Input requested ....

[PJ Hardtack]

Currently I have a Uberti '71 in .38 Spl. with 5-1/2" barrel - love it! Haven't shot it with BP yet, but it sure perks with 158 RNFPs and 3.5 red Dot.

I've got a line on a Uberti RM '51 conversion in .38 Spl. with 7-1/2" barrel. My other option is a 7-1/2" '71 .38 Spl. on the Army frame.  From what I've read, this will be one massive revolver in the hand for the calibre, and not historically correct in the bargain.

I kind of like the idea of having both the early and late model conversions in .38 Spl. on the Navy frame; one with barrel mounted sight, t'other using the hammer notch.

Comments?

[Coffinmaker]

Well .... You may be mixing apples and oranges.  The 1871/1872 Open Tops have exactly the same frame.  The ONLY difference is the trigger guard/grip frame.  The "Army" model simply has the larger "Army" grip frame.  So, the two .38s only differ in the grips.

The R/M conversions are a slightly different animal.  There are two vey different guns.  The '51 navy version s about the same in dimensions  as an 1872.  I don't remember exactly, but I don't think the Army R/M conversion is available in .38.  I'd have to look it up.

You are basically talking about 3 different guns entirely

Coffinmaker

[Coffinmaker]

Yup.  I was wrong.  The R/M Army conversion is offered in .38 Spl.  It isn't going to be that much larger than the Open Top.  It  will be a mite heavier due to the larger cylinder with smaller chambers.  The .38 barrels and cylinders on the Army gun will not interchange with the larger caliber Army guns.  The breach rig is different.

Coffinmaker

[Coffinmaker]

I'll get all my ducks in the pond yet.
If your talking about the Richards Type II conversion, then yes, it's a gump larger than the 51 or the R/M.  They made the whole gun bigger when they decided to make it in .45 Colt.

Incidentally, none of them are truly correct.  But, since they look "fine from the freeway" they will have to do.

Coffinmaker

[Abilene]

Some clarification.  The 1860 Richards-Mason conversion and the 1860 Type-II or Transition Richards are the same size (and they are both available in 45LC).  The only difference between the two is the barrel assembly.  They do both come with Army grips only.  And of course the cylinder (and frame I think) are larger than the 1860 percussion gun.

The "1860 R-M" in .38 and the Type-II in .38 both have the same cylinder and frame as the 1851 R-M (non-rebated cylinder and non-stepped frame), with Army grips and 1860-style barrels.  The .44's and .45's have the correct 1860 stepped frame and cylinder.

PJ, calling a '71 Opentop a conversion can cause confusion, since it looks a lot like a conversion but isn't as it was manufactured that way to shoot cartridges.  With the two choices you mentioned to match up with your current navy-gripped OT, one choice would give you the same grip on two guns but different sights, the other choice giving you same sights but different grips.

To further confuse, although not with these particular guns mentioned, VTI lists the Man With No Name conversion (which is an octagon '51-style barrel on a '71 OT frame) as an "Uberti Richards-Navy" 

And finally, I love my '51 R-M's!  I put the brass front sight post on top of the hammer for a fast sight picture looking down that flat top of the barrel, and the rear sight on the hammer also makes for a much longer sight radius than with the OT.

[PJ Hardtack]

Well, I asked for input and I got it .... ;>) Thanks one and all.

My current gun is marked '71 and has the streamlined frame of the '61 Navy, if that helps clarify things.

The pics I got from the dealer show an 1860 Army size frame and the round loading gate. They list it as the 'New Model' whereas t'other is listed as "Old Model".
I believe this means it will have the octagon barrel of the '51 percussion gun with the flat loading gate and Navy-size grip.
With my small paw, I prefer it to the Army grip. I'll call the dealer tomorrow after our Thanksgiving long weekend.

I've never had a problem with the hammer notch rear sight on my 2nd Gen '51 or Dragoon. The part about the longer sight radius is valid as the tiny ears of the later model are no screamin' hell on wheels. For the distances and generous size plates we shoot in CAS, you've got minute of steel cowboy guaranteed with either.

So, am I correct in thinking that if I was to change grips on the '60-sized gun I mentioned above, that I'd have the equivalent of the gun I currently own but with the 7-1/2" barrel? I have two Uberti '73 SAAs in .45, so swapping grip frames would be no big deal - if they fit.

I've got the Haven & Belden book on Colt's but it's rather inadequate on the topic of the cartridge conversions and Open Tops. My other references offer pics without much technical comment.

[Abilene]

"Late Model" and "Early Model" only refer to the grip size on the 1871-72 Opentop (the one with the rear sight on the rear of the barrel).  Early Model has the brass Navy grip and is sometimes called the Navy model OT.  Late Model is also called Army OT and has the Army grip.  Otherwise guns are the same (Army grip comes only on 7 1/2", Navy grip comes on any barrel length).  Seems like I just typed in this info in a recent thread.  Hmm

The ONLY Colt cartridge conversion made by Uberti with an octagonal barrel is the '51 Richards-Mason, also called a Navy conversion, and is available in .38 only and with brass Navy grip only.  (Okay, plus the Man With No Name which is sort of a conversion and has the octagonal barrel with the rammer and no ejector).  

One thing that can cause some confusion is Taylor's website calls the '51 & '60 Richards-Mason conversions "71 C. Mason Conversions".  Taylors and Cimarron call the OT "1872 Opentop".  Others call the Opentop '71 OT, '72 OT, '71-72 OT, and just Opentop. 

Here's my '51 R-M's, 5 1/2" in front and 7 1/2" in rear:

[RickB]

Love the two up front with the ivory grips and all that engraving. Would love to have a set like that myself. Now I need to start writing Santa and trying to convince him I've been a good boy.

Well, at least I tried to be good. 

[PJ Hardtack]

Again, thanks for the input!

I'll let the gang know which gun I opt for, but right now I'm leanin' towards the Navy grip. Oddly, the 'Old Model' is listed at $40 more than the 'New Model'. Any idea as to why? I'll be askin' the dealer.

I appreciate not being dumped on for asking an often asked question. It's the only way people learn and I've always regarded the only dumb question as the one you were too afarid to ask.

[Abilene]

...Oddly, the 'Old Model' is listed at $40 more than the 'New Model'. Any idea as to why? I'll be askin' the dealer....

If they are calling the one with the Navy grip the Old Model, then that is odd.  In the same model gun (Opentop), the Navy grip has a lower dealer and retail price than the Army grip model, due to brass being less expensive than steel.

The conversions cost more than the Opentops, with the addition of the conversion ring being the likely reason.  And again there, the 1860 R-M's with the army grip cost more than the brass Navy gripped '51.  And then the Type II 1860's cost the most due to Army grip and the harder to manufacture ejector housing that fits into the rammer slot.

There's a lot to like about any of them    Let us know if you come home with one.

[PJ Hardtack]

Well, I ended up buying a Uberti '71-'72 Open Top in .38 Spl. with 7-1/2" barrel and Army grip.

Unless I find that I like the Army grip, I'll swap it with the smaller grip from one of my Uberti SAAs. That way it'll look more like the 5-1/2" '71 I already have.

So, were these models made historically in .38 LC, or is that an aberration?

[Abilene]

I think all of the '71-72 OT's were in 44 rimfire, at least that's all I've read about.  And of the conversions, the only one which would have been in .38 would have been the '51.  But hey, that doesn't stop us from enjoying the heck out of them in modern calibers    Let us know how she shoots.

[PJ Hardtack]

This is bizarre, but ....

I just got off the phone talking to a different clerk at the gun shop. He found the "ghost gun", the one I wanted with the Navy-sized brass frame; the so-called "early model" on their website, and called me. The other clerk told me that it had been sold and not removed from the website, so I bought the steel frame model with the Army grip.

He found it incorrectly shelved with a batch of Kimber 1911s! So, what this means in Kanuckistan, is that the registration process of the other gun has to be stopped and the new one initiated. Based on my experience with this bureaucracy, I'm going to be amazed if this doesn't go FUBAR.

Eventually, I will get the gun I wanted in the first place. I presume that it will shoot smokeless loads as well as my 5-1/2" model, and I'm looking foward to seeing what they will do with BP. I've never had an issue with a gun fitted with a brass grip frame, and I don't expect to.

[Graveyard Jack]

Size-wise there is very little difference between the two. I don't know how accurate their numbers are but Cimarron lists the 7½" Open Top .38Spl with Army grip as heavier than the 7½" 1851.

[PJ Hardtack]

You guys are a bad influence ....

Six months ago, I didn't own an Open Top of any kind. Then a pal let me shoot his Uberti '71 .38 Spl. with 5-1/2" barrel and I was hooked. I found one and bought it, allegedly for my wife ..... ;>) She doesn't like it and I love it! If one was so licenced, it would make a good CCW.

So now I've got a 7-1/2" model to go along with it. The dealer was also stocking an 'as new in box' Uberti Richards-Mason with 7-1/2" barrel. I missed out when a pal was selling a pair of those unfired, so I wasn't going to let this one get away, especially at the price.

Once 'Big Brother' gives the OK, they'll be in my paws; a week to 10 days. Always nice to have something to look forward to.