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

[Abilene]

I don't know, but I have a tendency to think Hollywood taught us that they were all used as hammers.

Why would any work hand out riding/mending fence not have the proper tools? A small hammer, wire cutters, staples, leather work gloves and small roll of bailing wire can be easily carried in a saddle bag or pouch.

19th century common sense and proper respect for tools would surely have squelched any practice that routinely damaged a most valuable tool that your, or your mount's, life may have to depend on at any instant.

RCJ

Yeah Hollywood.  They needed those six shooters to nail up wanted posters!

[Drayton Calhoun]

You never can tell. The Confederacy made a lot of one off guns. The Cook and Brother carbine was a copy of the Enfield, the Spiller and Burr a copy of the Whitney. Finding a Dance is rare, a Griswold and Gunnison even more so. Who knows how many one or two item prototypes were made? If the pistol was bought in an estate sale in Virginia, it could be a genuine article. Of course a lot of repro Spiller and Burrs were aged and antiqued to dupe an unsuspecting collector. Your advantage is that the price was not excessive and if it is tight and a copy, by all means shoot it, with light loads of course and try using a loading stand like they sell for the percussion Peacemakers. My personal belief is that loading causes as much damage, if not more, to a brass framed revolver than actually shooting it.

[steve]

Hello everybody, SORRY it took a while !!! The verdict has arrived, it is authentic and most likely built by someone close to "Griswold & Gunnison" many parts are identical. On the other hand it is still unknown who exactly made it and the it is unsafe to shoot anymore since it has a lot of wear and tear. I never did ask for the value, so please don't ask. It is not for sale and will eventually end up in a museum. Parts used were from different manufacturers and most likely hand reworked to fit together, in my humble opinion, someone in the old days wanted a little more "bang for the buck". At this time I would like to thank everybody for your help and the leads in the right direction. I can't wait to maybe run into some of you at the next reenactment and keep the great history alive !!!
Steve

[Fox Creek Kid]

Whose verdict? Details, please. 

[Drayton Calhoun]

A friend of mine when I was in the Navy in Florida, asked me to check out a pistol he had inherited from his grand-father. It was a Smith #3, with about a 5 1/2 inch barrel. He had the gunbelt with it. It locked up tight, the action was light, evenly worn except for the right hand grip panel which was worn considerably, but smooth. The gunbelt was plain, yet had a distinct curvature that, when worn, put the pistol at perfect height to be drawn rather quickly. Today, one would suspect this to be a worked over repro, due to the condition. The date I saw it was '86, before anyone was making copies of the old Smiths.
  My point is, never, ever discount the possibility of an oddity being authentic until all avenues have been explored, and vice versa. Remember when CVA was selling percussion revolver kits, they had no S/N on them at all. You could put on your own. I have three with no s/n at all.

[Sir Charles deMouton-Black]

Occam's Razor;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor    or;  http://www.phys.ncku.edu.tw/mirrors/physicsfaq/General/occam.html

Commonly stated as;    The simplest explanation that covers all the facts is usually the best.

The explanation posted by Steve yesterday sounds too complicated to me.  As I have said earlier, a metallurgical test is likely the best way to resolve the question.

[Drayton Calhoun]

I went to a Confederate museum near my home this weekend and they have a pistol which they call "1860 Army Model .44 Cal."
Only problem is, it is a '51 Navy, steel or iron frame, BUT] it actually appears to be a .44. Plan on going back without family and see if I can examine it out of the case and verify caliber. Corrosion, which has been removed, may be making it appear larger bore, but, while badly pitted, doesn't appear to be that bad. The museum is on the site of a Confederate iron foundry and there was a battle there. They also have several nice examples of unusual revolvers. A Savage, Adams, Starr double-action several European revolvers and quite a few pocket pistols. They also have what they refer to as a Belgian contract, 1860 Army Colt. As time goes on, it appears that our knowledge of antique firearms gets challenged more frequently.

[Chance]

The metal on that pistol looks like it's been sand-blasted. The "stepped" frame was Colt's quick and easy way to make a .44 calibre pistol from what he already had on hand - the '51 Navy. The Confederates had no need to do that as they were starting from scratch.

Chance

[MJN77]

A little strange, that after giving us a vague "verdict" he hasn't been back with any details. Kinda makes one wonder if the "verdict" is just wishful thinking.

[Professor Marvel]

I see that Steve's only posts, 16 in all, were in this thread.

Methinks this smells far too trollish.

of course I only recently thought of a very likely explanation for this revolver (apart from a defarb or deliberate fraud) is that it is merely a parts gun put together sometime in the last 30 or so years from a variety of original and repro bits.

yhs
prof marvel

[warbucks16]

The Grips may be tested  and authenicated for country of Origin by sending a small sliver to the:

USDA FOREST SERVICE
FOREST PRODUCTS LAB
ONE GRIFFIN PINCHOT DR.
MADISON, WI 53705-2398

It is suggested that you write first for instructions as to how to submit a sample for determination of origin.

It is a free test that would at least determine if the Grips are of American, European or Asian woods.

Hope this may help find the revolvers origin.


Warbucks16

[Montana Slim]

Other than the pitted / darkened finish, patina, and defarb / remarking...it looks a lot like my Hawes revolver I purchased new in 1974.

One thing I noticed in the photos were the size, shape (purty - ain't they) & location of gate pins from the brass castings. I'd have to say the style of these manufacturing details look modern to me....& I have been "inside" a number of period Colts & handled several brass confederate revolvers.....I have to say things don't add up.

1860's casting technology - sand casting
1960's casting technology - investment casting

Other than the aded / darkened finish, patina a defarb / remarking...it looks a lot like my Hawes revolver I purchased new in 1974.

BTW, I've built 3 revolvers from kits...Folks assume I'm shooting original revolvers when I first brought them out to the club. Funny...I also mark the barrel, key & cylinder of my "Colts" with partial serial numbers to help me remember what goes where, when putting them back together after a cleaning session.

Regards,
Slim

[Fingers McGee]

Here is a recreation of a CH Rigdon Augusta revolver.  



Won't fool an expert, or even an enthusiast; but will fool some people.

[Montana Slim]

Fingers...That is a well executed conversion   & perfect for a CS impression.

Regarding my previous post, I should add that investment casting was not invented in the 1900's....but features I'm looking at on the subject revolver point to additional technology that points to the middle 20th century rather than tot he 18th century.

Regards,
Slim

[Fingers McGee]

I was just looking at the OP photos again & noticed something else not right about it.  It has a thick loading lever catch on the barrel.  All of the Confederate 1851 copies (Leech and Rigdon, Griswold & Gunnisom, Augusta Machine Works, Columbus Firearm Mfg, Rigdon and Ansley, Schneider & Glassick) had the same thin catch as the '51 Navies and Manhattans they were trying to copy.  The thick catch didn't appear on the Colt's until the Improved Holster and Belt Pistols (1860 Army/1861 Navy) came out, and didn't appear on the 1851 Navies till the late 4th Models.

Of course, Pietta and Uberti G&G repros use the thick catch.

[St. George]

Ah - but 'this' one's been 'authenticated', don't forget - albeit without a Certificate of Authenticity, and the hoopla associated with the 'find' of a heretofor unknown Confederate piece.

You all know how accurate a gun shop can be when it 'appraises' antique firearms.

Scouts Out!

[Sir Charles deMouton-Black]

I am certainly learning more as this thread progresses.  Initially it was my overall impression and a general knowledge of Civil War revolvers, now I am picking up info on some of the finer details.  I'm glad this thread happened.  It might assist future potential purchasers of instant antiques to avoid making expensive mistakes.

P.S. (7 Nov 10) I just noticed on the photo that showed casting marks on the grip frame, that the edge of the mainspring shows marks indicating that the mainspring was stamped out of sheet metal.. Shouldn't it have been forged and then filed, if it was made in the day?

[Wild Billy Potts]

I am certainly learning more as this thread progresses.  Initially it was my overall impression and a general knowledge of Civil War revolvers, now I am picking up info on some of the finer details.  I'm glad this thread happened.  It might assist future potential purchasers of instant antiques to avoid making expensive mistakes.

P.S. (7 Nov 10) I just noticed on the photo that showed casting marks on the grip frame, that the edge of the mainspring shows marks indicating that the mainspring was stamped out of sheet metal.. Shouldn't it have been forged and then filed, if it was made in the day?

Brass and bronze gun parts are often cast, then and now. And stamping was around, US canteen halves were hammer stamped, but whether or not spring stock was stamped is another subject all together. Other than that I am in agreement that it's probably 99.999999999999999999999% faked.

[Professor Marvel]

Brass and bronze gun parts are often cast, then and now. And stamping was around, US canteen halves were hammer stamped, but whether or not spring stock was stamped is another subject all together. Other than that I am in agreement that it's probably 99.999999999999999999999% faked.

Ahhh but the difference pointed out is in the tell-tale signs of "investment casting" (new technology) vs "sand casting" (old technology existing at the time)

yhs
prof (learning every day) marvel

[Delmonico]

I must correct you Professer, investment casting or lost wax casting is quite old, was most often used for jewlrey.  Now ising it in guns is fairly new, Ruger was one of the first to use it in mass production.