Uberti copy of Colt Burgess rifle

[rodeo kid]

Does anyone have one of these yet? If so could I get an opinion of them as far as operation, fit and finish please. Taylor's will order one with about a 90 day wait. The price is $1322 and for that much it would be nice to have more info before buying. Thanks and have a Blessed Christmas.

[Chas.]

There's an article on Hobie's blog http://shootingwithhobie.blogspot.com/2 ... ylors.html

[Lefty Dude]

I have shot & handled the 45 Burgess. One very nice piece of Rifle.

My preference would be the 44-40. I prefer the dash cartridges because they seal much better than straight wall cases. The original Colt Burgess was not chambered in 45.

When they deliver the 44-40, and I understand it may be this next Year. The Burgess is on my must have prefered list in 44-40 caliber.

[Winnetou]

I purchased an Uberti Burgess (Taylor’s) full-length sporting rifle in .44-40 a few weeks ago. They are hard to find in this calibre, but can be so ordered—though there may be a three month wait. I was able to find a dealer who had one.

The rifle is of superb quality. Fit and finish are excellent, and the colour case-hardening of the receiver is particularly vivid on this model.

There are minor differences from the original:

(1) A lever-actuated trigger block, configured like that of the Winchester 1873, has been added. It prevents the trigger from being pulled until the lever is all the way up.

(2) The magazine tube is supported at the forward end by a ring dovetailed into the barrel, rather than by a screw through the magazine cap into a dovetailed stud on the barrel.

(3) The front edge of the receiver, where the barrel is screwed in, is not bevelled.

(4) The forestock on the full-length rifle is the long type, the short type being reserved for the short rifle version. The originals were never made as short rifles, yet as far as I know, they all had the short forestock.

The Burgess receiver is very compact and light, so the rifle handles and balances beautifully in full-length form. The action is very fast and slick without any modifications. My rifle functions perfectly, and the sights were dead on as received. Loading is very easy; the spring-loaded sliding gate cover requires much less effort than the usual pivoting type.

There is a recent review of this rifle in the on-line version of the American Rifleman:

http://www.americanrifleman.org/article ... le-review/

Buffalo Arms have the rifles in stock in .45 Colt:

http://www.buffaloarms.com/browse.cfm/2,471.html

There is a splendid short rifle in .45 Colt on GunBroker, for a very good price:

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewIt ... =204474033

I can say that I am absolutely delighted with my rifle.

[Ysabel Kid]

Must...resist...temptation....

[.45colt]

Winnetou, Glad You got one . I called Taylors last week and they are waiting on the next shipment. I want one with the 25" round barrel 44-40. did You get the round or octogon? do You have any pic's of Your Burgess? Thank You.

[RIHMFIRE]

Must...resist...temptation....

not possible

[Griff]

Must...resist...temptation....

Note to self: Pay off overdue bills first! Save fer gun. Buy gun. THEN start paying off NEW overdue bills! Wonder if I tell the wife it's to replace... er... a BACKUP for her Rossi, she'll go along with the plan?

[Lefty Dude]

Griff;

For an out-of-box Rifle, the Burgess I shot was the best ever. No additional Smithing will be required with this piece, Pard.

I need to sell off some non Cowboy Rifles so I can get one in 44-40.

[KWK]

The front edge of the receiver, where the barrel is screwed in, is not beveled.

Awwww, now why would they do such a thing? In the American Rifleman review, the picture looks as if the gun left the factory not quite finished!

Perhaps Uberti will fix this. Then, they can code their CNC machines to work the carbine into the Light Carbine variant, in .44-40, and my checkbook will open itself. Just fixing the receiver front would leave me very tempted to buy.

[haterock 2]

I have one too (sorry its a 45 colt) and have had 150 shots through it. Fit and finish is very good and the action is very slick with short stroke. No need for additional gunsmithing work here. No jams so far, not even with a full magazine. The trigger, allthough not target grade, is far better than my Win.94. Here are some pictures of the internals:





BTW. If anyone should be interrested. The Lyman tang-sight for the 1873 will fit the Burgess. Tang screw is 12-28 unf so a screw-set for Win.94 will do the job. ( Marbles 995003 ).

Regards

[Winnetou]

.45 Colt, my Burgess rifle has an octagonal barrel. The Uberti web-site shows a round barrel version, but I have not seen any of these for sale anywhere. Note that the pictures there—

http://www.uberti.com/firearms/1883_lev ... urgess.php

—have been digitally manipulated: both the rifle and the carbine share the same receiver. Also, the rifle has the full-length 25.5-inch barrel, but the short forestock—faithful to originals, but not how the actual rifles are made.

I have not had the opportunity to take a photograph of my rifle.

KWK, Some of the deviations from the original are readily understood. For example, Uberti are already set up to install the Winchester-style magazine tube hangers. The lack of the bevel? Perhaps, although the Colt Burgess was manufactured for only about a year, it originally lacked the bevel, and an early gun was the exemplar for the replicas?

I don’t consider the lack of a bevel a serious detraction. Many other rifles of the era had no bevel at the front of the receiver. And there is a big difference in the sense of this characteristic when on the one hand, one sees a close-up photograph of it, and on the other, one is holding the actual rifle in one’s hands. For me, it fades to insignificance.

The Burgess has a peculiarly forceful appeal. The action is not only smooth and fast, but also light—requiring very little effort. It feels a bit like the Winchester 9422, to give a well-known example of comparison. The receiver is extremely compact, yet shapely.

Note that, like many lever-action rifles—and Colt’s Lightning slide-action—before Browning arrived on the scene, the Burgess is breeched by a variation of the toggle principle, in this case involving the lever itself. This is a very sound system, and will last forever with standard ammunition; but it is not suited for heavy smokeless loads.

[KWK]

haterock 2, thanks for the pictures of the internals. You're making it difficult for me to hold onto my money.

Winnetou, other than the bevel, I've no gripes with Uberti's adaptation. One book I have shows many Colt-Burgess rifles, and all display a bevel to some degree, down to S/N 6. Some are more of a chamfer than a bevel, though. One gorgeous, ornate example is beautifully beveled into its octagon barrel. Interestingly, the reprints of the Colt ads of the era show no bevel.

The early round barrel rifles, to my eye have very nice lines. The Light Carbines have the more graceful looking actions.

I'm quite surprised these Ubertis weigh less than the originals, or at least by the specs as put out in the Colt ads and on the Uberti site. The short rifle in the Rifleman review was well under 7 lb.

I've been waiting to hear more about the Chiappa 1886, but this Uberti is getting difficult to resist. I admire the mechanicals of the Burgess (although I think I'd have kept the open top bolt of the 1881's). Still, I have time; a custom rolling block is being made for me, and I need to set aside the money for it; and there's these rumors of round barrels coming...

Thanks much for the feedback.

Karl

[KWK]

Looking over my last post, I see I sound too critical of the Burgess. In truth, of the pistol cartridge levers, it is my favorite design, and I know I'll end up owning one. My dream .44-40 is a Burgess rifle built on the Light Carbine action with a fine tapered, round barrel and a half magazine. No originals were so made, but it's the one in my mind's eye.

[haterock 2]

What is the difference between the carbine and the rifle action ? From the guns that I have handled and the pictures that I have seen, I havent noticed any difference.

Regards

[KWK]

The rifle and both carbines shared the same basic action. That on the rifle and the standard carbine were identical. The Light Carbine's action was milled down in many ways to lighten it and was mated to an extra thin barrel. This version of the carbine was reported to be only 5 lb. Since 1892's can get down to this weight, I can believe Colt was able to do the same (10 years prior).

On the Light Carbine, many of the thick features of the receiver were milled out. The flare in the receiver sides to meet the wood was much thinner. The lever is very thick in front of the trigger, and this was trimmed down. If I recall (I can look it up for you), the receiver ring was milled thinner, too.

While as strong where it needed to be, it was trimmer everywhere else, and to my eye "looks right."

[Winnetou]

The Baby Carbine, or Light Carbine, version of the Colt Burgess can be seen on this GunBroker listing:

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewIt ... =203163968

The features described by KWK can be seen very clearly.

Alas, manufacturers of replicas of 19th century repeating rifles don’t offer Baby Carbines. The sole exception of which I am aware was USFA, when they briefly made exact replicas of Colt’s Lightning rifles (300 – 400 is the amount estimated before machinery was turned to the more lucrative work of making SAAs). I purchased a sporting rifle, thinking I could always get a Baby Carbine later........

A true Baby Carbine version of either of Colt’s repeaters would be most welcome.

The weight shown in the American Rifleman review may be in error. Uberti show 7.6 pounds for the 20-inch barrel carbine, and 8.1 pounds for the 25.5-inch round barrel sporting rifle. I weighed my octagonal barrel example of the latter, with a coarse spring scale, and found just over eight pounds, unloaded. The excellent balance of the rifle makes it seem considerably lighter.

Working the action again, I should say it is remarkable how similar it feels to that of a Winchester 9422.

[KWK]

Here's Samuel Maxwell's description of the Light Carbine's receiver, from his 1976 book on the Burgess designs:

... only 1/16 inch was trimmed off the front of the receiver. The forward rib around the chamber was reduced substantially but from the rear taking off 1/8 inch of steel. The rear rib at the buttstock interface was cut in half from 1/4 inch to 1/8 inch. Then each side of the receiver was reduced about 1/32". Another 1/8 inch plus was removed from the outer edge of the trigger guard section of the lever. I suspect this would have become standard had they continued production much longer since the standard was rather over designed. One of the side effects of all this weight reduction is the one obvious clue to the identification of the Light Carbine even for amateur collectors -- the loading gate port. Machining of the forward rib lengthened the slot 1/16 inch when combined with reduction in sidewall thickness, eliminated the round shape of the loading port leaving it square. This inadvertent result of two machining operations effectively branded the Light Carbine. Even a casual look at the barrel confirms the find, then, pick it up. The feel of a 5 pound Light Carbine is incredibly different. All internal parts remain interchangeable.

He also noted the barrel's muzzle diameter is only 0.580 inch.

This book is excellent. As the above clip shows, the text editing was uneven at times, but the scope of the material is great. Those wanting to have The book on the Colt-Burgess can search for Maxwell's 1985 book which covers that model alone. I've read only 1000 copies were printed, though.

Winnetou thanks for noting the weight. I'll assume that was a typo at the Rifleman.

And here I thought I was the only one who regretted not getting a USFA Baby Lightning while they were available.

[KWK]

Those wanting to have The book on the Colt-Burgess can search for Maxwell's 1985 book which covers that model alone.

Alright, which of you guys just bought that one copy listed at Amazon.com?

When you receive it, I'd like to compare his comments on the Light Carbine with those in my copy of his 1976 book. I don't know if his later book was just an extract of the earlier work or an extension. He seems pretty thorough, so I suspect the later book is indeed more detailed.

Thanks,

Karl

[barbarossa]

Collectors firearms has a 26 round barreled Uberti Burgess in 45colt in stock on their website

[J Miller]

Oh I like that! Wish I had the wherewithal to buy one. That would satisfy the itch I've had for sometime. I want a new rifle, but nothing modern.

Joe

[Winnetou]

That rifle at Collectors Firearms is unusual. It has a carbine butt, and a blued receiver. It seems rather like some of the guns made for the European market.

There is one more difference between the Uberti Burgess rifles and the originals that I neglected to mention. The Uberti lacks a trap in the butt-plate for the cleaning rod. For some reason, Uberti put these only on some models, such as the brass-frame Henry and the 1876. And the 1876 is their only repeating rifle that is drilled and tapped for a tang sight. (Original Colt Burgess rifles could be drilled and tapped on the tangs, or not).