Uberti SAA

[6518John]

I bought this 9mm/.357 convertible (which is marked 9mm on the barrel). It came with two holsters and 300 rounds of .357 and .38 Special ammo, but I got it for the ability to shoot cheap 9mm ammo, which it does quite well.

It would seem to violate natural law to shoot 9mm in a SAA or a clone!

 

[sigp220.45]

It would seem to violate natural law to shoot 9mm in a SAA or a clone!

Hahaha! I know what you mean but I gave up reloading after an epiphany that I’ve always hated it and 9.99 9mm is hard to pass up! It goes bang and makes holes in the target so I’m fine with it!

 

[dsf]

Had my eyes on various old school SAA style revolvers.
Cattleman or something?
Probably looking at a 5.5” 45 Colt
Anyone with experience with these?
Piettas? Uberti?
I like the idea of the interchangeable 45 colt/45 ACP cylinder.
I also like the idea of the 357 mag/38 but obviously the mags and ACP weren’t around back when the originals were being made.

Any input would be helpful.
I’ll research the three and four click hammer styles.

Regarding the 3 or 4 click, if you find a 3 click you like it's fairly easy to convert. There are different methods, I buy a 4 click hammer and clip the dog leg off the trigger.

One model not mentioned yet is the Beretta Stampede. It uses a 3 click with a very slim transfer bar. Don't know that they're still being made, you can find them on line. Sometimes cheap if no one else is looking.

Their SAA type and a Bisley -






I'm not sure of the genealogy but presume they are a Uberti product. IIRC I paid about $450.00 for each.

FWIW, I have a few Pietta models and found them dimensionally closer to Colts in side by side comparison.

 

[Dvus]

Some outdated and frankly wrong info here.
1. Pietta and Uberti are not the same company, are not owned by the same company, and have no direct affiliation with each other. Pietta is not owned by the Beretta group.

2. The piettas of 20-30 years ago are not representative of what Pietta is manufacturing today. Pietta has considerably improved their quality and is now considered the best of the Italian repros almost universally among the SA crowd. The GW2 is highly regarded as the best Italian clone being made.

Uberti and pietta differ considerably not just in their firing pins and operating mechanism, they are also dimensionally different. The Uberti pattern is larger in several dimensions than a genuine Colt SAA and many parts are not interchangeable. USFA and Standard Mfg. both use the Uberti pattern, and many of their parts are also not interchangeable with genuine Colt parts.
Pietta stayed true to the Colt dimensions and some parts are interchangeable with a Colt SAA.

3. Uberti cheapened the Colt design in a few ways, one of which is the replacement of the staked boss that the Colt uses to retain the ejector housing to the barrel with a drilled and tapped hole into the barrel. Pietta is the only repro I'm aware of that, like Colt, uses a boss to afix their ejector housing to the barrel.

Literally the only reason I'd buy an Uberti over a Pietta is the calibers offered. Pietta doesn't have a .44 special SA that I'm aware of, while the Uberti model P is available in .44 special.

I bypassed all the Italian qc concerns by sticking with US manufacturers. I have a Colt, a USFA, and now a Standard Mfg on its way.
I'm not saying they don't each have their issues, but a broken hand spring on the SM or the rough internal finish on the Colt is easier to deal with than a soft steel frame.
The USFA is flawless of course. Find one of those if you can find one for a decent price.

While I agree with some points, others are not quite accurate. Point no.1 is spot on.
I agree with point no.2 up until where the Pietta is regarded as the best of the Itallian repros. I find Pietta's fit and finish to be of lesser quality compared to Uberti, but they did improve their materials. I also agree about the dimensions being different, but has been my experience that the Uberti is closer to the Colt, not the Pietta. I base this on the fact that I have a second gen. 45 ACP cylinder that I will swap into my Ubertis when I'm running low on .45 Colt ammo. It times and functions perfectly.
Point 3 is a valid point, but applies to both manufacturers, not just Uberti. They both cheapened the design. I'm not saying that either is cheaply made, both are excellent guns in their newer representations, but both have cut some corners to keep their guns affordable.

 

[stanmerrell]

I like to keep my eyes open for a few of the older models of Pietta that carry the Great Western II moniker...some of the case hardening on this era of revolvers is quite good, and I prefer it to the standard finishes you find today...

 

[silicosys4]

While I agree with some points, others are not quite accurate. Point no.1 is spot on.
I agree with point no.2 up until where the Pietta is regarded as the best of the Itallian repros. I find Pietta's fit and finish to be of lesser quality compared to Uberti, but they did improve their materials. I also agree about the dimensions being different, but has been my experience that the Uberti is closer to the Colt, not the Pietta. I base this on the fact that I have a second gen. 45 ACP cylinder that I will swap into my Ubertis when I'm running low on .45 Colt ammo. It times and functions perfectly.
Point 3 is a valid point, but applies to both manufacturers, not just Uberti. They both cheapened the design. I'm not saying that either is cheaply made, both are excellent guns in their newer representations, but both have cut some corners to keep their guns affordable.

Quality is something of a moot point in that the serious CAS crowd seems to prefer Rugers for hard use, but the purists tout the Great Western 2 as the best, most accurate repro made. You'll have to take up that argument with the CAS crowd.
As far as Uberti being closer to the Colt. That is simply not correct, and you'd know if you had a Pietta, a Colt, and an Uberti to swap around.

Take the cylinder out of your Uberti and try putting it in a Colt SAA. It won't fit.
A pietta cylinder will.
I have done this with my Colt and my USFA that follows the Uberti pattern and the USFA cylinder will not fit a Colt 2nd generation.
Uberti cylinders/frame window is bigger than a Colt, that's why a Colt cylinder will fit and usually work in an Uberti, but the bolt is going to be short for the cylinder stop notches because the cylinder is a smaller diameter.
Will it work? Yes.
Will it prematurely peen the cylinder stop notches and damage the bolt?
Probably.

The Uberti cylinder is several thousands bigger than the Colt. Some people tout the extra strength of the Uberti design though I have my doubts that there's enough extra metal to make a difference.

You'll have to elaborate on Pietta's corner cutting with their SA's. Uberti discarded the boss holding the ejector housing. Pietta retained it. How has Pietta cut corners compared to the original Colt SAA? I'm not saying they didn't, but if they did im not aware.

 

[03hemi]

I find the Taylor and the Pietta the lessor for quality too, Taylor being the worst. Cimarron the best then the Uberti. At least of the one's I've handled personally.

 

[.38SuperMan]

I bought a Cimarron Custer 45 several years ago. It was beautifully finished and the fit was excellent. The case hardening was beautiful as was the blue. Unfortunately I was unable to get it to shoot anywhere close to point of sim. Like one above post, it shot low and to the left. I know some of you will say it’s was me causing it but I e been shooting single action revolvers for fifty years and not had this issue. Hoping to correct it I experimented using different bullet weights, powders and loads but never resolved it.

In addition it had a hair trigger so light it was dangerous. I wound up contacting Cimarron and the sent a label to return it and fixed the trigger but didn’t resolve the sim issue. Customer service turned it around in about a week.

I wound up giving up on the POA issue and traded it and bought a Ruger Blackhawk. I’ve owned and currently own a number of Ruger and although not authentic they scratch my itch and I’ve never been disappointed with one.

Last week I was in a local gun shop/ pawn shop and they had the absolute most gorgeous SAA clone I’ve ever seen. They had a Standard Manufacturing SAA in 45LC. The case hardened frame was amazing as was the polishing and royal blue cylinder and frame. All screws were perfectly timed to line up exactly the same direction. Every detail was perfect. Of course it comes with a price, $2,100 but that’s less than a Colt if you can find one. It’s not a true Colt but so what. I may have to save my Pennie’s for one of those.

 

[Rodan]

I find the Taylor and the Pietta the lessor for quality too, Taylor being the worst. Cimarron the best then the Uberti. At least of the one's I've handled personally.

Taylor's doesn't manufacture guns, and neither does Cimarron.

Both Taylor's and Cimarron have marketed revolvers produced for them by both Pietta and Uberti.

 

[silicosys4]

Taylor's doesn't manufacture guns, and neither does Cimarron.

Both Taylor's and Cimarron have marketed revolvers produced for them by both Pietta and Uberti.

This, and if you are dead set on one or the other from a certain time frame like I was for a time, prepare to go down a rabbit hole, and bring a lunch.

 

[03hemi]

Taylor's doesn't manufacture guns, and neither does Cimarron.

Both Taylor's and Cimarron have marketed revolvers produced for them by both Pietta and Uberti.

I never said they did, they're only produced by Uberti in varying qualities, tolerances and finishes.
Taylor being the cheapest and worst and Cimarron being the highest with the best fit and finish. The Pietta is a different mfgr. and is between the two in quality.

 

[STORMINORMAN]

It would seem to violate natural law to shoot 9mm in a SAA or a clone!

Pietta's new(er?) King Trio model ought to just drive you crazy, then...

It comes with THREE cylinders and handles FOUR calibers! 357 Magnum & 38 Special (of course), a second for 9mm and a third for 38 Super!

Cheers!

P.S. Sounds like a reloader's dream (especially as I already enjoy the Pistolero in 45 Colt).

 

[dsf]

Pietta's new(er?) King Trio model ought to just drive you crazy, then...

It comes with THREE cylinders and handles FOUR calibers! 357 Magnum & 38 Special (of course), a second for 9mm and a third for 38 Super!

Cheers!

P.S. Sounds like a reloader's dream (especially as I already enjoy the Pistolero in 45 Colt).

What - no 9X23?

Pass.

 

[dsf]

FWIW I've found QC issues on Uberti, Pietta, Colt, and what I presume are Italian made USFA and the long gone American Western Arms. A 2nd Gen Colt was the absolute worst for roughness. A Pietta was the only one with a flaw that prevented it from functioning - a burr in the window for the hand to pass prevented the cylinder from rotating. Easy fix of course.

FWIW, these are Italian made earlier USFA -





Cost about $700.00 each.

 

[BC38]

I just recently picked up a 5-1/2" El Patron in 38/357.
I gather it must be a newer one because the action only clicks 3 times as you cock the hammer.
I haven't had a chance to take it to the range yet, so I can't comment on how it shoots, but that is something I intend to rectify in the very near future.
All that being said, I found this post quite timely and will be following it with great interest.

 

[Warren Sear]

Here are pictures of my two Cimmeron SAA revolvers, both made by Uberti, and both with the old style "4-click" actions.

The long barreled one is in 45 Colt, has a "blackpowder" frame, and has walnut grips. The short barreled one is in 44-40, has the "smokeless" frame, and has fake stag grips.

I shoot only home cast lead bullet loads in both guns, and both guns shoot to point of aim, and work perfectly.

 

[shil]

I have an Uberti-made SAA, an EMF Hartford Artillery. It's a good gun, fun to shoot. I, too, had the trigger/lock bolt spring break. A Colt replacement dropped right in.

 

[Oil Field Trash]

I've owned Uberti, Pietta, in BP and cartridge versions. SAA,s, Open Tops and 1860 Army's. All good firearms, some tweaking along the way. If you ever come across an Armi San Marco, however, run! Starte out in SASS with a pair of these and they make better paperweights than trying to keep them timed.

 

[Grayfox]

Over the years I've owned a couple of Uberti SAA clones. Excellent guns that shot well. Never had any problems with them. Unfortunately, the traditional Colt style plow handle grip doesn't get along with my old, arthritic hands. For my cowboy fix, I now have these. Both were made by Uberti and I have been very pleased with them.

 

[03hemi]

Regarding the 3 or 4 click, if you find a 3 click you like it's fairly easy to convert. There are different methods, I buy a 4 click hammer and clip the dog leg off the trigger.

One model not mentioned yet is the Beretta Stampede. It uses a 3 click with a very slim transfer bar. Don't know that they're still being made, you can find them on line. Sometimes cheap if no one else is looking.

Their SAA type and a Bisley -


View attachment 708236

View attachment 708237

I'm not sure of the genealogy but presume they are a Uberti product. IIRC I paid about $450.00 for each.

FWIW, I have a few Pietta models and found them dimensionally closer to Colts in side by side comparison.

This is my Stampede in smoked nickel on top.
You can see how yellow it is compared to the Vaquero in bright stainless on bottom.

 

[Bill Lear]

I've been a single-action fan since long before it was cool, or the internet was even a thought on the horizon. The first gun I ever purchased was a Ruger Blackhawk 357 magnum 4-5/8' from Wal-Mart for the princely sum of $112. This was a then "New Model" that had only recently been introduced, ditching the 3-screw design for the newer, 2-pin version with built-in transfer bar, and the cylinder being unlocked by opening the loading gate - albeit slightly "off" from the gate opening so one always has to manipulate the cylinder slightly to align it for ejection or admission of cartridges. [Genuine Colt pattern revolvers index perfectly at half-cock] Of course Ruger built their SA reputation on guns that can take the hottest charges you can stuff into the case - true for the .357M, but not quite so for the .44M as I discovered a few years later while hot-rodding handloads.
Genuine Colts have long been too expensive for anyone but devotees to own, and they end up in display boxes rather than riding on hips in holsters which is what happens when owning a particular gun becomes more about status than need. Luckily, way back in the 1960's Spain, then Italy, even Germany saw the market for "cheap" single-actions - a market they serve to this day, but as with everything, they've had to up their quality, which just happens to coincide with advanced manufacturing methods not even imagined 60 years ago.
I got my first Dakota revolver "kit" from EMF along about the '80s and applied an interesting, pale, "rust blue" that certainly looked nothing like the real thing, but it was fun and it was a genuine, 3-screw, C.O.L.T single-action and needed no apology. I was impressed that Sam'l Colt had managed to shoehorn such a powerful cartridge into such a compact package. I've also always been fascinated that the .45 bore cartridge seems perfect for all the needs of a handgun at such low chamber pressures. One never doubts that touching off a 45 Colt round will resolve all issues.
Over the eons I've amassed my share of single-action 1873s, Uberti, Pietta, never Colt because I just can't drop that kind of money on a gun I will never shoot because it's a born safe queen.
I've also dabbled in black powder C&B revolvers - even carried an Uberti 1860 Army chopped to 6" loaded with Buffalo Bore 180gr. conicals over all the fffG I could stuff in the chambers behind 'em!
So all this brings me to my one, major pet peeve about single-action "lore" or perhaps mythology that doesn't just persist, it's been repeated so much by faux experts, it's taken on the trappings of truth, though not even, or ever true at all!
That's the myth of loading an 1873 with five rounds and leaving an empty chamber. I don't know where it started, but it seems to have really gown wings in the internet era.
Let's consider real facts. The 1873 Colt followed on the highly successful 1860, and 1851 model C&B Colts. Those revolvers came into existence when the standard "handgun" held just ONE shot. If EVER anyone was going to come up with the notion of only loading five shots, it would have been when stepping UP to a multishot handgun with the mindset that 5 shots beats one shot! But that is not how the entire C&B era unfolded. They loaded their C&B pistols to the max - a full 6 shots and they didn't all have special cylinder pins, and only Remington offered between chamber notches, but they loaded ALL SIX and eased the flat-faced hammer down on STEEL between chambers! Even in the highly, HIGHLY unlikely event the cylinder might get rotated with the C&B hammer down on the space between chambers, it was unlikely to detonate a cap!
So then comes the mighty 1873! A genuine step forward in terms of an extremely powerful, self-contained metallic cartridge! Revolvers were chambered for six rounds. To load only five would be to place themselves at a major disadvantage to the man carrying an 1860 with all six chambers loaded! Plus, since the entire concept of lowering the hammer between chambers was WELL KNOWN with C&B revolvers, it didn't take rocket scientists to wonder, "Why not load SIX chambers on my 1873 and just ease the hammer firing pin down in between cartridge rims?" That's not exactly college degree reasoning considering they already had a superhighway blueprint to the idea! And you know what they discovered? They discovered the 1873 firing pin will sit quite nicely and securely in the space between cartridge rims! it's no more complicated than loading all six chambers with the hammer on half-cock, then rotating the cylinder to the mid-point and easing the hammer down with a slight rotation forward or back to "feel" the firing pin drop into the space. Once there the cylinder is effectively LOCKED from rotation until the hammer is cocked to fire. THIS is how the 1873 was loaded and carried "back in the day," because to do otherwise was to deliberately disadvantage oneself when one's life depended on that shot!
The entire rational used by the 9mm crowd is that 2 extra mediocre rounds are BETTER than more powerful rounds, so WHY would anyone think our ancestors were somehow less savvy than today - in an age when depending on a gun for survival was a lot closer to reality than today!
I know I would not have carried a brace of "six-shooters" with only 10 shots between 'em, and don't today.

[When I carry a pair of FN FiveSeven pistols I don't carry them with just 20 rounds in each gun, I carry them with 21 rounds in each gun! Sure, 2 "extra" rounds out of 40 may SEEM a bit overboard to those who've never exchanged shots with another human, but I want EVERY SHOT POSSIBLE loaded up and ready!
And that's just a 5% reduction in shots available]

When my 1873s are loaded they're FULLY loaded with all six chambers filled and the hammer set down between rims, just as my ancestors did.
The further myth of carrying one's "burying money" in the empty chamber which presumes everyone carrying a revolver was somehow living on the edge, is equally idiotic. Unless they ascribe to the fatalistic notion that since they're only loading five shots, they'll NEED to be buried when the other guy pumps "lucky number 6" into their face! We won't even delve into the foolishness of having a plug of rolled up paper in a chamber to confound reloading when in dire need to get the gun recharged and back in action.
I'm all for the "lore" of the old west, but fact is, NOBODY deliberately walked around with 17% FEWER shots on tap, any more than they would today!

Again, this is a pet peeve of mine that has been growing over the last few decades as I see more and more "experts" and pretend experts and pretend expert sycophants faithfully regurgitate such patent nonsense.

And one last point, when I chose to carry a G17 with a +2 mag for 20 shots all up, I don't carry 17 shot reloads, I carry 30 shot reloads x 4! Understanding the logic behind carrying all the rounds you can LOADED should clarify the foolishness of ever choosing to carry a piddling 5 shots when you COULD have had SIX! Indeed the difference between a trip to "Boot Hill" or having one's scalp lifted!

 

[silicosys4]

I've been a single-action fan since long before it was cool, or the internet was even a thought on the horizon. The first gun I ever purchased was a Ruger Blackhawk 357 magnum 4-5/8' from Wal-Mart for the princely sum of $112. This was a then "New Model" that had only recently been introduced, ditching the 3-screw design for the newer, 2-pin version with built-in transfer bar, and the cylinder being unlocked by opening the loading gate - albeit slightly "off" from the gate opening so one always has to manipulate the cylinder slightly to align it for ejection or admission of cartridges. [Genuine Colt pattern revolvers index perfectly at half-cock] Of course Ruger built their SA reputation on guns that can take the hottest charges you can stuff into the case - true for the .357M, but not quite so for the .44M as I discovered a few years later while hot-rodding handloads.
Genuine Colts have long been too expensive for anyone but devotees to own, and they end up in display boxes rather than riding on hips in holsters which is what happens when owning a particular gun becomes more about status than need. Luckily, way back in the 1960's Spain, then Italy, even Germany saw the market for "cheap" single-actions - a market they serve to this day, but as with everything, they've had to up their quality, which just happens to coincide with advanced manufacturing methods not even imagined 60 years ago.
I got my first Dakota revolver "kit" from EMF along about the '80s and applied an interesting, pale, "rust blue" that certainly looked nothing like the real thing, but it was fun and it was a genuine, 3-screw, C.O.L.T single-action and needed no apology. I was impressed that Sam'l Colt had managed to shoehorn such a powerful cartridge into such a compact package. I've also always been fascinated that the .45 bore cartridge seems perfect for all the needs of a handgun at such low chamber pressures. One never doubts that touching off a 45 Colt round will resolve all issues.
Over the eons I've amassed my share of single-action 1873s, Uberti, Pietta, never Colt because I just can't drop that kind of money on a gun I will never shoot because it's a born safe queen.
I've also dabbled in black powder C&B revolvers - even carried an Uberti 1860 Army chopped to 6" loaded with Buffalo Bore 180gr. conicals over all the fffG I could stuff in the chambers behind 'em!
So all this brings me to my one, major pet peeve about single-action "lore" or perhaps mythology that doesn't just persist, it's been repeated so much by faux experts, it's taken on the trappings of truth, though not even, or ever true at all!
That's the myth of loading an 1873 with five rounds and leaving an empty chamber. I don't know where it started, but it seems to have really gown wings in the internet era.
Let's consider real facts. The 1873 Colt followed on the highly successful 1860, and 1851 model C&B Colts. Those revolvers came into existence when the standard "handgun" held just ONE shot. If EVER anyone was going to come up with the notion of only loading five shots, it would have been when stepping UP to a multishot handgun with the mindset that 5 shots beats one shot! But that is not how the entire C&B era unfolded. They loaded their C&B pistols to the max - a full 6 shots and they didn't all have special cylinder pins, and only Remington offered between chamber notches, but they loaded ALL SIX and eased the flat-faced hammer down on STEEL between chambers! Even in the highly, HIGHLY unlikely event the cylinder might get rotated with the C&B hammer down on the space between chambers, it was unlikely to detonate a cap!
So then comes the mighty 1873! A genuine step forward in terms of an extremely powerful, self-contained metallic cartridge! Revolvers were chambered for six rounds. To load only five would be to place themselves at a major disadvantage to the man carrying an 1860 with all six chambers loaded! Plus, since the entire concept of lowering the hammer between chambers was WELL KNOWN with C&B revolvers, it didn't take rocket scientists to wonder, "Why not load SIX chambers on my 1873 and just ease the hammer firing pin down in between cartridge rims?" That's not exactly college degree reasoning considering they already had a superhighway blueprint to the idea! And you know what they discovered? They discovered the 1873 firing pin will sit quite nicely and securely in the space between cartridge rims! it's no more complicated than loading all six chambers with the hammer on half-cock, then rotating the cylinder to the mid-point and easing the hammer down with a slight rotation forward or back to "feel" the firing pin drop into the space. Once there the cylinder is effectively LOCKED from rotation until the hammer is cocked to fire. THIS is how the 1873 was loaded and carried "back in the day," because to do otherwise was to deliberately disadvantage oneself when one's life depended on that shot!
The entire rational used by the 9mm crowd is that 2 extra mediocre rounds are BETTER than more powerful rounds, so WHY would anyone think our ancestors were somehow less savvy than today - in an age when depending on a gun for survival was a lot closer to reality than today!
I know I would not have carried a brace of "six-shooters" with only 10 shots between 'em, and don't today.

[When I carry a pair of FN FiveSeven pistols I don't carry them with just 20 rounds in each gun, I carry them with 21 rounds in each gun! Sure, 2 "extra" rounds out of 40 may SEEM a bit overboard to those who've never exchanged shots with another human, but I want EVERY SHOT POSSIBLE loaded up and ready!
And that's just a 5% reduction in shots available]

When my 1873s are loaded they're FULLY loaded with all six chambers filled and the hammer set down between rims, just as my ancestors did.
The further myth of carrying one's "burying money" in the empty chamber which presumes everyone carrying a revolver was somehow living on the edge, is equally idiotic. Unless they ascribe to the fatalistic notion that since they're only loading five shots, they'll NEED to be buried when the other guy pumps "lucky number 6" into their face! We won't even delve into the foolishness of having a plug of rolled up paper in a chamber to confound reloading when in dire need to get the gun recharged and back in action.
I'm all for the "lore" of the old west, but fact is, NOBODY deliberately walked around with 17% FEWER shots on tap, any more than they would today!

Again, this is a pet peeve of mine that has been growing over the last few decades as I see more and more "experts" and pretend experts and pretend expert sycophants faithfully regurgitate such patent nonsense.

And one last point, when I chose to carry a G17 with a +2 mag for 20 shots all up, I don't carry 17 shot reloads, I carry 30 shot reloads x 4! Understanding the logic behind carrying all the rounds you can LOADED should clarify the foolishness of ever choosing to carry a piddling 5 shots when you COULD have had SIX! Indeed the difference between a trip to "Boot Hill" or having one's scalp lifted!

I don't need to carry six shots bad enough to put a massive turn ring on my SA revolvers..

 

[Bryan Austin]

Always have been an Uberti fan....all my SA Revolvers are shot, no safe queens.

TODAY.....

 

[sandog]

A couple more Cimarron Uberti's :
5 1/2" with "Old West" antique finish, and a 7 1/2" with 7th Calvary and U.S. Gov. markings.