Question: Richards and Richards-Mason Conversions

Jimeast · January 16, 2016, 10:22:23 AM

I've been looking at Richards and Richards-Mason conversions and am curious how the ring or breech plate attaches to the recoil shield? Is it screwed to the recoil shield or just located via the arbor and cutouts at the bottom of the ring to fit around the frame of the revolver?

All the pictures I've seen of the ring by itself do not show fastener holes, and any pics I have found with the cylinder off the arbor all show the ring in position as if it's permanently affixed to the recoil shield.

Fox Creek Kid · January 16, 2016, 12:07:45 PM

Quote from: Jimeast on January 16, 2016, 10:22:23 AM...or just located via the arbor and cutouts at the bottom of the ring to fit around the frame of the revolver?...

This: it's held by the arbor & cutouts on either side.

Coffinmaker · January 16, 2016, 12:15:33 PM

The conversion Breach Ring is first squared up with "flats" at the bottom and then attached by a shoulder machined into the Arbor that retains the Breach Ring against the Recoil Shield. There is an exception. There is an after-market conversion set of Breach Ring and
Cylinder that requires the Breach Ring and Recoil Shield to be drilled and Tapped for locator/retaining screws.

Coffinmaker

Hoof Hearted · January 25, 2016, 11:34:18 PM

The rear "extension" on a Richards ring is not completely "round", meaning it stops at the sides of the frame. The Recoil Shield (frame behind the cylinder) is cut back exposing the channel for the hand and the arbor is screwed back on holding the conversion ring in place. The hand is replaced with a 2 stage hand and the cylinder after being turned down, in the rear, has had the ratchet teeth advanced from the centerline of each chamber to between each chamber. The hammer nose is cut to accept a fixed firing pin then later the sight cut off and a sight machined into the ring and the firing pin moved there also.

Regards, HH

Coffinmaker · January 26, 2016, 05:00:47 PM

I don't understand. I really really don't. The sexiest gun ever built was the Colt 1861 Richards. Absolute artistry in steel. Who ever felt the need to come up with that clunky SAA was one very miss-guided individual.

The 1851 Richards is a very close second.

So what if you could build the SAA in .45 Colt. Who Cares!! Ugly damn thing.

Coffinmaker

PS: I really really like Cap Guns and Conversions. No, really, I do

Fox Creek Kid · January 26, 2016, 05:12:00 PM

Quote from: Coffinmaker on January 26, 2016, 05:00:47 PM
I don't understand. I really really don't. The sexiest gun ever built was the Colt 1861 Richards...

I bet you meant the '61 Richards-Mason.

Coffinmaker · January 26, 2016, 10:45:34 PM

FCK!!
Haven't you seen the replica 1861 Richards built by ASM??? Shirley you remember that

Coffinmaker

Actually I meant the 1860 Richards

Fox Creek Kid · January 27, 2016, 02:50:00 PM

CM, in the McDowell book on conversions there is a photo of a factory tool room model '61 Navy Richards conversion. It's pretty cool, but the project never went any further.

Coffinmaker · January 27, 2016, 08:54:11 PM

Hey FCK,
Yepper!! The Colt boys had their chance. Coulda shoulda wouda. Missed a serious chance there Colt did.
I got the biggest kick out of it when ASM brought out their "1860" and "1861" Richards conversions. There were specific and different (oh sure they were). The 60 had an Army Grip and the 61 had a Navy Grip. The rest of the gun(s) were interchangeable. BUT .......
The unstepped frame, smooth side 51 Cylinder and 60 barrel assembly just flat look'd FABULOUS!! Alas, no quality and .. no more.
Shame really.

Coffinmaker