Surprise, surprise ..... & post script

[PJ Hardtack]

My Uberti-made Taylor's 44-40 '63 conversions do not fit into my Carrico 'Slim Jims' made for my '63 C&B guns!

The 44-40s are dimensionally larger in:

- frame width
- the cylinder
- barrel ahead of frame and at muzzle
- top strap (making the frame deeper)

I posted the dimensional difference on 'Gun Reviews' if you're interested. So, I've got a choice - new leather or 'wet molding' the old. I presume that anyone maker's '63 holsters will present the same problem until they catch on to the problem.

Forgot to add ....

The gun looks and feels 'bigger' 'cause it is! It's a full 5 oz. heavier due to the ejector rod, the loading gate/recoil shield, the larger dimensions and the smaller hole in the barrel. I'm already thinking of them as my 'Remington Dragoons'.

[Ten Wolves Fiveshooter]

  PJ Hardtack, I suggest you contact David, he made the holster, and will know if re-wet molding will help, there is only so much stretch in leather, if his pattern will allow for the needed stretch you need, he will know, you don't want to ruin your holster, especially if it already fits one of your other guns, some times the best thing is to have another one made for the gun that will fit properly.IMHO!!


                          Regards

                       tEN wOLVES   

 

[Slowhand Bob]

I am very confused over the guns and calibers mentioned.  The '63 cap and ball Uberti is a 32cal small frame that was cut to accept a .36 cal five shot cylinder.  How did 44-40 get involved?  Am I suffering a brain fade?

[PJ Hardtack]

Slowhand

My pair and a spare of '63 .44 C&Bs are sure not what tyou're talkin' about. Part of your confusion might stem from the erroneous description of the '63 New Army .44 as a '58 Remington; a patent date.
I suggest you take a peek at Taylor's web site. You'll see that the 45 Colt '63 conversion can be reconverted to C&B by changing the cylinder. The other calibres are 'dedicated' - 44-40, 38-40, 32-20 and .38 Spl.

[WaddWatsonEllis]

Ilooked on Taylors & Co Website

There is an 1858 Remington Conversion listed in .44-40 ... pic below

I own a Millington 1863 Remington pocket pistol that was converted from .31 Cal Cp n Ball to .32 S&W ... also pictured below ...

This might be the cause of confusion.

And then again I might be part of the confusion ... *S*

[Slowhand Bob]

Wadd, I have a friend who has that or something similar and I think it looks so much better than the .31cal one that Pietta makes.  Sometimes proper terminology gets passed by for terms that are less correct but more common.  Is it possible that this might have happened with the holster, one person thinks of of a different gun than the other when 1863 is used as the model name?  At the end you reffered to a Remington Dragoon but by then I was totally confused.  I have made holsters for home brewd Pietta brand Remington/Kirst  conversions in the past and they did fit perfectly into the ones made for the cap and ball versions.  Though the conversion did include Kirst style loading gate and ejector rod it is possible that they are different from the ones used by Uberti??  Are the dimension differences you speak of actually between the Uberti cap and ball and the Uberti conversion model?  This would mean that my master patterns possibly would need to be compared to this model before using???  Definitely before wet molding.  Thanks, this is something interesting and possibly very important to know.

[Cliff Fendley]

PJ, can you post a link to the gun you have? If your talking about what I think you are I have a totally different pattern for those two.

As was said you probably need to contact David and see if he can tell you if it will stretch that far. I know it wouldn't work on one of mine cause even the toe of the holster is larger. 

I think you need a holster for an 1858 Remington, I just call them Remington New Army. Some people call them 63 New Army. I thought Taylor and Uberti called it an 1858 conversion.

[PJ Hardtack]

Wass/Cliff

Yep, that's my gun as pictured; 'cept mine is marked 44 W.C.F. The current issue of 'Guns of the Old west' has a review of the 45 Colt version (which can go back to .44 C&B), which influenced me to buy mine. The only ones which I could track down this sid eof the Medicine Line were in 44-40, which is what I would have chosen anyway.
Had my first range session yesterday (until my hands got numb) with 200 RCBS RNFP/6 Red Dot and it shoots as good as it looks!
The BP loads I took wouldn't chamber as I used too much compression in seating a lubed wad/thin card wad atop 30 grs FFg and the cases wwee slightly distorted. Burned them up in my '66 carbine just fine.
There does seem some confusion as to model numbers - Uberti refers to both their C&B and Conversions as "1858s". In fact, I believe them to be New Model Army 1863s. But - I leave that to those that love such minutiae. My holsters were ordered from Dave for "1858" models and they fit.
The 44-40 conversion is dimensionally larger (see my post), but the real reason they don't fit is the ejector rod and housing attached to the frame on the right side. It adds bulk near the muzzle end.
Anyway, I'm in the market now for new leather as I really don't want to 'stretch' my Carrico holsters to fit. Oddly, I have a cheap, oiled leather 'Slim Jim' that BA sells for $15 bucks that fits well.

[Cliff Fendley]

I see what your saying now, I wasn't thinking about the ejector rod. If I was making one for that gun I would start with my 1875 Remington pattern and make the length long enough for the barrel, that should work.

Your holsters might stretch but I can understand not wanting to do that if you have other guns for them as well.

What length are your barrels?

[PJ Hardtack]

Cliff

All my Remingtons (C&B as well as the 44-40s) have 8" barrels. If anyone had told me that I would someday feel comfortable with the heft and balance of such long barreled pistols, I would have laughed.
Now I regard my 4-3/4" and 5-1/2" barreled guns as 'snubbies'.

[Cliff Fendley]

Mine has the 8 inch barrel also. The way it's supposed to be. I don't have a conversion though, just the C&B.

[WaddWatsonEllis]

PJ,

I used to be a 'PJ' in the service, (that is the symnbol on a form 781 when a Pararescue is jumping .... and a nickname as well) ...

But my thoughts was about your barrel lengths: I have a '51 Colt (7 1/2"), two Schofields (7" Barrells) and a couple of Ruger Old Armys @ 5 1/2" barrels ... if the ROAs weren't so damned heavy, I' sure they would fel like snubnoses.

[Dalton Masterson]

I stretched a pair of 1851 holsters to fit my wife's new '72 opentops. Everything had to stretch and adjust so much for the ejector rod, now, I cant even get my '51s down in there with the loading lever.
It also made the toe of the holster curve up and made them pretty ugly.

I am glad to hear you are going to go for new leather instead of stretching them.

Calling them what the catalog and most of the industry calls them would be a good way to keep on the right pattern, even though we know its not the right term. Always give the maker a good description of what you are putting in the holster. If you would have told me a Remington 63, you would have had a spur trigger pocket pistol holster.

DM

[PJ Hardtack]

Wadd

I'm a 'PJ" as well - 318 free-falls while in the service. I was never a 'dope roper'. The 'PJ' now came from the initials engraved on a '66 carbine I bought.
I hate 'Mickey Mouse' when it comes to my guns or leather. I do like 'cowboy', unlined holsters as that was what they wore and could afford. A read thru' "Packing Iron" by Rattenbury tells the tale. I regard the 'bucket', lined holsters of the drugstore cowboys with a jaundiced eye. But - you pays you money, you takes you choice.
I'm not a speed shooter and am more interested in what I can do with the gun once it's in my hands. My choice of firearms reflects this as well. A 'gamer' wouldn't be shooting horse pistols like this new pair of 44-40 conversions.

As for nomenclature, until corrected, I regard my guns as 'converted '63 New Army Models', althought I have a reference that says although many were converted by frontier 'smiths, Remington built them from scratch for CF calibres.

[bedbugbilly]

After a readin' all of this . . . . I made up my mind . . . no more holsters for me . . . I'm just goin' to tuck 'em in my belt . . . if I punch a couple of extra notches in the belt . . . at least I know the revolver will fit!      Well . . . maybe?