Earlier Than Thought RM Conversion

[Fox Creek Kid]

The following shows a Colt Factory Letter for a '60 Richards Mason conversion in .44 Colt. What is so interesting about it? It has a date of shipment listed as March 10, 1871. That's a helluva lot earlier than many have thought for this model. This changes the theory of a "stair step" order of conversion development based purely on barrel depletion as the '60 Army percussion was made until 1873. Also, at this time in early 1871 the Military had not yet received their 1,000 + 1st Model Richards conversions. It appears as if Colt R&D was going full tilt even more than previously thought after the Rollin Patent expired in 1869 as well as feeling the heat from the success of the S&W American:

http://www.gunlistings.org/texas-gun-classifieds/corpus_christi/collectibles/56111/1860_colt_richards_mason_conversion

[Graveyard Jack]

Smells fishy, because this would also be the only Richards-Mason that was converted from an existing percussion gun. All known R-M conversions were built from new, unnumbered percussion frames with the new S-lug barrel. It also appears to have the two line patent date, including the July 2nd, 1872 for the Mason improvement. So why would a sixgun with an 1872 patent date be converted and ship a year earlier? It makes no sense and I'm skeptical.

[Fox Creek Kid]

Smells fishy, because this would also be the only Richards-Mason that was converted from an existing percussion gun...

Nothing fishy, just my bad memory. I forgot that some Colt letters show the date of shipment as a percussion weapon on the Factory Letter and not the date shipped as a conversion. That's what this is. My oversight. DUH!! 

[Graveyard Jack]

In the listing he said that it originally shipped in 1861, which would've been as a percussion gun. Either way, it's still a R-M conversion, way out of the known serial number range for those guns. We also know that R-M's are not 'supposed' to be converted percussion guns but new guns built from leftover percussion parts. It would be nice to get more details on the gun and somebody should probably confirm the information in the letter, because it contradicts known data. Whether it shipped in 1871 as a percussion or cartridge gun, you still found an interesting anomaly. 

[Fox Creek Kid]

He lives close to me and I spoke with him. He said it was shipped as a percussion in '71. The Hoyt letters don't delineate the dates. The gun came out of Oklahoma.

As a side note, I have always believed that Colt was working feverishly on conversion development between the Thuer and 1871 as I am sure that the S&W American left them aghast. This hurt even moreso when Colt was told by the Military to rechamber their prototype SAA from .44 Russian to .44 S&W American in 1872. This could only mean that the Military somehow thought it a better ctg. than the .44 Colt used in the 1st Model Richards which makes no sense as both were equal for the most part. 

[Graveyard Jack]

Like I said, it's still an oddity because there were no known R-M's built from existing percussion guns and the serial is way out of range.

[Mike]

I am no expert but the barrel in the picture has not got the same patena as the frame and Cylinder or the rest of the gun.
I would looks very closely at this gun??
Also it could be a period Parts gun as well??

[Sir Charles deMouton-Black]

So many questions

[Fox Creek Kid]

Like I said, it's still an oddity because there were no known R-M's built from existing percussion guns and the serial is way out of range.

I know. I am tempted to drive up & take a gander as he is only 160 mi. from me. However, more closeup photos would be easier.

[Graveyard Jack]

Be great to get some better shots of the serial  numbers on the frame and barrel, although if you zoom in, it does look like they match. Also be nice to see which conversion ring it has.