The Dragoons: Which one?

[Oregon Bill]

Those of you shooting  a Colt Dragoon, which model do you have -- Whitneyville, First, Second or Third -- and do you like/dislike about it?

[Major 2]

I'm fond of the looks of the Whitneyville

However, the 3rd has the last improvements of the model ... I.E. Flat mainspring VS V main ,  Square Bolt knotches w/ ramps VS Oval & improved lever latch

I've owned a few Walkers , so the Whitneyville Dargoon is a natural
I also a 3rd. Mod.  all were 2nd Gen. Colts

I've never owened a Whitneyville Dargoon so if I were to spring for one.... that be the one.

[Oregon Bill]

Thanks for the thoughts Major. Ever heard of anyone breaking a mainspring on the First or Second model? Are they all as prone to cap jams as the Walker?

[Sacramento Johnson]

Howdy!
I have used a second model Dragoon from Uberti.  I liked the looks of the square trigger back more than the oval; and there was no difference to me in use between the two.  That is the only difference I could find between the second and third models as made by Uberti.  (Check out Uberti's web site as well, where they mention their differences between the 3 models).  Never cared for the first model Dragoon (or Walkers for that matter); the oval cylinder notches didn't seem as secure as the later rectangular ones with ramp, (and I had no interest in tying up the loading lever with a leather thong on the Walker to keep it from falling).
As for cap jams; had that problem with original nipples and ill-fitting caps.  Changed over to tresos and Remington #10 caps and that problem largely disappeared.

The only 'down' is the weight; if you're going to carry on a belt, be prepared for some serious weight.  Pick you gun leather carefully to minimize discomfort.

[Oregon Bill]

Thanks Sacramento. Have you ever had the loading lever fall open on your Second model?

[Mako]

Thanks Sacramento. Have you ever had the loading lever fall open on your Second model?

It won't happen, the latch is excellent.  That problem is pretty much relegated to the U.S. Model 1847.

~ Mako

[Mako]

Oregon Bill,
Now you have remember we are talking about Ubertis at this point, unless you find an older 2nd Gen Colt's (actually uses Uberti parts) or Armi San Marco when we talk about U.S. Model 1847 or 1848 reproductions.  So let's talk Ubertis...There are really only seven accumulative differences from the 1847 through the 3rd Model 1848 (even though I have eight bullets).

• The Cylinder on the  U.S. Model 1847 is longer than all the others
• The U.S. Model 1847 has a 9" barrel all others have a 7 ½" barrel
• The 1847 does not have  latch on the end of the loading lever, it uses a spring with a detent up by the pivot point.  Standard Uberti spring catches allow the lever to fall under heavier recoil.  Reworking the catch shape can all but eliminate this problem
• All Uberti U.S. Model 1848 1st through 3rd models and the "Whitneyville Hartford Dragoon" have the same lever latch which is the older "vertical" tab style which appeared on the 1st model 1848.  Strangely, examples of original Colt's "Whitneyville Hartford Dragoon" have the newer "horizontal " sliding latch as you see on all Colt's percussions pistols following the 2nd Model 1848 (look at any 1851 or 1860 to see the latch design).  The horizontal latch became standard on the original Colt's  3rd model.
  
• Uberti  Model 1847 and the "Whitneyville Hartford Dragoons" share the same frame, grip frame shape, trigger  guard, iron back strap (all 1848 models have brass back straps) and grip wood.
• Model 1847 and the "Whitneyville Hartford Dragoons" share the same "V" spring, all other 1848 models 1st through 3rd models  have the same leaf spring.  (On the original Colt's this change didn't take place until the 2nd Model 1848.)
• The U. S. Model 1847, "Whitneyville Hartford Dragoons", U.S. Model 1848 1st models have the oval bolt stop notch and a round pin bolt stop.  All others have the Rectangular notch with a lead-in and a "rectangular" bolt with a curved top.  This is true for both Ubertis and Colt's.
• The 3rd model 1848 has an oval trigger guard, all others have the square back on the trigger guard.

From reading the title of your post you seem to have already narrowed it down to the U.S. Model 1848 and the model the collectors call the "Whitneyville Hartford Dragoon."  With Ubertis you really only have four choices beginning with what I find most people think or find important.

• Trigger guard shape.  A lot of people find the square trigger guard eats their hand.  Either in drawing the pistol, or under recoil.  Under heavy loads it may roll back in your hand and the edge hits the middle finger on the way back down.  This depends on hand size, load and the grip you use.
  
• Spring shape.  Some people have problems, or simply don't like dealing with the "V" spring.  Once you understand how to clamp it, it's really not a problem.
• Bolt stop shape. I have no problems with the oval stops, I guess if you were shooting two handed like some of the smokiless shooters with pipsqueak .38 spl loads you might over run the stop.  This can actually be a problem with any percussion revolver because of the hand design.  The two stage hand on the post percussion  Colt's pattern pistols actually retards the forward rotation of the cylinder.  Personally I find no difference in the lock up between the Uberti Oval and "Rectangular" shaped bolt stop pistols.  I have an interesting tidbit of information about the older stop: It is stronger and has more engagement surface on one side than the "rectangular" stops.  Weird, huh?
• Grip frame, grip shape.  The "Whitneyville Hartford Dragoon" has the iron back strap and wood inletted into the frame like the 1847 model, the others all have the squared off shape all other Colt's model single action revolvers had from then until today.  You really don't feel a difference while holding them.  Try it with one and a 1st or 2nd model square back and it is almost impossible to tell with your eyes closed.

Personally I think the "Whitneyville Hartford Dragoon" is the best looking of the four.  I like the grip shape, it is more interesting looking.  I like the iron back strap, it is more interesting looking.  The only negative I have is the trigger guard with loads above 42 grains and a ball sometimes bites my middle finger knuckle, especially on my weak hand if it is sweaty and dirty. I have big hands, smaller hands may not be bit.

If you are leaning towards one of the first three pistols, shoot a square trigger guard pistol if you get the chance.  At the very least handle one and compare it to a 3rd model if it is available. Shoot it with your weak hand or hold it a bit looser with your dominate hand to see what it does.  Don't forget that during a match you draw and don't always have the time to rearrange the pistol in the optimum grip position that you do when shooting target.  Bias your test to make sure it's what you want.  Some people just choose the 3rd model, they reason that the trigger guard was changed for a reason.  That is a valid argument , even lower recoiling 1851s abandoned the square trigger guard for the oval shape in the later production models.

Regards,
Mako

[Sacramento Johnson]

Thanks Sacramento. Have you ever had the loading lever fall open on your Second model?

Howdy!
On one occassion, in the middle of firing a cylinder, with a 40 grain load, the lever dropped.  It did not happen there after with the same load, so I'm thinking it was a fluke. (I was told on another wire, the notch in the little 'hook' on the barrel could be made a little deeper with a file, and that would help, if this became a recurring problem.)  I never tried a higher load (the Dragoon can go to 50 grains), so can't say what that would do.  I usually used 35-40 grains of Goex Cowboy, with a lubed wonder wad between powder and ball.  (Now that Cowboy has been discontinued, I suspect I'll be going to 3F Goex.)

[Oregon Bill]

Great replies, guys. I asked about the lever dropping after watching Bottomdealing Mike's video on the Armi San Marco 3rd model, in which the lever dropped every shot. Glad to hear this is not a serious deficiency with the Ubertis.
I've owned a number of Ruger .44 Magnums with the dragoon trigger guard and never had an issue, perhaps owing to my medium-size mitts.
I have a line on a Cimarron 2nd Model; I like the Whitneyville, too, but honestly only about 240 of them were ever made, so it would be highly unlikely for a young Texans drifting toward Oregon circa 1850 to have one.
If the revolver comes through, I'll of course swap out the cones for Tresos.

[Mako]

...Never cared for the first model Dragoon (or Walkers for that matter); the oval cylinder notches didn't seem as secure as the later rectangular ones with ramp...

They can actually be just as secure.  There is actually deeper engagement and definitely more engagement depth on the entrance side.  Look at a "rectangular" bolt stop and where it actually touches and how much engagement there is.  There is a reverse taper on the bottom and the curved shape gives you a limited contact patch.  I have seen Uberti revolvers that can be turned backwards once the hammer is released and the hand is no longer fully blocking the movement because there is so little engagement.

The design concept for the rectangular stop is sound and theoretically has two advantages. The first is that it has the lead-in cut, the second is that the flat surface will give you a greater contact patch. The problem with the "round" pin of the original Patterson design carried through until the 2nd model 1848 was that the bolt stop notch could not be round.  The cylinder has to have fore and aft play to work correctly, so the notch concept with the larger circular cut allows the smaller radius bolt stop to move fore and aft while maintaining a surface contact patch between the two.

The stop slot was also angled to give more clearance between the notch and the chamber which was important with "steel" available in 1848.  We must remember a number of U.S. Model 1847 revolvers were damaged in the field due to ruptured cylinders.  The redesign of the 1848 made the cylinder shorter to limit the charge.  The notch redesign with the second model also addressed the cross section at the chamber to notch area.  This design also incorporated a lead-in cut to address the burr at the notch that often developed were it entered the cylinder. (With modern steel there is less propensity for a burr to develop.)

As far as "secure" goes, once engaged there is actually more engagement with the Uberti '47s and '48s I take apart.  I don't know about original Colt's '47s and '48s.  If any of you have any you will let me carefully disassemble and measure send me a PM.
These are shots of a sectioned '51 cylinder, the clearance will be less with the larger pistols because of the chamber size.  On Uberti cylinders all of the chambers are stepped down at the rear so you have more than enough clearance with a percussion chamber.




Regards,
Mako

[Stophel]

I have a "Whitneyville Dragoon".  Frankly, I am not impressed with the oval notches, at least on mine.  They look neat and all, but mine does NOT lock up securely by any stretch of the imagination.  The notches are really shallow, and the cylinder stop is essentially round, and only contacted the notch at one tiny point.  Those two conditions combined to make a gun where the stop very quickly ate up the already shallow notches and it would overtravel badly.  I have ordered a 2nd/3rd model cylinder (which I am STILL waiting for...) and a stop so that I can fit this better design to my gun.  IF the oval notches were deeper (like twice as deep), AND if the cylinder stop were better fitted so that you had a relatively flat surface contacting a relatively flat surface it would stop much more positively, and would probably be OK.

[Mako]

Great replies, guys. I asked about the lever dropping after watching Bottomdealing Mike's video on the Armi San Marco 3rd model, in which the lever dropped every shot. Glad to hear this is not a serious deficiency with the Ubertis.
I've owned a number of Ruger .44 Magnums with the dragoon trigger guard and never had an issue, perhaps owing to my medium-size mitts.
I have a line on a Cimarron 2nd Model; I like the Whitneyville, too, but honestly only about 240 of them were ever made, so it would be highly unlikely for a young Texans drifting toward Oregon circa 1850 to have one.
If the revolver comes through, I'll of course swap out the cones for Tresos.

Bill,
I wanted to post something on Mike's video when I saw his rod drop every shot.  That is a simple fix to a problem that pistol shouldn't have and it's going to leave everyone thinking that the lever dropping problem wasn't solved with the 1848 models.  Out of 5, I have never had one that dropped levers.  I was never impressed with the ASM, I actually still have three (no 1848s), one is a '47 and I don't consider it nearly as reliable as my Uberti.  I wish he had reshaped that notch an d mainly the catch end before the video. it gives people like you a bit of pause.  But I don't want to be labeled as someone who keeps pointing out the negatives on some well done videos.

I wouldn't worry about the number produced.  The 2nd model is the second rarest model, if you were worried about that then you needed to choose the 3rd model which had the highest production rate and also the highest survival rate to the present.  If you like the "Whitneyville Hartford Dragoon" then get it.  Just make sure the square back trigger agrees with you.

~Mako

[Mako]

I have a "Whitneyville Dragoon".  Frankly, I am not impressed with the oval notches, at least on mine.  They look neat and all, but mine does NOT lock up securely by any stretch of the imagination.  The notches are really shallow, and the cylinder stop is essentially round, and only contacted the notch at one tiny point.  Those two conditions combined to make a gun where the stop very quickly ate up the already shallow notches and it would overtravel badly.  I have ordered a 2nd/3rd model cylinder (which I am STILL waiting for...) and a stop so that I can fit this better design to my gun.  IF the oval notches were deeper (like twice as deep), AND if the cylinder stop were better fitted so that you had a relatively flat surface contacting a relatively flat surface it would stop much more positively, and would probably be OK.

Stophel,
We spoke of this once before.  Your notches are obviously not the correct depth.  In addition the bolt may not be sticking out of the frame far enough. When you get the chance get me three measurements:

• Measure the depth of the notches
• Measure how far the bolt sticks out of the frame 
• Measure the gap between the cylinder and the frame at the bottom. 

Look at the illustrations above, those are off of Uberti 1848s.  The Whitneyville Dragoon is definitely deeper.

Hope you have better luck in the future.

Regards,
Mako

[Stophel]

My oval notches are about .031" deep on the "stop" side, and about .045" on the "lead" side.  I know the stop is bottoming out in the notches (you can see the wear mark).  I would be fine with the oval notches if they were deeper.  I was afraid of ordering an oval notch cylinder for fear of getting the same thing again, so I thought I'd go for the square notches.  

My original cylinder notches are too beat up to use (as far as I'm concerned).  The poor shape of the cylinder stop/bolt was as big a problem (or bigger) than the notch depth. 

I'll get it going one way or another!   

[Mako]

My oval notches are about .031" deep on the "stop" side, and about .045" on the "lead" side.  I know the stop is bottoming out in the notches (you can see the wear mark).

Stophel,
That's only 2/3rds the depth it needs to be.  Average for two Whitneyville Dragoons and a 1847 Uberti is .043 on the stop side and .060 on the lead side.

One made in 2005 of a pair of 3rd models has shallow notches for a Uberti, the stop side depth is .037 and I don't know what the lead side is.  The other made in 1998 has a stop side notch of .040. 

I have some numbers for 1860 notches and they average .042" on the stop side the lead is all over the place because of the lead-in feature but the distance from the virtual cylinder face to the bottom averages .040.  That is the average for 6 Uberti 1860 models.  I have the measurements for two Pietta '60s that I can't lay my hands on this second.  I also have measurements for 2 1872s and a pair of Richards 2nd models in .44 Spl.  I was curious about those because they have "grown" the cylinders on those pistols.

I have a spreadsheet with dimensions like this for every revolver I measure, for some reason I think the full one is on a thumb drive at one of the offices.  The one I have here doesn't have all of the Navy model measurements I have been taking.

Your problem is definitely the notch depth.  Most Uberti bolts from the factory won't bottom out on any of their models.  That's one of the things I adjust with a new pistol, I try to get it just touching to maximize the life of the pistol.  You have to stone the relief on the top of the bolt that limits the engagement and then check to make sure the rear leg is still in the right position on the hammer cam.  It usually doesn't change how far the hammer lifts it, but it will engage sooner.  This doesn't change how long the bolt remains engaged to the notch as the hammer goes back. You may not even notice if you carefully fit the bolt, but it will move ever so slightly earlier in the hammer stroke.  If you had the hammer arc marked to where the bolt began to first move before modification the bolt will be at that same depth relative to the notch when the hammer is at that same point in the arc.

That is all about unlocking the cylinder.  To change the timing for bolt drop requires changing the bolt tail engagement to the cam.  That's a totally different subject. 

~Mako

[Springfield Slim]

With 50 grains both my 3rd model Uberti Dragoons will drop the levers, with 40 they don't. I even put in a stiffer spring on one, didn't help.

[Blackpowder Burn]

I have two Uberti 3rd Model Dragoons.  They both drop the lever frequently with 35 grains of Goex FFg.  With 40 grains, they drop the lever about 50% of the time. 

It's been recommended that I deepen the engagement groove, just haven't done it yet as I'm afraid of damaging it, since I don't have the proper tools.  I'm going to visit a gunsmith friend next week and we're going to work on it.

[Stophel]

I filed the notch in the barrel latch a little bit sharper and fitted the two parts together a little bit, and though I haven't shot it much, I had zero problems with the lever coming loose.

[Norton Commando]

Responding to the original question: which Dragoon do you prefer and why?

Well, I have and prefer the Uberti 3rd model Dragoon. I feel that it's the best of the lot primarily because of the rounded trigger guard. What's more, this model has the rectangular cylinder-stop grooves, which is perceived to be a better design, as compared to the oval stops. In my mind, the Witneyville and the 1st and 2cnd Dragoons are too much like the Walker, save the shorter barrel.  So if you already have a Walker and want something truly different, then the 3rd model Dragoon is for you. 

[Roosterman]

I have a pair of ASM 2nd model dragoons. I like them for just casual plinkage. They are too heavy for serious shooting. They will hold a hefty powder charge if you like that sort of thing. If I hada horsewith pommel buckets I'd probably use them more.