Is Midway incorrect about their Uberti Cattleman '73 peacemaker Blk Pwdr version?

[Bill Akins]

Check out this link at Midway for the Uberti 1873 Cattleman Blackpowder model.

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/131...man-_-20160413

The ad says:

"Features

Steel frame
Made just like the original
Single action without the need for cartridges
The Uberti 1873 Cattleman Blackpowder model is manufactured by Uberti just like the standard cartridge 1873 Cattleman revolvers. It features a steel frame and is chambered in .44 caliber. It is a great option for people who want the look of the 1873 Single Action without needing to use cartridge ammunition. This 44 caliber percussion revolver has all the features a cartridge Colt Single Action Army revolver, but with a removable blackpowder cylinder. Authentic color case hardened steel frame, fluted cylinder, fixed sights and 1-piece walnut grips."

Unless Uberti has started changing their design on these, it was my understanding from reading many online posts and seeing pics of the differences,.....that the hammer was offset on these models so that it is practically impossible to use a cartridge cylinder in them. If that is still so, then Midway has it wrong and it is NOT:.... "Made just like the original" nor:..."The Uberti 1873 Cattleman Blackpowder model is manufactured by Uberti just like the standard cartridge 1873 Cattleman revolvers."

Which is it? Is Midway wrong or did Uberti start making their black powder '73 peacemakers to where the hammer is no longer offset so they will work with a standard (not a conversion cylinder) factory cartridge cylinder too?




.

[Hawg]

The hammers are offset. Maybe they should say made pretty dang close.

[Bill Akins]

Lol "pretty dang close" is right Hawg. The hammers being offset so they cannot use standard, factory (not conversion) cartridge cylinders,....was my long time understanding too Hawg. I just called Midway about it and they said they were going by the info sent to them by Uberti. I explained to the lady that they may have upset customers who were expecting to be able to swap out factory cartridge cylinders and wouldn't be happy to find out the ad is incorrect. She gave me a number to Uberti that does not work. Going to look up Uberti's U.S. number and call it now. Will let y'all know what I find out.


.

[Bill Akins]

After clicking on "Contact Us" at the Uberti site, I found out that the Uberti '73 peacemaker black powder models are imported by Stoeger who supplies them to Midway.

Stoeger Industries
Attn.: Service Department
901 Eighth Street
Pocomoke, MD 21851
Phone: (301) 283-6981

I called Stoeger and spoke with the Gentleman there and told him how Midway's ad says several times that they are made just like the cartridge models. He agreed that was incorrect and confirmed they are still made with an offset hammer that will not work with a factory cartridge cylinder. He said he would notify the rep who supplies Midway to get that corrected. I wasn't trying to be anal about Midway being incorrect on this, I was hoping against hope that Uberti had changed the design so factory cartridge cylinders could be used in them. Unfortunately, that was not the case.



.

[Jim Watson]

"Just like" as per the six foot rule.
It looks just like a real SAA from six feet away... if not cocked.

[Bill Akins]

Yep, as long as from six feet away you're at an angle and can't see the nipples.



.

[44 Dave]

I think these are made for the European market, where cartridge pistols are almost impossible to own.

[45 Dragoon]

The hammers are "in the middle" just like they're supposed to be. Everything about them is basically a Cattleman except the off set "firing pin" and off center location of the nipples.

Mike
www.goonsgunworks.com
Follow me on Instagram @ goonsgunworks

[foolzrushn]

If the hammers are 'in the middle' then where is the offset? Are nipples and hammer centered left to right, but in a different position vertically?

There is a firing pin on a nipple gun?

More clarification please. Surely I'm not the only one with questions.

If the Europeans were worried about these being used with a cartridge I guess that an offset to prevent using a cartridge cylinder would make sense. 44 Dave may be right about the intended market.

[Jim Watson]

There is a hammer projection kind of like a Remington's only offset to one side of the hammer.

I don't know about the European market but they make it possible for an American Commoner to bypass the FFL circuit and still get something that looks like a SAA.

[foolzrushn]

fire a percussion cap on a nipple, with a hammer that has a projection, such as those used on center fire cartridges?

[Hawg]

Pics here. http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...highlight=1873

[45 Dragoon]

Thanks Hawg!

Yap, the "firing pin" is off center and the nips are as well (duh!! Lol) the nipples screw into the right side of the chamber. Otherwise, it's just like a Cattleman (Uberti's version) the ASM and I think Pietta made/makes one as well. I also agree that they were (for the most part) for the European market (as I said above).
Since the Uberti's is basically a Cattleman, you can tune one to "El Patron" specs and have a fine shooter!!! (Actually, you can tune an ASM/ others the same way.)

Mike
www.goonsgunworks.com
Follow me on Instagram @ goonsgunworks

[Bill Akins]

What I'm wondering, is if someone milled out the frame's hammer/firing pin window to where a replacement cartridge hammer would line up with a cartridge cylinder's chambers, would it work? Or are the bolt cuts in the BP cylinder and the position of the bolt in the frame different to where you couldn't time it with a cartridge cylinder?




.

[Hawg]

You could but you would have to weld up the hole and install a firing pin bushing. If you mill it and leave it as is the hole will be so big it will automatically deprime the cases for you.

[44 Dave]

Wondering if the recoil shield has that raised ring of the open tops or the flat surface of the cartridge revolvers.

[45 Dragoon]

Yap, you'd have to duck every time you shot!

Mike
www.goonsgunworks.com
Follow me on Instagram @ goonsgunworks

[Bill Akins]

Hawg wrote: "You could but you would have to weld up the hole and install a firing pin bushing. If you mill it and leave it as is the hole will be so big it will automatically deprime the cases for you."

Yes, that's right. Of course! Duh, I should have caught that. Slipped right by me. Lol.

Considering all that work, it's not worth the trouble when a cartridge version can be had at the same price. Too bad though. It appeared to be so close to being able to be converted by swapping out the hammer and drilling the frame window straight for the replacement hammer, but since the frame is already milled at an offset for the percussion hammer's nose to match the offset nipples, drilling it straight would make the frame to hammer window so big the gas pressure would blow the primers out of the cases towards the hammer, just as Hawg described above.

Which makes me wonder if the primers would cock the hammer for you? Even if it did, the primer might fall down into the workings of gun and jam like an 1851 or 1860's Colt percussion caps sometimes do if you don't cock them with the barrel up. I'm still fascinated with the possibilities of using primer setback (or percussion cap blowback) to operate an action like Pedersen and Garand and others worked on so long ago but was never adopted by our military. No gas cylinder or tube, no piston, less weight. It works and makes for much less moving parts on a semi auto. Only problem is the action is dependent on the cartridge's loading always being the same so the primer will set back reliably the same each time. I think that's why the military lost interest in the system if I recall correctly. Too dependent/finicky on cartridge powder loads being consistent from shot to shot. Still....the system has possibilities that have never been used outside of not really unsuccessful experiments in the Pedersen and Garand era. Just because the military didn't adopt it doesn't mean such a system wouldn't have a civilian application. But that's all academic and really off topic. I only mention it because Hawg's mention of primers flying out reminded me of primer setback experimental operating systems.


.



.

[Hawg]

Wondering if the recoil shield has that raised ring of the open tops or the flat surface of the cartridge revolvers.

Flat.

[Jbar4Ranch]

Several years ago, I had one of these revolvers and tried a conversion. It's a simple matter to replace the offset firing pin with a centerfire one, and the cylinders aren't timed differently. To make it work properly, the offset hole in the recoil shield has to either be welded up and redrilled, or a bushing installed. I simply egged the side of the hole out a bit so the centerfire firing pin would go through and hit the primer. But, as previously mentioned, this creates a problem of the primers actually being blown back through the hole. This is bad enough, from a safety standpoint, but it also has a secondary problem that no one has mentioned yet - the gases blown back out of the case and through the recoil shield are of sufficient pressure and velocity to blow the hammer back and turn the cylinder, and it will keep firing as long as you keep the trigger pulled. Having become accustomed to not being behind bars and not wanting to put my welding and/or machining skills to the test, I reinstalled the offset black powder firing pin and original cylinder and continued to shoot it as designed until I sold it some years ago.

[Bill Akins]

Jbar4ranch wrote:

"....but it also has a secondary problem that no one has mentioned yet - the gases blown back out of the case and through the recoil shield are of sufficient pressure and velocity to blow the hammer back and turn the cylinder, and it will keep firing as long as you keep the trigger pulled".

I did mention that here Jbar.....

Bill Akins wrote:
".....drilling it straight would make the frame to hammer window so big the gas pressure would blow the primers out of the cases towards the hammer, just as Hawg described But, as previously mentioned, this creates a problem of the primers actually being blown back through the hole".

"Which makes me wonder if the primers would cock the hammer for you? Even if it did, the primer might fall down into the workings of gun and jam like an 1851 or 1860's Colt percussion caps sometimes do if you don't cock them with the barrel up. I'm still fascinated with the possibilities of using primer setback (or percussion cap blowback) to operate an action like Pedersen and Garand and others worked on so long ago but was never adopted by our military. No gas cylinder or tube, no piston, less weight. It works and makes for much less moving parts on a semi auto."

"Only problem is the action is dependent on the cartridge's loading always being the same so the primer will set back reliably the same each time. I think that's why the military lost interest in the system if I recall correctly. Too dependent/finicky on cartridge powder loads being consistent from shot to shot. Still....the system has possibilities that have never been used outside of not really unsuccessful experiments in the Pedersen and Garand era. Just because the military didn't adopt it doesn't mean such a system wouldn't have a civilian application. But that's all academic and really off topic. I only mention it because Hawg's mention of primers flying out reminded me of primer setback experimental operating systems".

I did realize if it worked, it would make the revolver full auto. But I took it as a given that everyone here knows how the single action peacemaker operates and knows if you keep the trigger depressed while thumbing or fanning the hammer it will continue to fire, just like it would continue to fire if one held down the trigger with primers or percussion caps cocking the hammer. So I didn't bother to include that in my post that thus modified, it would actually be legally classified as a fully automatic sub machine gun revolver since one function of the trigger would fire it and continue to fire it automatically until the trigger was released, just like you mentioned Jbar4ranch.

But what if the trigger/sear could be modified to where it had to be released to reset before the hammer could fall again? That would prevent it from being full auto and would just be semi auto legally. It would be VERY cool to have a single action 1873 peacemaker that you cocked the hammer for the first shot, and then fired the other five shots semi-automatically.

A couple of questions Jbar4ranch.

1. After you drilled your recoil shield's firing pin hole out to allow the firing pin on your new hammer to reach the cartridge primers, did you just theorize the blowing back primer could cock the hammer, or did it actually happen for you that your blown back primers cocked the hammer?

2. And with what frequency? Did it do it every time?

3. Were you using .45 Colt and what weight grain bullet backed up with how many grains of what powder? What brand of primers were you using?

4. If you actually experienced this (instead of it being a theory), did you have any problems with spent primers falling into the hammer's internal action and causing jams?

5. Were there any cylinder over-travel issues on lockup stemming from the cylinder being automatically so rapidly and violently turned?

Too bad you sold it after you drilled out the firing pin hole. I'd have loved to get my hands on yours to experiment with since you had already egged out the hole. If it would be possible to modify the sear so the trigger had to be released before the hammer could fall again, then you'd have a single action (for the first shot) and a semi auto action for the next five shots. That would be awesome! If I ever see one of these on the cheap, regardless of condition, I'd like to pick it up and experiment with it. And if it would do that with spent primers from cartridges, it should do the same thing with spent percussion caps. So you could have both a cartridge AND a percussion cylinder that both worked the revolver semi automatically. How cool is that? Just thumb back the hammer one time, then for the other five shots you don't have to cock it. I'm surprised no one has worked that out yet. A fascinating possibility that uses no new moving parts to make it semi auto, other than a modification to the trigger/sear to block the hammer from falling until the trigger was released from the last shot.


.

[Jbar4Ranch]

It's been a quite a few years back, so I don't remember the load or primer used, but they were .45 Colt, and likely light Cowboy Action reloads.

There was no theorizing, I stepped outside with 3 rounds in the cylinder, cocked the hammer, and squeezed the trigger. I heard one report, and definitely remember thinking it was odd somehow, like a short hang fire or somesuch, but don't recall recoil being severe. I cocked the hammer again, and got a "click" when squeezing the trigger. Upon emptying the cylinder, the first thing I noticed was there was no primer in the case visible under the loading gate when opened, which puzzled me a bit at first. After punching all three out, all three were missing the primers. I tried it one more time, with only 2 rounds, with the same result - one report, 2 rounds fired. No primers were recovered. These were the only 5 rounds I fired through it before re-installing the BP firing pin and cylinder.
I would think the cycling would be very violent and quite hard on a single action, and the gun likely wouldn't hold up very long under continued shooting.

[Bill Akins]

Jbar4Ranch wrote: "It's been a quite a few years back, so I don't remember the load or primer used, but they were .45 Colt, and likely light Cowboy Action reloads.

There was no theorizing, I stepped outside with 3 rounds in the cylinder, cocked the hammer, and squeezed the trigger. I heard one report, and definitely remember thinking it was odd somehow, like a short hang fire or somesuch, but don't recall recoil being severe. I cocked the hammer again, and got a "click" when squeezing the trigger. Upon emptying the cylinder, the first thing I noticed was there was no primer in the case visible under the loading gate when opened, which puzzled me a bit at first. After punching all three out, all three were missing the primers. I tried it one more time, with only 2 rounds, with the same result - one report, 2 rounds fired. No primers were recovered. These were the only 5 rounds I fired through it before re-installing the BP firing pin and cylinder.
I would think the cycling would be very violent and quite hard on a single action, and the gun likely wouldn't hold up very long under continued shooting."

Wow. It must really have cycled three rounds super fast for you to hear only one report even though it fired three rounds first and then did the same thing with two rounds. Yes I too was concerned that the primer blowback might be rather abrupt and violent causing premature parts wear and breakage. I wonder if there might be a way to slow that down a tad. Like maybe a spring loaded hammer nose to somewhat cushion and delay the hammer coming back while not affecting the hammer popping the primers.


.

[Jbar4Ranch]

Kind of a Bob Munden sort of thing; one bang and two targets hit.

[Rachen]

. It would be VERY cool to have a single action 1873 peacemaker that you cocked the hammer for the first shot, and then fired the other five shots semi-automatically.

Was it here, or the CasCity Forums, someone actually DID IT with a Ruger Old Army or 1858 revolver. It was a VERY steampunk setup, with an actual brass tube that channeled a portion of the combustion gas into a piston that cocked the hammer, turned the cylinder AND, kid you not, ejected the spent casing. They posted an entire photo timeline of what they did and the end product definitely worked, and was as steampunk as steampunk could ever be. It is got to be one of the coolest threads to exist. Perhaps someone still knows the actual link.
I remember when I first saw it, was probably like someone in the 1820s seeing a steam engine for the first time.