Reverse engineering an 1860 Man With No Name

[SimmerinLightning]

I figure it to be a "simple" matter of purchasing an 1872 army, obtaining the barrel assembly from an 1860, and fitting the two together. One obvious question (to me anyway) is whether the barrel bore would come anywhere close to aligning with the chambers. Does anyone foresee any other issues, or have any comments?

Why would I want such a thing? For the same reason I wanted my 1851 MWnN: I like the aesthetics of the percussion models combined with the convenience of cartridges. The more authentic conversions and Open Tops just have never appealed to me.

[Coffinmaker]

Interesting Idea.  Won't fly.  The Open Top barrels/frames don't interchange with the BP barrels and frames.  Would be interesting to check all the different alignment problems if I had an Open Top frame laying around (I actually do) and an 1860 barrel assembly laying around (I don't, don't like Uberti BP guns).  I also don't believe the breach end of the barrel would mate with the cylinder face.

Understand, this is, at this point for me is just a WAG (military acronym for "wild ass guess") cause I don't actually have the parts to compare  to give an educated guess.  Still an interesting idea.  Would look kinda funny, but hey, so do lots of the "Frankenpistols" I've been known to build.

Coffinmaker

[Abilene]

Like Coffinmaker said, won't match up.  Same with the Navy barrel.  The MWNN barrel assembly and the '51 percussion barrel are not interchangeable.

If you want that look, not too hard to add a .45 conversion cylinder to an 1860.  There's pictures somewhere around this site of some of these made by Cascity guys.

[SimmerinLightning]

So I must conclude my other plan, putting an1861 barrel on a Cimarron MWnN, is equally problematic? This was in fact the original idea, but aside from the other issues there is the problem of differing bore diameters. I would need either to find a source for heeled bullets or to have the barrel lined, which I figured people would find laughable.

If you want that look, not too hard to add a .45 conversion cylinder to an 1860.  There's pictures somewhere around this site of some of these made by Cascity guys.

Yes, the only reason I was not considering this is that, whenever I think of conversion cylinders, the Howell type comes to mind. I keep forgetting there are gated versions available.

[Major 2]

This one is a re- lined barrel to . 357

In a 1860's case  , the OEM barrel was .451  so yeah, get a Kirst gated... and Bob's your uncle.

[Abilene]

So I must conclude my other plan, putting an1861 barrel on a Cimarron MWnN, is equally problematic? ...

Right.  But if a '61 style is what you want, get an 1860 Type II (in any caliber) conversion, which has the same style barrel as the '61, you could remove the ejector assembly, and since the barrel has the rammer slot you can add a rammer.  If you get that Type II in .38, it will not have the rebated cylinder but will have the '51 Richards-Mason frame and cylinder.  I am in fact getting one of those in .38 and intend to change the grip to Navy, which will give me a '61 conversion (although I'm not swapping the ejector for a rammer).  This way I get a gun with the correct bore size plus better steel than the percussion guns.

[Abilene]

Right.  But if a '61 style is what you want, get an 1860 Type II (in any caliber) conversion, which has the same style barrel as the '61, you could remove the ejector assembly, and since the barrel has the rammer slot you can add a rammer.  If you get that Type II in .38, it will not have the rebated cylinder but will have the '51 Richards-Mason frame and cylinder.  I am in fact getting one of those in .38 and intend to change the grip to Navy, which will give me a '61 conversion (although I'm not swapping the ejector for a rammer).  This way I get a gun with the correct bore size plus better steel than the percussion guns.

I believe you could also fit a Type II barrel to your MWNN (opentop frame), but it is difficult to find those barrels as spare parts.

[SimmerinLightning]

... get an 1860 Type II (in any caliber) conversion... since the barrel has the rammer slot you can add a rammer...

I did not realize that. I just assumed that, since they are built directly from scratch as cartridge guns, that extra machining step would be omitted. It doesn't help that one cannot find photos from an appropriate angle to see that detail.

It seems that this is likely the way to go. I imagine a loading lever and navy grip to be much easier to obtain than the Richards barrel assembly.

[Crow Choker]

Abilene: Interesting 'conversion' idea, but am wondering if the Richard Type II barrel assembly's that are put on the Type II's have the holes drilled in the inner area where the ratchet type rammer pins engage as on all 1860 type guns. Would this be a fit or would a person have to go with a 51' Navy style rammer setup and would that fit a 1860 style frame and barrel? Guess a functioning rammer would probably be a moot point as the rammer would be basically nonfunctional and for looks only. Wonder if Uberti drills the holes for the Richards II's or any barrel assemblies not destined for 1860 percussion guns have certain steps eliminated to save time and cost? I pulled my Richards II out and was looking at it, but didn't take it apart, don't know if rammer pin holes could be seen anyway by taking the ejector off.

What you are saying though is buying the Richards II, then buying the needed rammer assembly. Looked at several sources that sell Uberti parts (Cimm, Taylors, VTI) and could be done at a cost.  Anyway, I see what Simmerin is saying about the looks of the org percussion styling and looks vs the OT and R/M conversion's ones, but I sure enjoy the three conversion styles I have. Guess doing a self conversion isn't high on my bucket list, in fact never thought of it until Simmerin posted, probably won't do it, but your way of getting around and to it is interesting. Out of curiosity, I did think about taking apart my 44 caliber OT and 1860 Army and a 51' Navy, 61 Navy, and a 38 caliber RMason and seeing how the parts did in fact line up, but wasn't going to try and force any mating. Coffinmakers post pretty much sums up that it wouldn't work anyway, but interesting to see what barriers there would be. Maybe some day after shooting and doing the cleanup of the various guns I'll have to see. Anyway, I guess doing such a conversion would go against one of my negative thoughts about such a conversion and that would be having to poke the fired cases out with a wooden dowel or some other "case-poker-outer" other than an attached ejector. 

[SimmerinLightning]

Out of curiosity, I did think about taking apart my 44 caliber OT and 1860 Army and a 51' Navy, 61 Navy, and a 38 caliber RMason and seeing how the parts did in fact line up, but wasn't going to try and force any mating.

For what it's worth, I have two Uberti 1851's and a MWnN, and I have tried swapping the parts around out of curiosity- just at the kitchen table, of course. The navy parts fit together but won't function. The MWnN parts, the arbor seems to be just a tiny bit larger in diameter or something, because the navy barrel goes on most of the way but won't quite seat home. The two little guide pins on the front of the water table are misaligned vertically by approximately 1/4th the diameter of the pin. There are probably other issues that escape my untrained eye.

And just as you said, a separate ejector stick is required, which is the case with the factory MWnN. So, a little more convenient than the percussion models, but less so than a full conversion with ejector housing.

[Abilene]

You will notice that the '60 Type II is more expensive than the Richards-Mason '60.  That is because of the extra costs to solder (weld?) the ejector to the bracket that fits in the slot, and to fit that to the slot.  Same reason the Richards-Mason ejector was a cost saving back in the day.  I think Uberti fits them and then polishes and blues the barrel.  I've only tried to remove one and it was VERY tight.  And when that ejector assembly was attempted to be installed into a replacement barrel, it did not fit perfectly flush.

I think all the OT and conversion barrels and frames will interchange (not positive, but I think so), but not necessarily the cylinders.  You can put a Navy cylinder on a frame that is stepped for a rebated cylinder, but the Army cylinder will not fit on a Navy frame.

[Coffinmaker]

OK ...... OK ...... MY TURN ....... MY TURN ....... Again.

The end result is a MWNN "look" with an 1860 barrel assembly.  

There are TWO ways to get there without breaking the bank and without swapping a bunch of parts, it hopes they align (they won't)  So here ya go:

1st look is really simple.  Install a Kirst Konverter with Gated Recoil Shield in either Pietta or Uberti 1860.  You'll have a stepped cylinder of course, but essentially the same look.  R. Bertalotto (spell??)  AT rvbprecision has built a couple and posted pictures here.  The guns look really trix.  Roy also has pix of the 1860s on his site (I think)

2nd look is also really simple.  Install a gated Kirst Konverter in a Pietta 1862.  Pietta builds EVERYTHING on an 1851 frame, including the 1862.  You'll have the straight sided cylinder (you'll have to add the cartridge channel) and the 1860 pattern barrel with rammer.  Looks really trix.  Shoot it with hollow base swaged wadcutters (they work a treat).  Bob's yer Uncle.

Coffinmaker
(Who would personally do the 1860 conversion on a Pietta as well)
(If you want it to look really really trix, use the Pietta 1862 NYM Police, with the Silver Plate 1851 Grips)

[Crow Choker]

Hear all your saying Abilene. When looking at my Richards II, I thought that the bracket that fits in the slot where the plunger goes was pretty tight fit and would possibly be a 'bugger' to get out. Then if it can be removed, the rammer plunger fits, and everything else fits, there is the necessity of milling a spot on the end of the barrel for the loading lever latch catch. Thinkin at the price of a Richards II, considering the cost of what the Richards loading lever bracket adds to the final revolver and what a person would do with it after taking it off, buying all the loading lever parts, fitting, etc, I'd do something else. If I were a person considering such a thing, I'd buy a 1860 Army percussion (if I didn't already have one) and a Gated Kirst Convertor (no attachable ejector), mill a slot on the right recoil shield, fit the Kirst, leave the original rammer assembly on, and enjoy the end result, which would be close to doing all the rig-a-morale of buying and refitting the Richards II. Personally, I'd forget about the R&D for the reasons I gave on the thread "Krist or R&D" , ie having to break down the revolver to load/unload. JMO, I could be seeing a fast ball right down the 'gut' when the pitcher actually  threw me a curve.    Happy hunting Simmerin in your quest!

Late entry: See ya posted Coffinmaker while I was typing, didn't see it before I hit the 'post' button-yer right on, be cheaper and less hassle.

[Abilene]

Oh yeah, I forgot about needing to mill a dovetail under the barrel for the loading lever catch if you installed one on a Type II barrel.   If you don't need the loading lever for your look, buying a ready made conversion gives you more gun for your money than buying a percussion gun (if you didn't already have it) plus a conversion cylinder, but if you want that rammer it does limit your options.

[Crow Choker]

If you don't need the loading lever for your look, buying a ready made conversion gives you more gun for your money than buying a percussion gun (if you didn't already have it) plus a conversion cylinder

That's one of the reasons I bought an OT, Richards II, and a RM from the get go. I have three "sort of" original looking 19th century firing cartridge revolvers. Still have my percussion revolvers in their original state(sometimes I shoot some of the cartridge and percussion guns in the same outing) and even though the Krist cylinders and ejector systems are nice and fill a need, for the price of converting, a ready made cartridge firing revolver could be had for not that many more dollars more. Simmerin---your thought on the looks of the original looks of the percussion style I agree with though. Of the three cartridge firing I named and have, I like the looks of the Richards II the best, something about that Ol' hump below the barrel. But the name of the game is what appeals to ya and makes ya happy. Have gone the route of plan B and every time I looked at the object, I'd always think I should have gone with plan A.

[Hoof Hearted]

Funny to watch y'all reinventing the wheel here! Bahahahahaha
I do these all the time.....
Here is one I built last month for a customer:
https://www.facebook.com/cartridgeconversion/posts/1249111245173862

[Hoof Hearted]

This one is a re- lined barrel to . 357

In a 1860's case  , the OEM barrel is .451 so yeah, get a Kirst gated... and Bob's your uncle.

Roger, didn't I do that reline for you?

[Coffinmaker]

Whoops,
Some drift here.  I just remembered the OP wanted to do this with the 1860 look.  That might well also include .44 holes.  In which case using Pietta 1862s or 1861s just wouldn't get ya there.

Hoof's pix of the finished 1860 Gated conversion would be the way to go.  Just ignore the Ejector assembly and leave the loading lever in the gun.

Coffinmaker

[Hoof Hearted]

Whoops,
Some drift here.  I just remembered the OP wanted to do this with the 1860 look.  That might well also include .44 holes.  In which case using Pietta 1862s or 1861s just wouldn't get ya there.

Hoof's pix of the finished 1860 Gated conversion would be the way to go.  Just ignore the Ejector assembly and leave the loading lever in the gun.

Coffinmaker

Yep!
We call that the "Frontier Gunsmith" look.....

[Major 2]

Roger, didn't I do that reline for you?

You Did Gary...., that's Dexter with the 51 @ .375  barrel you relined

  <   that's Dexter in the Avatar to the left