A pic of the Non-Rebated Cylinder R&M '60 "Platypus" Pistol

[Mako]

Uuuuh...

Well here it is, what we have not wanted to see.

~Mako

[Fox Creek Kid]

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's............................................a hybrid!! 

[Capt. Willard]

What is that??

[Hoof Hearted]

Uuuuh...

Well here it is, what we have not wanted to see.

~Mako

Ain't that an 1872 open Top barrel?

[Fox Creek Kid]

Ain't that an 1872 open Top barrel?

Yep, with a RM ring.

[Angel_Eyes]

I'm sorry guys, I know your fixation with taking open top B/P pistols and converting them to cartridge firing, but what is wrong, or different with this one???
It looks smooth and functional and if I were allowed to have 'convertors' over here, I would give it a good home.

UKshooter (who obviously requires enlightenment)

[Hoof Hearted]

Yep, with a RM ring.

Then what makes it a '60.........the Army grip?

[Fox Creek Kid]

OK, the barrel is a '72 Open Top because of the S curved barrel lug and the larger breech cone. Colt also made S curve barrels for smaller .38 Pocket sized guns but that is not the situation here as Uberti doesn't do this on Pocket frames. The true '60 Army RM has the smaller breech cone. Also, (obviously) this has the non-rebated cylinder of say a Navy size RM conversion. In this case the grip size is meaningless as '72 OT's had both Army & Navy size. I cannot determine the barrel length, whether 7.5" or 8" from the photo. It looks like a '72 OT barrel fitted to a '60 Army RM frame with the rebate step machined out and probably a .38 RM Navy cylinder fitted.

Be it noted that the first batch of '60 Army RM conversions that were imported in Sept. 2001 by Cimarron had an incorrect barrel length of 7.5" (as opposed to the correct 8"), incorrect longer breech cone (just like the '72 Open Top) and a shorter cylinder. After I got mine out of that first batch I immediately called Harvey Lane (then at Cimarron) and said "what the he_ _ is this?" Harvey said that the Italian prototype was perfect but that the Italians had made "changes" for production. Well, after a year or so they corrected these mistakes. I bought a new correct 8" barrel & correct longer cylinder to match and fitted them to my frame. 

[Flint]

The 1860 and the Opentop seem to have the same barrel, didn't check  the VTI part number.  Was the pictured gun something put together for the photo, or something from Uberti, not in the catalog yet?

[Mako]

FCK,
It looks like it may have a gas ring on it as well.
~Mako

Here are two pictures of an original '60 R&M and an original Open Top for those of you who are not sure what FCK is talking about.  Just becaue it doesn't have a rear sight on the barrel doesn't make it a true Richards-Mason conversion barrel as FCK has pointed out.

[Flint]

It is said that the newer Opentop barrels (?) are different and won't mix with older ones... Is this the change, the shorter forcing cone and longer cylinder?

[Flint]

The longer barrel extension also provides a longer gas ring, my Opentops will shoot black powder all day.

[Mako]

The longer barrel extension also provides a longer gas ring, my Opentops will shoot black powder all day.

Flint,
The original R&Ms didn't have a gas ring.  That was one of the big differences.  Here is a picture of an original conversion.

~Mako

[Flint]

VTI only lists that barrel with the Opentop.  The Navy is octagonal, and the Army is a plugged rammer type ejector rod.

[Mako]

VTI only lists that barrel with the Opentop.  The Navy is octagonal, and the Army is a plugged rammer type ejector rod.

Actually VTI lists 9 different round '60 R&M barrels.
~Mako

[Flint]

Mako, if indeed the originals were made from percussion parts, barrel or cylinder, they wouldn't have a gas ring.  The Uberti model with its larger cylinder diameter and larger chamber circle diameter, has the space to cut ther gas ring relief into the barrel extension.  The conversion by Colt wouldn't spend the time and money to remachine the breech of the barrel lug, even with a new-made cylinder.  They didn't put the gas ring in until they made the taller Opentop frame..

[Flint]

Though VTI list a lot of barrels for the 1860, and some, from the catalog look like Opentop barrels, they don't list both revolvers under any of the barrel part numbers.  I don't know what the difference would be except perhaps the barrel extension length.  Also don't see any reference to older or newer Uberti variations or design changes.  Wanting parts will require a conversation with Lisa there.

[Mako]

Mako, if indeed the originals were made from percussion parts, barrel or cylinder, they wouldn't have a gas ring.  The Uberti model with its larger cylinder diameter and larger chamber circle diameter, has the space to cut ther gas ring relief into the barrel extension.  The conversion by Colt wouldn't spend the time and money to remachine the breech of the barrel lug, even with a new-made cylinder.  They didn't put the gas ring in until they made the taller Opentop frame..

Flint,
We have been talking about how the gun I originally pictured is a bastardized "platypus" gun.  The R&Ms did not have a gas ring the one I originally pictured does, FCK also pointed out the longer forcing cone area and barrel lug area differences.  Seth made mention of a non-rebated cylinder '60 the other day after Abilene said he has seen some at Cimarron.

I think you may have missed our earlier discussion, we all know it is wrong.

By the way the parts numbers for the barrels you couldn't find are,  930003, 931003, 936003, 932003, 933003, 937003, 9030003(looks wrong but they listed it this way), 939003 and 934003.

~Mako

[Mako]

Though VTI list a lot of barrels for the 1860, and some, from the catalog look like Opentop barrels, they don't list both revolvers under any of the barrel part numbers.  I don't know what the difference would be except perhaps the barrel extension length.  Also don't see any reference to older or newer Uberti variations or design changes.  Wanting parts will require a conversation with Lisa there.

Flint,
That's beacuse they are different.  The Open Top barrels have the rear sight on them, the R&Ms do not.  No one said the Uberti barrels were the same.  The R&Ms just have some inaccurate features on them.  I think you missed a couple of different threads where we have been discussing the 'bastardized" revolvers. that never really existed until Uberti cobbled them together.

The best to you,
Mako

[Flint]

The gun is "wrong", but that never seems to bother the Italians....  Look at the break-top Smiths, they are all basically Schofields, and even that is pretty well modified.