Cimmaron Richards Type II .44 spl Question

[Mako]

If Uberti would make a correct RM '61 Navy in .38 I'd be on one like a fat kid on a Snickers!!

Mako, IMO the 3/8" dovetail on the front sight of a CAS revolver looks ungainly, i.e., too big. That's just MY opinion. However, I know why he uses it: it's just too damn easy to break smaller dovetail cutters. I have a machinist buddy who'll do small ones for me but he told me that I have to buy the cutter(s) as when they're that small they break like a glass rod. Any originals I have seen that had a dovetailed front sight used a small dovetail as well. Thanks again for the info.

FCK,
Do you mean RM '61 or one that looks like a Richards Type II except with the lug re-contoured?

As for the Dovetails, I agree with you, it's why I had the conversation with him.  I am going to have him bob the barrels for me and Iwanted a "daintier" front sight.  I may end up buying him some dovetail cutters for the .300" or smaller dovetails, he's checking on the availabilty of sight blanks, he could make custom ones but it keeps driving the cost up.  I'll let you know what I end up with and if it is the smaller one I'll post photos for you and you might want the same thing.

Regards,
Mako

[Fox Creek Kid]

Mako, there seems to be some confusion here on conversions. Technically, the Type II Richards uses the Richards Mason ring, of which there were different sizes. The RM ring used on the original '60 Army is not the same as that used on the '61 Navy. The Uberti '51 Navy conversion ring is "bastardized" and not correct as it's too large.

As a point of history, some EARLY Colt '72 Open Tops were chambered in .44 Russian as there are two pictured in McDowell's book. Colt made ONE, and one only, '72 Open Top in .38 which was a prototype for a Navy contract. The Navy balked and converted their '51 & '61 Navies as well as some .36 Remingtons. This particular Open Top in .38 was for sale in the last decade. I can't remember the price but it was astronomical.

[Long Johns Wolf]

Regarding an aftermarket front sight on a round barrel 1960 type pistol: look what kind of a post type sight has been reported for a 5,5" Centaure Marshal? Might be an alternative to a dovetailed sight once you have established the height you need.
Long Johns Wolf

[Abilene]

I typed out a long reply last night and it never showed up.  Heading to the airport in a few minutes so I'll make this brief.

There were some .44 Type II's waiting for repair that had come from Uberti with loose conversion rings.  Perhaps those got fixed and that's what you guys are getting?  A guess.

The .38 Type II's are actually '51 R-M frames and cylinders with the 8" Type II round barrels and steel army grips.  I guess you could consider those a '61 with army grip.  There are LOTS of those in stock.  There has been an 1860 R-M in .38 for the last few years as well which is also an 1851 R-M frame and cylinder.  Those were initially "Uberti mistakes" but they sold so they kept making them.

[Hoof Hearted]

Regarding an aftermarket front sight on a round barrel 1960 type pistol: look what kind of a post type sight has been reported for a 5,5" Centaure Marshal? Might be an alternative to a dovetailed sight once you have established the height you need.
Long Johns Wolf

LJF

Dixie Gun Works also has a "tall" srew in brass cone sight that looks like the ASM 51 conversion sight, very nice!
Right now (I know not a Colt) I am having silver Remington Beals cone style small dovetail sights reproduced.

[Flint]

Seth, 1860 Armies were indeed produced by Colt with 7-1/2 inch barrels, especially Fluted cylinder models. Early Armies were also produced with Navy sized gripframes.  The Army tests showed the 8 inch barrel more efficient, so the govt ordered the Army with the 8 inch barrels, and Colt produced it with that barrel from then on.

[Long Johns Wolf]

My € 0,02 & I hope memory serves: if Sutherland/Wilson in their "bible" were correct no 1860 Army of a barrel length shorter than 6,5" ever left the factory during the 1860s. 8" is most often found, 7,5" was also standard length.
Long Johns Wolf

[Fox Creek Kid]

...Just how common was the Army with a bbl length shorter than 8"?...

It's unknown exactly how many, but they were all in the first few hundred made to be sure and possibly a few more, as the survival rate is low for early ones. There was one on an auction site recently that was a two digit #7X & it was rough.

[Mako]

Hey Seth,
First of all I don't consider you argumentative at all, I think any discussion is good .  Secondly forgive me if I call something other than the way I use to describe it.  I'm going to try to address your post in the order you asked. So here goes:

Mako - What is this "1861 Navy Richards Type II Conversion" that you keep mentioning?  I've never heard of, nor seen, an 1861 Navy Richards Type II conversion.  I know of only Thuer and Richards-Mason conversions being executed on the '61 Navy.  I'm not aware of any 1861 Navy's - percussion or conversion - with 8" barrels, either.

I'm referring to 1861 conversions which use the original barrel and have the same recoil shield ring as the Richards Type II Army models.  I'm not an expert on the Richards/Richards-Mason conversions, but I do know exactly what a Richards Type 1 Recoil Shield Ring is, the sight, the contained rebounding firing pin and the lip overhanging the cylinder being the most obvious difference but it becomes grey when making a differentiation between the gates and attachment techniques of the two inventors rings.  I do know all of the Richards-Mason rings dispensed with the rebounding firing pin, the sight on the ring and the lip overhanging the cylinder.  I also know all of the Type ones had those features.  I "assumed" since the Richards Type II makes no mention of Mason that features Mason held patents on were related to the gate, etc.  Looking at pictures of '61 conversions it appears they have the same spring and gate mechanism as the Richards Type IIs .  I sometimes call them Type IIs because they retain the original percussion barrels, but with the front of the barrel underlug where the rammer channel is re-contoured.  I've seen a few pictures of  '61s that have left the lug "square" like most of the '60s you see.  I have included one picture of a square lugged '61 conversion.  I have always pictured the Richards-Mason models as having the new factory barrels with no provision for the rammer.  I have read that the factory only switched to the new barrels when they ran out of the old style barrels or quit converting the original barrels, but I'm wondering what happened to the "missing links?"  There appears to be a cut off at the Richards models and the new barrel configurations?  Is the Type II the missing link I am seeking?  If so how does it differ from about 95% of the '61 conversions I have ever seen.

As far as the barrels go, you could special order almost anything from Colt's.  You could get Army Grips on '61s or Navy Grips on Army models, all brass grips on '60s, all iron  or that standard iron and brass combo we normally see.  I don't remember where I read about it, but someone found a price sheet from the beginning of the Civil War where Colt's was selling to the officers graduating from West Point and they had a list of options including barrels.

Also - Colt didn't make any "production" 1860 Army revolvers - regardless of conversion type/design - in any caliber other than .44 centerfire.  At least, none that I'm aware of.  Prototypes being the exception, of course.  We can take the argument one step further and also note that no Army revolver ever left the Colt factory with a barrel length shorter than 8".  

I agree with you on the caliber, I have never said otherwise.  I don't know if I can say with certainty that no Army ever left the factory with barrels shorter than 8", as I said it was an option.  Now I might agree  with you that the Army never bought any of the rebated cylinder guns with barrels shorter than  8" to issue.

I'm quite willing to accept the "modern day" version of the old calibers for the sake of convenience.  A .44 Special-chambered Army conversion is certainly "close enough".  As is a .38 Special-chambered Navy conversion.  And, if offering the guns in non-standard barrel lengths (so they'll appeal to a larger audience) helps justify the expense of Uberti tooling-up to make these, that's fine, too.  One could always claim the barrel was bobbed "in the field".

Once again I agree with you about calibers and for the most part about barrels.  I have a collection of photos of shorter barreled .44 Army conversions with 5 to 6 inch barrels.  these have always intrigued me because you don't see short barreled Army model percussion pistols (probably because they wanted the velocity with the balls and the ramming handle would lose leverage), but there were quite a few shortened conversions.  It is my theory the owners started seeing shorter barrels on newer pistols like the SAA and wanted something similar without the expense of buying the newer more expensive pistol.  I have handled several short barrel "Original" Colt Conversions and have always wanted a 5" like one I handled, the other two were about 5 1/2 " and 5  5/8".  I'm going to cut the pair I just got down to 5".

As the 1871/1872 "Open Top" is technically not a conversion, I'll leave it out of this discussion.  I doubt Uberti would sell many of these if they were only offered as rimfire models.

I brought the Open Top up as a shining example of a pistol that isn't in the original caliber, no other reason.  But if any of us were to get picky, none of us have any factory conversion or Open Top in the original caliber.  As I pointed out you and a few others may have the only accurate calibers, but they are true conversions.

So I guess it all boils down to this, it looks  you don't like the idea of .38 spl in Army models.  I pretty much agree with you, those of us who go to the trouble of using these types of pistols tend to be more oriented to the original caliber (within reason) that it was produced in.  If we didn't care we'd probably be shooting Rugers.  You also seem to have an aversion towards "platypus" guns.  I might point out a Uberti Type II is sort of a platypus gun, they put "iron" grips on it.  Have you ever seen an example of any of the Army conversions whether Richards or Richards-Mason with iron grip frames?  But, as with Colt there is probably always an exception to the rule and someone can probably show us photos of several. By the way, I'm getting brass trigger guards for my new Type IIs.

I'm including some links to some 1861 conversions for sale right now.  You will note all of them have a re-contoured original style barrel, not the barrel you see on some Army Richards-Masons or the new Uberti  Richards masons.

http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/colt-model-1861-conversion-revolver

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=117423509#PIC

http://www.collectorsfirearms.com/admin/show_inventory.php?catID=13&subcatID=152

http://www.invaluable.com/auction-lot/very-fine-colt-richards-model-1861-conversion-rev-1-c-evu7uxvmzu

Look at this one and you can see the seam line for the filled in rammer slot.
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=118507520

I also included pictures of a conversion that has a strange gate, but has the un-contoured original barrel.

Regards,
Mako

[Flint]

Conversions with shorter barrels would have been cut down from the original, and probably not by Colt.

[Fox Creek Kid]

Mako, the gun pictured is not a FACTORY altered Colt. We discussed that here a month or so ago. There is ONE FACTORY example of a '60 Army made with a straight cylinder and it has a 10" barrel!!    It is pictured in Wilson's Colt book and was owned by the famed Texas gun collector Graffenreid.

Here's a link to the 10" '60 Army mentioned.

http://www.artfact.com/auction-lot/a-rare-factory-special-order.44-colt-model-1860-a-1-c-6xdivqylc5

[Mako]

Mako, the gun pictured is not a FACTORY altered Colt. We discussed that here a month or so ago.

FCK,
I know it's not factory, look at my posting at the end where I said it was a conversion with a "strange gate and an unaltered barrel." I just threw it in because it's an oddball '61.

Once again thank you for the link to the obscure...(that's a compliment).  That 10 inch is once again proof that there are no "rules" when it comes to Colt's.  I have been involved in ventures with them several times and you wouldn't believe how many variations the military division has just of the M-16 upper receiver forging.  I mean active ones not just historical.  They have OLD SP1 style receivers in cages back in the materials area they keep just to fill return orders from old RFQs and procurement specs from foreign governments and police forces.  How's that for weird?

Regards,
Mako

[Mako]

Mako - it certainly sounds like we're of the same mind.
Thanks for the info.  One of the reasons I love this site is the knowledge I gain from folks like you.

Regarding the '61 Navy Richards-Mason conversions - I have a pair of 3rd gen Colts converted to .38 Long Colt by Kenny Howell.  They're just as sweet as the '60's I just bought.

You're a BAAAAAAD man Seth.  How am I not to covet now?  You're a lucky man.  Need some Type II Ubertis?

Regards,
Mako

[Mako]

FCK,
Educate me...What makes Seths's pistols copies of Richards-Mason conversions instead of a Richards conversion similar to the Type IIs?  I know the differences of the Type 1.

~Mako

[Mako]

Whooopeeee!!! does that mean yes?

~Mako

[Fox Creek Kid]

FCK,
I know it's not factory, look at my posting at the end where I said it was a conversion with a "strange gate and an unaltered barrel." I just threw it in because it's an oddball '61...

Sorry, I missed that.   

OK, where were we.........Seth's pistols have a true Navy size RM ring and ejector + the barrel lug area has been reshaped correctly as Colt did it. The only thing drastically wrong is that I don't own them.   

[Mako]

FCK,
I finally read some info on the combined Richards-Mason patent and I see the ejector is one of the biggest changes, tell me more about the recoil shield rings.

~Mako

[Fox Creek Kid]

What I'd really recommend is McDowell's book which goes into greater detail. I don't want to type that much tonight.

[Thai Fighter]

What I'd really recommend is McDowell's book which goes into greater detail. 

I consider myself lucky to have found one on eBay awhile back for less than $100!

[Thai Fighter]

Thai Fighter,

I guess we both have a pair coming, mine should be in tomorrow if they made the shipment today.

Regards,
Mako

Mako,

They come in yet?