Re: WTS 1860 RM Cartridge Conversion

[Slowhand Bob]

I have spent years hoping for Pietta to take up the gauntlet and produce a more true copy of the Richards type Conversion.  Looks like they are not interested in that model, even though many cowboys broke the bank trying to fix up their ASMs.  Done correctly, I would buy at least two pair!

[Pettifogger]

I have spent years hoping for Pietta to take up the gauntlet and produce a more true copy of the Richards type Conversion.  Looks like they are not interested in that model, even though many cowboys broke the bank trying to fix up their ASMs.  Done correctly, I would buy at least two pair!

Yep, but Pietta can't make money selling four guns.

[Graveyard Jack]

Make that six, I'll take a pair. I'd love to have a couple of Richards Type I conversions. Without having to find and fix ASM guns.

[Abilene]

There has been some discussion with Pietta about producing a Richards.  There is some interest, however right now they are totally swamped trying to keep up with SAA orders.  So perhaps it will happen some day, though I don't think it is even in the planning stage yet.  Keep in mind how many years it took Uberti to get around to making the '76 Winchester.

[Slowhand Bob]

I just hope I have that many years left in me!  I know that ASM did not do the design justice BUT I would really hope that if Pietta, or anyone else, picked up the mantle, they would not take the Uberti route and build tanks.  If it is to be a Richards style conversion then start out with the '51 or '60 model and convert it...  I am sure that there are many here who understand this far better than I BUT where is the big problem?  A new cylinder plate and cylinder I can see but what is needed for the hammer?  Did Colt just dovetail in a firing pin??

[MJN77]

Did Colt just dovetail in a firing pin??

It has a spring loaded firing pin in the conversion ring.

[Graveyard Jack]

They can't just start out with a percussion gun and convert it because of differences in metallurgy. It's still a new cartridge gun and still has to get proofed. However, they can skip the big .45Colt market and make it true or truer to size. That's why the Ubertis are bigger, because they wanted to cram the .45Colt in there to appeal to the many who already shoot that ubiquitous chambering.

[Abilene]

They can't just start out with a percussion gun and convert it because of differences in metallurgy. It's still a new cartridge gun and still has to get proofed. However, they can skip the big .45Colt market and make it true or truer to size. That's why the Ubertis are bigger, because they wanted to cram the .45Colt in there to appeal to the many who already shoot that ubiquitous chambering.

Uberti also wanted the conversions to run .44 Russian and .44 Spcl, which have rims the same diameter as the .45.  The ASM .44 conversions would only chamber .44 Colt with its smaller diameter rim (well, they would chamber .44 Russian but you could only get 3 in the cylinder without rims overlapping).

[Graveyard Jack]

Yep! Personally, I run all mine with .44Colt cases and wouldn't have it any other way. Got an extra 500 cases just last month. 

[Coffinmaker]

Well .... I guess I'm probably in the minority on this one ..... But ...... I don't PERSONALLY think any of the conversions that chamber 6 rounds should have been built in .45 Colt.  The correct size guns didn't have enough cylinder.  Uberti scaled everything up to fit the 45.  Marketing.
Make it appeal to a wider market.  I'd rather seen em chambered in .44 Colt.  Better lookin guns to boot.  My Richards Type IIs are large and clunky.  They weigh a tone and don't balance for spit.
There was a reason colt never built conversions in 45.  Equally good reasons Uberti should not have.  Some of the guns look fine from the Freeway, up close, not so much.
The other side of the coin.  Without the up-scaled guns to widen the appeal, we probably wouldn't have as many reproductions of the conversions as we do.  So I should quit complaining.  My main match guns are all Open Tops, new version purpose built conversions or actual conversions.  The 1860s use R&D cylinders, 5 shot.  Work fine.
I'll get off my soap box now.  I feel better.  I took my medication and I'm not dangerous now <}:-)

Coffinmaker

[Slowhand Bob]

As mentioned by Coffinmaker, it would be preposterous to assume that only three rounds of 44Russian would fit in an 1860 conversion cylinder, I already own two Army frame Piettas that are converted to 45 using Kirst five round cylinders.  It is my understanding that once you put the rear sight on top of the ring you will have to alter the hammer??  What ever that alteration was, I thought Colt actually performed it on the guns existent hammer when they were sent in??  Dummy me for sure but I thought an actual firing pin had to be welded or pinned on to reach through the plate to the primers??  I thought the early Colt conversions were usually made around the 44 Henry cartridge, how many rounds were loaded in the originals??

[Graveyard Jack]

Coffinmaker is talking about rim interference because the Russian and Special have much larger rims than the .44Colt, not that it would only have three chambers.

If the .45Colt would've fit into the originals, Colt would've gone that route. The .44Colt was a compromise in every way but it worked. It was the most cartridge they could make work and still deliver acceptable accuracy.

Are the percussion replicas of appropriate size? Guess I need to take my cartridge conversions and percussion guns apart to see just how much difference there really is. According to my spreadsheet, the Type II is only 1oz heavier than an 8" Pietta 1860.

[griswold]

Wolf D. Niederastroth already did some of that:

http://www.1960nma.org/WolfConversions/Reflections-4.4.13.htm

Here is his website for all his stuff.

http://www.1960nma.org/

[Mean Bob Mean]

Yep! Personally, I run all mine with .44Colt cases and wouldn't have it any other way. Got an extra 500 cases just last month. 

Yep.  I picked up 500 rounds of .44 Colt myself in the last few weeks.  I have no intention of running out or switching for convenience sake. 

[Slowhand Bob]

I think that the conversion era was reaching its end by the time the 45Colt cartridge was fully implemented.  Not being a student of the guns of that era, I would think that the cost of such projects would have played into the decision of which calibers were practical for conversion.  Since we know that 45 rimmed calibers would have required all new cylinders reamed for five rounds, would they not have salvaged the existent cylinders by cutting off the rear and maintaining the front half to go ahead of the conversion plate, thus the use of 44 caliber heel base bullets?   

Once upon a time there was an outfit that marketed plans for converting cap and ball pistols to cartridge conversions.  My 'gun tinkerer' limitations always prevented me from purchasing a set of those plans and instructions but I did research them pretty well and can tell you that the original six round cylinder was a part of their conversion.  There was little doubt in my mind that all they were doing was to recreate what the people of the earlier era had done.  Wish now that I had purchased a set of those plans, just as reference.  I will bet there are those who post here that have studied the original technology and know exactly what mods and calibers Sir Richard deemed necessary for his early conversions of an 1860 Army Model. 

[Hoof Hearted]

The Richards will never be a "drop in" conversion. The first limitation is the cylinder diameter and the size of the arbor. In order to even get six 44 caliber cartridges in the originals a new cylinder is machined with the ratchet tooth moved to between the chambers (the cap and ball cylinder has the tooth in the center of the chamber. Then the back of the frame is cut off to allow the conversion ring which has a much higher pawl cut. The longer two stage pawl needs to go up more (the cap and ball pawl moved forward at the top of it's arc). Even with all of this the chamber walls are very (VERY) thin at the bolt stop notches.

HH

[griswold]

The Richards will never be a "drop in" conversion. The first limitation is the cylinder diameter and the size of the arbor. In order to even get six 44 caliber cartridges in the originals a new cylinder is machined with the ratchet tooth moved to between the chambers (the cap and ball cylinder has the tooth in the center of the chamber. Then the back of the frame is cut off to allow the conversion ring which has a much higher pawl cut. The longer two stage pawl needs to go up more (the cap and ball pawl moved forward at the top of it's arc). Even with all of this the chamber walls are very (VERY) thin at the bolt stop notches.

HH

I'm not disputing your wisdom; I just am trying to learn because I'd like to have a authentic sized .44 1860. How did Wolf Nederastroth manage to do this?
http://www.1960nma.org/WolfConversions/Wolf%20on%20Conversions-4.4.13.htm

[Hoof Hearted]

Well I spent some time reading Wolf's page that you linked (I have looked at it before) and I have two concerns:

First, Wolf did not do anything here but he does show pictures of some work done by gunsmiths. If memory serves the "Saber River" guns were built by Kenny Howell? although they remind me of Bob MIllingtons work and then there is some text concerning the German smith named Nedbal. Also some references to Uberti Open Tops and Richards pistol.

So.........

Second, which of these are you referencing?

If you reread my post that you quoted you will see that I said there will not be a true type 1 "drop in" conversion because of the things I referenced that have to be done to the original pistol. I did not say that they cannot be built! Millington does the best one out there and I was only saying that because the bretheren here keep harping about the price. I have my own take on a "look alike" in fact pen and paper met today over lunch and I am thinking about some designs

HH

I'm not disputing your wisdom; I just am trying to learn because I'd like to have a authentic sized .44 1860. How did Wolf Nederastroth manage to do this?
http://www.1960nma.org/WolfConversions/Wolf%20on%20Conversions-4.4.13.htm

[Coffinmaker]

Just to clarify a little.  My main concers for the .45 Colt are not rim diameters.  If you look at an authentic, un-retouched .45 Colt case, there isn't enough "rim" to spit at.
THE problem is cylinder wall thickness.  When the originals were converted, there wasn't much wall left when cut to .44 Colt.  A .45 chamber would result in a chamber wall that is just too thin.  In fact, many original conversions in .44 Colt have spit out the little price of metal left in the bolt slots.
Today, quite a few NEW Uberti Open Top guns have come into the shop with the same malady.  After a few rounds, they spit out the little bit of metal in the bottom of the bolt slots.  Understand though, the guns still worked just fine.  I just don't personally feel any reproduction or conversion with cylinders of that size is truly safe chambered in .45 Colt.  Push the envelope just a little bit and you have some assembly required.
I like em a lot, however chambered in .44 Spl and shot with .44 Russian cases.

Coffinmaker

[Major 2]

Beginning with Slowhand Bob's post, this thread took a different direction and offers some good information..it is just not germane to the original topic of the now sold revolver.
So I have split it 

Now back to the topic at hand .... beloved Richards Type 1 and their resurrection