Shooters Forum banner

Uberti .44 Magnum 1873 Rifle

29K views 51 replies 18 participants last post by  recoil junky 
#1 ·
Anyone have one of these? Appreciate any info.
 
#2 ·
Sorry, but I'm not the slightest bit interested in a relatively heavy rifle with an antiquated toggle-link lockup/breeching, chambered for a modern magnum cartridge & it's attendant pressures, mush higher than the action was designed to take.



.
 
#3 ·
I saw, and handled, a Uberti 1873 Carbine in a .44 Mag at the last NRA convention. I also talked to one of their customer service reps that seemed to be well versed as to what their gunsmith's capabilities are. He said the .44 is only made in the Carbine version and claimed the bolt "thrust" of the .44, being a straight case round, is well within the capability of the design. He indicated that they would not market a rifle that was dangerous to shoot within SAAMI specs and the .44 Mag had had no problems to date! (The caliber offering was new at that time but I did find at least one U-tube video of a person firing a .44 with no "ill" effects!) I own a Uberti 1873 in .45 Colt and am amazed at the ability of that "little bitty" carriage bolt to contain even the low pressure of a .45 "Cowboy" load. I don't think I'd want to own one in a .44 Mag, but if I did I would limit mine to .44 Special pressures, which would give .44 Mag velocities (anyway) because of the longer 19" BBL. Just my .02. BTW, my 1873 20" Octagon "Short Rifle" weighs 7.5 pounds (unloaded).
 
#6 ·
I guess Uberti wouldn't market the 1873 in 44.Mag if there was any doubt about safety, and face lawsuits, but I would not want one in .44 Magnum. It might be made of modern steel, but it is still a weak, 139 year old design. There have been instances where a .44/40 or .45 colt was overloaded and the skinny bolt will head straight for your eye. Better to buy a Win 1892 clone or a Marlin 1894.
 
#7 ·
I have a couple 92's, but not one in 44mag. I think the 73' in 44mag would go nicely with my old 3 screw SBH....I don't believe Uberti would offer this option to the public at large, if there was going to be a problem with it. I'm always reading how the reloading books have been "lawyered" down to protect (whomever) but evidently gun makers aren't burdened by law suits so I guess they don't have to worry about putting a gun on the market that "may" send the bolt back in (a) face upon firing. I'd be willing to bet there was at least a little testing done before this rifle chambering became available... thats my uneducated guess anyway..
 
#8 ·
Said it before, I'll say it again -- I don't believe for a minute the gun as they are making it is unsafe; but I do believe the durability of a toggle-link action of that size under such pressures, no matter how well-built it may be, is questionable. Sort of like boring out a 1930s S&W K-frame .38 to .357, it's not likely to blow up -- but shoot it enough and you'll have a revolver that soon quits working as it should.
 
#10 ·
I bought a Uberti '73 in .357 Mag about 9 months ago, and have fired everything from thumper 180 gr. to mild 125 gr., to date a little over 2000 rounds.

Now I admit that 9 months and 2000 rounds is hardly a lifetime of use and abuse, but so far my '73 shows no signs of wear nor any mechanical concerns. I'm convinced that Uberti used a little better steel than was available 140 years ago.

The problem with asking for advice on the internet is that one gets a lot of opinions from those who've never handled, fired, loaded and fired again. Ironhead, skip the negative posts unless it provides genuine....and verifiable.....information.

In the meantime, guess I'll continue to blaze away!
 
#21 ·
Thank you for your experienced input!



Hi WinMike,
I am expecting to pick up my new Uberti 1873 carbine, 19" 357 mag, sometime this week, and until reading your post, I've been somewhat apprehensive about my decision to go with the 357 mag.

So many of all the many posts, articles and etc I've read, basically suggest that it's not a question of if, but rather when, I end up with the bolt blasting through my eye, as the action is too weak for the 357.

I love the 357 mag in my handgun, and was very excited as I anticipated how much better it would perform fired through a 19" rifle. Plus, having the same ammo for both the handgun and the rifle is something else I was very excited about. I was planing on messing around with some hand loads to try to find that one special load/projectile mix that shoots primo through my rifle.

So, after reading what's been said about running 357's through the 1873, I began to feel kind of stupid for buying the rifle.

The thought that the rifle was not strong enough to handle the 357 never crossed my mind. Who'd go to buy a gun, then ask themselves; gee, I wonder if this gun can handle the charge it's built to shoot? If the thought did cross your mind, you'd naturally assume it would be, or they wouldn't make it.

As I condensed what I've read, the recommended high pressure for the 1873 was around 23K, so I decided that I'd better buy some shells that were below the 35K pressure of the 357.

So, I decided to make the best of it, and continue to look forward to the arrival of my new rifle, especially since I got word that my new rifle should be here soon.

I bought some 38 special +p's, which fall below the "recommended high pressure", and figured I'd just shoot them in the rifle instead of the 357's.

Then I read that the 38 sp's don't feed well in the 1873. So I figured that worse case, I can load them one at a time. That's no fun!

OK, now I am really asking myself what did I get myself into.

Let me tell you that it was a breath of fresh air to finally find an opinion from someone who has actually shot 357's through the 1873, especially as much as you have, which is over 200 rounds a month.

I've been waiting since the gun was ordered last March for this rifle. One was shipped last November, but we had to send it back as the finish was really not good. There were bubbles in the finish on the wood, and someone over buffed the receiver to the point that they "gouged" it, and there were quite a bit of scratches on the side of the receiver, and dings right through the blueing as well. The dealer suggested that we should send it back and get replacement. I hated to do it as the wood on that gun was beautiful. I'd be lucky to get one with wood like that again. But, I agreed, and we sent it back.

So, many months of anticipation, then reading that my rifle will blow up in my face, and I can't feed 38 spec's through it, then one finally arrives and it's nowhere near what I expected regarding the fit and finish. Let me just say that I can't begin to express my feeling of joy at that time.

My expression must have looked like the coyote on Roadrunner, after the ACE bomb he planted to get the Roadrunner, just blew up in his face!

After reading your post, I felt renewed. It was such a lift that I read it about four times, so thanks again for your experienced input.

Question; have you tried to feed 38 spec's through it? And are the results you posted from hand loads only, or is off the shelf ammo included in the rounds fired?

I bought some Remington 357's, and Winchester 38 spec +p's, both in 125 gr. jacked hollow's. At least I wanted to have flat top's in the tube. No since having that blow up too! LOL

In closing, because of all the controversy, it's rather odd that Uberti hasn't made a formal attempt to address the topic by saying why they know their new modern-built 1873 rifle can absolutely handle the 357's and 44 mag's. That would put an end to the discussion.

I too feel that they must be using "better metal", and that their engineers know what they're doing, but it would be nice to hear it from them.

Take care and thanks again, WinMike,

370Z
 
#14 ·
Guys, settle.

I doubt the manufacturer (who is obligated to support specs given by CIP and SAAMI) would produce a rifle that could not handle factory cartridges.

The world of metallurgy / machining has changed a LOT in the elapsed time. If you don't believe that, go handle some of the flyweight .357 snubbies.
 
#15 ·
Guys, settle.

I doubt the manufacturer (who is obligated to support specs given by CIP and SAAMI) would produce a rifle that could not handle factory cartridges.

The world of metallurgy / machining has changed a LOT in the elapsed time. If you don't believe that, go handle some of the flyweight .357 snubbies.
All true. However, although you might construct a Wright Flyer out of modern materials and to the tightest specs, and somehow shoehorn a pair of 800 hp radial engines in to it, and even get it to fly -- you can't expect it to perform as well, or be as durable, as a DC3.

Similarly, although flyweight .357s are safe and remarkably durable, no reasonable person would expect a flyweight J-frame to stand up longterm to as much full-house shooting as an N-frame, and neither should he expect a 73 to hold up under magnum pressures as long as a 92.
 
#20 ·
I'm over it. But I WILL add the fact that the smiley face I had added to my initial post here, should have been a clue that it was done "in jest". It was not meant to be demeaning in any sense of the word. Some people just need to take a breath before responding. If life can't be fun, then what' the use ? My appologies to the OP if he was offended by anything I said. :cool:
 
#22 ·
I have two Uberti model 73's and at one time owned a 45 colt model 73. No company is going to offer for sale a rifle that will knowingly cause a lawsuit. That said, and knowing how the bolt on a 73 rifle is made I would question how much I would enjoy shooting it if I were firing heavy magnum loads. I shoot 38 special ammo in both of my 357 Uberti model 73's. I have a Marlin 1894 in 357 mag, 44 mag, and 45 Colt, I don't hesitate to use any of them with heavier loads, but I would think about it in a 73. If for some reason the two piece bolt in a 73 separated, there is nothing but the hammer between the end of the bolt and your shooting eye. The later rifles have a better designed mechanism holding the two pieces of the bolt together, but you only have one right eye.
 
#23 ·
Apparently, your 1873 feeds the 38 spec well, and that's good news.

I have absolutely no problem shooting 38 specials, or the +p's in my 1873. The pressure of both, 17,000 for the 38 spec, and 18,500 for the +p's, seem to be unquestionably safe for the rifle, as they are well below the "recommended limit" of 23K.

I have a S&W Bodyguard revolver in 38 spec that was not made to handle 38+p's. I contacted S&W about shooting +p's and they said it would be OK to fire the +p's "once in a while."

Prior to calling S&W, I had not fired the +p through it, and after hearing the response form S&W, I have not and will not fire a +P through it. Why push it? That little Bodyguard is a favorite of mine, and I do not want to chance damaging it, myself, or a bystander by pushing it's limits. There's a lot of good loads out there in 38 spec that perform very well. At least I've been happy with them.

Back to the 1873; I'd be fine with the 38 spec's, and have no concern about shooting the +p's through it. As my last post said, my only concern over the 38's was when it was mentioned that they don't feed well.

I couldn't imagine why they wouldn't feed and cycle just fine, the block just lifts them up and the bolt shoves them straight into the barrel. No angles involved.

My plan was to use the 38's for burning through at the range, and the 357's for longer range stuff like hunting woodchucks.

But mostly, I see this rifle as just a fun gun to admire, enjoy having, and enjoy shooting. The difference between the two charges discussed is not really a big deal for me. I just want to shoot the gun, get comfortable with it, get good with it, be able to take it all apart and put it back together again, and generally just have fun with it. But staying safe with it is number one.

Hopefully, my rifle will arrive soon, at least that's what I was told by Uberti Customer Service, and I can start messing around with it, and answer some of my own questions.

As long as the 38 specials feed and cycle well, I'll be very happy.
 
#24 ·
When I first got my '73, I grabbed samples of every .357 ammo I own, most of them handloads.

The first cartridges I loaded were a bunch of SWC (Keith-type) and they wouldn't feed! You can imagine my chagrin.

Then, I loaded some factory JSP and they fed fine....and the light went off. Notice the shape of a JSP/JHP.....and then look at the profile of the original bullets in the '73 calibers, 44-40 & 38-40? And then look at the profiles of typical lead RNFP bullets.

Eureka! Those who've examined the photos/diagrams of the '73, but don't own one, tell me that the '73 loading block "slides the cartridge into the chamber just like a torpedo into a submarine chamber."

No, it doesn't. The loading block stops slightly shy of the chamber entrance, and while RNFP bullets slide easily up and into the chamber, bullets with driving bands ahead of the brass will jam said bands at the chamber entrance.

So, the answer is easy for me: I'll save all my SWC and wadcutters, etc, etc. for my single-shot rifles and my revolvers, and I'll continue to use factory JSP/JHP and/or RNFP (my preference) in my '73.

Essentially, we're just coming around full circle to the bullets the rifle was designed for!
 
#25 ·
370z, I forgot to answer your "will it feed 38 Special" question, but I guess you've already answered it yourself. Just keep in mind the bullet shape: RN, RNFP or other similar shapes. Haven't tried, but I'm pretty sure wadcutters won't feed. Glad to hear they work.

Also in your last, you stated: In closing, because of all the controversy, it's rather odd that Uberti hasn't made a formal attempt to address the topic by saying why they know their new modern-built 1873 rifle can absolutely handle the 357's and 44 mag's. That would put an end to the discussion.

Honestly (and I say this respectfully :rolleyes:), except for a few internet honks spouting uninformed opinions, there's no "controversy" for Uberti to address. If Uberti....and other companies......spoke to every ill-informed "I-Expert," they'd have to hire a bazillion PR flacks just to keep track of the nonsense.....and then, there'd be a bunch of threads and posts about how XXXXOOO company "is engaged in a big cover-up...." Just because a poster in a thread claims to be a mechanical or metallurgical engineer doesn't mean he are one.....

We do know this: Uberti, Winchester, Remington, Browning, Ruger, Procter & Gamble, General Electric etc., etc., ad nauseum don't put products on the market that are known/proven to be weak and ineffectual for their intended purpose. Companies are aware of our litigious society and if there is an issue, they quietly (if possible!) remove the offending product from the market.

I don't see that happening with your Uberti....Enjoy!
 
#27 ·
Good point. The internet is a great source for research, but it does take some doing to sift it all. I'll listen to someone's theory, but I prefer to hear one's hands-on experiences instead, which is why I appreciated your post.

And I do plan on enjoying my 1873. I'm looking forward to the call that it's ready for me to go pick her up!
 
#28 ·
I would feel much more comfortable shooting an 1873 reproduction chambered for .357 than one in .44 Mag. I'm not an engineer, and don't even portray one on T.V., but it seems like although the .357 and .44 would have similar chamber pressures, the thrust against the bolt would be much greater with the .44 Mag, than the .357, due to its larger rim cross section. It would be interesting to know if Uberti did any design tweaking to supplement the possible improvements in metallurgy. I, for one, am happy with shooting low pressure 44/40 loads in my Cimarron 1873 short rifle, and have a Marlin 1894 and Browning B92 for the .44 Mags.
 
#29 ·
Yes the bolt thrust would be greater.

But, a point many here fail to grasp, the original Winchesters were made from stuff that is literally butter soft compared to the materials we have today. Cast iron, brass, soft steel, etc. Modern steel alloys can be heat treated upwards of ten times stronger than what was available in 1873.

There just is no comparison.
 
#31 ·
Yes the bolt thrust would be greater...

There just is no comparison.
There is also no comparison between an action that depends on what is basically an overextended knee joint for lockup and one that relies on the bolt being securely locked by bolt lugs or by one or two massive, rigid locking lugs closely fitted to the bolt and frame.

I go back to the Wright Flyer comparison -- build it out of modern materials like carbon fiber laminates, and it will be immeasurably stronger -- but it still won't stand up long to swapping the original 12 hp motor for a 1200 hp one, or even a 120, even though it could possibly fly okay for a while.
 
#30 ·
1873 44 mag

There is one at my local gun shop and I do like it. It has a shotgun style but-stock. But it is otherwise a 1873 Win clone. It does seen slightly heavier than one in 45 Colt. The skill of workmanshipe and fit and finish is equil to any Uberti 1873 on the market. It seems like a great rifle

V/R
J.Budd
 
#32 ·
.....1873 Win clone. It does seen slightly heavier than one in 45 Colt......

I've noticed the same....I believe it's because a .357 hole is smaller than a .45 hole in the same diameter barrel.

Actually, if I had my druthers, I'd have really considered a '73 in 44 Special. That's a cartridge that's more "modern" (although barely so) than the original 44-40/38/40 cartridges, yet fairly close to the original "hole" size. Fortunately, for my piece of mind, Uberti doesn't chamber their '73 in 44 Special, so I didn't have to agonize over that decision....

Still....I suppose I could re-chamber.....naw......

And speaking of order dilemmas, I really, really like half-octagon barrels. But Uberti's is an 18" barrel, and in the photo, it looks too short. So I went with the 20" Short rifle, and it looks fine (please, don't anyone write and say they have the 1/2 octagon and it's the nicest-looking rifle in the history of the world! :eek:)

OK, I'm headed out to the garage to replace the 12 hp engine in my Wright Flyer with a 1200 hp GE jet turbine.....:rolleyes: :cool: :rolleyes:
 
#39 ·
As far as the NRA's definition, you can bet that's not taken into account in any bill from NY. I wouldn't bet the farm that anything that holds more than 7 rounds would be exempted, no matter the action type. Afterall, they really want to ban ALL guns. Not just those that look menacing. You can assault anyone with any gun, so by that definition, any gun is an assault weapon.
 
#40 ·
Wanted to say that I picked up my new Uberti 1873 in 357 mag yesterday, and it's a beauty! The fit and finish is great, and I couldn't ask for nicer wood.

I haven't cleaned it yet, just been looking at it. After waiting for almost a year, I need to adjust to the fact that the wait is over and I finally have my rifle.

I read through the instructions that came in the box, then I grabbed some 38 specials and loaded three in the tube, and cycled them through. The Winchester 125 gr 38 spc's +p's cycled through like butter. Absolutely no problems. the lead on the tips hardly had a mark on them upon inspection after ejection.

Then I did the same with three 357 mag's, and once again, they cycled through cleanly and smoothly.

I was looking forward to running some 38's through the rifle, hoping they would feed and cycle real well, as I'll probably be shooting a lot of them, mainly because I can use them in both my rifle and my 38 spec Bodyguard revolver.

I plan on using the 357's for varmint hunting and longer range target shooting. I used to have a S&W 357 mag revolver with an 8 3/8" barrel, and was very impressed with the accuracy and stopping power at longer distances. That's why I wanted to get the Uberti with a 19" barrel in 357. I know how well the cartridge performed in my revolver and felt it would be even better shot through the longer rifle barrel. Even though the spin is different between the two, the longer barrel on my rifle should add some plusses to the performance of the 357. I'm looking forward to the experience.

So, for me, I've got the best of both worlds with a rifle that shoots both the 357 mag and the 38 spec.

That's it for now. It's time to go and look at my rifle some more! Maybe I'll even pick her up a few times. Today I'm going to clean her up real nice.
 
#41 ·
Congrats......it's better than a new car! They are pretty rifles. And now, you're going to shame me into reading the instructions that came with mine! :confused:

If you're like me, it won't be long before you succumb to the temptation of removing the side-plates to look at the vaunted levers & toggles. I know I don't need to say it, but be sure to use the correct screwdriver! See below.

And, if you're like me, said parts will fall out of the action and there'll be a moment of panic, "How do I put this back together?!"

Don't worry....they'll only go back one way. But while they're out, I felt it "necessary" to touch up the toggle cams with a very, very fine piece of emery cloth: just enough to put, say the equivalent of 100-150 cycling. Couldn't hurt. And, like most manufacturers, IMHO, there's not enough oil in the action, so I oiled mine (yeah, I probably oil stuff up too much, but.....).

Once I figured out which bullet profiles to use (see all our discussions above), I had no feeding issues. But a couple of days ago, I found this: Rifles Some pretty good advice, I think, and my thanks to the creator of that site. Good advice how taking it apart.

One of the articles ("My New '73 Jams") suggests beveling the back wall of the frame. Maybe since neither you nor I have that issue) it's a problem endemic to the .45 Colt version, or older rifles, but....I did the research for you :D

Have fun!
 
#43 · (Edited)
Thanks WinMike. First, let me say that you didn't miss a whole lot by not reading the instructions, they are not really very informative, but since Uberti put them in the box, I thought I'd read them.

I am planning to order the 22 piece Super set from Magna tip from Brownells.

I have the same instructions saved on my desk top, as well as a couple of others I got off the web, however the site you gave also covers many more rifles, so that site's a keeper!

Now the only problem, after all the recent news, is finding ammo - AGAIN! I am so glad I bought a box of 38 spec +p;s and a box of 357's, and just one day before the news.

Haven't checked into the availability of hand load material, but expect that too will be on the scarce side.

My time got set back as we had some real high winds last night, and woke this am with tree limbs all over the place, and part of my roof blew off. I've been running around picking up roof shingles all over the neighborhood, and just finished reinstalling them. It was very cold and windy, let me tell you, but I did remember to tie my ladder to the gutter spike.

Let's just say that some years ago I learned that it's a good idea to make sure the ladder can't fall down while you're still up on the roof. LOL
 
#42 ·
Happy to hear your rifle finally arrived, and happier yet that you like it so well. I think you will come to enjoy even more after you have it and use it for awhile...
 
#44 ·
Thanks Nite Ryder. I am happy too. I've waited a long time for this rifle. I can't stop looking at it!

My dog must be wondering what's going on? "You keep getting the gun, then you put it back, then you get it again, then put it back. Are we going out shooting or not?"

We are having some real cold and windy weather that's supposed to extend for a couple of weeks. I don't want to take my new rifle out until I can do more than just fire it. I want to be more comfortable when I take her out for the first time. No rush, I have it now, so waiting for better weather is no sweat.

But I do agree that the real fun will start when I get through the shake down phase and start seeing what I can do with it. I am real interested in seeing how the 38 spec will compare to the 357.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top