Uberti Richards Conversion

[Hoof Hearted]

The one I have is a Navy grip. That's why I referred to it as an 1871...............

[Fox Creek Kid]

The one I have is a Navy grip. That's why I referred to it as an 1871...............

Is it a conversion or an Open Top? 

[Harley Starr]

Anybody here who owns a Uberti Type II replica in .45 Colt or .44 Special? I understand that there's issues according to previous threads. But the real question here is have the positives outweighed the negatives?

[Advertising]

[Major 2]

I have this one FCK had built, it's in 44Colt....

I believe he mentioned it pierced primers once ..but as you see he had it extensively worked over including the polishing & Plating.
He can tell you all he had done...

His new Type I is a heavily modified Type II, and a beauty..


The only Issues, I ever heard were Sharp FP's and some pierced primers.
 I heard some guns in 45LC had developed cracks at the barrel around the front arbor...not an issue with 44 (more metal)
I believe both issues have been attended to by Uberti.

Early on there was the short ejector rod..but that was retro fixed by Uberti .....

 "But the real question here is have the positives outweighed the negatives? "    OH yeah !

[Fox Creek Kid]

I would avoid the .45 cal. ones as the bottom of the forcing cone is too thin and there have been problems reported I believe in earlier threads. The .44's are good to go. Granted, as on many Ubertis one may need to deburr and it is HIGHLY recommended to get the forcing cone chamfered as this will greatly improve accuracy. I had to stone the FP a little on one as it was piercing the primers but that is not hard. A few licks at a time and test fire.

As for me these are things I do on all new CAS revlovers not unlike a ritual. Pettifogger, Coffinmaker & Flint are the "go to" men around here for maintenance/repairs. Hopefully they'll chime in. 

[Harley Starr]

The .44's are good to go.

By that, do you mean .44 Special as well as .44 Colt?

[Fox Creek Kid]

The forcing cone is the same diameter.

[StrawHat]

...If you get the chance sometime throw a caliper on the cylinder and let us know what the diameter is.

Regards,
Mako...

Mako,

I just measured it and if I remember correctly (it is a long walk from the workshop) the number was 1.612".  Same at each end and in the middle.

[Mako]

Mako,

I just measured it and if I remember correctly (it is a long walk from the workshop) the number was 1.612".  Same at each end and in the middle.

Thanks Straw Hat,
I just measured mine and it is 1.621, so they are within .009" of each other.

This is mine:

http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Odds%20and%20Ends/ASM.jpg

Thanks,
Mako

[StrawHat]

Mako,

Mine was built by ASM, rebuilt by me.  Who built your?  It has a nice business-like look to it.

[Mako]

Mako,

Mine was built by ASM, rebuilt by me.  Who built your?  It has a nice business-like look to it.

Strawhat,
You must have missed where I said I had a Frankenstein ASM.

It's just like yours except in .38 Special.  It was imported by Traditions and they sold it as an "1861 Conversion"  I still have the box with the description and catalog number on it.

I call it a Frankenstein pistol because it is neither "fish nor fowl."  It's not a Richards Type 1 because of the caliber, cylinder and lack of the projecting lip on the recoil shield ring.  It isn't an 1861 Richards-Mason conversion because of the Army sized grip, the rebounding firing pin and the ring mounted sight a'la the Type 1.

The internal parts are already worn out and it's only had a couple thousands rounds through it.  I bought some parts that were supposed to fit several years ago but the don't, so I shelved the rebuild until I got bored.

As you can see I take fairly good care of it it just ate itself up internally (primarily the hand, but the bolt as well)  I'll just have to fabricate the parts r modify the ones I bought.

Regards,
Mako

[StrawHat]

Strawhat,
You must have missed where I said I had a Frankenstein ASM.

It's just like yours except in .38 Special.  It was imported by Traditions and they sold it as an "1861 Conversion"  I still have the box with the description and catalog number on it.

I call it a Frankenstein pistol because it is neither "fish nor fowl."  It's not a Richards Type 1 because of the caliber, cylinder and lack of the projecting lip on the recoil shield ring.  It isn't an 1861 Richards-Mason conversion because of the Army sized grip, the rebounding firing pin and the ring mounted sight a'la the Type 1.

The internal parts are already worn out and it's only had a couple thousands rounds through it.  I bought some parts that were supposed to fit several years ago but the don't, so I shelved the rebuild until I got bored.

As you can see I take fairly good care of it it just ate itself up internally (primarily the hand, but the bolt as well)  I'll just have to fabricate the parts r modify the ones I bought.

Regards,
Mako

Missed it entirely!, or just forgot, which amounts to the same thing.  I understand about the rebuild.  Mine was good from the box but that did not last long.  The trigger and hand went first.  Then the hammer.  None of the parts I got were drop ins and the hammer was not available.  I fit the hand and trigger but for a hammer I took one from an 1860 and cut off everything that didn't fit.  Not sure if I repaced the bolt or not but it would not suprise me if I did.  Everything was soft and wore out quickly.

[Bonnie_blue1861]

Actually Mako, there is an exception. I saw a very early ASM .44 Colt conversion that had a very faint rebate and a faint step. I talked to a fella at the 2000 NCOWS Conv. in Des Moines who had one strapped on. It was the ONLY one I saw like this.

Need a little bump after close to two years of silence.

Does anyone have any photos of what the ASM's look like, with this "faint rebated" cylinder? Does it lok out of place since the frame itself isn't stepped?