Uberti 1862 Police Conversion, a .380 ACP pocket revolver

[heyjoe]

https://www.gunsweek.com/en/pistols/iwa/uberti-1862-police-conversion-380-acp-pocket-revolver

im not sure how small it actually is

[cfsharry]

Would make quite a lump in the pocket. Small and called a pocket pistol but not really all that tiny.
With that being said, I would buy one. Cute gun.

[ikoiko]

Nice piece.

[pietro]

https://www.gunsweek.com/en/pistols/iwa/uberti-1862-police-conversion-380-acp-pocket-revolver

im not sure how small it actually is

The 1862 Police that I had was little bigger than my Ruger Bearcat - except that the barrel was a little longer than the BC's.


.

[bearcatter]

Bearcat was inspired heavily by the Remington 1863 New Model Police. Here's a shot of both. The Remington was 36 caliber; came in four different barrel lengths, from 3.5 to 6.5 inches.

[robbi]

classic

[redhawk4]

For the difference it would have made to the size of the revolver, 9mm would have been a much better caliber choice, more powerful, but perhaps more importantly the ammo is much cheaper than 380. A very nice little revolver, I really like the appearance, it would be interesting to see one and how big or small it really is compared to a J frame.

[pietro]

For the difference it would have made to the size of the revolver, 9mm would have been a much better caliber choice, more powerful, but perhaps more importantly the ammo is much cheaper than 380.

Yeah, it's cheaper - i.e. until the 169-year-old (design) BP revolver violently comes apart in the shooter's hand.

I'm sure if Uberti though it was strong enough for the 9mm Parabellum, they would have done it.


.

[redhawk4]

That's a false argument as it would have been very easy to have made it capable of handling 9mm over 380.

[cfsharry]

Actually I believe the arguement is correct as the Colt, unlike the Remington did not have a top strap. It's small format, in my opinion, lacks the strength to retain the barrel with 9mm pressure.

[pietro]

That's a false argument as it would have been very easy to have made it capable of handling 9mm over 380.

Pray, enlighten us (here & at Uberti) as to exactly how easy it could have been. 


.

[Uncle_Lee]

The only thing holding that Colt together is that little wedge. I don't think it could be made to handle a 9mm.
Shoot a bunch of heavy black powder loads through one and it will beat that wedge into a mess.

I played a lot with conversion revolvers but only with the Remington replicas because of the solid frame.
I shot a lot of Colt replicas but after beating up three wedges, I learned to keep the charge down.

In the add it says it can be loaded through the loading gate or if you want to do it faster, you can remove the cylinder.
I really think removing the cylinder would take a bunch more time. Especially if you didn't have a bench to lay the parts on while reloading the cylinder. What if you are in the woods and drop the wedge in the leaves. I would use the loading gate.

[bearcatter]

I know if this was the late 1800s and I was in a gun shop, a quick comparison of Colt and Remington frames would have me buying the Remington. I never understood why Colts were more popular. Maybe it was just because they were easier to get?

[LHB]

Thought that I read somewhere that the Remingtons were not as accurate as the Colts, so not as popular.

[Uncle_Lee]

Remingtons were harder to find and a little higher in cost.

[bearcatter]

I've also read that contrary to Hollywood, .45s were less common than .44-40.

Here's an interesting history of Remington revolvers, and their competition with Colt:

https://www.tactical-life.com/firearms/handguns/remington-revolvers/