No make believe guns like Pietta. Grip profiles will be exact. Barrel lengths will be exact. If the original have a fault. So will the Uberti have than fault.

When Colt made the later generation Colt 73 Peacemakers. Uberti made a lot of the parts for them.

I'm not trying to talk you into buying a Uberti. I'm just saying if you want to see what was real and not real. Turn to what Uberti makes, and not Pietta.

btw Nothing wrong with an open top. They made it through the war just fine. The 1960 is a much better gun than the 51. Colt didn't come out with newer models for nothing. If you want a .36. Then get the 1961 Colt. It's like a 1960 in .36 and the smaller 51 grip.

 

[guad42]

I agree with Pete. The only brass framed holster pistols of this period were the various and arguably inferior Confederate copies. Reproductions .44 versions of the Colt '51 are also bogus.

Now, as to your stated price difference between the '60 Army and the '51 Navy. I do not know why there is such a disparity, but they are not the same pistol. Aside from Caliber, the '60 Army has different cosmetics, and is larger in size than the Navy.

Frankly, your choice in buying this pistol is going to involve numerous personal preferences. Many like the fit of the '60 Army (larger grip especially) and its more potent caliber. However, the Navy covers a broader historical period - if that's important you. I often tell people who want to purchase just one "Cowboy" or "Civil War" type revolver of the BP era - I tell them buy a .36 Navy with a Steel Frame. You can carry it in 1850s type events, Civil War period and well beyond. There are accounts of people still carrying C&B Navies as late as 1880 (see the writings of Roger McGrath).

Also, contrary to many folks' understanding, neither the 1860 Army or the 1858 Remington (in .44) was available to Union Forces in the CW prior to late 1861 or 1862. Model dates do not always correspond to available dates or actual usage.

Historically speaking, the Navy Colt is almost ideal for a variety of historical interests.

 

[rafterob]

I have the 1858 .44 pietta NMA. and am very happy with it. It is very good quality, machined well and fun to shoot. That price is good if it is steel framed.

 

[Pete Gaimari]

I agree the 51 has a lot of history and a certain appeal that the 60 doesn't. Probably due the Wild Bill more than anything. It's great for squirrels.

With that said. I find the 60 much more comfortable to shoot with my big paws.

 

[54mountain]

I've owned both an 1851 civilian in 44cal and an 1860 army, hands down the 1860 is the better pistol. My only problem with Pietta Is that they will not go off reliably using CCI caps(all I can get around here) without reworking the nipples or replacing them with a good after market version such as Treso brand.

 

[kwilfong]

FWIW Dixie has a sale on their steel framed Pietta '51 Navy for $185. I'm just waiting for my Christmas bonus :grin:

 

[CaptainKirk]

Since I own all three of the pistols you are considering, I will throw my two pence into the mill pond...
1858 Remmy:
Very nice, strong frame revolver. I have ZERO problems with the cylinder pin sticking when using Pyrodex P, which is non-progressive fouling, even after an afternoon of shooting. (That last specially for you, Pete!) Nipples are a bit of a tussle to cap with a straight line capper unless modded (as discussed in an earlier thread.
Sights are easier to use being a groove in the backstrap, as opposed to a notch in the hammer. The grip is slim and thin, nice for smaller hands, and allows for all three fingers to curl around it. Loading lever stows nicely and functions well. If I had to count on one in battle, this would be the one I'd grab.

1860 Army:
This is a full sized gun with a large grip. The creeping loading lever is a bit of a mystery still; feeling awkward. You need a hunk of wood or similar to pop the barrel wedge loose, and once you re-seat it, you have to be careful tapping the wedge back in as it can close up the gap between the cylinder and forcing cone easily and lock up the cylinder. Mine has the sweetest, lightest action of an BP pistol I've ever handled...might be due to the many hours spent snoothing and shaping the sear and hammer when building. I like the brass blade front sight the least of all my guns. Still, this is a man's gun when loaded with a .44 conical and 35 grains of "P".

1851 Navy:
I hated this gun when I bought it. Action was terrible; fit & finish sloppy. The only thing I liked was the looks. After a total makeover, this little .36 is one of my faves ever!
Capper is dead-nuts on this one; this gun points better than any other BP pistol I've ever handled. Look at a distant object. Close your eyes. Now, raise the gun and point where you THINK it should be....Open your eyes, and...BINGO! The grip is fat but short. You can squeeze it with two fingers and curl your pinky under the grip. For some reason, I find this comforting and easy to control?
The loading lever is sorta loose and sloppy, but not unpredictable like the '60. Even with a conical and full charge of powder it's mild on recoil...pleasant to shoot. The front sight is merely a pointed brass rod..simple, effective, and graceful. The gun has an "Old School" look with it's slab sides, octagon barrel, and brass grip frame. Pick one up and handle it and you can understand why Wild Bill made them his choice. Yee Hah!

In the end, the choice is yours. I STRONGLY suggest you handle one of each before making an impulse buy. They DO all feel different. Good, but different.
:grin:

 

[guad42]

Though I was not a huge fan of my own Pietta Remington, one thing I did like about it over the Colts was the manner in which the cylinder is removed - I have always found this a great alternative.

I would also say that I remember my Remington was a more natural fit for me - grip size really nice, than either my Navy or Colt Army.

If faced with the choice again, I would take the Remington over the '60 Army, but I would still chose the Navy over either. If I had another Remington I would defarb it and have the front sight taken down a bit as the modern reproductions have a larger front sight.