Unique 1860 Army? a Fake? Modified? this is puzzling to me, need help !!

[Marshal Deadwood]

A gentleman posted this picture of an supposedly original 1860 Army on another board ,,after a discussion were he claimed Ubertis grips were nothing like original 1860s.

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a70/Famouseagle/1860Comparison1.jpg

No, IF, and IF this is an original 1860 and not a fake,,,someone please explain the 'style' of grips on it.
It looks like no image of grips on other original 1860s iv looked at.

Does he have a unique colt, a fake colt,,or a modified colt?

Please help,,these things destory brain cells thinking on them, and I dont have many to spare !!

Marshal Deadwood

[St. George]

Calm down...

The B&W photo is an original Model 1860 Army - the color ones depict a pair of replicas - one featuring the 'Fluted Cylinder' variant.

In order to accurately compare all three to see what concerns you - they would all have to be identically sized for comparison.

Original Colt grips are 'very' well and closely fitted to the frame and straps - many replicas aren't, and are wider, with a heavier feel.

Originals are one-piece Walnut and with bevelled butts, while replicas aren't.

That's a manufacturer's QC problem - not a variant.

Also - the straps and grips of the Army and Navy Colt 'will' interchange - and some in C&WAS have made this modification to suit themselves, while no examples of originals have surfaced.

The Army grip is longer than the Navy.

Hell - someone even put a pair of 'birdshead' grips onto a Navy Colt...

Read:

'The Book of Colt Firearms' - Sutherland and Wilson
'The Peacemakers' - Wilson
'Steel Canvas' - Wilson
'Packing Iron' - Rattenbury
'51 Colt Navies' - Swayze
'A Study of the Colt Single Action Army Revolver' - Graham Kopec and Moore

To name but a few.

A good Library should be able to get these for you through an Inter-Library Loan and I'd recommend them highly, if you want to know more about what originals actually 'are' - as opposed to opinion.

Vaya,

Scouts Out!

[Marshal Deadwood]

I woul;d have assumed everyone would have know the 'colored' guns in the first posr were Ubertis.....I just did not deem it necessary to mention that.

http://www.collectorsfirearms.com/images/aa713fa341f6786c39b587498449a999.jpg
http:/http://www.collectorsfirearms.com/images/fe5e746f078fb13928d9558651397be2.jpg

http://www.collectorsfirearms.com/admin/show_inventory.php?catID=13&subcatID=151      <--  full collectors/brokers page.

The two above are single photos of 1860s from the below page link. Go to below page and look at a heap of orginial 1860 Armys.
The Army in the black and white in the first post of this thread does not have a standard 8" barrel, the grips are not the same profile as the many other original Armys. And, on closer examination,,,,it looks...the 'age' looks ,,,,maybe 'wrong.'   Too uniformaly worn/white perhaps.
Click the third like and it will show many examples of the 'real deal' and the grip profile is dead nuts to a Uberti...Some look like they came right ouf of a Cimmarron box and been used some.......I just have never seen one like in the 1st post that started this tread....

I could be wrong, im surprised when im right,,,but something dont 'click' here for me on the very first gun in this tread.

(again in the post that started this treadt,,the two guns in color ARE Ubertis,,,I guess I should have told everyone that in the beginning_

But DO compare Uberti grip profile to the many originals on the provide link and see how very very close they are. I can provide heaps more images of originials if one wishes. Just contact me.

Marshal Deadwood

[St. George]

Did you ever stop to think that the B/W photo was merely the photo of a well-worn revolver?

The finish on originals didn't last all that long in hard service.

Plus - B/W doesn't transmit color variance well - especially if the photos are old ones from an earlier book.

Like I said - the supplied photos would have to be dead-on matched for size in order to see any serious differences.

That takes more work than it's worth.

I think his point is that the original Colt grips are well-fitted and almost graceful, while those on replicas are very often thicker through the middles.

Handling an original gives a vastly different 'feel' than does handling a repro - even a well-made one - unless extra attention was given when the grips were fitted.

Scouts Out!

[Marshal Deadwood]

George, I dont wish to agrue. I was looking for an opinion about the difference in the grip profiles. A difference that is obvious when compared to other originals.
I onlly wish knowledge, no tension. With tensions, we loose focus on learning.

Repos can be totally left out of the discusssion.

That top '60 Army DOES have a different grip profile than the many other original image links I posted.

I only wish knowledge about this anomoly, not an argument.
Rather buy you a coffee and us both wonder why this one is 'slightly' different..

The ageing can be left totally out,,as yes,,,,I conceded.. all guns do not recieve the same treatment in their lives.

But, the grip profile is different that the basic '60Army design, either civilian or military
The barrel looks to be more near 7" than 8" also.

I think I will send that image to Colt,,,who knows,,,they 'might' have an answer for us....

(again, no need to even consider repos at this point)

And yes, the coffee offer is good anytime ! Take care hoss,
Marshal Deadwood     In the end, this will have little effect on us George,,,we both are terminal.  Lets slide toward the finish line as friends , ok?

[St. George]

Do yourself the favor of looking through the books I referenced - they'll help with questions like these and you'll enjoy the experience.

The variance in photography is amazing and can fool many eyes - I think that that's the case, as far as the photos are concerned.

Since Colt charges for its services - you may not wish to pursue the matter - especially when you find that you can read the references that they've used.

The Colt point of contacts are:

Colt Manufacturing Company, LLC.
P.O. Box 1868
Hartford Connecticut  06114-1868

(toll-Free) 1-800-962-COLT

Regrettably - they don't do email.

Scouts Out!

[Delmonico]

The picture looks like a 4th or 5th generation copy of a copy of a copy of a picture of an 1860 Colt.  Many old photos have been damaged and are touched up by someone who has no idea of what tings look like. 

Good example, go to R.W. Wilsons Winchester book, look at the picture of Billy the Kid made from the original Tin Type.  Then look at one of the copy of a copy of a copy of the original you see in most books.  After that you will understand about that 1860 picture.

[Marshal Deadwood]

Now that could possibly be the crux of the matter. Perhaps the original Army up in the top post has been photo'ed and re-photo'ed till it gives one an optial illusion. Its not,,,,so different that I can put it being another 'type' of grip...certainly not a '51Navy,,,not a '61 Navy grip,,,so,,its probably just an optical illusion.
A '60 Army,,or Army grips are my favorite as they seem to fit my long fingers and big hands  a lot better.
Im just a huge fan of the '60....always have been.....I wish Colt had designed the SAA with Army grips instead of the more similar to Navy grips.

Marshal Deadwood

[St. George]

As I'd mentioned - B/W photos - especially old ones - don't always show what you'd like to see.

Many of the early gun books and magazines that were printed on 'newsprint' stock as opposed to 'glossy' stock give good evidence of that.

Today's digital photography gives extremely good resolution - and it's that sort of photo that appears in the new catalogs and the current reference books - giving the researcher a much clearer image to review.

Colt used the '51/'61 Navy grip because it fit most folks' hands - even though the Open Top was in use and developing into a new 'type'.

That short time frame of sales must've given them an idea of what the buying public wanted, and the shorter grip was it - coupled with a topstrap ala' the Remington.

It was a marketing decision that made their Single Action Army a legend.

Vaya,

Scouts Out!

[Marshal Deadwood]

The 'Navy size' grip is ok,,i end up curling my little finger under the butt. This might not be always a bad thang really. Kinda like a 'under support' for ones 'hold'???
I do feel more easy with Army grips, but then I have huge catcher mitt hands.
It is true that the 'shorter' Colt grips are what the legendary guns carried.
I want a SAA of some type some day,,,,I like the idea of a  'real' COlt,,,but USFA gets high marks from everyone in the hobby I see...
we shall see,,,
Perhaps a model P with a quality spring kit installed would suffice,,,

Marshal Deadwood

[St. George]

Try shooting a Colt with a pair of 'Steerhead' faux Ivory grips installed - the ones with the 'head' on the right side only.

You'll find that the carving fits 'inside' the hollow web of your hand and gives you greater support and sense of 'feel'.

Several of the designs in the carvings will do that - but the 'Steerhead' seems to be best.

As to your selections - Colts are Colts - anything else - isn't.

It just wishes it were.

And nothing needs a spring kit for the first 500 rounds.

After that - when the piece has been broken in - 'then' look to any smoothing and springs.

Prior to that - spend the money on ammunition and the time on practice.

Scouts Out!