Uberti quality

Dustin746 · August 19, 2012, 12:58 AM

I was looking at some of Uberti's guns and they seem pretty good quality. Could anyone tell me if they're worth the money?

DunRanull · August 19, 2012, 03:26 AM

I have had several uberti revolvers and carbines. If youre asking will they shoot and stay in one piece, yes they do. Also their parts dept seems to be very helpfull when I misplaced some percussion nipples. Not complaints on any of their stuff, including .44 mags.

jmortimer · August 19, 2012, 10:13 AM

Quality is good. Yes they are worth the $$$. Depends on what you want. They are good for SAAMI spec 14k psi. I think the Ruger Vaquero would be worth considering as it is has a safety and is good to 20k psi. The Cimarron's made by Urberti are good choices as well. Check out Long Hunter as they sell tuned guns for not much more than stock guns. http://www.longhunt.com/ The Taylor guns from Long Hunter are worth consideration as well.

Bob Wright · August 19, 2012, 01:59 PM

Uberti single actions DO have a safety. There is a trigger acuated hammer block built into the hammer. When the hammer is drawn to the safety notch, a lever engages the hammer block located just below the firing pin and bears against the frame. This is an effective and unobtrusive safety, and really I prefer it over the transfer bar safety of the Ruger, as it gives the hammer a more pleasing profile.

The one I just bought last week is my third Uberti Single Action, and by-and-large, I've had good experience with these guns.

Bob Wright

327 FM · August 19, 2012, 08:11 PM

I may be in the minority, but I have had bad luck with spaghetti guns. Parts seem to break rather easily. I only buy American anymore.

gak · August 19, 2012, 11:16 PM

Bob Wright said:
" Uberti single actions DO have a safety. There is a trigger acuated hammer block built into the hammer. When the hammer is drawn to the safety notch, a lever engages the hammer block located just below the firing pin and bears against the frame. This is an effective and unobtrusive safety, and really I prefer it over the transfer bar safety of the Ruger, as it gives the hammer a more pleasing profile.The one I just bought last week is my third Uberti Single Action, and by-and-large, I've had good experience with these guns."

While I would agree that the recent years' Ubertis especially are fine guns--I love my ca 2008 Cimarron Model P--the "safety" in no way equates to Ruger's transfer bar in that I'd never suggest loading six in the Uberti (not talking the Beretta Stampede line here). In that respect, these "safeties" have entirely different functions.
If you want SAA look and feel and are on a sub-$850 or so budget, Ubertis are hard to beat. Not a problem one with mine.

mes228 · August 20, 2012, 03:09 PM

I've not shot any I've owned enough to break them. However, one aspect of Uberti has been outstanding. Every one I've owned shot close to the aiming point. This has been the exception with "Cowboy" type revolvers I've owned. Almost all were not sighted "in" from the factory and needed work on the front sight, barrel turning etc. to shoot to point of aim. None of the Uberti products did, all shot to point of aim from the factory. I'm talking about Italian reproductions, not Ruger. All the Ruger's have been quite good.

Bob Wright · August 20, 2012, 04:50 PM

Quote:

While I would agree that the recent years' Ubertis especially are fine guns--I love my ca 2008 Cimarron Model P--the "safety" in no way equates to Ruger's transfer bar in that I'd never suggest loading six in the Uberti (not talking the Beretta Stampede line here). In that respect, these "safeties" have entirely different functions.

Both safties are designed to prevent accidental discharge if the gun is dropped or the hammer is struck in such a way as to possibly fire the gun. In this respect both work the same way, to prevent hammer movement enough to fire the round. The Uberti safety is akin to the Colt Positive safety, in that it serves as a hammer block. True, with the Uberti, the hammer must rest in the safety notch, but is is nonetheless safe.

As for me, I never rely on any safety device, load only five rounds, empty chamber under the hammer, Ruger, Colt, Uberti or whatever.

Bob Wright

drail · August 21, 2012, 07:41 AM

Clint Eastwood seems to like them a lot LOL. Transfer bars and hammer blocks do use different methods to achieve the same function but both work equally well. And the hammer block doesn't degrade the trigger pull nearly as much. S&W has used them since before most of us were born and no one complains much about their SA trigger feel. IMO S&W's trigger will always be much better than Ruger's although the Ruger can be improved considerably by a skilled smith. But if you try to take all of the creep out of a Ruger SA's trigger the transfer bar usually ends up lacking enough travel to really cover the firing pin. My experience with parts breakage on "spaghetti guns" has been limited to only the flat springs they use. But the orginal Colts were just as bad in that regard. Bill Ruger solved that problem by using coil springs in his design. Coil springs have much longer life. A Ruger with a transfer bar is perfectly safe with a round under the hammer but loading only five is a very old tradition that will probably never die. Just like the SA revolver.

dgludwig · August 21, 2012, 11:22 AM

Quote:

As for me, I never rely on any safety device, load only five rounds, empty chamber under the hammer, Ruger, Colt, Uberti or whatever.

I certainly "rely" on a properly designed "safety device", which is why I carry a da revolver fully loaded, a 1911 pistol "cocked and locked", a Glock pistol with a round in the chamber-and a Ruger Vaquero loaded with six rounds.

No, I do not trust any safety device so implicitly that I would ever abandon common sense safety rules, i.e., no finger on the trigger until ready to shoot; never pointing a gun at something you don't want destroyed; always treating a gun as though it was loaded, etc.

ltc444 · August 21, 2012, 11:58 AM

A friend of my got a Ubetili in 1972. Single action Peacemaker clone. It shot well. he still has the piece and it shoots well after untold number of rounds including my Hunting loads.

drail · August 21, 2012, 01:19 PM

dgludwig, loading 5 rounds in a SA revolver was done for safety in case the gun was dropped and landed on the hammer and while it's not really necessary with most modern SA revos it had been accepted practice for almost 150 years. A great many people over the years managed to hurt themselves (and their horses) by not following the practice. It's going to take a very long time for the practice to go away. And it doesn't hurt anything to only load five. And you have to admit a revolver with an empty chamber under the hammer is safer than a Glock or a 1911.

dgludwig · August 21, 2012, 03:33 PM

Quote:

...while it's not really necessary with most modern SA revos...

And that's my only point.

Quote:

And you have to admit a revolver with an empty chamber under the hammer is safer than a Glock or a 1911.

If you practice the rules of gun safety-and there's no excuse for not doing so-a revolver equipped with a transfer bar (which is the configuration I addressed when referencing "relying" on a "safety device") with the hammer over an empty chamber is no "safer" than a loaded Glock or 1911 pistol-or a Vaquero loaded with six rounds. If we were to follow your line of thinking to the extreme, we wouldn't load the gun at all. And you have to admit that an unloaded gun is safer than a loaded revolver with an empty chamber under the hammer...

Bob Wright · August 21, 2012, 04:21 PM

Quote:

As for me, I never rely on any safety device, load only five rounds, empty chamber under the hammer, Ruger, Colt, Uberti or whatever.

Bob Wright

As to my statement, I was referring to western style single action revolvers. As to modern Smith & Wessons, I have carried them fully loaded with no qualms.

Sorry if I misled onyone.

As to loading five rounds in my Blackhawks, I reckon my many years experience with traditional single actions has ingrained my practice of loading only five rounds to the point where it carries over to the newer Ruger single actions.

Bob Wright

Hawg Haggen · August 21, 2012, 04:25 PM

Quote:

loading 5 rounds in a SA revolver was done for safety in case the gun was dropped and landed on the hammer and while it's not really necessary with most modern SA revos it had been accepted practice for almost 150 years.

More like 58 years but it's not a bad idea.

Bob Wright · August 21, 2012, 04:29 PM

Quote:

More like 58 years but it's not a bad idea.

How did you arrive at that?

My uncle carried a Colt Navy in making his "rounds" (delivering moonshine) and one night emptied his Colt of all five rounds shooting at an apparition.

Bob Wright

Hawg Haggen · August 21, 2012, 04:35 PM

It may have been done by a few earlier than that but it was I think in 1954 some numbnuts dropped a Ruger and it went off and hit him in the leg and he sued Ruger and won. That's when all the hullabaloo about loading five really got started.

Bob Wright · August 21, 2012, 05:47 PM

I

Quote:

t may have been done by a few earlier than that but it was I think in 1954 some numbnuts dropped a Ruger and it went off and hit him in the leg and he sued Ruger and won. That's when all the hullabaloo about loading five really got started.

I hate to dispute your word, but I knew of men who carried single actions long before anyone ever heard of Ruger, and they all loaded an empty chamber under the hammer.

Even with the old top-break Belgian revolvers it was advised to do the same, as they had no safety devices at all.

Bob Wright

Hawg Haggen · August 21, 2012, 06:21 PM

When I was young in the 60's the old timers told me to let the hammer down between cartridges like the C&B revolvers.

Bob Wright · August 21, 2012, 07:26 PM

Quote:

When I was young in the 60's the old timers told me to let the hammer down between cartridges like the C&B revolvers.

I've heard of folks doing that, but it left the bolt pressing against the cylinder side instead of resting in the locking notch. Never trusted that way of carrying.

Bob Wright

Malamute · August 27, 2012, 05:18 PM

Keith wrote about Colts being carried with 5 rounds from way back. He said the old timers he knew carried them with 5. He mentioned a couple guys he knew of that had carried 6, and had stirrups fall on the hammer spur when saddling a horse, sending a bullet through their leg. The heavy stirrup sheared the hammer notch (safety notch) and fired the gun. It's by no means something cooked up in the 50's.

I persanally know of a guy that carried an old model Ruger single six fully loaded, and managed to have something hit the hammer when out doing fence work. He ended up losing the leg.

drail · August 27, 2012, 07:11 PM

Yup. The first mass consumers of SA revolvers were the comboys and trail hands. A great many of them learned all about carrying a round under the hammer the hard way. A lot of cowboys would roll up their paper money and keep it in the empty chamber.

Crazy88Fingers · August 28, 2012, 12:51 AM

Fun fact: Wyatt Earp, early on in his career as a lawman, would load his revolver with six rounds. He was leaning back in his chair in a saloon one day when his gun slipped out of the holster and nearly put an extra hole in him.

That's how he learned.

MJN77 · August 28, 2012, 01:16 AM

Quote:

A lot of cowboys would roll up their paper money and keep it in the empty chamber.

Where did you hear that? Can you imagine what a dollar bill would look like if you rolled it up, put it in a chamber of a revolver, and fired off one or five black powder cartridges (no smokeless in the old west) from the same gun? With all the flame and smoke, there wouldn't be much left.

As for the load five debate, in 1882, Pat Garrett (shot Billy the Kid in 1881) published a book (The Authentic Life of Billy the Kid) that was a romanticised account of the life and death of the kid. In the last chapter, Garrett wrote about venturing in to see the Kid's body on the floor. He said, "We examined his pistol-a self cocker( double action, colt thunderer), calibre .41. It had five cartridges and one shell in the chambers, the hammer resting on the shell, but this proves nothing, as many carry their revolvers in this way for safety; besides this shell looked as though it had been shot some time before" So at least in 1882, Garrett knew "many" that carried five rounds in their guns, but not everyone did.
Now, I own over a dozen Uberti guns, both rifles and revolvers and I love them all. Great guns.

Jim March · August 28, 2012, 01:54 AM

Using an empty shell in one chamber under the hammer would make particularly good sense with the Thunderer as it was a fairly fragile gun and that practice would reduce the risk of outright dry-firing it when he ran out.

If that's what he was doing, I would be willing to bet that was why.

August 19, 2012, 12:58 AM	#1
Dustin746 Member Join Date: May 8, 2012 Location: SE Alabama Posts: 32	Uberti quality I was looking at some of Uberti's guns and they seem pretty good quality. Could anyone tell me if they're worth the money?

August 19, 2012, 10:13 AM	#3
jmortimer Junior member Join Date: January 24, 2010 Location: South West Riverside County California Posts: 2,765	Quality is good. Yes they are worth the $$$. Depends on what you want. They are good for SAAMI spec 14k psi. I think the Ruger Vaquero would be worth considering as it is has a safety and is good to 20k psi. The Cimarron's made by Urberti are good choices as well. Check out Long Hunter as they sell tuned guns for not much more than stock guns. http://www.longhunt.com/ The Taylor guns from Long Hunter are worth consideration as well. Last edited by jmortimer; August 19, 2012 at 02:38 PM. Reason: Post Below - RE: Saftey

August 20, 2012, 03:09 PM	#7
mes228 Senior Member Join Date: July 19, 2005 Posts: 555	Uberti I've not shot any I've owned enough to break them. However, one aspect of Uberti has been outstanding. Every one I've owned shot close to the aiming point. This has been the exception with "Cowboy" type revolvers I've owned. Almost all were not sighted "in" from the factory and needed work on the front sight, barrel turning etc. to shoot to point of aim. None of the Uberti products did, all shot to point of aim from the factory. I'm talking about Italian reproductions, not Ruger. All the Ruger's have been quite good.

August 21, 2012, 07:41 AM	#9
drail Junior member Join Date: February 2, 2008 Posts: 3,150	Clint Eastwood seems to like them a lot LOL. Transfer bars and hammer blocks do use different methods to achieve the same function but both work equally well. And the hammer block doesn't degrade the trigger pull nearly as much. S&W has used them since before most of us were born and no one complains much about their SA trigger feel. IMO S&W's trigger will always be much better than Ruger's although the Ruger can be improved considerably by a skilled smith. But if you try to take all of the creep out of a Ruger SA's trigger the transfer bar usually ends up lacking enough travel to really cover the firing pin. My experience with parts breakage on "spaghetti guns" has been limited to only the flat springs they use. But the orginal Colts were just as bad in that regard. Bill Ruger solved that problem by using coil springs in his design. Coil springs have much longer life. A Ruger with a transfer bar is perfectly safe with a round under the hammer but loading only five is a very old tradition that will probably never die. Just like the SA revolver. Last edited by drail; August 21, 2012 at 07:59 AM.

August 21, 2012, 04:35 PM	#17
Hawg Haggen Senior Member Join Date: September 8, 2007 Location: Mississippi Posts: 10,238	It may have been done by a few earlier than that but it was I think in 1954 some numbnuts dropped a Ruger and it went off and hit him in the leg and he sued Ruger and won. That's when all the hullabaloo about loading five really got started. __________________ http://blackpowdertimes.com/index.php

August 19, 2012, 03:26 AM	#2
DunRanull Junior member Join Date: April 24, 2005 Location: Southern Colorado, where a small working knowledge of southwestern Hispanic culture is considered polite. Posts: 99	I have had several uberti revolvers and carbines. If youre asking will they shoot and stay in one piece, yes they do. Also their parts dept seems to be very helpfull when I misplaced some percussion nipples. Not complaints on any of their stuff, including .44 mags.

August 19, 2012, 01:59 PM	#4
Bob Wright Senior Member Join Date: July 10, 2012 Location: Memphis, Tennessee Posts: 1,248	Uberti single actions DO have a safety. There is a trigger acuated hammer block built into the hammer. When the hammer is drawn to the safety notch, a lever engages the hammer block located just below the firing pin and bears against the frame. This is an effective and unobtrusive safety, and really I prefer it over the transfer bar safety of the Ruger, as it gives the hammer a more pleasing profile. The one I just bought last week is my third Uberti Single Action, and by-and-large, I've had good experience with these guns. Bob Wright

August 19, 2012, 08:11 PM	#5
327 FM Member Join Date: July 3, 2012 Posts: 48	I may be in the minority, but I have had bad luck with spaghetti guns. Parts seem to break rather easily. I only buy American anymore.

August 19, 2012, 11:16 PM	#6
gak Senior Member Join Date: February 28, 2005 Posts: 2,715	Bob Wright said: " Uberti single actions DO have a safety. There is a trigger acuated hammer block built into the hammer. When the hammer is drawn to the safety notch, a lever engages the hammer block located just below the firing pin and bears against the frame. This is an effective and unobtrusive safety, and really I prefer it over the transfer bar safety of the Ruger, as it gives the hammer a more pleasing profile.The one I just bought last week is my third Uberti Single Action, and by-and-large, I've had good experience with these guns." While I would agree that the recent years' Ubertis especially are fine guns--I love my ca 2008 Cimarron Model P--the "safety" in no way equates to Ruger's transfer bar in that I'd never suggest loading six in the Uberti (not talking the Beretta Stampede line here). In that respect, these "safeties" have entirely different functions. If you want SAA look and feel and are on a sub-$850 or so budget, Ubertis are hard to beat. Not a problem one with mine.

August 21, 2012, 11:58 AM	#11
ltc444 Senior Member Join Date: March 3, 2011 Location: Vernon AZ Posts: 1,192	A friend of my got a Ubetili in 1972. Single action Peacemaker clone. It shot well. he still has the piece and it shoots well after untold number of rounds including my Hunting loads.

August 21, 2012, 01:19 PM	#12
drail Junior member Join Date: February 2, 2008 Posts: 3,150	dgludwig, loading 5 rounds in a SA revolver was done for safety in case the gun was dropped and landed on the hammer and while it's not really necessary with most modern SA revos it had been accepted practice for almost 150 years. A great many people over the years managed to hurt themselves (and their horses) by not following the practice. It's going to take a very long time for the practice to go away. And it doesn't hurt anything to only load five. And you have to admit a revolver with an empty chamber under the hammer is safer than a Glock or a 1911.

August 21, 2012, 06:21 PM	#19
Hawg Haggen Senior Member Join Date: September 8, 2007 Location: Mississippi Posts: 10,238	When I was young in the 60's the old timers told me to let the hammer down between cartridges like the C&B revolvers. __________________ http://blackpowdertimes.com/index.php

August 27, 2012, 05:18 PM	#21
Malamute Senior Member Join Date: June 6, 2004 Location: Rocky Mts Posts: 740	Keith wrote about Colts being carried with 5 rounds from way back. He said the old timers he knew carried them with 5. He mentioned a couple guys he knew of that had carried 6, and had stirrups fall on the hammer spur when saddling a horse, sending a bullet through their leg. The heavy stirrup sheared the hammer notch (safety notch) and fired the gun. It's by no means something cooked up in the 50's. I persanally know of a guy that carried an old model Ruger single six fully loaded, and managed to have something hit the hammer when out doing fence work. He ended up losing the leg. __________________ "Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt-

August 27, 2012, 07:11 PM	#22
drail Junior member Join Date: February 2, 2008 Posts: 3,150	Yup. The first mass consumers of SA revolvers were the comboys and trail hands. A great many of them learned all about carrying a round under the hammer the hard way. A lot of cowboys would roll up their paper money and keep it in the empty chamber.

August 28, 2012, 12:51 AM	#23
Crazy88Fingers Senior Member Join Date: November 20, 2010 Location: Florida Posts: 799	Fun fact: Wyatt Earp, early on in his career as a lawman, would load his revolver with six rounds. He was leaning back in his chair in a saloon one day when his gun slipped out of the holster and nearly put an extra hole in him. That's how he learned. __________________ "And I'm tellin' you son, well it ain't no fun, staring straight down a .44" -Lynyrd Skynyrd

August 28, 2012, 01:54 AM	#25
Jim March Senior Member Join Date: February 14, 1999 Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA Posts: 7,015	Using an empty shell in one chamber under the hammer would make particularly good sense with the Thunderer as it was a fairly fragile gun and that practice would reduce the risk of outright dry-firing it when he ran out. If that's what he was doing, I would be willing to bet that was why. __________________ Jim March