Starr revolvers

[Mike Brooks]

I'd like to get one of these for cowboy action shooting....maybe a pair. I'll have to have single action for this game. Anybody own one of these? Do they work? Are they dependable? How do they fit the hand? Anything like a colt? How about the double actions? Can they be used as a single action?
Any information would be helpfull.

 

[mykeal]

I'd like to get one of these for cowboy action shooting....maybe a pair. I'll have to have single action for this game. Anybody own one of these? Do they work? Are they dependable? How do they fit the hand? Anything like a colt? How about the double actions? Can they be used as a single action?
Any information would be helpfull.

I own a Pietta Starr single action, made in 2001:

It is not, to my hand, a comfortable grip. It seems a bit smaller than the medium frame Colts (1851 Navy, 1860 Army, etc.) and more 'slanted forward', if that makes any sense. The grip seems small for the overall frame and it has a distinct 'barrel heavy' feel when held 'duelist'. In fact, the balance point is just forward of the cylinder mid-point like many Colts, but the frame places the grip further aft in relation to that balance point so that the impression is that it is barrel heavy.

Sights are the rudimentary Colt-fashion hammer notch and blade front; however, the long frame aft of the cylinder and hammer result in a longer sight radius than any of the medium frame Colts. It has an 8" barrel.

The long barrel and frame would seem to me to make it difficult to holster and unholster, especially with the small grip.

As shooter I have no complaints. The front blade is not large but it's well shaped so it's not difficult to acquire the target. It cocks easily and fairly quickly; the half cock notch is very early and the hammer is not clear of the frame in half cock. Full cock is about the same amount of hammer throw as the Colts. The action is solid and smooth for the most part.

Pietta's execution of the design is good to very good on my example. Finish is very dark blued steel with walnut grips. Fit is excellent with one exception. The gun is a top break as you probably know, with the break point secured by a threaded pin through a double lap joint. Once the pin is unscrewed and removed the gun opens readily for removal of the cylinder like most such designs. However, the pin on my gun is quite difficult to screw in once the frame is closed. The head of the pin is large but the holes do not line up properly and starting the pin threads takes quite a bit of effort.

The cylinder can be loaded in place in the gun. The loading lever throw is not sufficient to load light loads; I'm sure it will be necessary to supplement loads below 20 gr with filler in order to get the ball to seat.

Personally, I would not choose a Starr for Cowboy Action shooting. However, that's a matter of personal choice. You may find the unusual grip/frame geometry and resulting balance quite comfortable, in which case the long sight radius will be a benefit.

Ed: In reading my post I notice I failed to address dependability. To be honest I've fired just about 100 rounds with this gun in 5 years. It's not my favorite percussion revolver simply due to the comfort issue I mention above. Initially I found it hard to get through a full cylinder due to cap jams. There is no mechanism for shedding whole or broken caps. The hammer face is flat and does not capture the caps, and there is a substantial amount of room between the nipples and the recoil frame so the caps can fall away. The indent in the frame for capping the cylinder is well placed to allow that to happen, so it shouldn't be a problem, but in my case caps or pieces of caps tended to get between the bottom of the cylinder and the frame, which jammed the gun. CCI No. 11 caps were the worst; Remington No. 11's worked quite a bit better but the problem still occurs occasionally.

 

http://www.sassnet.com/About-What-is-SASS-001A.php

 

[David Teague]

While I have no real opinion about the Starr (other than Clint Eastwood made it famous in Unforgiven), my question is "Why did this topic get moved from the Pistol forum?

It's a percussion revolving pistol.

David Teague

P.S Mike, go with a brace of 51 (or 61) Navys. Wild Bill Hickok personal choice (and mine :redface: )

 

[Mike Brooks]

http://www.sassnet.com/About-What-is-SASS-001A.php

Thanks , I'm already a active member of SASS. :thumbsup:

 

[Mike Brooks]

P.S Mike, go with a brace of 51 (or 61) Navys. Wild Bill Hickok personal choice (and mine )

I already have a pair of "51 and '61 navies as well as a pair of '60 armys with navy grips.....just looking for a reason to buy another set of pistols...as if I really need any reason. :haha:
I'd have a devil of a time trying to chose a favorite pair amongst my pairs of colts. I feel like a woman trying to select with pair of shoes I'll wear before I go to a shoot every sunday....Now lets see, .36 or.44. Ivory grips or wood...round barrels or octagon :haha:

 

[Mike Brooks]

By the way Moderators, Starr pistols are Civil war era percussion and should stay in the pistols section, NOT the non muzzleloading section.... :slap:

 

[Poor Private]

If your looking for a pair of pistols get a set of Roger&Spencers'. good feel nice weight, and unusal enough that everyone will be wondering what your firing.

 

[David Teague]

By the way Moderators, Starr pistols are Civil war era percussion and should stay in the pistols section, NOT the non muzzleloading section.... :slap:

Ya... I was wondering about that.

I picked up one of the 5 1/2 inch 1871 Army Conversions this summer in 45 Colt and blasted though 700 or so pyrodex handloads. I'd like to pair it up but... I have other items I want to buy... Too many shooting sports not enough money :surrender:

Cheers,

David

 

[Mike Brooks]

If your looking for a pair of pistols get a set of Roger&Spencers'. good feel nice weight, and unusal enough that everyone will be wondering what your firing.

Next on the list after the Starr. :thumbsup:

 

[mykeal]

If your looking for a pair of pistols get a set of Roger&Spencers'. good feel nice weight, and unusal enough that everyone will be wondering what your firing.

Strongly agree. :thumbsup:
R&S would be a much better choice than a Starr.

For more about the Starrs, both SA and the DA model, see Mike Cumpston's book, Percussion Pistols And Revolvers: History, Performance and Practical Use.

 

[mykeal]

Some 47,000 Starr single and double action percussion revolvers were produced between 1861 and 1864. It was the third largest firearm contract let by the Union during the war. Why does it not qualify for discussion in the Pistols subforum as a traditional percussion gun?

 

[Zonie]

Boy! I take some time off to go to the Winter Nationals and miss all of the excitement here.

I should mention that I merged the other post by mykeal into this post. That's it right above this one. :grin:

Yes, the Starr is the same kind of Cap & Ball gun as the Remington and Colt (with a few exceptions).

They offered a double action gun as early as 1858 as well as the single action style and they had round barrels.

I've never shot one of them but the grip looks very uncomfortable to me.

As for the reproductions they seem to use some Remington parts.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

I've only fired two of the single action version and one of them had major timing issues--essentially it was unuseable. The other worked fine, but the balance and grip feel are odd to anyone used to Colt Army and Navy models or even Remingtons. The bad one was returned for a refund I believe. I would much prefer the Rogers & Spencer myself.

 

[Mike Brooks]

I suppose it's just their "odd" looks that attracted me to them. If I can find a deal on one or two I'll probably pick them up out of curiosity's sake if nothing else. The spiller and burrs are on the list too.
Heck, I already have more Colts than I can shoot. :haha:

 

[mykeal]

Heck, I already have more Colts than I can shoot. :haha:

Obviously you need to give them good homes where they will be lovingly used on a frequent and regular basis. :grin:

 

[Mike Brooks]

Heck, I already have more Colts than I can shoot. :haha:

Obviously you need to give them good homes where they will be lovingly used on a frequent and regular basis. :grin:

Either that or I need to quit working so much and spend more time at the range. :haha:

 

[mykeal]

One last post on this thread to correct an error in one of my earlier posts.

The Mike Cumpston book that contains a chapter devoted to the Starr revolver is actually
Percussion Revolvers: A Guide to Their History, Performance, and Use . This is a sequel to the book I referenced in my earlier post which does not have the chapter mentioned. Apologies for any inconvenience.

Cumptson disavows this second book due to a dispute with the publisher over errors in the proofed edition. Ironically, one of the more glaring errors is the misspelling of the name of the Starr revolver throughout the chapter. To my mind it's an excellent book, although one must overlook some rather obvious proofreading errors.

As regards the Starr double action revolver, Cumpston was generally very negative as these excerpts demonstrate:

I titled my chapter on it " Treason with a Hair Trigger" from a statement by an army officer to the effect that whoever had foisted this revolver on the military should be hanged for treason. The same could be said of the Pietta replicas.
Excerpts:
"the function of the modern replicas frequently sends contemporary purchasers casting about for somebody to lynch. One owner summed it up with a commendable economy of words, 'Mine was a piece of junk.' "

" Early reviews identified a number of deficits in the replicas with the most frequent being that they would not fire. Some buyers found that caps would not fire without multiple hammer strikes - or would not fire with any number of hammer strikes. "

"Another major problem was the pervasive tendency of the action to fail to function. The action was either locked up upon arrival or would seize tight after a few shots."


Ours had a broken trigger return spring (as did an original we examined) This part was impossible to find in the United States and we cobbled up a replacement from another design. The barrel/cylinder gap was something like .030" which bled off considerable velocity and gave wild shot to shot spreads. The action locked up frequently. We had to shim the nipples to get any sort of ignition and then had to relieve the breach to be able to get caps on them. Except for all the Pietta literature on the barrel, it was very prettily finished.

"In the world of engineering disasters, the Starr double action is definitely one.
Clint Eastwood used a Starr-apparently a single action, in the movie, The Unforgiven."