1860 Amry Conversion kit

Started by Cheyenne, December 08, 2004, 07:51:50 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Which style would you rather have?

Richards style/hammer altered and sight integeral to the conversion ring
9 (60%)
R-M style with the hammer unaltered and the rear sight in the hammer nose
6 (40%)

Total Members Voted: 14

Voting closed: January 07, 2005, 07:51:50 PM

Cheyenne

 :D

How do all,  trying to see how much interest there would be in a conversion kit for the 1860 Army and which style would be preferred by the potential customers.

Early Richards style with the rear sight integeral to the conversion ring, or
a Richards-Mason type with the hammer remaining unaltered and the rear sight staying on the hammer nose.

In a Richards, after mounting the ring you'd have to cut the load channel and cut down the hammer nose.

In a Richards-Mason you'd mount the ring, then cut the load channel.

In either, the firing pin will be mounted in the ring with a ferrel.
Well..........Bye!

J.W.Neely

50-50 , exit polls look like it could go any which-a-way. :o
Black powder shooting is like holding history in your hands.

Cheyenne

It'll be more fun watching this poll than any during the past election though!  thanks for responding JW, now look at the one on pricing and let's see how it fairs.  ;D
Well..........Bye!

J.D.Cayhill

We came...We saw...We voted. I do like those conversions. 8)
"I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man."
SBSS #638
BOSS #44
STORM #142
RATS #89

Qball

I prefer nippels :o
I mean unalterd cap & ball style ::)
WartHog
SCORRS
SootLord
STORM

© 1995 - 2024 CAScity.com