Question Re: Old USPFA Single Actions

[tpelle]

This is kind of in reference to the troubles I'm having with an old Uberti Cattleman revolver with the D-Cam hammer and hammer block safety.

I happened to be looking at my old copy of "Handguns - '97". In there was a gun test by Sheriff Jim Wilson of three USFPA revolvers. In reading the article I was surprised to see that, at least back then, the USPFA revolvers were Uberti's that were imported as "kits", so to speak, and finished and assembled by USPFA gunsmiths in Hartford, CT.

Anyway, it was clearly stated in the article that the revolvers tested had the Uberti Hammer Block safety! Also there was a photo of the cocked hammer on one of the revolvers, and the hammer block was clearly visible, and identical to my Uberti Cattleman.

Did the USPFA revolvers from that era suffer the same problem of the bolt leg wearing out the hammer cam? Or did USPFA correct this problem somehow?

It would be interesting if someone could fill me in on the details.

(BTW, I ordered the parts from VTI for a later model Uberti SA revolver, on their assurances that the new style hammer, bolt, and hand could be retro-fitted to mine so as to update it to current specs. When I'm done, my revolver will be nearly identical to a Colt SAA, with no safety mechanism beyond what's between my ears.)

[cubrock]

The bolt leg wearing out the hammer cam was due to Uberti not hardening the parts enough. I don't know if USPFA corrected this, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did.

[peacemaker]

Forgive my ignorance, but what is a "USPFA"?

[CraigC]

USFA was originally United States Patent Firearms until your beloved Colt's Manufacturing sued them over the name. Apparently they had a patent on the word Patent and so "Patent" was then removed from the name. This is what happens when a stuffy corporation that banks on their famous name, rather than producing a quality product, gets beat at their own game.

[peacemaker]

Ah! Thankyou, Craig.

Now that I knew what to look for I was able to find more information about them. It does seem a correction may be in order though...

Jul 12, 2011 23:25:16 GMT -5 CraigC said:

Apparently they had a patent on the word Patent and so "Patent" was then removed from the name.

From what I have learned, probably not so. A more rational explanation I was able to find was that the problem was over the use of the word "patent" on a firearm (originally designed and patented by Colt's) for which the defendants held no patent. This explanation seems to hold alot more merit than the idea that the courts would rule that Colt, or anyone else, holds exclusive right to just the word 'patent'. If this more reasonable explanation is true, it's no wonder Colt's won.

At any rate, I learned something new today, for which I always say, "Thankyou".

[CraigC]

I was being facetious.