Replica Colt Burgess vs Original

[Sage Creek Gus SASS #64320]

I got my Uberti Colt Burgess late yesterday and spent last evening comparing it with my original Colt Burgess. As some of you may know I've been restoring this original Colt Burgess for the past couple of years and between my dad and I have made 20 parts for it. So I know the parts and function of a Burgess very well.

 

While I haven't fired the rifle yet I am impressed with the rifle in general. The case hardening on the receiver is nicely figured and the wood actually has some fancy grain to it. But even better the stock and forearm match. Wood to metal fit for the stock is quite good but not quite as good for the forearm but that's going to be easy to remedy when I remove the factory finish and put on a more original oil finish.

 

Right out of the box the action is quite smooth and I think with a little polishing of the internal parts it's going to be a very smooth action. Right now it's almost as smooth as my Uberti 1873 which I've been shooting for 5 years.

 

As for a comparison with my original Colt Burgess. Right off the bat I can say this is not an exact reproduction of the original. Many of the parts are obviously the same parts as Uberti makes for their Winchester rifles. The magazine and the way it is attached to the barrel is all Winchester. Colt had a completely different way of attaching the magazine. The butt plate is also Uberti Winchester it's dimensions being exactly the same as my Uberti Winchester 1873. It also does not have the brass trap door in the butt plate like the original. The forearm cap and the way it attaches is Winchester all the way and nothing like the way the original Burgess forearm cap attaches. The sights appear to be Winchester rather than like my original. The original has a german silver blade front sight and the reproduction's front sight is all steel and blued.

 

However, the shape of the hammer and trigger is like the original and not a copy of a Winchester.

 

However, the action design is the same as my original Colt Burgess except for a few minor differences. One differences is that the Uberti has spring and ball detent to hold the action closed and not have it "droop" under it's own weight. The original does not have that and depends upon a tight fit of the linkage as it goes over center to keep the action closed. There is also a trigger lock like on Winchesters which prevents the trigger from being pulled before the action is completey closed. I'd say this is the biggest difference in the action between the original and the reproduction. I haven't disassembled the rifle yet but looking at the exploded parts diagram suggests the only other change is that in some cases coil springs were substituted for flat springs in the reproduction. However, the "v" shaped spring on the ejector is the same as the original. The loading gate is the same as the original as near as I can tell from the drawings.

 

Another difference is the barrel. While it is the correct length at 25 1/2 inches it is a lot smaller in diameter. The reproduction measures .750 across the flats at the muzzle while the original measures .800. The weight of my original is 8 lbs 5 oz while the reproduction weights 7 lbs 8 oz. This also compares with my Uberti 1873 at 8 lb 11 0z. in 32-20. A little calculation shows that if it had the 44 40 bore it would weight about 8 lbs 3 oz. The Uberti Burgess is about 3/4 of an inch shorter with it's 25 1/2 inch barrel than my 1873 with a 24 inch barrel. However, it is exactly the same overall length as my original Burgess and the length of pull is the same. The barrel has the same width as my Uberti 1873 so they must be using the same barrel.

 

Like my original Burgess this rifle fits me perfectly. I like to test rifles by standing at port arms with my eyes closed and bring the rifle to my shoulder to what feels like a natural shooting position and then opening my eyes and see how close the sights are to lining up. My Winchester 1892 doesn't even come close but my 1873 is pretty good. But both my original Burgess and the reproduction are right on when I conduct this test.

 

I think I'm going to really like this rifle, especially after a little work on it. I think it's going to be as smooth to cycle as my 1873 but lighter and easier to handle. The detent to hold the action closed and the trigger block are two items the original should have had.

 

I'm going to shoot a match with it tomorrow so will have a much better opinion of it then. I haven't yet fired it but it seems to cycle loaded rounds and eject empty cases just fine.

 

Sage Creek Gus

[Filthy Lucre, 55674L]

I had the good fortune to play with a original carbine. Really cool gun. Just couldn't afford the asking price.