My Cimarron 1861 Conversion

[Abilene]

Okay, so we all know that Uberti doesn't make a '61 conversion.  OR DO THEY?  We all know that Pietta makes some Frankenstein guns that never existed.  Well, so does Uberti.  Starting back with the 1860 Richards-Mason years ago, after being out in .44 and .45 for a few years, they added .38.  Now, they already had the '51 R-M in .38, so why make the 1860 conversion in .38?  Beats me, unless some people just liked that style better.  But when they made it in .38, it actually has the '51 R-M frame and cylinder (non-rebated) with the Army barrel and grip.  Why they didn't just bore a rebated cylinder to .38 so the gun would actually look right despite the caliber is beyond me.  The pictures on Cimarron's website only show the rebated cylinder version.

 So several years ago they come out with the 1860 Type-II, or Transition, Richards.  Same gun as the Richards-Mason but with the Richards-style barrel and ejector (which is a better looking barrel than the R-M barrel, IMO).  But they did it again, I mean the version of it in .38 has the '51 frame and cyinder.  Dang.  Except for the different conversion ring, looks like an Armi-San-Marco Richards (and every conversion ASM made was wrong).  HOWEVER!  The '51 frame and cylinder are the same as the '61.  And the 1860 Army and 1861 Navy barrels look the same.  Essentially, a Type II in .38 is simply a '61 conversion with an Army grip.  Well, that can be changed easily enough!

So I had to wait about a year for Cimarron to get in a CA9063.  I happened to be there when a shipment came in with 5 of them.  I picked the one with the nicest case colors  

Not a bad looking pistol...but just plain wrong!




The Navy gripframe and Bar-S Tru-Ivory grip I borrowed from my engraved R-M's
Voila!  An 1861 conversion!



And here it is with its shooting partner, a '51 R-M I've had since 2001, with 3000 rounds through it, and sporting a new 4 3/4" barrel.



I've owned it one week.  I put in a lighter mainspring and an Evil Roy (I think) trigger/bolt spring.  The cylinder ratchet teeth were very sharp.  I just took some very light sandpaper and with my fingers rubbed across the edges a bit to deburr it.  Having done only that, the action feels really nice and smooth.  I tried to use Coffinmaker's "quick fix" of dropping a #10 split washer down the arbor hole in the barrel, but it was too thick and I couldn't get the barrel to mate to the frame.  So, I left it out for now.

How do it shoot?  Debut was today at Tejas Caballeros' new range near Blanco.  Shooting gunfighter with the '61 in my right hand, I had one miss (last shot of the match).  The '51 in my left hand didn't fair so well.  This was the first time to shoot it with the short barrel.  Four misses on the 1st stage taught me it was shooting high   .  Had about two more misses with it later, I think.  I don't practice with my left hand   .   I was shooting smokeless because the '61 has essentially zero cylinder to barrel gap, even with the wedge in as little as it will go.  It shot fine with the smokeless.  I brought 5 rounds of BP to try in it after the match, and by the third shot it was taking extra effort to cock.  So I'll work on that later.

Now, to be fair, Colt did not produce any Richards Type I or II (like this one) in the 1861.  Only the 1860 was converted as a Richards Type I and II (and later R-M, of course.  And yes, I'm ignoring the Thuer).  Both the '51 and '61 were only converted as Richards-Masons.  And the '61 Richards Mason had a different barrel that didn't have the large underlug area for attaching a rammer.  However, I've heard of the existence of a Colt tool-room conversion like this one.  If anyone has the McDowell book and can see if that is mentioned, I'd appreciate it.  So you could say that this is a copy of that experimental model, or you could say it was a gunsmith conversion with the BP barrel, or you could say that a '61 Richards Mason had a damaged barrel that was replaced with a BP barrel with a Richards-style ejector.  I don't care.  It's a '61 and I like it.  

[Abilene]

Oh yeah, and it turns out I only have a single holster that it will fit in!  A 5 1/2" Slim Jim, which at least looks right for this gun.  In all my other holsters, which hold SAA's and my '51 R-M's just fine, the gun won't fit down into the holster.  Not sure if it is the large area on the bottom of the barrel or the ejector housing which sits further forward on the barrel than the other guns or the fact that the wedge is sticking out so far on the left, or some combination. 

[Pettifogger]

Are you coming to Winter Range?  If so, I will see if I can find my copy of the McDowell book and you can check it out for your own self.

[Abilene]

I will be there.  Gracias!

[Lefty Dude]

Very nice, see ya next Week.

[Coffinmaker]

Abilene,  STOP THAT!!  That Uberti 1861 Never Never is just plain TOO KOOL FOR SKULE!!  You keep that up, your gonna get me in trouble.  I'll be looking a for a pair of type II 38s just for funzies.  Really outstanding look with the 51 Grip on it.  Yepper.

Apparently, your Arbor to Barrel fit is real close.  Net trick to try for initial fit are #8s or #10s brass flat washers.  I would have Larsen E. take a peek at it at winter range should he have a moments time.  If either of the brass washers resolve the fit, they can be made permanent (a good idea) and then the wedge re-fit.

Coffinmaker

PS:  I had a pair of 60 Type IIs that were almost perfect in Barrel/Arbor fit.  Came with some kind of "stuff" down the hole in the barrel.  Looked like teeny tiny balls, set in epoxy??  They were so close I left the arbor fit alone and adjusted the breach of the barrel to get some Barrel/Cylinder gap.  Mine were 44s.  Take a peek down the hole in the barrel lug to see if there are a bunch of tiny balls in Epoxy.  Perhaps adjusting the barrel breach is all that's needed and re-fit the wedge.

[Crow Choker]

I went with the 1860 Army frame version of the Richards/Mason in 38 Spec around a year ago as I didn't care for the looks of the 51 R/M barrel or the bead front sight. As far as the original 51 Navy percussion looks, I'm fine. I have a OT and Richards II (44's) and do like the looks of the Richards II over the OT. Something about that big Ol' ugly plunger hump under the barrel. I conversed with Cimarron about the availability of a 5'5" version in 38 Spec, but they had no idea when they would become available. I purchased the 60 Army frame RM through a local dealer. It is a Taylor import, nice lookin gun even though no big Ol' ugly hump under the barrel, good shooter with black and Snakebite bullet. I know it's not 'real' genuine as far as what was really produced 'back then', but I'm not a real stickler for being 100% 'period correct' (hate that term) and tend to buy what I like and I do prefer the Army grip vs the Navy. I used a couple of thin brass washers of two different thicknesses to correct arbor fit, also had to work on bolt as it was coming up at right time, but was peening edge of bolt lead. Most of ya have already read of my trials and tribulations with that. I did look through my McDowell book to see if I could find any thing on if a Army version was produced in 38 Colt, but so far no dice. Didn't think so as I had never heard of such a combination. That's OK, will keep my Pietta 51' Navy 44 capper company. Abilene, yours is a mighty nice lookin piece, mighty fine!

[Crow Choker]

Abilene and anyone else interested: I did check out my McDowells book on Conversions and found some interesting information.
When I first got the book sometime back I only read info mainly on Richards I and II's and the Open Top as that is what I was mainly interested in. I did do a search as previously penned for any evidence that any Richard/Mason conversions may have been produced in 38 caliber using a Army grip. Had never heard of, but thought it may be possible. Still could have been some I suppose changed over privately by those who preferred the larger Army grip as some do today, myself included. Who knows, Colt's R and D department may have but there is no recorded information on it.

Anyway, I found a reference on page 208 that there were a lot of modifications done to 1851 and 61 Colt Navy's before the newer RM barrels came about, such as plugging holes where the plunger and rammer on percussion models were and reboring screw holes. Further on McDowell points out that Colt's "tool room" did a lot of modifications that never made the production floor or gun shops. Abilene, I believe the 'look-a-like' Richards II 1861 Navy conversion you spoke of is on pages 251-252. It speaks of and has left and right side pictures of a 61 Navy with a Richards III conversion ring (similar to Richards II, but down sized and some modifications) and a barrel assembly like found on the Richards II, ie the big Ol' hump under the barrel, like your Uberti version. The gun isn't serial numbered and is stated as a Colt experimental piece.

Chapter Nine of the book has a whole 'lotta' examples of Colt, frontier, and gunshop examples of Colt conversions. The 61' conversion above is given more details as with some other attempts. It does speak of Colt doing R&D with it's Navy framed pistols at the time of the 1860 Richards versions, but they had to wait as evidently Colt was intent on getting its 1860 Army framed 44's out first. Guess if the Richards II 38 caliber had been available from Cimarron a little over a year ago, I would have gone for it. The RM version from Taylors is a nice lookin hogleg. The larger grip is noticeable, but once I get it in hand and firing, it feels right at home. Again Abeline, nice lookin gun ya have, like the looks and design.

[Coffinmaker]

Just a little tidbit to remember.  And something I like to remind the "purist" of.  When the gunmakers of yore piddled around with an idea, even if they decided it wouldn't make production, and if it worked, they sold it.  They didn't just throw it back in the fiery forge. 

Before I made the great switch to Cap Guns and own'd a pair of Type IIs, I was gonna lop the barrels off (who .. Me??) at the ejector housing, but sold em instead.  You hit enough collector gun show's and you'll see where these guns were modified six ways from Sunday.

Abilene's '61 is simply AWSOME!!

Coffinmaker

[nativeshootist]

I was thinking about getting a 61 converted to 38, but now i know that these are made! thanks for sharing with us. it looks very gorgeous. now to save up for it.

[Pappy Hayes]

I do not see this on their web site the 1860  Richards Type 2 has rebates cylinder and the army grip. I have a 1860 RM I don't shoot that want to replace with a conversion in 38 special. I already have a pair of 1860 Richards Type 2 in. 44Colt 7 1/2 inch barrels

[Abilene]

Crow, thanks so much for passing on that info from the McDowell book.  And as far as Army grips on this gun, if I had big mitts I'd want it, but my hands are on the small side, so I always go for the Navy size.

Coffinmaker, I didn't figure you'd want a Type II because even if you cut off the barrel at the end of the ejector housing, it's still longer than your usual preference 

Pappy, yes, as I mentioned their website (and the catalog as well) only show the rebated cylinder and stepped frame.  There have been a handful of people in the last few years who were expecting the rebated cylinder when they ordered an 1860 Type II or R-M in 38, and they called to complain about it. 

[Coffinmaker]

Abilene,
I have a past with ..... baggage.  I use to compete with ...... (gasp) ..... cartridge guns.  All sorts of cartridge guns.  My Open Tops have cylinders in every available caliber.  Most barrels have been cut to the Ejector housing with dovetail blade from sights.  I also have Octagonal barrels (51 Navy) barrels fit to my Open Tops.  I have a rather nice set of Uberti 51 Navy conversions, a set of barrels at the ejector housing and a pair of 7 1/2 inch barrels (No .. Really .. 7 1/2 inch).  Then ..... Dum De Dum Dum ...... I surrendered to the ..... DARK SIDE.

Then I truly saw the light (Big BP fireball from a 3 1/4 inch Snubbie Cap Gun) and made the the ultimate switch to Cap Guns.  Haven't looked back.

I must admit however, ....... some cartridge guns still sing my song.  My resistance, however is strong.  I am easily distracted.  Usually by an idea for another set of really cool Cap Guns.  Or ....... Hammer Double guns.  Real cowboy guns don't have  (Urk) Pump Handles.

Coffinmaker

PS:  That 61 just calls to me.  You got a big DOG??  Brite Outside Lights??  Large Locks??  Shotgun at bedside??  Drool Drool Drool

[Abilene]

Pettifogger brought me his McDowell book at Winter Range today (thanks again!).  I brought it to the hotel and thanks to Crow Choker, I knew exactly where to look.  I took pics of the pages.  It may take me a while to get to it but I'll post some of it here.  The experimental Colt gun has a wide port for loading and no loading gate, and of course it is 7 1/2" but otherwise pretty much same appearance as the Cimarron. 

[Crow Choker]

Glad I could assist ya Abilene. I should have pointed it out in my prior post to ya, unless you found it, but on page 378 of McDowells book, there are bigger and more detailed pictures of the 61 Navy conversion. The large non-gated cutout for loading/unloading on the right recoil shield amaze's me, it's big enough to accommodate a 45 Colt or at least appears to. Look forward to any further reports with your conversion and comparisons with the McDowell pictured one. You boyz' have a good time at Winter Range, be fun to attend.

[Abilene]

I don't think I looked on page 378, don't recall exactly, as I didn't have much time to look at it last night and gave the book back to Larson this morning.  I did spend a little time looking at the pages on the '51 R-M.  One of these days I'll have to bite the bullet and buy that book.  A few years ago the whole dang book (I think) was archived on the internet as a .pdf file on some site.  That was awesome but then it went away.

A shooter (Cpl. Quayne I think) was at the Cimarron tent this afternoon looking at Type II's and we started talking about the .38's and he said he had just seen on Cascity where someone had turned it into a '61, and I said yeah, that was me 

[Crow Choker]

Yoh Abilene! I bit the bullet about a year ago on the book. I had seen and downloaded the pdf file you mentioned and was enjoying that, but as you say "It went away"!     Searching sites before the pdf and after always had the book to high priced for my thoughts. While searching some of the on line book sites, I found a copy on Amazon that said 'Like New, shows some wear". They had a $77.00 price on it, to much for a book IMO, but cheaper than the $100 plus most of them were selling for. Sites including Abe's Books and Amazon had an average of $125-300 plus on the book. Wealth of info in it, as I fell fondly in love with Conversion Colts and Open Tops after seeing my first one around 10 years ago. The book I did purchase looks like it had just came from the printers, well pleased with the condition. Checked the two sites I just mentioned, cheapest right now is $99.

[Abilene]

Here's a photo from McDowell's book:

[Crow Choker]

Those would be a popular conversion repo I'm sure, but the Richards II is fine for me if I was in a 'froth' to get another 38 caliber conversion type.

[Major 2]

When Bob is indeed your Uncle...

Several years ago    maybe 10,  I had traded for this guy...Brandy new in its box it came complete with need for Arbor attention.

Now the original plan didn't call for BOB , I wrapped the piece up and sent it to Jim Long Hunter Finch....he solved the arbor, slicked the guts and 11 degreed the forcing cone , and while he was at gave the Hammer a treatment which included tapering and jewel turned finish.

What I got back, was a 7 1/2 " joy to shoot....then I saw the article on Buffalo Bills Navy conversion ....and out came the hacksaw.
The Photo chop however was practiced first ....

Sweet action , sweet new shorty ..... and is carried in this