GTOW article

Major 2 · August 24, 2006, 07:36:46 AM

The latest fall issue of Guns of the Old West has an artical on the Colt Long Cylinder 1860....
these are done by Bob Millington of Armsport on 2nd or 3rd Gen. Colts...
It just may have to my next in line on my wish list !

Also the same author, test the Type II Richards. ( come on Oct. ! )

Black River Smith · August 24, 2006, 02:53:03 PM

The Long Cylinder is a very interesting looking Colt. It kept all the lines of an 1860 with only a loading groove and most had gates. The gates did not survive at least on pictures I have seen. It did not have an ejector rod either. Ram stayed.

Like you I am still waiting to get a 2nd model, while it is not as nice as a 1st, it will do. I think it is better than the RM or 3rd.

Major 2 · August 24, 2006, 09:13:36 PM

See there is the dilemma... I'm gonna want one !
I have several 1860's ...an Original 3 screw , 2- 2nd Gens ( one with an R&D Conversion Cyl. )
When I ordered my Type II in March , my FFL showed me a USPFA Type I prototype, I made a trade for on the spot !
and I have a 72 Opentop.... It's just in the progression.

So one day I'll have the 1860 Army , a Type I Richards , a Type II Richards & the Richards & Mason 72 Opentop, The the Long Cylinder is going on the wish list right at the top !

Black River Smith · August 24, 2006, 09:24:24 PM

Wait back up there. What is that USPFA stuff? Is this a true repro/copy of the 1st model Richards (Type I)? Tell me more. Who is USPFA? when is it due out?

I use a Cim. Open Top now also.

Went over to the USFA Forum and saw your posting there. So it is a one of a kind. No production was started, I guess.

Major 2 · August 25, 2006, 08:57:30 AM

I don't know about one of a kind , my guns S# would seem to indicate no (as it it's #17in a run )
USPFA is the old name of USFA, apparently a legal rowl with COLT some where back in 93 -94...

It is the only one so far I heard of, so marked....
as to exact well , I'm told it was made for display for the 94 Shot Show.
It's dang close, it has the Type I sight & ring with rebounding Firing pin and flat hammer & and the correct ejector style.
It is not fancy, finished in blue and case colors ( not nickeled or any engraving ) just looks like a plain model ( though fit and finish is on par with USFA ) with oil finished walnut grips ( no poly or varnish)

No production was started, I suppose... but they might one day !
They aparently have the tooling.... And
there is interest in the Conversions, just look at R&D, Krist , RL Millington, now Cimmeron's Type II & not to mention the other Colt conversions & even the Remy's..

Even Uberti teamed with Kenny Howell ( I recall ) to make a Thurer Conversion several years ago... they scraped the idea though ( I suspect coned cartridges to expensive to manufacture was it's demise )

Major 2 · August 25, 2006, 03:44:29 PM

No conversion ring ... none, the cylinder is the whole length. It was simpler version of the Opentop.
These were not COLT conversions, but by others , maybe gunsmiths of the era or blacksmiths.
Chambered in 44 Rimfire or later 44 Center fire.
There is cut out in the recoil shield, slightly larger than the chamber to facilitate loading without a gate.
The rebated step in the frame is milled off. And new straight through Cylinder is used.
No extractor is used, rammer remains but serves no purpose, and a barrel mounted rear sight is used mounted above and just behind the wedge.
Great article in Guns Of The Old West on RL Millington offerings.

Fox Creek Kid · August 25, 2006, 04:28:16 PM

One BIG problem: last I knew Mr. Millington was backed up till who laid the rail & was taking no new orders.

Major 2 · August 25, 2006, 05:23:03 PM

Yep ! ...that be true

same with Kenny Howell

Black River Smith · August 25, 2006, 06:34:55 PM

In my mind they were a conversion. The cylinder was new, not just cut down or welded up, I agree. But a partial/small shield/plate was milled into the recoil shield and the hammer was altered, just like other conversions. Most that were produced were rimfire. I don't believe these have been proven to be from the factory. I think all were blacksmith or gunsmith conversions.

Even though the new cylinders did not have a rebate, the same problem existed with the cylinder stop knotches cutting through as in Richards conversions.

The guns I have seen had an eye hook below the loading groove. That hook was believed to be a gate attachment item. Did not appear to be real strong that is why they did not survive or may have been removed.

Like 'major' stated they could have been the precursor of the 72 Open Top or someones attempt to reproduce an Open Top on the available 1860's.

A picture of one can be seen in the book 'The Taming of the West - Age of the Gunfighter' by Joseph Rosa, page 160. Gun is on the bottom lefthand side. Others are in the McDowell book 'A Study of Colt Conversions and .....'.

If someone would make the cylinder I would try the rest. But that is not likely.

Fox Creek Kid · August 26, 2006, 10:27:34 AM

Evidently, this new issue of GOTW is not on newsstands yet as I looked. Is the Richards conversion one of Millington's projects and not the new Uberti? Last I knew Millington did not have the machine to roll engrave the cylinders hence they were blank (IMHO ugly & not period correct).

Major 2 · August 26, 2006, 10:58:52 AM

I would think not, but it will be shorty , mine came in the mail by subscription on 8/23.

the two seprate articles are about :
1. the new Cimmaron Type II ( by Uberti and it is a beauty )
2. Millingtons Long Cylinder conversion (he is making on 3rd Gen. 1860 Colts )

As stated the Long Cylinder was not a Colt Factory Conversion , but a conversion by some unknown era smiths...some were crude compaired to the conversions the Colt factory was doing I.E. Richards, Richards & Mason and the 72 .

Millington's is doing these in fine qualiy , but the wait maybe be long, as he is backed up.
Thought the article is about his Long Cylinders , his website does not mention them.
But does show his other conversions , on Walkers, Pattersons, Navies and the Army... as well as Remy's

As to the roll engraving, the Long Cylinder conversion would not have them.
An all new cylinder was manufactured buy the smith and installed.

Black River Smith · August 26, 2006, 12:53:00 PM

Major,

Do you think Millington is offering the cylinder alone?

I just thought about this, the hand would have to be changed also.

Major 2 · August 26, 2006, 02:50:32 PM

I don't know....Hmmm

I do know an Opentop Cyl .is to short

HANCOCK · August 26, 2006, 04:17:43 PM

2 very nice articles, but howscome this Adler guy gets all the nice new eddition stuff ? Sure , we can see pictures of it , and him, and his horse, we get to read about how wonderful the new type II is ,but he dosen't tell us that you couldn't own one for yourself today, even if you sold your grandma's war bonds??
He doesn't mention that after making HIS type II, that all the Italians ,and other European workers took their summer month long vacation to the south of France, and they could care less that us Americans are still hard at it so that we can have a little money leftover at the end of the week to buy books about conversions.
I'm sure that Dennis is a good guy, I really do like his articles, and he does have a couple of my dollars in his jeans because I bought his book on conversions.(great book).But I think that it would be nice if the guy would respond to a couple basic questions that I e-mailed him.
Actually , I don't have his e-mail address, but I e-mailed my questions to "GUNS OF THE OLD WEST", and asked them to forward it . Maybe they never did , I didn't hear back from eithe one of them.

HANCOCK

Black River Smith · August 30, 2006, 01:24:39 PM

Now in the news stands. At least in my home town.

Fox Creek Kid · September 03, 2006, 02:47:41 PM

OK, I read the article yesterday at the newsstand although I didn't buy the magazine.

Firstly, I am very disappointed that Cimarron "caved in" to the gamer crowd and made it in .45 Colt and slightly enlarged everything.

Secondly, personally I don' think that a .44 Colt will see the light of day. I hope I'm wrong. Perhaps a person could buy a RM '60 Army & then buy the RM Transition Model barrel & ejector assembly & then reline the barrel to 0.430.

That's IF they haven't monkeyed with the frame dimension too much as far as bore axis to lower pin alignment.
Finally, why on earth did they pair a Henry Big Boy to be reviewed alongsie the RM II?

Major 2 · September 03, 2006, 06:30:47 PM

I understand your point... but I don't think Mike Harvey caved.
It was more a Market move, and a sound one at that.
The 45 is the most popular cal. ( not to mention the 45 Sch. which it can also use )
I think he plans to cater to the mass of shooters of that caliber, over the 44.

We may see a 44/40 maybe a year from now.

About the Henry Big Boy, I thought the same thing, why pair it with the Richards ?
I'm put off by the Henry ad comparing the engraved Big Boy to Lincoln's Presentation heirloom.
At $1600 the engraved Big Boy is a joke !

IT'S like Chip Foose doing bling bling on a YUGO

Tuolumne Lawman · September 08, 2006, 01:34:11 PM

I am still in a state of unbelief that they even allow the Henry Big Boy. What is it a replica of? A 22 LR type under barrel magazine tube, no loading gate, but it has an 1892 ejection port with a brass frame over steel? Ugh!!!!!!! It looks lkike a 22, 1892, and an 1866 got put in a blender. Just my opinion!

Major 2 · September 12, 2006, 08:01:20 PM

Quote from: Fox Creek Kid on September 03, 2006, 02:47:41 PM
OK, I read the article yesterday at the newsstand although I didn't buy the magazine.

Firstly, I am very disappointed that Cimarron "caved in" to the gamer crowd and made it in .45 Colt and slightly enlarged everything.
Secondly, personally I don' think that a .44 Colt will see the light of day. I hope I'm wrong. Perhaps a person could buy a RM '60 Army & then buy the RM Transition Model barrel & ejector assembly & then reline the barrel to 0.430. That's IF they haven't monkeyed with the frame dimension too much as far as bore axis to lower pin alignment.
Finally, why on earth did they pair a Henry Big Boy to be reviewed alongsie the RM II?

http://www.cascity.com/forumhall/index.php/topic,9711.0.html

Quote Abline "...Howdy. I went with Robert from Cimarron to work at Mule Camp. I found out a few things about the upcoming Richards conversion that should interest those who are contemplating one. First of all, the caliber. Their website only lists 45LC. Since they previously scrapped plans to chamber the OT in 45LC due to the thin chamber walls, I was curious why this was the only caliber listed on the website. I was told that the cylinder is beefed up (larger), also the arbor pin, to handle the higher pressures. (This means that the frame, cylinder, and barrel will not be interchangeable with Richards-Mason parts). Also, there is a new product flyer listing all the upcoming products, and it lists 38 Spcl, 44 Colt, and 44 Spcl in addition to the 45LC that is on the website. Projected availability is still September (Uberti is supposed to ship before they take off August for vacation). "

Interesting

HANCOCK · September 19, 2006, 05:43:25 AM

Yes, why the "Big Boy" when it seems that the new "Transitional Model" 66, or Henry (that Taylor's is offering). would have been the more obvious choice.?
What's that you say? They aren't available, and won't be for a while? Check out the link. http://www.gunsamerica.com/guns/976770006.htm

HANCOCK