Rebated or not rebated cylinders on 1860 Richards transition conversions

[Bonnie_blue1861]

Strictly as it related to the 1860's....I'm trying to understand the whole rebated vs. not rebated cylinders on 1860 transition conversions, specifically as to historically what was done and then what Italian manufacturers were and still are producing over the years, for the CAS shooters.

Some companies have a roll engraved rebated cylinder on their Type I or II  1860 transitions and some do not.

I believe all the replica .44 conversions to .45LC, .44colt, etc, do have the "rebated" cylinder. That is what we all see, when we look at pictures of original Richards Type II conversions,...aka the Transition model.


For example Cimmaron (made by Uberti) makes the "1860 Richards Type 2 - The Richards Transition Model Conversion combines the early Richards ejector with the Richards-Mason conversion ring, gate and hammer. This rare model is commonly called the 'Transition Model'." It has a rebated cylinder in .45. They show a Richards Transition Model Conversion, which "combines the early Richards ejector with the Richards-Mason conversion ring, gate and hammer. This rare model is commonly called the 'Transition Model'." It has the BP barrel and early (non-Mason) ejector ---with the unimproved long ejector rod sticking out.
Sure enough, they offer their take on this pistol, with a rebated cylinder in both the .45lc and .38 special.

But I have also seen photos of a Cimmaron, Type II with a smooth, non- rebated cylinder in .38 special.

(I wont get into the "Richards Mason"...because there were moving farther away from the transition phase which has a totally different barrel profile and ejector style)

Next we have the ASM's (Armi San Marco) reproduction of the Richards conversion of the open top Colt 1860 Army, (which is the type I conversion) with the rear sight on the back plate ring (not on the hammer per the 1860 Army and the Richards-Mason conversion). The cylinder's engraving is again that of the Texas Navy engaging the Mexican fleet similar to that of the Colt 1860 Army model, but with a smooth "non-rebated " profile.

Is the smooth cylinder found on the Type 1 cylinder (as made by ASM) historically as a result of Colt using up all their left over BP cylinders that were made for .36cal by just cutting the nipple ends off to fit the conversion rings? Then... historically when the Richards Type II  aka "Type II transition" ....as called by Uberti....came along, the rear site moved back to the hammer as the BP had and the cylinders all became rebated, regardless of caliber?  

I'm just fuzzy on all this...so hopefully some of you guys can shine a light on this for me.

But historically..... revolvers that were converted from the .36cal, did they all have a smooth sided cylinder, without any rebate, since they didn't need that step in the frame for the larger caliber bullet? Its hard to determine what today's and recent past Italian gun manufactures dreamed up and exactly what is based on reality.

Ok...that seems enough to start a discussion...It's making my head hurt...all this late night thinking.

[rifle]

What I've seen is the 1851 Colt conversion to 38Colt/special has the non-rebated cylinder.
Then the conversion of the 1860 Colt to 38 Special has no rebate but should to look original but....the 1860 was not converted to 38 cal. backin the day.
The San Marcos are nice guns but not perfectly true to the originals as they should have a rebated cylinder if it's a copy of the Colt 1860 converted to 44 Colt.
The conversion of 1861 Colts look pretty original as they didn't have a rebate cylinder since they were 36's converted to 38  Colt.
In a nut shell.....any 36's converted to 38 Colt were non-rebate and any 44''s converted to 44 Colt had the rebate. You know....they had conversion cylinders thay were lookin like they did before they were a conversion so.....look at the percussions to see how they should be.
In the book on conversions it'll show other prototypes made where they were the exception to the rule like the long cylinder conversion of the 1860 Army Colt to 44 Colt cartridge.
Actually counting all the prototypes and the blacksmith conversions and the home brew conversions .............even Geronimo made his own conversioins while hiding up in the mountains. He was said to be a decent "Kitchen Table Gunsmith" so to speak. I've seen a picture of him holding a conversion and it was obvious it was a "home made" model............you could make or buy just about any model not a true Colt copy and figure someone somewhere made one like it back in the day. Just about anything that was possible was done somewhere by someone so anything a person can get made in Italy or anywhere was probably made back in the day by a blacksmith or gunsmith or a handy man ranger or mountain man ect.ect.ect..
I even saw an original Remington cap&ball revolver converted to a two shot cartridge gun. It was ingeniously simple and reliable. Converted to 44 Colt.

Look at the book,"The study of COLT CONVERSIONS and other percussiuon revolvers" by McDowell. Cool book with pics of all the originals. Well ....a lot of the originals.
I've two San Marcos conversion types. One is an 1860 Colt without the rebate cylinder that looks more like an 1861 conversion with a barrel a half inch longer and Army grips and converted to 38 cal. Then I have an 1861 type that is a 44 cal instead of the 38 cal. it should be but looks like an 1861 Colt.....but looks like the 1860 type conversion that has no rebate cylinder.
Anywhooooo...when I see the Uberti 1860 Colt conversion to 38 Special that has no rebate to the cylinder it bothers me to look at it even though I would like to have one. Why Uberti made that gun without a rebate is beyound me. The 38's and the 44's have different size conversion plates too. The smaller is for the 38's and the bigger one for 44's.......so the Ubertin1860 Colt conversion to 38 Special has the smaller conversion plate. The 44's look the most original so....why didn't Uberti make the conversion to 38 at least look original by just chambering the 44's with the rebate to 38 cal for the 38 Special converted 1860 Army?

[Bonnie_blue1861]

Well...that sure is a good first reply.

At your conclusion you said..... "The 44's look the most original so....why didn't Uberti make the conversion to 38 at least look original by just chambering the 44's with the rebate to 38 cal for the 38 Special converted 1860 Army?"

Good point, I wonder why they just didn't do that? You would think that from a marketing perspective alone, they would think that by making the .38's look closer to original that they would be a "better seller" for lack of a better way to say it.

I mean, if a company is already making their own "cartridge conversion gun" products line of cylinders, in their facility... it couldn't be that much more of an expense, or time consuming, to just drill the very same (cartridge destined cylinder blanks)  to accommodate .38's, instead of what would otherwise become .45LC, .44special... or whatever.

I'm thinking they might rebate them after the drilling process is completed then they roll engrave them. The worse production/expense scenario would be having one milling machine set up to drill .38's. Somehow I doubt they have seperate machines set up to drill .45colt, .44special, etc. Its just a matter of swapping out the cutting tool and resetting their CNC equipment.

The one thing is that if you look at Cimarron's web site http://www.cimarron-firearms.com/conversion-revolvers/1860-conversions/1860-conversions-1860-richards-type-2.html they show their Richards type II  .38's with rebated cylinders.

So according to their photos, Cimmaron (made by Uberti) makes them with rebated cylinders, regardless of the caliber. At least that is what their photos depict.  I also just noticed something on the page link.
The main photo shows an ejector with the really long rod, that protrudes out from the housing. But when you look down bellow, at the three models they offer... they all depict having a short rod in the photos.

I thought the Richards type II or as Cimarron calls them, "transition models" all had the long spend brass ejector rod? Their photos don't even match.

Another good point you brought up RIFLE, is that the non-rebated cylinder would be something seen on the 1861 conversion. Yes...true. In that case manufactures would have had to produce these replicas with a longer ejector housing and the loading gate that doesn't have the "lipped effect" to it, like the 1860's used. (cant remember the correct term). But you right, they all had the smooth sides to them.

[rifle]

Thanks fer that link Hombre.
I am glad to hear there's an Army model in 38cal. with the correct rebated cylinder. The 38's have thicker barrels and I like the weight and the stronger forcing cone area less apt to crack. I;ve had a coupla 45's crack. Uberti fixed that problem but I'm still wary.
I'd hope that the pics of what Cimarron has are what they actually sell. They don't show the transition model in 38 that has the non-rebated cylinder.
Yep,It's a mystery why Uberti would arrange things to make a Army conversion in 38 with a smaller back plate and smaller diameter cylinder. Makes no sense to me. Maybe it's something Taylors wanted?

[Long Johns Wolf]

Rifle & Bonnie_blue - regarding the straight cylinder .38 cal. Richards 2: may be Uberti used a beefed-up 1851 Navy frame (no step), 1851 conversion ring & cylinder (straight) from their RM 1851 Navy conversion or MWNN pistol , and fitted an Army grip & barrel/ejector assembly from their Transitional model.
In other words this would be a creative assembly of parts that are produced anyway ... to make some shooters happy. Makes sense?
Incidentally I saw this straigt cylinder R2 in .38 cal used by a competitor from the Czech Republic, but never the rebated .38 cal. variant
Long Johns Wolf

[Abilene]

The Uberti 1860 Richards-Mason and 1860 Richards Type II conversions that come in .38 special both have the exact same frame and cylinder as the '51 Richards-Mason conversion.  Non-rebated.  The pictures are not correct in the Cimarron web page.  Their website was updated recently and I had not previously seen this page.  The pictures are all of the same gun with the barrel length photo-shopped for the different models.  Before the website update there was no separate picture of the .38 version at all, so people still would think the .38 version had the rebate.  I will inform them of the error and hopefully the guy who does the website can fix it.  As for the short ejector rod in the picture, that is because they are old pictures from when the gun first came out and had the short rod (the original Type II that was sent to Uberti to copy from Cimarron had the short rod).  Alll the type II's have had the full length rod for some time now.

I do agree that if they are going to call it an 1860 then it should have the rebate regardless of caliber, and have no idea why it isn't.  I seem to recall from years ago that the 1860 R-M in .38 was a mistake that Uberti made, but then they just kept making it.  Sort of the opposite kind of a Frankengun from what Pietta produces.

[rifle]

I could live with the 38 without the rebate since I've a good imagination and could get dillusional enough to not notice the un-rebate. If there was room to scrape out the frame even a little a pressed on fit collor could look like a rebate.

[Hoof Hearted]

It seems to me that since there never was a "38 caliber" 1860 conversion made by Colts it's hard to say that the Cimarron (made by Uberti) version is "correct" or "incorrect" since it is their own creation..........

HH

[Mike]

In my view why make a copy and then make it differently.

I for one want a exact copy of the origanal including Calibre as far a possible. so I can live with internal lub bullets.

Make it slightly bigger so accomidate the calibre and make it safe to shoot.

I sold my two Uberti SAA because I prefere the ASM for there closeness to the origanals, I have two 44WFC and one 45 Colt.
I have a Richards Type 2 two Open Tops one I am waiting for the 44 cylinder and barrel for as it is in 38Sp at present.

If I can find ASM second hand I will buy them over Uberti new made guns. The rifles are fine and I have all the modles in rifle form.

[Abilene]

While we're on the subject of these "1860 .38 conversions", here is an idea that occurred to me recently.  Since Uberti uses the Navy frame and cylinder for these, if you take an Uberti 1860 Richards-Mason .38 (non-rebated) conversion with 8" barrel and change it to a Navy grip, you have created a nearly correct 1861 Richards-Mason conversion, other than the barrel being 1/2" too long.

I have not researched to see if there were 1861 Richards Type-II conversions to know if the same could be done to that model.

[Coffinmaker]

Hey Abilene!!!

Has Cimarron dropped the 4 1/2 inch barrels for the Conversions ans Open Tops?

Coffinmaker

[Abilene]

Hey Abilene!!!

Has Cimarron dropped the 4 1/2 inch barrels for the Conversions ans Open Tops?

Coffinmaker

OT's with 4 3/4" are in stock. The only conversion they carry with a 4 3/4" barrel is the '51 R-M, not in stock.

[Bonnie_blue1861]

Your right Mike.... when you said "In my view why make a copy and then make it differently."

You would think that if you were going to make a certain model "replica" why wouldn't you start off by making it as close as possible to what the original gun looked like? If nothing more than for marketing purposes, to make it a better seller.

I realize that they're not allowed to put Colt stampings/markings and the like on them.... but they could replicate certain well known features (such as rebated cylinders, or the proper curvature of the grips back strap, etc)

[Graveyard Jack]

There's a few things folks have to realize. Firstly, the Richards conversions only apply to the 1860. So a Richards Type I or II that is anything but a .44Colt 1860 with a rebated cylinder is a fantasy gun. Only the Richards-Mason conversion was applied to the 1851 and 1861 models.

An 1860 Richards Type I or II is not a copy of anything so it can be as different as they want it to be. What the replica makers have done to accommodate the .38Spl is to use a percussion type barrel on a Navy frame. This way, they can use the same frames and cylinders as the 1851 Richards-Mason models. This is much more economical than to produce a separate part in the form of a rebated .38Spl cylinder. Sometimes historical accuracy has to take a back seat to manufacturing ease. An 1860 Richards .38Spl is a fantasy gun in a non-original chambering anyway so it really doesn't matter. So you can't really blame them as they are producing more guns in more chamberings than were originally available. We should be praising them for making any of these guns, instead of buying a fantasy gun in a non-original chambering and then complaining because it's not more historically accurate. Which makes no sense.

[Abilene]

CraigC,
This is true.  However, if you buy something called an 1860 Richards-Mason or and 1860 Type II Richards, you would at least like the gun to look like that even if the caliber is not period correct.  Uberti is using the same 1860 barrels as the .44's and .45's, only bored to .357 for these .38 Spcl guns.  All they would have to do is bore the 1860 cylinders to .38 Spcl and use the stepped frame.  They are already boring '51 cylinders.  Just bore less of them and spend that effort boring the stepped cylinder and the gun would look correct.  It really shouldn't add much if any additional manufacturing effort.

Too, part of the "problem" is that the photos of the .38 guns show the stepped cylinder and frame, so some customers are expecting to receive that.

[Graveyard Jack]

What sounds "easy" to the rest of us is probably a little bit more involved at the manufacturing level. Maybe it's just me but I wouldn't be getting bent over a fantasy gun not looking exactly like the real thing. Then again, it never occurred to me to buy an 1860 cartridge conversion in anything but .44Colt. The cylinders are larger in diameter than the originals, shall we get bent out of shape over that too? I guess I see the cup as half full and am grateful that they even build these guns. I'd rather see a .38Spl with the wrong type of cylinder than none at all. Remember, it has to be profitable for the manufacturer.

[Abilene]

...I'd rather see a .38Spl with the wrong type of cylinder than none at all. ...

Agreed.

[Pettifogger]

These are very low production guns and we should be thankful that Uberti is even trying to make this style of gun.  They have to make money and you can't make it by handcrafting an exact replica of a long out of production gun.  They also have to make the guns in calibers that will sell.  The market is 99% .38 and .45.  The cylinders on a lot of the originals are to thin for a lot of the modern cartridges so they had to fudge the dimensions a bit to make things work.  Big deal.  They wouldn't sell more than a handful of conversions in the real .44 Colt caliber.  No brass, no bullets, a pain to load, etc.  (Yeah, yeah, I know Joe Blow at East Jesus, Nevada Gun Works makes a special heel based mold.  99.99999% of shooters don't know, don't care and won't load them.)  I'm just thankful Uberti is making a few of these guns each year.

[Graveyard Jack]

...and some of us are handloaders who love the guns and have no problem using .44Colt brass but don't care one bit about casting or messing with heeled bullets. We are already a niche within a niche and are lucky to have any factory conversions at all. Let alone the broad selection we have.

[Bonnie_blue1861]

ABILENE is right though when he points out:

"Too, part of the "problem" is that the photos of the .38 guns show the stepped cylinder and frame, so some customers are expecting to receive that."

The photos a company shows, should accurately reflect the model and actual specs of what they are selling. A perspective buyer shouldn't have to search discussion boards or ask around for real photos and info about the gun. The manufacturer should show it exactly like it is.... on their own web site.

If I didn't search around I would have expected to receive a rebated cylinder or in some cases a roll engraved cylinder (when they turn out to be plain)... etc.