!!! Help !!! Brass Frame Revolver; Cal .44; Not a Replica !!!

[steve]

I have in my hands a brass frame Colt copy that shows no Manufacturer but has all parts numbered.
I have been searching for a while and came across names such as "Griswold & Gunninos";  "Schneider & Glassick"; "Spiller & Burr"; "Dance & Park Bros.". At first I got exited and then I kept on reading the info: there are no guns like this ever made in Cal .44. Now comes my question: what am I looking at if this gun does not exists ?
Serial number: 1154; .44 cal; 6 shot cylinder; Barrel: 7.5"; Weight: 2.75 lbs.
I have had this gun for 30+ years and it does not look like a replica. It is old, used, and has a great patina all over.  
I just came back from the gunsmith, it is old and yes it is .44 cal !!!

Please see the pictures here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/palmyra_steve/

[Wild Billy Potts]

It may be a legitimate CS or other copy from the era, or it could possibly be a well done "authentication" of an Italian copy. Folks have been reenacting the Civil War since the early 60s. There were many small shops in the south making war material and some didn't last very long so if it's real it may never be known what it is. Off the top of my head Dance Bros were the only maker of .44 revolvers in the south, and they are quite distinctive looking.

[steve]

Thank you for looking,
I had it checked out very thoroughly today and it is old (186?) it is not a replica of newer date. The
rifling of the barrel and the over all state is authentic, the caliber is the point that puzzles everybody.
Two gunsmith looked at it and both said it is not a replica of newer date.
They both were asking me if it was OK to take it apart and have a closer look, but up till now I am trying to
get an answer without taking it apart.
One told me to show it to the Museum of the Confederacy in Richmond, so that will be my next trip.
The other one told me that it may have been a trial project by some gunmaker, it was definitely used quite
a bit but it is still rather tight in all parts.
I really do hope to find some answers, Thank you for help

[River City John]

Not with that rebated cylinder, nor most likely with those modern lead-in relief troughs to the bolt stops.


Most every Confederate revolver cylinder I've seen has bolt stops, but not the lead-in relief troughs.

RCJ  

p.s. What really tells me this is faked is the obvious over-all, even, fine pitting of the iron parts, but if you look at the pics under magnification, there is not the same pitting on the screws, in the recesses of those bolt stops, nor the stamped numbers "1154" on the frame, cylinder etc. - the edges of those stamped numbers are crisp, with no pitting into the stampings.

[Sir Charles deMouton-Black]

I'm with RCJ.  I don't pretend to be an antique expert, but this looks too much like that other "fake" gun, the Pietta .44 model 51. 

Defarb it, distress it a bit, file the barrel round, and drop it on a dealer who thinks he knows what he's got. 

The truth will out if the steel is examined.

[Qball]

Have to agrea with you.. this looks to "even" patina for the real deal.

[steve]

Dear Members
I appreciate your opinions but I am not interested in selling this gun. I purchased this Revolver in 1979 at an Estate Sale and it is part of my rather large collection of Firearms of the 1820 - 1900. I have recently retired and have more time now to look at and enjoy my collection. I am rather convinced that this is not a revolver that was made to look like this since I have owned it since 1979. I purchased it as far as I remember for approximately $ 150.00. I just thought that it looked rather unique and all I am trying to do is find out who made it. So I would like to ask you to have a second look since I would really appreciate any real help. I do concur that it is out of the known ordinary and therefor I am seeking help. Two gunsmith have looked at it and concluded that it is from that era but advised me to post this question online since they could not help me with the finding out who made it. One told me that there actually were more people that made guns, but not all of them are known.
Thank you for trying
Steve

[Sir Charles deMouton-Black]

This site is not conclusive, but nothing looks close to your revolver;

http://civilwarhandgun.com/obscure.htm

I think that the price you paid was reasonable, and it could be a shooter. 

If you want to know more, I think metallurgy testing is your next step

[steve]

Dear Members
I forgot to say, if you are somewhere in the central Virginia area and are willing to help, I will come by with the revolver so you can have a look at it. Remember: it is not for sale, if it turns out to be what I think it is, it will go to a museum. Maybe it is the one gun that will end this controversy that there are no .44. Like I said, I paid about $ 150 at an estate sale in central Virginia in 1979. I can not imagine why someone would have spent that kind of time trying to make it look like that, could this gun along the way been modified ?
By all means "Yes" I am no expert, I am a retired farmer with a love for old stuff. That is why I am asking all of you. I just know that it looked like this when I paid a $ 150 for it and it has not changed since then. One gunsmith was going to take it apart, maybe it has to come to that, but I will keep on trying this way first. Does anybody know an expert in the reasonable area of Central Virginia, or is an expert himself, please contact me.
Thank you
Steve

[steve]

Dear Sir Charles
I looked at the link, for the mere fact of the brass frame, I think the " Griswold & Gunnison" is rather close. Also the way the numbers are all in single digits and the placement of the numbers. Someone that emailed me directly has given me a name of an expert to show it too and I will do that. It is actually quite exiting to maybe have something that will be in a museum one day with a plaque "Donated by ...". I do understand that a lot of Civil War Enthusiasts are cautious about this, but I am really not trying to make money on this, I am OK. I am just really interested in the truth and keeping things for our kids and theirs. Thank you for the Link, I will keep on going Steve

[steve]

Hello again
It was said that it looks very much like a "Pietta .44 model 51". That got me interested and I started looking. The Pietta comes with a Octagon Barrel mine is round, Overall length Pietta is 13 ¼" mine is 13 ⅞; Weight Pietta is 2lbs 9oz.  Mine 2lbs 10oz.
Looking at the pictures, the clearance between the Cylinder and the frame is extremely tight on the gun I have, the same clearance looks like a lot more on the Pietta. Granted: there is a lot of similarity. There also is a lot of similarity to a "Griswold & Gunnison".
I found a picture and posted it on the flickr site. Again, please help me find out more about this revolver. Thank you Steve

[steve]

A lot more new Pictures here concerning : Cylinder stops, Pietta .44 etc, Handle removed


http://www.flickr.com/photos/palmyra_steve/

[Qball]

The picture of the replacement hammer and parts is for a Remington 1858 revolver

[steve]

Sorry, I just found them labeled as Colt Dragoon at an auction site that was selling them, I just tried to compare the Hammers with the ones of the Piezza, they do not have a Roller. The "Griswold & Gunnison" Hammers do have a Roller. All I am actually interested in is "who made the revolver I have". I took the handle of and noticed that and tried to find some type of comparison. Also taking it apart I noticed that if this is really a fake, someone spent an awful amount of time making it. Thank you for your input, all ideas are really appreciated. I did get a number for a specialist in the meantime, I believe that is going to be the route I will have to take.

[Qball]

You do have a very interesting revolver sir.
And i follow this thread to find out what it realy is.

[steve]

Thank you, I will be posting what I find out about it, so far I contacted several experts and they will get back to me sometime. I wish I already knew. I am absolutely clueless myself. Any clue is really appreciated, I could then follow up and have it really tested. On the bright side, it does keep me busy and occupied, retirement is boring at times.

[River City John]

Steve, well, good luck on this.

I am curious, though, in that for someone who has a rather large collection of firearms from the 1820-1900 you refer to it as a "handle"?

Everyone else in the gun world would call them grips,  . . . and grip frame.

RCJ

[MJN77]

"I can not imagine why someone would have spent that kind of time trying to make it look like that"

People fake these things all the time. Some people do it with the intention of selling it as an original, some do it because they like the look. Pietta did, and does make a brass frame .44 "navy" with a round barrel. Cabela's has them for $149.99 on sale right now.
http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/templates/pod/horizontal-pod.jsp?_DARGS=/cabelas/en/common/catalog/pod-link.jsp_A&_DAV=MainCatcat20712-cat20817&rid=&indexId=cat20817&navAction=push&masterpathid=&navCount=2&parentType=index&parentId=cat20817&id=0015516
If I were to hazard a guess, I would say this is what you have. People have been faking replica guns since they have been making replica guns. Good luck.

[MJN77]

In fact, here is a brass frame .44 "navy" I've had for about 20 years.
http://i591.photobucket.com/albums/ss359/mjn77/SN852102.jpg
Doesn't look that different from yours, and I havn't tried to make it look old. Wouldn't take much to file off import marks since they are not that deep into the metal, then stamp on numbers. You may have an original revolver that no one knows about, but I have seen a number of fake revolvers that were almost impossible to tell from an original. Like I said sir, good luck.

[steve]

Yours looks very interesting, I am looking at all the possibilities. I am no expert, but I will consult some. I am now determined to find out more about mine. All I know is that I bought it for about $ 150 in 1979 and it seems too much effort for anybody to do so much work for that little. It is actually becoming fun and it keeps me occupied. I have in the meantime found out that the frame of the fakes are actually thinner than the one I have, so if someone filed it down, he would have had to add material again to make this one.
The whole gun just does not make any sense ! Also it weighs more than the common replicas, and if you file down a barrel to make it round, it would have to be lighter. I am still puzzled and on my way to hopefully find out more.
Thank you for any input, I am beginning to enjoy the puzzle. I will keep you informed even if it turns out to be the best replica of a gun that does not exist. Then I will take my hat off for who ever did it, if he comes forward: dinner and drinks are on me !