Pietta US Marshall

[Capt. Montgomery Little]

Does anyone here know if the .44 cal conversion cylinder for the Pietta 1860 Army will fit the 1851 Navy US Marshall  .44 by Pietta?
Looks like it might be a good combination.

[Mako]

Capt.
It will fit.  It's actually a '60 frame with a short '51 style (Octagonal) barrel, sights, '51 loading lever, and Navy grips.  The '51 and '60 frames are identical except for the additional clearance cut for the .44 cal. rebated cylinder.
~Mako

[Flatlucky]

Does anyone here know if the .44 cal conversion cylinder for the Pietta 1860 Army will fit the 1851 Navy US Marshall  .44 by Pietta?
Looks like it might be a good combination.

I have a pair of Pietta Sheriff 44's with conversions.  Both conversion cylinders came from previous 1860 pistols.  I did have to drop the bullet weight from my normal 250 grain as they are a bit long for the chambers as I have loaded them.  I am going to start loading 45 Schofield for them to hold down wear and tear on the guns.  Still as much BP as will fit.  You are correct on them being a nice combination.  Good Luck!!

[craiso]

Howdy all,

Since we are talking about how to make things work,  I want to recreate Tuco's .44 with a convertion cylinder in .45 Colt. I have been watching and waiting, but I have not seen a convertion cylinder for the 1851 in .45 Colt. Please pardon me if this has been talked to death, I get excited and start typing before I think to do a search.

Many thanks,

Christopher

[Mako]

Howdy all,

Since we are talking about how to make things work,  I want to recreate Tuco's .44 with a convertion cylinder in .45 Colt. I have been watching and waiting, but I have not seen a convertion cylinder for the 1851 in .45 Colt. Please pardon me if this has been talked to death, I get excited and start typing before I think to do a search.

Many thanks,

Christopher

Christopher,
That's exactly what this thread is about, unless you are talking about taking a '51 Navy model in .36 caliber and converting it to .45 caliber.  Pietta makes "Frankenstein" .44 caliber pistols which are a kludge of parts from '60s in .44 caliber and the styling of the '51 in the barrels, loading levers and grips.  You're going to have to be a little more specific, Tuco's gun is a Spaghetti Western fantasy, we have no way of knowing what it was supposed to be.  So just tell us what it is you want and maybe we can help you.

Both Kirst and R&D make cylinders for .45 to use in .44 caliber '60s which means they can be used on these .44 caliber '51s as well.

As I said before, if you are talking about converting an actual Navy diameter cylinder to .45, you'll be waiting a long, long, long time.  In other words it ain't gonna happen unless you make a new 5 shot cylinder yourself with a Navy (non-rebated) profile.

You do realize that you can only get a .45 caliber to work in a five shot cylinder in these frames don't you?  That includes the '60 Army and both the '51 and '61 Navy models. Those three models basically share the same frame platform, just as the Model 36 S&W was originally a .38 spl on a .32 size J-frame and the Model 19 was a .357 Mag on a frame that had been used primarily as a .38 spl platform. In the '70s and '80s we were re-barreling K-frame S&Ws to .44 and making 5 shot cylinders for them and calling it "innovative."  None of this is a new idea, Colt's Patent Firearms was doing this in the middle of the 19th century.

See the first image below to see the problem with the .45 rim overlap on a six chamber cylinder.  The chambers would also break out in the bolt notches on a six chambered cylinder.  By going to five the notches end up being between the chambers instead of over them.

http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/1860%20Conversion/6up.jpg

The second image shows a 5 chambered Kirst cylinder:

http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/1860%20Conversion/45Kirst5.jpg

and the third is the cross section:

http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/1860%20Conversion/45KirstX.jpg


There are 5 shot cylinders for the Uberti '60s, for the Pietta '60s and the non-authentic but interesting .44 caliber Pietta '51s.  The cylinders for the .45 cartridges are all rebated as the original Army model was.

So, does it make more sense now?

 
Regards,
Mako

[craiso]

What I am after is a conversion cylinder in .45LC that I can fit into the non-authentic '51 steel frame in .44 caliber. Could you point me in the right direction to this five chamber cylinder? Pietta would be preferable  .

Many thanks,

Christopher

[Mako]

Christopher,

Do you want a drop-in cylinder which you basically remove at reloading or a converted frame which requires machining the frame to provide a loading gate area and adding a new recoil shield ring at the rear?

R&D makes drop-in cylinders which can allow you to go back and forth between the C&B cylinder and the cartridge cylinder.  You can buy those at a lot of places.  Here is the link to one at the Midway site:

http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/default.aspx?productNumber=857132

The Kirst conversion is closer to the original.  This is the link to their site:

http://www.kirstkonverter.com/

Both of these approaches use 5 chamber cylinders.

Raven who is a participant on these forums is associated with Kirst.  You'll find him more often on the STORM board which is dedicated to Colt's pattern "open tops,"  you can PM him or ask questions over there as well.

You'll find this hard to believe but there are actually members of this particular board who will actually shoot or prefer non-Colt's pattern pistols by choice.  I always assumed it was because they had no other recourse, but I have since learned they do so of their personal volition.  I know, I know, it took my breath when I realized it as well...

Regards,
Mako

[craiso]

Mako,

Thank you for all your help  .

Regards,

Christopher

[Crow Choker]

FWIW, Kirst in their web-site advises that the convertor for the Pietta '60 Army will fit the Pietta '51 Model Navy 'IN' 44 caliber, the 44 Sheriff's Model is just a short barrel version of the full size revolver(barrel wise). They also stress in bold letters not to try and fit a conversion kit for a 44 caliber onto a 36 caliber Navy frame. Puttin a round peg in a square hole type of deal. ------- Also FWIW, I recently bought a new Pietta 44 caliber percussion cylinder with Treso nipples that the seller advised he had purchased for a Pietta '60 Army Cap and ball. My '60 Army is a Uberti, but I wanted a spare cylinder for the 'non-authentic' Pietta '51 Navy I have in 44 caliber. Assuming due to the fact the frames were the same (grips and barrel assembly different-the '60 desending from the '51), I checked with different web-sites that sell Pietta's. In checking the stock numbers for Pietta '51 Navy in 44 caliber and the Pietta '60 Army cylinders, some of the stock numbers were different, some with the addition of a different fore-letter to the number. I called VTI Parts and asked them if the two revolvers took the same cylinder. I was advised they were the same. Was advised when someone orders a cylinder for either gun, a cylinder is taken out of the same bin. After receiving the cylinder, I measured just about all that could be measured on the new and original cylinders. Not a 'lick' of difference between and it functions perfectly. For some who may wonder, Pietta and Uberti have differences, slight, but enough to prevent 'cross using'. -----For some the '51 Navy in 44 caliber has been given various names by many who deem it not to be authentic. Yep, it's something created in the board room of Pietta, but my first capn' ball was a 44 caliber '51 Navy(even had "44 Army Model" stamped on the barrel), but I like the model and prefer a 44 over a 36 caliber. Think Ol' Col. Colt should have marketed them as such before the '60 Army came out. Some say some were produced (I tend to believe some were, if only prototypes), some say all BS, as for me, well as Augustus McCrae said in the moive 'Dead Man's Walk', "Don't know, don't care", the gun works for me.  

[Mako]

Crow Choker,
Yeah, a lot of people like the look of a '51 and the shorter grip of a navy model.  I just like yank'n your chain a bit, anyone who shoots a cap gun is okay in my book (well except for top strap shooters... ).

I'd be careful about posting that Uberti and Pietta parts are interchangeable.  In most cases they're not.  I can't mix the cylinders between my Uberti and Pietta Army models.  The ratchets are totally different and the hands are different lengths.  I have heard over the years that there are some parts which are close enough to use with a little fitting.  Maybe you have had better success than most.  That's the first I have heard of Cylinders being offered by VTI as interchangeable, I know they will offer "non-functioning" parts as trigger guards and back-straps, but the cylinders are a first for me.

I doubt Samuel Colt would have marketed '51s in .44 caliber because they had come out with not only the Army model but the improved Navy model as well.  The "creeping" loading lever gives you a mechanical advantage over the original lever design and the loading area facilitated the loading of paper cartridges which had become popular and were being heavily promoted by Colt's.  In marketing terms it confuses the issue and undercuts the claims for the improved features they were touting.  Remember they didn't have the sense of romance and nostalgia we have today about those old pistols.  The arsenal was scrambling to keep up with military orders for the war that had started and couldn't divert resources to an old design.  It has been said the new '61 Navy was Samuel's  favorite design for aesthetics (it is purty...)  The last portrait of him was with that pistol.

Colt died in early 1862, he was one of the major proponents of the loose powder pistols.  The "Young Turks" took charge following the war and put all of their efforts into trying to circumvent the Rollin White patent that had been assigned to S&W.  Rollin had been a Colt's employee and was rebuffed when he approached Colt and the management about the concept of bored through cylinders.  He left, obtained a patent on the concept and later sold it to S&W.  When the patent expired in 1871 Colt's began producing bored through pistols.

Remember there was also a major fire at the factory in the older East complex which pretty much destroyed it.  The West complex had just been finished in 1861 and could barely keep up with the work that they had for the war effort.  It took until 1867 to rebuild the burned East side.  By the time they had any breathing room the cartridge gun was upon them and they were just concerned about burning through their existing inventory of parts.  Like I said, I doubt seriously they would consider a .44 cal. '51, it would have been a poor business decision.

Regards,
Mako

[Crow Choker]

Mako, I reread my post, what I was referring to 'wasnot' that Uberti and Pietta parts were interchangeable, but that the Pietta 44 cylinder for the Pietta '51 Navy in 44 caliber and the '60 Pietta Army cylinder 'were' interchangeable. This is what VTI advised me. When I received the new Pietta cylinder that the seller had purchased for his Pietta '60 Army, I measured about every thing on it , comparing it with the cylinder on my Pietta '51 44 caliber. No difference between the two. I also for 'cow dung and grins', measured one of the Pietta cylinders with the cylinder from my Uberti '60 Army, alot of differences, some subtle, some not, but enough that neither would work in opposite revolvers. I had heard long ago that dimensions between the two manufactures exhisted. I hope I wasn't conveying the idea Uberti and Pietta parts were interchangable. Probably shouldn't have mentioned the reference to my Uberti '60 Army.

In reference to Sam Colt not marketing a 44 caliber in the '51 Navy, what you say is probably true, but still don't know why he didn't. Why didn't he foresee the advantage of the metalic cartridge and give R. White a pat on the back and get ahead of the game? Would seem to me to get away from the heft of the Dragoons, but take advantage of the the larger 44 caliber in the years between 1851 and 1860 or what ever actual time span between the two exhisted, Colt would have marketed a '51 in 44 caliber. More of a 'man-killer'. As I mentioned in my other post, I have read of some prototypes being made and some of foreign manufacturer. Maybe all record of their exhistence was destroyed in the fire? This raises as much controversy as the reports of the so-called 44 caliber Patersons, Paterson Walkers, Pre-Walkers or what ever they're called. Gets the purists and speculators going at odds.

Just for the record, I like my 2nd Model Dragoon so much, if I were to only have one capn' ball revolver, the Dragoon would be my choice. I like the style and nostalgia of the '51 Navy, but like the increased heft of the revolver in 44 and the 44 caliber itself over the standard 36 caliber. Also for the sake of the record, I prefer the larger grip frame of the 1860 Army over the '51 Navy and even the '73 Peacemaker.  That's one reason I like the grip frames of Conversions and the Open-Tops based on the '60 Army. Carried a Colt Trooper for most of 21 yrs as a Police Officer with large Pachmeyer grips (similar feel to the Dragoons and '60 Army) and I don't have super big hands, just like the feel. Wish Ruger would offer their single action revolvers with a '60 Colt style grip!!!!!   Yours To All, Crow Choker

[Mako]

Crow Choker,
Since you re-read your post you can see how your wording would lead anyone to believe you were talking about interchangeability between Uberti and Pietta.  No prob, I'm glad that's settled.

Now back to why Colt did what he did.  Let's talk about not recognizing revolutionary change.  As an analogy think back a few years ago, who would have predicted CDs being replaced by MP3 files downloaded online.  The same is true for DVDs.  Look at "Cell" phones, you can't even find a pay phone anymore.  And it's beginning to happen with newspapers and books.  Yet the people in the old industries seem slow to change.  Look at Blockbuster still holding on to Brick and Mortar stores.  Even Redbox is doomed,  I mean you can download a movie with a Playstation,  Wii or Xbox.  They're doomed...

People who are in a particular industry are often too close to see it.  In addition, If you are an inventor you have the problem with "pride of authorship."  I deal with that a lot.  When someone has an idea they are blinded to the alternatives.   There are other issues as well,  I'm sure you've heard the story of Wild Bill not trusting cartridge guns even to the day he died in 1876.  How would he know that there was actually powder in those store bought cartridges?   Most cartridge guns were anemic, especially pistols.  They were in little calibers like .22.  Loose powder weapons had been around for centuries, why would they assume they would be swept aside in a decade?  If you and I were as wise as we think we are looking back over 150 years then we should be rich because we would have recognized the "value" of Yahoo and Google and all of the other companies that appeared to offer nothing other than fluff.

As to why he didn't create a lightweight .44 between 1851 and 1860 there are many reasons.  Most people don't realize the first Armory in Hartford wasn't finished until 1855, he was busy just trying to expand.   But, the most important reason is technology.  The materials didn't even exist until after 1856 in the U.S.,  in fact the first  Bessemer converter wasn't set up in the U.S. until 1864.  The 1850s began the steel revolution, good steel was hard to come by and improved quality steel was barely available by 1860.  The simple carbon steel you have in your Pietta or Uberti  is light years ahead of the best steel in the 1850s.  We're not even talking about alloys beyond carbon.

The 1860 was actually from a design that began in 1858 (introduced and adopted by the army in 1860). It  took time to design and refine the pistol with the thinner walled cylinder.  Materials weren't even available until around 1857-1858, and Colt was pursuing a military contract to replace the Dragoons and other pistols with a new lightweight .44 caliber design, the Army had already rejected the smaller caliber '51.  From 1859 to 1860 Colt's was involved in trials and getting production set up.  When the war started Colt's also became the largest contract manufacturer of the 1861 Springfield Musket, they even made improvements that were later incorporated by the government arsenal at Springfield in 1863.

The prototypes you alluded to were for the 1860 design.  They were working on the creeping lever design and the rebated cylinder.  There may have been some rough development pistols that used a barrel either like a Dragoon or a '51, but there are dozens if not hundreds of variations and prototypes that go into a successful project, especially if you are pursuing government contracts.  For instance, the longer grip came about after some cavalry officers complained they couldn't grip a smaller pistol with gauntlets on.  They complain, you react.  That's the nature of chasing the contract.

They weren't just sitting around, they had a lot going on.  Colt dies in 1862, then the fire in 1864 really knocked them back.  And this was all going on during a war.  1851 to 1860 may seem like a long time to you today, and the idea of the rebated cylinder seems simple now with our modern steels.  But it was revolutionary and it happened at an incredibly rapid pace compared to the previous 600 years of firearms design.

Oh, and there weren't any .44 caliber Paterson revolvers.  I've heard the rumors, but show me the records.  It's all about evidence, not conjecture.  There were the Ring rifles and Carbines in calibers up to .53, but the No. 5 Belt pistol was the largest pistol and it was in .36 caliber.  I have heard rumors of some .40s or larger attempted pistols but the materials couldn't handle the thin walls necessary with the frame size at hand.  The rifles were bigger overall in the action and cylinder.

As a side note, have you ever heard why the .36 caliber pistols are called the Navy models?  In many ways it really has more to do with the Paterson revolver than the '51 and '61 models.  The first decent size order Colt ever got was from the Texas Navy in 1839 for Paterson revolvers and rifles.  So the .36 caliber No. 5 pistols delivered to the Texas navy became known as Navy models , at least until 1844. After 1844 the No.5s were often called the Texas Paterson.

Colt chose to recall past exploits of groups using his pistols with engraving.  He also used the mythic status of Texas overall to promote sales.  He started this first in 1847 with the scenes on the Walkers and Dragoons. These roll engraved scenes are Texas Ranger Jack Coffee Hays' company routing the Comanches in 1844, that scene also appeared on the baby dragoons.

When he once again produced a .36 caliber pistol he chose to put the roll engraved scene of the Texas Navy engaging the Mexican Navy in 1842 at Campeche (which is an entirely interesting and different story).  This was his acknowledgement of the history he had with his first large customer that bought .36 caliber pistols.  Interestingly it's not only on the "Navy" models of '51 and '61, but on the Army model '60 as well.  Some people mistakenly think the Navy model was called that because it was used by the Navy and the Army model by the Army.  Technically the '51s were originally called "belt" pistols.  Later the populous called the '51s Navy models because of the engraving on the cylinder and the name stuck.  And it all goes back to the Patersons sold to the Texas Navy.

So have a good one,
Mako