Tripped over a new/old Pocket Model - and decided to look up the serial #

[pitfighter]

I found this beat-up and "fixed-up" (somewhat-repaired) little number and the price was right, so now its in my small collection.



All numbers "on show" are matching.
Except for a replacement cylinder-wedge.
Solid mechanism lock-up on a no-wobble barrel - no half cock sadly.  it's there, just doesn't hold.
Some cosmetic "repair" to barrel.
Address and patent inscriptions are good.
Also a fair amount of the cylinder-roll is still visible.

Here is an image with a First Model Dragoon for scale.



Here's a character who chose to carry two dragoons in his belt.

At this point I decided to look up the serial number on the Colt site - as I had decided to do this, I thought I'd take out all of the old Colt's and look up their numbers, too - for fun.



#My Colt 1860 Army serial - is listed on the Colt Site as being manufactured 1862.
#My Colt First Model Dragoon - is listed on the Colt Site as being manufactured 1849.
(If it's a period copy they may have copied an original and pilfered its numbers.)



With 1851's.





Doesn't mean much, but its fun to do.

Colt Pocket Model 1849 - 213285
Colt Site data: Year of Manufacture 1862 Model 1849 POCKET (.31 CALIBER WITH STAGECOACH SCENE ON CYLINDER)

Colt Dragoon First Model of 1849 - 7496
Colt Site data: Year of Manufacture 1849 Model 1ST MODEL DRAGOON

Colt Army Model of 1860 - 56144
Colt Site data: Year of Manufacture 1862 Model 1860 ARMY (.44 CALIBER WITH NAVAL ENGAGEMENT SCENE ON CYLINDER)

Colt Navy Model of 1851 - 212172
Colt Site data: Year of Manufacture 1871 Model 1851 NAVY (.36 CALIBER WITH NAVAL ENGAGEMENT ON CYLINDER, OCTAGONAL BARREL)

I post the serials here in public, as this is not really like posting the serial numbers on a registered firearm, that will track back to my FFL, etc.,

[ssb73q]

Hi pit, nice collection, thanks for posting the photos. I wish other members would also post photos of their revolvers, even if posted on the message board before. I can never get enough of seeing Colt revolver photos.

Regards,
Richard

[mike116]

Richard is right,  photos are never a bad idea. 
pitfighter.....   I like all the "extras" you include in your photos along with the revolvers.

[ShotgunDave]

Pitfighter, I'm kinda new around here, but I've seen your pictures before in other posts. It's always a pleasure to look at your fine collection. And I too enjoy all the swag you include with your guns.

Thanks for posting.

[tljack]

Pitfighter, I'm kinda new around here, but I've seen your pictures before in other posts. It's always a pleasure to look at your fine collection. And I too enjoy all the swag you include with your guns.

Thanks for posting.

Very nice collection! The photos are great.

[pitfighter]

Thanks Guys ~ !

As I age I prefer the "r" in C&R collecting.

There are guns for blasting 10 cent projectiles through paper targets and there are guns where the representative history and emotion they "trigger" are what justify their collecting.

This little revolver left the factory in the middle of the Civil War, who knows the stories it might tell if it could talk.

I think surrounding them with a few items that stimulate the imagination is the best way to look at them.

However, if I get my grubby mitts on an original Whitneyville Walker, that one will have a frame all to itself.

[Hawg]

You might be able to do a bit of filing on the half cock notch and get it holding again

[LonesomePigeon]

Very nice 1849 Pocket. Could it also be the tip of the trigger?

As far as the 1st Model Dragoon is there anything specific that makes you suspect a copy? It looks real enough to me.

[pitfighter]

Very nice 1849 Pocket. Could it also be the tip of the trigger?

As far as the 1st Model Dragoon is there anything specific that makes you suspect a copy? It looks real enough to me.

My issues with the Dragoon:
1. The address and patent stamps are missing - now these revolvers were used and abused and unloved for many years before becoming collectable - and this has been buffed and rubbed and beaten and dented and whatever, sooooo - the markings could have been lost to time (they have on several of my other Colts), According to last owner, this was at one time Gold plated (brass/nickel/gold) had to be removed, could have removed details - !
The patent has had an "attempt" at recovery - by hand-stamping individual letters! - something Colt wouldn't have done, but again could have been done years later to an original in the misguided effort to restore - I suppose.

2. The Serial numbers are double stamped - and although the "font" used, is historically darn-close to correct, it is not recorded anywhere that I can find that they would double stamped numbers on Dragoon parts - but my research is internet based, so feel free to chime in.

3. Looking directly down on the top of the revolver - The channel in the frame on either side of the hammer - on originals these extend to the cylinder, ending at a right angle - on mine the edges are flared around where the hammer touches the cylinder.

4. Where the frame meets the barrel assembly - on originals there is a small (1-2mm) step - on mine is is a flat join.

5. The brass grip frame - beveling around the rear of trigger guard - on an original it is almost concave allowing the second finger to rest, on mine not is almost straight.  The brass grip frame is also inlet and bevelled at the frame, where mine is a "little" more crudely finished.

Everything else looks good, including the slow "rifling" - the hand-drawn screws - the internal-parts fit and finish - I compared it to two originals in hand (I did not take down the originals to compare the revolvers internally as they did not belong to me and I was at a gunshow) - and the above text and serial number issues are the stand alone differences.

While doing this I have come across several Walker copies and one or two Dragoons that were made in the time before the Italian replicas were available, and were supposedly made by a craftsman and his apprentices out of Texas - this "story" has been so often repeated around the US and on collector forums and by Elmer Keith in his book Six Guns, that I think it must be one of his.

Too nice to be a Mexican or Spanish, Belgian copy, those all had specific "aesthetic issues" that are quite easy to spot.

It is a nice collectable oddity, and that is fine.

[LonesomePigeon]

Real or not, it is indeed a nice collectible. Thanks for the very interesting explanation.