YaaHooo! My new Open Top!

[Steel Horse Bailey]

Li'l Jimmie, it sure would be cool to see your holster and my  new O/T (or yours, if you get one) get together!  I've already talked to Dave Scott about it.  There may be one for me in the new future.

[Montana Slim]

Lemme figger out the photo thing and I will.

Jeff, send me the revolver & I'll take ya some dandy pictures of it 

Slim

[Steel Horse Bailey]

Jeff, send me the revolver & I'll take ya some dandy pictures of it 

Slim

Go ahead ... jes wait fer it a bit ...

[Steel Horse Bailey]

I'm hopin' for some picture magic to come my way this weekend, so I can show my toy off.  It sure feels nice in the hand and looks real purty, too.

Doggone that rear sight is little, 'tho!  For some reason I can see the sights on my 1860 better than this new toy ... maybe owning it and shooting it a lot since the mid '70s has sumthin' to do with that!  Ya think?

[Coffinmaker]

Steel Horse,

The Open Top is problematic with the Barrel/Cylinder gap.  The root of the problem is the bore the Arbor fits into is drilled too deep by the factory.  Before you attack the back of the barrel to correct the gap, stop by your local hardware and pick up a package of 5mm split washers (there is a permanent fix).  You only need one.  Drop the split washer down the bore and sorta center it up and push the barrel and frame together.  Tap the wedge in 'till everything is snug and measure the gap.  Somewhere around .005/006 will be about right.  You should be able to leave the wedge where it stops snug.
There is a more permanent fix but the split washer works in most cases and is somewhat cheaper and simpler.  The first step to pure happiness with any Uberti built Open Top is to fix the Barrel/Cylinder gap.

Coffinmaker

[Abilene]

The '51 conversions originally had a very short brass post front sight, same as the '51 percussion guns.  A few years ago Uberti started putting a taller brass post on the conversions to make them shoot closer to POA.

[Steel Horse Bailey]

Swampy, howdy!

The "bad" sights on these C&B revolvers that "everyone" talks about has an historical reason for being.  Don't forget that the 1851 and especially the 1860 & 1861 series were made with military use in mind.  As most Line-Infantry reenactor types can tell you,  "back in the day" (think pre- and during the beginning of the [un]Civil War) the Grunt, issued with a rifle, not a pistol - only officers, Cavalry, and other specialty troops had revolvers, could - starting with a loaded rifle, fire then re-load and fire 3 more times in a one minute time period.  This was their performance standard of back then, just as we have "times allowed" for various military tasks today; an example is having 15 seconds to properly put on, clear, and wear the M17 series or M25 series protective soldier's mask. (Gas mask; gag bag, etc.)  This is practiced until it becomes 2nd nature (they hope!)  Anyway - back to 1860.  Concurrently, the general standards for starting the "charge" toward the enemy was approximately 200 yards.  In 200 yards a soldier could walk - at "charge" speed which was a fast walk, not running, but close and certainly not moseying.  That 200 yard "charge" took around  60 seconds to get from 200 yds to about 75-50 yds from the enemy.  Are you seeing the relationship yet?  At that one minute mark, one side had advanced from 200 yds to about 65 yds at the same time the opposite men had been able to fire, load, repeat 3 times.  Then the OIC (Officer In Charge, NCOIC, MFIC whomever) would command the standing line to "fix bayonets."  It is at this juncture of about 60 seconds, 200 yds. etc. that the officers then had 6 more shots each to keep putting out fire while their men were frantically fixing the bayonet to meet the onrushing survivors. 
And now you know why those Martial pistols originally had itty-bitty front sights that were actually MORE accurate beyond 50 yds than the 25 feet or so us 20th Century shooters use them.  So an Uberti or Pietta or whoever's replica is simply being historically correct with guns that seem to shoot "so high" for us who shoot at 15 to 50 feet rather than the 25-75 yards that Colt designed them to do.

I hope I haven't ruffled an feathers or bored anyone to death but I enjoy relating this bit of weapon trivia I've learned about.  It kinda makes you look at those old coal-burners differently, and I think you can also understand why Colt & Remington and all started putting tall blade sights on their pistols.  Then, in a non-military setting, the owner can file down any excess sight he or she doesn't need for the ranges they intend to shoot most commonly.

I can quote no one source for this tale; instead, I've woven it from various sources I heard it from over the last few decades since I got MY OWN 1860 (Uberti) Army and wondered "Why the Hell do I have to aim a foot under my tincan targets sitting about 20-25 feet away from me?" back in the mid-'70s.

[PJ Hardtack]

Coffin maker

Does that split washer fix apply to '71 Open Tops in .38 Spl. as well? My wife has one coming in the mail, with 5 1/2" barre;l. She says she MIGHT even let me shoot it, forgetting that I swapped a rifle for it and a nice commercial Colt NS.

[Mako]

...Now I'm worried, has there been reports of squirrels with bayonets in the woods of late?

SM

Mike,
You'd better take head shots, I have heard reports of zombie squirrels.  This only confirms it.  I need to move my build schedule up.

Mako

[Coffinmaker]

PJ,

Yep.  Applies to ALL versions of Uberti built Open Top guns.  The split washer is a quick, cheap, easy, "usually works" fix for the Arbor to Barrel fix.  There is a better way, but it takes some machining and hole drilling.  The split washer is for the folks that don't have access to machine tools.
The only "Open Top" guns I have seen where the Barrel/Arbor fit was addressed at Uberti is a pair of Type II conversions I have that had some form of material pounded into the bottom of the arbor hole.  I haven't seen that in any other guns to date.
If you can turn the barrel onto the arbor, and the back of the barrel slides past the front of the lower frame with the little pins, it needs to be addressed.  You may also have to clean up the arbor so it will slide all the way in without a fight.
If the barrel is really tight on the arbor and doesn't want to come off, take a spring clothes pin apart, turn the wood pieces backwards, align the bevel sides and tap them together (fancy wedge).  I charge my customers .03 cents for that little disassembly tool .  Doesn't leave marks on the frame.

Coffinmaker

[Steel Horse Bailey]

Swamp Mouse, I'm now surprised:  I thought EVERYONE had those bayonet-totin' zombie squirrels Mako mentioned!



Coffinmaker, that washer fix is a great one and I'm glad there are folks like you out there to fix these BigBoy ... or Girl toys for them.  This new OT I have seems to be a product made AFTER Uberti got tired of year's worth of griping from customers and 'smiths about bad arbor/barrel/wedge fitting issues.  This baby I'm so proud of is almost scary how well the fit & finish is - the barrel/arbor frame match-up and the fit of the wedge is absolutely rock-solid-dead-nuts on.  There are 3 other noticeable improvements I noticed.  All seem to be geared toward producing the best bang for the buck and a long lifetime of use.

Uh ... no.  I don't work for Cimarron, Uberti, Taylor's, or any other company that may sell these guns.  In 37 years I've had 3.9 Uberti products and they have been 99.8% flawless in operation ... and I still own all of them.  (Why 3.9%?  I have a 2nd Gen. Colt 1st Mod. Dragoon - it's not TOTALLY Uberti.  )  I realize that doesn't make me CLOSE to having a lot of experience like many more other folks here, but my choices are either good or lucky.

Thanks y'all for sharing my happiness and good fortune.  Now I gotta get that gun ready to shoot tomorrow!

[Mako]

Swamp Mouse, I'm now surprised:  I thought EVERYONE had those bayonet-totin' zombie squirrels Mako mentioned!

That's just great... Now the ZOMBIE squirrels have bayonets too.  What else have they been keeping from us?

~Mako

[Coffinmaker]

RPGs ............ DUCK!!!!!!!

[Steel Horse Bailey]

No ... Cofinmaker!  Zombie SQUIRRELS, not ducks!

[Mako]

Be very, very careful Swampmouse...  You need a new front sight.

[Steel Horse Bailey]

Makos,
I've never seen any squirrels like that around here . Both of those pictures are scary, especially the second one which looks real except for the eyes.

The only time I wish my 1861 Navy models were 1851 models is when it comes to changing the front sight.  I think I could do the rod sight myself, but I'm going to need a gunsmith to do the blade sights right. I talked to our department armorer, but he says he's really not really a gunsmith. He's a good guy and knows his limits. I need the name of a good gunsmith to change those sights out.  I started taking careful measurements of how high they shoot at 15 and 25 yards so he can figure out exactly how much higher they need to be.
SM

Swamp Mouse,

Now that our scary critter review is done, may I make a suggestion?  I confess to be an authenticity nut.  If it was done a certain way "Back then" I like it.  Some would call me a Luddite, but that's another story.  Anyway, please consider this;  and it will cost somewhat more than just getting a new blade and having it soldered on where the old sight was.  Go to a coin collector store and purchase a well-worn or nicer silver dime and be sure it's dated in the 1862 thru 1885 (or so) and have whatever 'Smith solder it in place.  You'll have your higher sight tailored to your wants & needs, plus it'll look waaaaaay cool and be done in a fashion precisely like one of the more popular ways it was done "back then!"

Then stand back and smile at all the admiring looks and comments regarding your new, VERY authentic, real silver front-sighted 1861 Colt!  (Plus, if you cut the dime right, you'll probably have plenty of dime to do another sight - should the need arise.  It's a win-win situation and shouldn't break the bank.)








Do you think YOU may be a Luddite?  Read this very interesting article from the "Smithsonian Magazine."

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/What-the-Luddites-Really-Fought-Against.html?c=y&page=1

[Mako]

Steel Horse,

That is a good suggestion but it will destroy the finish on his barrel.  If he wants to keep the original blued finish or at least not have to refinish it then there is at least one smith I know of that will stake a sight in just the way the original one was done.  He does, or at least did work for Cimarron.

There is also a third solution which is to dovetail a new sight in, I know someone who does those on these pistols as well. In fact he has a pair of converted 1861s with dovetailed sights on his page.

Regards,
Mako

[Steel Horse Bailey]

Mako, thanks for pointing that out.  I wonder how the folks who've done that to their guns that I've seen?  Maybe they had their guns refinished AFTER installing the sight.

Dovetailing would allow my suggestion, but might be more work/money than most would want.  Once upon a time, I did extensive mods to an 1858/63 NMA Remington that included cutting a dovetail for the lever-latch.  It was a PIA.  The whole gun job involved bobbing the barrel about 1.5" (due to a fault that the QC inspectors at Pietta missed totally ... and shouldn't have) a new front sight, opening up the nipple cutouts to accept a capper, plus general smoothing out the innards and modifying the mainspring, which MUST have come straight out of a 1927 Ford truck.  Did I mention that cutting a dovetail using only files is a PIA?

Anyway, good call, Mako.  But such a shame.  The few new guns done that way I've seen plus the antique ones sure looked cool !!  (And come to think, I don't remember the finishes on the new guns I've seen done that way.)

[Raven]

Steel Horse Bailey,

I think what Mako was suggesting was to replace the sight with a New Staked in sight just like the one now missing.
A staking tool must be made, but any competent gunsmith can make one.

The biggest cost involved is making the Staking Tool after that its easy and no reblue neccesary

Raven

[Steel Horse Bailey]

Steel Horse Bailey,

I think what Mako was suggesting was to replace the sight with a New Staked in sight just like the one now missing.
A staking tool must be made, but any competent gunsmith can make one.

The biggest cost involved is making the Staking Tool after that its easy and no reblue neccesary

Raven

Thanks, Raven.

I caught that.  I have always felt that a replacement sight made from a period dime was an awesome idea.  What I was referring to was this: my dime idea could be incorporated with a new dovetailed sight.  That way, by making the sight piece separately and cutting a dovetail slot/cut on the barrel could be done without needing to refinish the barrel - but as I also said, that could be a lot more trouble and expense than staking in a new sight.  Which would also be quite authentic.  As you said, making a staking tool isn't the hardest job in the world.  Matter of fact, 'tho I've only seen several staking tools, as used on 1911s for the front sight, plunger tube, and grip estuchions, I believe I'd rather do that with the experience level I have than do another dovetail cut using only files ... which I have done.

You are right of course.