Richards Mason Conversion replicas

[ShotgunDave]

Tim, I got those pictures and info from Adler's book, "Colt Single Actions"

[Zulch]

     Thank you Dave for the info on the source of the photos. Okay, I know I'm beating a dead horse here but I'm just too dang excited and inquisitive to let it go guys. Capt. Kirk sent a link to me and it got me pokin' around in the Cimarron's available/not available at Midway. They have one "Cimarron 1860 Richards-Mason Type 2 Revolver" Does anyone know why it would be referred to as a "Type 2"? Does it matter? Probably not, but I just like learning. Especially if it is something that I want. I even have my sole Uberti 1858 listed for sale just so that I might acquire some cash in order to help fund my latest fascination. If i have already asked this please excuse my senility and humor me anyway? LOL Thanks, Z

[ShotgunDave]

Tim, I think the Type 1 had a shorter ejector rod housing and the rear sight was on the conversion ring. The Type 2 had the longer ejector rod housing, that came right up to the face of the cylinder and the rear sight was on the barrel.

[Hawg]

The Richards conversion is sometimes called a type one even tho Mason wasn't involved. Richards Mason's are often called 1872 open tops.

[Captainkirk]

I'm no expert, but IIRC the Type 1 (Richards) had a short ejector (as was mentioned) and rear sight on the conversion ring. Type 2 (Richards-Mason) had the rear sight on the barrel and the ejector housing went nearly flush with the cylinder face.
The original conversions used the standard Army barrel with the loading lever and plunger removed.

[Zulch]

I'm no expert, but IIRC the Type 1 (Richards) had a short ejector (as was mentioned) and rear sight on the conversion ring. Type 2 (Richards-Mason) had the rear sight on the barrel and the ejector housing went nearly flush with the cylinder face.
The original conversions used the standard Army barrel with the loading lever and plunger removed.

Thanks guys. Well maybe Midway has it labeled wrong because the Type 2 shown has the shorter ejector housing and you can see the rod extending toward the cylinder. Probably a call would be in order if one were to purchase based on a stock photo?

[Captainkirk]

Some interesting reading

https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/colt-model-1871-72-open-top-the-revolver-that-begat-the-single-action-army/

[ShotgunDave]

You're right Tim. That does have the shorter ejector housing. That's why I said I "think" because I wasn't sure. There are so many variations on the originals, that it's hard to pin down exactly what they were.

My personal preference is for the longer ejector hosing. The short one looks like an after-thought to me. It breaks up the clean lines of the gun. Just my opinion.

[Zulch]

Thanks Capt. K. Look forward to reading that👍👍 Dave, yes I realized you were going from memory that’s all good. I can imagine there were possibly many mods in all guns throughout the years. I see your point about the sleekness of the lines. Good observation and something to consider. Thank you

[Zulch]

Great article Cap. Question: reference "the six-shot .44-cal. cylinder was not rebated as on the 1860 Army (which had enabled it to be fitted onto the smaller .36-cal. Navy frame). So were the frames all the Navy size .36 even when referring to the 1860? Were all 1860's based on the Navy frame? Did the 1860 grips fit a Navy frame? I so confused. Geez?  Also this "what can only be viewed as an extremely clever marketing move, rather than chamber the 1871-72 Open Top for the same .44-cal. center-fire cartridge of Colt’s previous conversions, it was chambered for the far more plentiful .44 Henry Flat, the same cartridge that had been developed for the Henry Rifle, but was also chambered in the newer and wildly popular Winchester Model 1866." Why didn't the Henry .44 flat stick around? 

[Captainkirk]

Great article Cap. Question: reference "the six-shot .44-cal. cylinder was not rebated as on the 1860 Army (which had enabled it to be fitted onto the smaller .36-cal. Navy frame). So were the frames all the Navy size .36 even when referring to the 1860?

Army and Navy frames were the same. They had to enlarge the water table cut on Army models to fit the .44 rebated cylinder

Were all 1860's based on the Navy frame? Did the 1860 grips fit a Navy frame? I so confused. Geez?

In most cases an Army grip will fit a Navy frame, and vice versa.

Also this "what can only be viewed as an extremely clever marketing move, rather than chamber the 1871-72 Open Top for the same .44-cal. center-fire cartridge of Colt’s previous conversions, it was chambered for the far more plentiful .44 Henry Flat, the same cartridge that had been developed for the Henry Rifle, but was also chambered in the newer and wildly popular Winchester Model 1866." Why didn't the Henry .44 flat stick around?

It was weak and underpowered compared to the .45 Colt cartridge which followed, introduced in 1873. It was also a rimfire cartridge. The .45 Colt was a vast improvement.

[Zulch]

Great article Cap. Question: reference "the six-shot .44-cal. cylinder was not rebated as on the 1860 Army (which had enabled it to be fitted onto the smaller .36-cal. Navy frame). So were the frames all the Navy size .36 even when referring to the 1860?

Army and Navy frames were the same. They had to enlarge the water table cut on Army models to fit the .44 rebated cylinder

Were all 1860's based on the Navy frame? Did the 1860 grips fit a Navy frame? I so confused. Geez?

In most cases an Army grip will fit a Navy frame, and vice versa.

Also this "what can only be viewed as an extremely clever marketing move, rather than chamber the 1871-72 Open Top for the same .44-cal. center-fire cartridge of Colt’s previous conversions, it was chambered for the far more plentiful .44 Henry Flat, the same cartridge that had been developed for the Henry Rifle, but was also chambered in the newer and wildly popular Winchester Model 1866." Why didn't the Henry .44 flat stick around?

It was weak and underpowered compared to the .45 Colt cartridge which followed, introduced in 1873. It was also a rimfire cartridge. The .45 Colt was a vast improvement.

Thanks Cap. So why did they move to centerfire over the rimfire? What was/is the advantage.

[Hawg]

Some interesting reading

https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/colt-model-1871-72-open-top-the-revolver-that-begat-the-single-action-army/

Thanks for posting that Cap. You learned me something today.

[Captainkirk]

Thanks Cap. So why did they move to centerfire over the rimfire? What was/is the advantage.

Ever have a rimfire .22 require multiple strikes to set off the cartridge? Or not at all?
Yeah, that.
Also, reloading rimfire ammo is an impractical, costly and darn near impossible field endeavor compared to centerfire ammo. CF was the next logical step in the evolution of the cartridge.

[Captainkirk]

Some interesting reading

https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/colt-model-1871-72-open-top-the-revolver-that-begat-the-single-action-army/

Thanks for posting that Cap. You learned me something today.

What? I learned YOU something? That's a switch for once!
Thanks, Hawg!