View Single Post
Old February 24, 2013, 02:48 PM   #7
Doc Hoy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Naples, Fl
Posts: 5,440
Someone who knows, please do us a favor...

First of all, Welcome to the forum.

I will describe what I know about these revolvers which will give you a hint as to why you are getting the responses you are.

There is a site which you should visit right away for some good gouge.

www.1960NMA.org

FAL intended to manufacture these revolvers in the 19th century under license (I think it was a licensing arrangement) from Colt.

The drawings were the actual drawings provided by Colt and so the specs were (I think) identical to the Colt 1860 Army. I don't know about the metalurgy. I also don't know if any revolvers were actually made in the 1800's under that license.

Then in the middle of the twentieth century, the resurgence of interest in cap and ball revolvers, drove FAL to re-release the revolver based upon the drawings they still had.

They called it the 1960 New Model Army. It was very high in quality for the period of manufacture. But what is notable is that is it a truer representation of the original revolver than even the Imperato sponsored second and third gen Colts.

To find an unfired one is rare and boy it you got the box and papers with it, it is a real find.

It is easily worth the 325.00 you would pay for a new Uberti but in the end you would be well advised to buy a shooter since this revolver should be considered to be a collector revolver and should be handled as little as possible.

I have one. (SN952) I like it but in truth it does not perform all that much better than the other 1860 clones I have. Make no mistake. I would not part with it, but I don't shoot it any more.

Others on the forum are better informed on these excellent revolvers and I am hoping soemone will wade in and confirm or debunk what I have said.

In short, don't let that revolver out of your sight.
__________________
Seek truth. Relax. Take a breath.
Doc Hoy is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.03588 seconds with 8 queries