Richards Type II - Running!!

[Coffinmaker]

I've had an "on again" Off again" relationship with my Richards Type IIs since I first got them.  One problem after another.  NOT fun. 
First problem was the Recoil Shield/Conversion Ring.  Spalled a big chunk of Color Case off at the firing pin hole and the primers flowed into the recess, locking the gun up.  Fixed That.
Head Space was joke.  Fixed that.  I thought.
Turns out, the Breach face isn't square to the Arbor.  Head space at the top ....... .005 - head space at the bottom ...... 002.  Primer backs out the slightest, gun stops.  Changed primers and Main Springs.
Didn't like the original Colt style grips ......... made new grips.
Took them out to the range yesterday ........... the finally run like a SWISS WATCH!!!
Now I have to decide whether to leave the barrels long ........ or whack 'em off at the ejector assembly (down to about 5 inches).
But ........ THEY FINALLY RUN!!!  After a lot of piddlin' around, fun guns to play with at last.

Coffinmaker

[Fox Creek Kid]

I had some bad ones at first as well in late 2008 but Abilene at Cimarron helped me out and they exchanged them. A couple were all "loosey goosey." The replacements were fine. I think at the time Uberti was too strung out making so many different models and this being something totally different.

[Coffinmaker]

These were tight from the box.  The first problem was spalling the color case layer from the breach face of the conversion ring.  I hate sending guns back, so I fixed it myself.  After that, I just kept at each problem.  Annoying, but something to do when things got slow.  I even had the correct length ejector rods.  A fella I shoot with just bought one and it has the short rod so I had Cimarron ship me the longer one.  Next match I'll install it for him.

These are just neat guns.  They look almost as good as the old ASM 1861 (sic) Conversions.  Being larger, they are a bit heavier than they could be, and you have to pull a looong way to get 'em out of the holster.  Even though not "quite" to scale, they really look good and are fun to play with (now).

Coffinmaker

[Fox Creek Kid]

...They look almost as good as the old ASM 1861 (sic) Conversions.  Being larger, they are a bit heavier than they could be, and you have to pull a looong way to get 'em out of the holster.  Even though not "quite" to scale, they really look good and are fun to play with (now)...

Those ASM guns were pure junk IMO. At lest 90% I have seen fell apart or needed more work than they were worth.

Yes, the Uberti Type II is a hair bigger than an original, but only a lonely widow woman would notice something a few thousandths larger at contact distance. 

[Mako]

Those ASM guns were pure junk IMO. At lest 90% I have seen fell apart or needed more work than they were worth.

Yes, the Uberti Type II is a hair bigger than an original, but only a lonely widow woman would notice something a few thousandths larger at contact distance. 

I'm not a widder wooman, but I guess my holsters are tighter than yours.  My 1860 holsters won't accommodate my Uberti transition (type 2)  models but they would fit my Open Tops in .38 spl.  My newer pair in .44 Spl. won't fit.  My ASM "type 1" will fit as well.

I can force the model 2s in but then the '60s don't fit the way I like.  I had to remold them after I used them once on a rain day at a match.   I bought a pair of Slim Jims for the Uberti Model 2s and Open Tops.  I almost exclusively shoot my '60s and the type twos just seem a bit different.  Since I shoot gunfighter I think I notice it more with my left thumb.  I also notice the difference when I cock my Open Tops, they actually cock shorter.

I have the dimensions of the '72 Open Tops in .38, they were Ø1.610", which is almost identical to my '60s.  My Uberti Type twos are a whopping Ø1.675 at the front  and the recoil ring is Ø1.725.  I don't know what the original recoil rings were but you and I both know the cylinders at the major diameter remained the same according to McDowell even though they increased the rebated diameters at least .035" on the purpose built cylinders for the conversions.  However I'm not sure where McDowell got his dimensions for the converted "percussion" cylinders.  He states the major diameters as being Ø1.622, I have two in good shape and they are Ø1.608 and Ø1.610 which really isn't any different than the Ubertis.

His dimensions for the rebate is pretty much correct , one of mine is Ø1.530 and the other is Ø1.532.  All of my Ubertis, 6 of them (percussion) run over Ø1.545 at the rebate which is sort of splitting the difference between the original Colt's and the purpose built Type 1, Type 2 and Richards- Mason Colt's cylinders that McDowell publishes at Ø1.568.

It may not seem like much but that is what people used to say about the old Vaqueros as well.  It is noticeable if you handle them a lot.

I consider that "social distance..."

~Mako

[Coffinmaker]

FCK,

Yup.  The ASM Conversions were almost complete junk.  One in seven would work.  Looked really good though if you didn't care if they would fire.  I have a pair that are very reliable.  I had to gut 7 or 8 "parts" guns to get enough parts to make them reliable.  Real good thing they were cheap.  Real cheap.

Mako,

Huh??

[Mako]

Mako,

Huh??

I don't have an answer for huh... If you wish to ask a question then ask, and I'll answer.

~Mako

[Coffinmaker]

Mako,

OK.  I'll Bite. Did you agree the Uberti Type II is just a tad bigger and heavier than an original example??  I actually got just a little lost in your dimensions and comparisons.
And oh by the way, I was amazed to find the Uberti Type II fit the same holster as an Uberti Open Top.  There are some real optical delusions there unless you get out the calipers.

Coffinmaker

[Mako]

Mako,

OK.  I'll Bite. Did you agree the Uberti Type II is just a tad bigger and heavier than an original example??  I actually got just a little lost in your dimensions and comparisons.
And oh by the way, I was amazed to find the Uberti Type II fit the same holster as an Uberti Open Top.  There are some real optical delusions there unless you get out the calipers.

Coffinmaker

Nope,
I don't agree it is just a "tad" larger, it is much larger. It's like comparing a SAA to an original Vaquero.  They had to grow everything,  the barrel is offset for the larger chamber pattern which makes the whole barrel and ejector assembly offset from the frame.

I do agree with you on the new Open Tops fitting the same holsters as the Type 2s. They are similar, but the old pair I spoke of were basically 1860 percussion size.  All of the new Uberti Army model cartridge pistols are now oversize.  The only difference in size between the large caliber Uberti Open Top style cartridge guns is really the recoil shield ring on the "conversions" otherwise the frames, barrel offsets and cylinders are similar.  Once they decided to fit the .44 spl/.45 Colt rims they had to create "Frankenpistols."

Regards,
Mako

[Fox Creek Kid]

...Once they decided to fit the .44 spl/.45 Colt rims they had to create "Frankenpistols."...

If they made them to EXACT 19th cen. specs and not for hard modern CAS usage they would have sold probably 25 guns at most. The same reason a Shiloh Sharps does not have a soft extruded iron barrel like an original. There has to be a compromise for modern shooters, 99% of which shoot smokeless & not real BP.

[Mako]

If they made them to EXACT 19th cen. specs and not for hard modern CAS usage they would have sold probably 25 guns at most. The same reason a Shiloh Sharps does not have a soft extruded iron barrel like an original. There has to be a compromise for modern shooters, 99% of which shoot smokeless & not real BP.

Kiid,
Don't get you unmentionables in a wad...

I never said otherwise, I just responded to your comment:

...Yes, the Uberti Type II is a hair bigger than an original, but only a lonely widow woman would notice something a few thousandths larger at contact distance. 

They aren't a "hair bigger," my analogy of the Ruger Vaqueros to the Colt's SAA is actually fair.  A human hair is Ø.007 (180 microns) maximum, the major diameter on the cylinder is .069" larger, that is an entire order of magnitude larger.  I just stated that the Uberti type 2 wouldn't fit my 1860 holster sets without stretching them.  They also feel different, just like a Vaquero feels different than a SAA in the grip, sight distance above your hand and the hammer stroke.

When I molded my first set of purpose built 1860 holsters I actually used my older (read that as smaller) Open Top barrel and ejector assemblies in the forming to allow use of either (I use cartridge guns in wet weather).  I can't do that with the Uberti Type 2s, Richards-Mason Army conversions or the newer Uberti Open Tops, the 1860's will rattle around in the holster instead of having the glove fit at full insertion I paid for.

As for the materials that has always been true.  Even the cheapest Italian "clones" have steel that is superior to the mid 19th century American "steel, " and as you pointed out in most cases it was iron and not steel.  For the calibers I would agree with you there as well.  But...the modern .44Colt case is available and it isn't anymore expensive than a .44 Russian, .44Spl or .45 Colt from  Starline.  The only people they accommodate are the shooters who don't reload, and to tell you the truth I actually wonder how many people would buy a .44 Spl/.44 Colt version of the Type 2 and aren't reloaders?  I'll bet your 1% applies here...

Let me go a bit further here.  I believe anyone with half a brain would agree the .45 Colt versions of the '72 Open Top, Richards-Mason and the Type 2 shouldn't have been produced for safety and product reliably reasons.  I won't go into the details, but  anyone wishing to know the story can do searches on this forum or others about forcing cone cracking on the .45 Colt Uberti "Army" models and Open Tops.  It was and remains a bad decision on Uberti's part.  So that being said that leaves Two Cartridges that are accommodated by the oversize frame and cylinder.  The .44 Special and the .44 Russian, how many do you know besides me that shoot .44 Russian in these pistols (there are a few on this site, but not many)?  Now we are talking fractions of a percent of the shooting public.  So that leaves .44 Special, which goes back to my statement about how many people use factory .44 spl loads in these pistols?

I think everyone would have been happy with .44 Colt, Uberti doesn't sells tens of thousands of these pistols.  Anyone who really wanted to shoot a factory smokeless load would have been happy with a .38 special offering just like ASM did years ago and Uberti does today.  Notice I'm not talking about heel base bullets, I'm talking about chambers to accommodate modern Ø.429 bullets just like we shoot in them now in the Uberti cartridge guns.

Now, all that being said, you know that I have a pair of Uberti Type 2s in .44 Spl and a pair of Open Tops in .44 Spl. (I also used to have a pair of Richards- Mason pistols in .44 Spl).  I'm glad to have them, I just wonder how much larger of a market that Uberti actually reached by making them over-size?  I think the caliber that it opened up for them was the .45 Colt and you know how I feel about that caliber on the current Uberti "Army model" size frames.

The sad thing is that the Frankenpistols really don't open up the market for them and I know that there are failure issues that Uberti, Cimmaron and Taylors has been dealing with on the .45 Colt versions.  We can't have the original cartridges in many cases, for instance the Open Top .44 Rimfire would be impractical, but keeping the size original has merits.  That all.

And last, this isn't about our previous discussions about making conversion or even converting Type 2s to type 1s.  This is just about size and whether or not Uberti really did themselves or us a favor by making them larger.

Plus I just like tweaking you, I don't think you drink enough coffee for breakfast and something needs to get your heart rate up and the blood flowing...


Your friend,
Mako

[Coffinmaker]

Mako,

I couldn't agree more.  I don't feel the Open Top (My first set were .45 Schofield) should ever have been offered in .45 nor do I feel the Conversions should have been offered in .45.  Barrel cracking at the forcing cone is one issue, but my major displeasure is cylinder wall thickness.  Just isn't enough cylinder wall.
Back in the day, it wasn't uncommon for .44 Conversions to spit out the little piece of steel (iron) that was left in the bottom of the locking bolt slot.  Now, a century and some later, I've been seeing Open Tops and Conversions that were chambered in .45 Colt spitting out the same little piece of steel.  The gun will still function just fine albeit it gives me the willies imagining some ham hock reloading .45 Colt just a tad too hot ............
And another thing ............ TA DA ........ I also shoot .44 Russian in my .44 Open Tops and in my Type IIs.  Just a little closer to the original loading even though I don't really care about being "Period."  Modified my Henry and my 1866 to function with .44 Russian as well.  Really a kick to load the respective magazine full up and let 'er rip!!  FUN

Coffinmaker

[Mako]

Coffinmaker,
I had read before where you weren't enamored with the .45 caliber offerings and I also believe I had read you liked the .44 Russian as well.  I too have one of Haps carriers for one of my '66s.  I use it on ranges where I can reliably retrieve most of my brass (only one of three clubs).  I have been shooting .44 Spls in another '66 because I can buy once fired range brass in .44 spl from time to time and I don't mind loosing t as much.  Since I mainly shoot my '60s I just need the cartridges for my rifles.

I don't know if you have McDowell's book but he writes that the majority of the cylinders were not conversions, but were in fact purpose built for the "conversions."  They increased the rebated portion of the cylinder from Ø1.533 to Ø1.568 which gives you .0175" more steel at the bottom of that bolt stop notch.  I've not only heard of the notches breaking through from you, but others as well.

I really wish Uberti had done what ASM did and kept the size right.  We wouldn't be discussing missing chunks of metal right now if they did.  I know there are several of us on this forum alone that have the ASM pistols.  I think Uberti misunderstood the real market for the pistols.  I mean of the people who are going to shoot a true 8" "conversion" how many wouldn't be happy to reload in .44 Colt whether it be smokeless or BP?  Besides there aren't really anymore cowboy loads available for .44 Spl. than in .44 Colt.  Both Blackhills and Ultra Max offer a load in smokeless and Goex has a BP load.

~Mako

P.S. if you ever decide to get rid of that Henry let me know.  I have been looking for one in .44 spl for years now.  Was yours originally a .44 spl, or did you convert it from .44WCF?  Wolf at one time said you could get them as a special order from Uberti in .44 spl.  I don't know if that is still possible.

[Fox Creek Kid]

I do not like the .45 in guns it originally was never chambered for.  I just like to load my guns with an historically correct charge and bullet weight to get the effect of "how it was." That's why I load my .44 Colts with 25 gr. FFg and 200+ gr. bullet. I even load my 44-40's with 28 gr. FFg and a wad to take up space when shooting my Henry & '66 Uberti like the old .44 Rimfire round.

The problem is that we are a miniscule minority who strive to be more authentic and moreso those who use real BP. I wish I had a nickel for everytime someone had asked me at a CAS shoot "why do you shoot that sh_ _?"    My reply has always been "so they used Tite Group in the Old West?"  Those who have never shot real BP in CAS style weapons will never know the thrill, sensation & challenge of how it really was when our forefathers had no other choice.

Soapbox off. 

[Long Johns Wolf]

Weeell, an interesting and controversal topic with many facettes.
Mako, my comment regarding the .44 Special Henry barrels at Uberti's was from fall 2006. Back then they had a couple of these barrels chambered for .44 Special available. That led to their making of my all black steel Henry which is fed .44 Colt ammo only.
I believe Uberti was and is offering their Army conversions/OTs in .45 cal. to reach the pards & pardettes with Henries or 66es in .45, to have period pistols in the same caliber. Looking at it from that angle they might have reached a new target group.
The other consideration which is very valid from the European perspective might have been that there are (small) markets out there where the "new" .44 Colt is just not available, not as a factory round nor as components for the reloaders. E. g. you cannot buy .44 Colt cases in Austria. I am not aware of any European country where you can buy commercial .44 Colt ammo like from Starline. You can buy .44 Colt cases in Germany since ca. 2004 only. Prior to 2004 I used to make my .44 Colt ammo from .44 mag or .44 Special cases.
Regarding these Frankenstein-Conversions. Sorry Mako, I just had to push that a bit further, these 1860s on steroids: I did some comparative measuring or had it done during the last couple of years, comparing 1st gen Colts to 2nd, 3rd gens, re-issue Centaures and Italian clones of various makers, and added data on 19th century and newly made conversions. That data is available in condensed form on www.1960nma.org on the page "Wolf on Conversions". I can let you have the details per gun on excel spread sheets.
And finally, I sold all my Uberti factory Army conversions once I had the respective model as a Centaure conversion custom made...in .44 Colt, of course. Because I just felt the Italian proportions are not right and not pleasing to my eyes. This included R2 X04444 which was probably the first R2 sold by Uberti.
My humble opinion,
Long Johns Wolf

[Mako]

2006!!!  Wow, time flies, weren't we calling you Bootsie back then?  I would have sworn it was only a couple of years ago instead of five.

I didn't realize you couldn't get .44 Colt cases easily,  I wrongly assumed that Starline brass was available anywhere in Europe.  I have European friends who were IPSC shooters who used to be sponsored by Starline.  In fact when the .38 Super Comp brass first came out we were all sent several thousand cases at the same time and that was in the '90s.  I feel like an "ugly American now."  I am used to being able to get loading components easily and literally through the mail or delivery, I hope I didn't sound too flip.

But.......I will tell you this, you got your type 2s long before we ever got them in the Americas.  In 2004 you were ahead of us in receiving a lot of the Conversions and even the Open Tops.  I don't remember when Uberti started making the .45 Colt rifles.  It used to be that .44WCF and even the .44 Specials were more common.  I know that the two most common CAS calibers are .38 Spl and .45 Colt, I just wonder about specialized guns like Conversions or the pre-1873 Colt's style pistols.  How much of a market is there really for .45 Colt?  People like us go to great lengths to use these types of pistols, just look at what you and your friends do.

I just looked at your table on 1960nma again and it looks typical, the only thing that I have any question about is the original 1st gen 1860 large diameter.  As I said, I have two and they measure Ø40,89 and Ø40,84 instead of the your reported Ø41,20 (which is what McDowell also reports).  One of my pistols is worn, but the other is really fairly clean and has all of the cylinder roll engraving.  I have some original 1860 dimensions from some other collectors and I think they all run under the Ø1.622 (Ø41,20) that McDowell reported.

And finally, I sold all my Uberti factory Army conversions once I had the respective model as a Centaure conversion custom made...in .44 Colt, of course. Because I just felt the Italian proportions are not right and not pleasing to my eyes. This included R2 X04444 which was probably the first R2 sold by Uberti.

Wolf this is where you and I are in "violent agreement."  I see it too and it bugs me.  The second pistol I ever fired was an 1860 I grew up looking at and handling that pistol and I notice the changes to the Uberti Type 2 or Richards-Mason conversions.

The irony is that I never appreciated that pistol or the other 19th century firearms the family had until much later in life.

Regards,
Mako

[Fox Creek Kid]

...In 2004 you were ahead of us in receiving a lot of the Conversions and even the Open Tops...

The Cimarron '72 OT was introduced at the 1999 SHOT Show. I got one, which I still have, from the first batch in country in Sept. '99. It is serial # X07X. The '60 Army Richards Mason was introduced in 2001 and again I got one from the first batch in Sept. 2001. However, the first batch of RM's had the wrong breech cone (OT length) and a shorter cylinder. I changed them out for the longer (correct) cylinder & a new barrel with the proper breech cone in 2003 when spare parts became available.

Notice in the following 'Gunblast' review from 2002 that the RM has the incorrect cylinder & barrel breech cone:

http://www.gunblast.com/Cimarron_Conversion.htm

[Mako]

Hey Kid,
When you get the chance what is the diameter of that older OpenTop Cylinder?

I think you took me too literally about '04.  I was using that as a the date because he was recounting having to turn the rims on cases prior to '04.  I just remember when Wolf was showing us pictures of his type 2 long before we got ours.  It seemed like they always got theirs a year or so before we got ours.

~Mako

[Fox Creek Kid]

Mako, I sold the old cylinder & barrel in 2003. Sorry.

Usually we get the new Italian stuff at the same time but for some reason with the Type II we did not. Never could figure that out.   

[Long Johns Wolf]

Hello to the campfire: I got my Uberti R2 in .44 colt cal. in October 2006 after a visit to Uberti/Gardone in September where they had her...in a crate with other pistols just returned from a gun show. I told Suzanne Webb I wanted her and she said OK who is your dealer in Germany. That took care of this.
As it turned out my R2 X04444 was proof tested in 2003 (!) already. So, I have to assume she was one of their early prototypes Uberti used to obtain the CAT number and show around at exhibitions to test the market.
As the Kid explained my Uberti Army RM is also of the early batch from late 2002, also .44 Colt. She had the wrong & long cone and the wrong & short cylinder and the wrong & short ejector pin. That was altered at the factory during my next visit in April 2007 at no charge. So, I respect the Ubertis of this world for their responsiveness.
Long Johns Wolf