Rebated or not rebated cylinders on 1860 Richards transition conversions

[griswold]

just reread all this talk about the rebated and non rebated cylinders.........and it is amazing why Uberti does not put the Navy grip on their 1860 .38 frame and just rename it the 1861.

Here is a couple of photos of 1861's......with the modified ship prow style barrels. 

[Blair]

I can't address the issues of rebated or non rebated Colt cylinders on the reproduction Italian C&P or conversions revolvers.

The only thing I can suggest is to do an actual study on the "original" Colt development and introduction of the rebated cylinders in both C&B and cartridge conversions.

One will find out there is not the amount of hybridization in the original 'production' line as there is in the Italian copies.
Just a thought and suggestion on my part.
  Blair

[Fox Creek Kid]

There's a few things folks have to realize. Firstly, the Richards conversions only apply to the 1860. So a Richards Type I or II that is anything but a .44Colt 1860 with a rebated cylinder is a fantasy gun. Only the Richards-Mason conversion was applied to the 1851 and 1861 models....

You're forgetting the '60 Army Richards Mason in .44 Colt of which Colt made approx. 1,200 and which Cimarron makes a splendid replica:

http://www.cimarron-firearms.com/conversion-revolvers.html

[Blair]

The only problem I have with their version of the 1860 Army RM conversion is they use the Open Top type barrel assembly on it.
The profiles of the two barrel assemblies are quite different.

[Abilene]

The only problem I have with their version of the 1860 Army RM conversion is they use the Open Top type barrel assembly on it.
The profiles of the two barrel assemblies are quite different.

Sorry dude, the problem is in your head.  

Uberti's Richards-Mason has the correct barrel style.  Colt may have used more than one barrel style in the conversions, but here are some originals for you to look at:
http://www.icollector.com/Colt-Model-1860-Richards-Mason-Centerfire-Conversion-Revolver_i9965553
http://www.antiqueguns.com/phorum/read.php?6,15818,15912

The Richards and Transition Richards (or Type II) had the percussion-style barrels.  Richards-Mason, at least some of them, used new barrels.  Uberti's conversions and Opentops are copies of Mike Harvey's originals.

[Blair]

Dear Sir,
You are indeed correct.
I thank you so much for your vary kind words.
I bow to your superior knowledge and historical intellect with a quote from you on this vary same thread/forum.
quote,
"However, if you buy something called an 1860 Richards-Mason or and 1860 Type II Richards, you would at least like the gun to look like that even if the caliber is not period correct. Uberti is using the same 1860 barrels as the .44's and .45's, only bored to .357 for these .38 Spcl guns. All they would have to do is bore the 1860 cylinders to .38 Spcl and use the stepped frame. They are already boring '51 cylinders. Just bore less of them and spend that effort boring the stepped cylinder and the gun would look correct. It really shouldn't add much if any additional manufacturing effort."

There is a bit more to it than just the barrel assembly profiling, isn't there?

[Abilene]

Blair, that is two different subjects.  What you just quoted from me was regarding the "1860" conversions in .38 caliber.

My later response to you was regarding your comment on the barrels not being the correct style for 1860 Richards-Masons, but they are correct.  In fact, the barrels on anything Uberti calls an 1860 conversion (Richards-Mason or Type II Richards) are the correct style for that particular 1860 conversion.  It is the frame and cylinder that are not "1860 style" on the fantasy 1860 conversions in .38.

Perhaps I have misunderstood what you are trying to say.

[Fox Creek Kid]

Dave, the very first batch of Uberti/Cimarron '60 Army RM conversions were not totally correct in that Uberti cut corners and used the '72 Open Top breech cone which is longer than the correct one. It also had an incorrect cylinder length as a result. I had one of these that I bought out of the first batch in country in Sept. 2001 right before 9/11. I called Cimarron and pitched a bitch as the SHOT Show photos was a correct RM in that respect. I remember their Mgr. at the time, Harvey Lane, being really mad with Uberti at the time over this. In early 2003, when the first correct spare parts became available for that model and after Uberti had corrected their mistake, I bought a cylinder & barrel and fitted them properly. It is now a correct RM. 44.  

Gunblast did an early review on one of the early "incorrect" versions replete with photos. Mine was exactly like it. Note the longer OT style breech cone & shorter cylinder:

http://www.gunblast.com/Cimarron_Conversion.htm

[Abilene]

Howdy FCK, yeah I do recall those early conversions.  And yes, it was a bitch to get parts for them (still is  )

[Graveyard Jack]

You're forgetting the '60 Army Richards Mason in .44 Colt of which Colt made approx. 1,200 and which Cimarron makes a splendid replica:

http://www.cimarron-firearms.com/conversion-revolvers.html

I'm not forgetting anything, you misread what I said. I didn't say that the Richards-Mason was only applied to the 1860, I said that the only conversion applied to the 1851 and 1861 was the Richards-Mason. That the only Richards Type I or II conversions were on the 1860.

I never said or implied that there were no 1860 Richards-Mason conversions. I wouldn't because it's probably the first conversion replica I ever handled.

[Fox Creek Kid]

I'm not forgetting anything, you misread what I said. I didn't say that the Richards-Mason was only applied to the 1860, I said that the only conversion applied to the 1851 and 1861 was the Richards-Mason. That the only Richards Type I or II conversions were on the 1860...

You're right:  I misunderstood you. Regardless, you forgot the Thuer. 

[Graveyard Jack]

No I didn't. 

[Hoof Hearted]

Howdy all!

This is an interesting discussion replete with a lot of knowledge and some great discourse. I do feel the need to "split hairs" here though............

There is no such thing as a "rebated Colts cylinder". The cylinder is actually enlarged forward of the bolt stops and the frame is rebated.

It is very interesting how Colt's genisis of caliber and revolver evolved and it shows how Samuel Colt's resistance to cartridge affected the company (yes I know he died before these designs). Colts company got caught with their pants down by the loss of the Rollins and White patent to S&W and because of the contraints of their cap and ball designs (referring to the length of their cylinders and frames) and got caught with their pants down again with the advent of the 1871/72 Open Top when S&W went to inside lubed metallic Cartridges. Thus the 1873 SAA was born and was pretty much a "perfect design".

Regards
HH

[Fox Creek Kid]

...when S&W went to inside lubed metallic Cartridges. Thus the 1873 SAA was born and was pretty much a "perfect design"...

S&W didn't start using inside lube ctgs. until the mid 1880's. This has been covered in Handloader magazine in the past in their historical section. The .44 Russian was for all intents & purposes almost exactly the same ctg. as their .44 American for the first 15 yrs.

Go here & scroll down to the .44 Russian ctgs.:

http://www.oldammo.com/september04.htm