Colt Country | Home of The Almighty Colt
Black Powder Pistols => Open Tops => Topic started by: Zulch on March 08, 2022, 07:55:08 AM
-
So, on the pictured replicas here, I've noticed that the ejector rod was exposed between the end of the ejector housing and the breech of the barrel on one of these photos and the other is not. What's the deal with that? Was one an earlier prototype and the other newer style?
-
The top one is a Richards conversion. The bottom is a Richards Mason conversion AKA 1872 open top.
-
The top one is a Richards conversion. The bottom is a Richards Mason conversion AKA 1872 open top.
So that’s the difference. Do you personally have a preference? Conversion or Open Top? I like the look of the conversion myself.
-
I believe the Richards Conversions used bits and pieces from the huge stock of left over percussion components. The loading gate assembly required milling off about 1/2" of the frame and is screwed in place. Also the lug under the barrel still shows where the loading lever had been, the Open Top is smoothed out more. Hope that made sense....
-
I believe the Richards Conversions used bits and pieces from the huge stock of left over percussion components. The loading gate assembly required milling off about 1/2" of the frame and is screwed in place. Also the lug under the barrel still shows where the loading lever had been, the Open Top is smoothed out more. Hope that made sense....
Mick, thank you for your explanation. They’re both very nice to me. I’m more partial to the conversion. It appears to me that the wedge is slightly more accessible on the conversion?
-
I've never compared them side to side, but they are pretty much the same as far as getting to the wedge.
-
I've never compared them side to side, but they are pretty much the same as far as getting to the wedge.
Mick, can you see and make out the difference in the photos or are they too small?
-
My RM is actually a variation on the 72 that didn't exist. The wedge isn't hard to get to at all.
-
The wedge on my 72 is very easy to get to. it really doesn't matter anyway, because the only time you're actually going to take it apart is to clean it.
-
I've never compared them side to side, but they are pretty much the same as far as getting to the wedge.
Mick, can you see and make out the difference in the photos or are they too small?
I can make it out.....to me they look the same.
-
I've never compared them side to side, but they are pretty much the same as far as getting to the wedge.
Mick, can you see and make out the difference in the photos or are they too small?
I can make it out.....to me they look the same. Well they aren't much bigger but at least isolated to a specific area. LOL
See if these close ups make a difference.
-
It's not difficult at all the get to the wedge on a 72.
-
yes I can see that Hawg. Do you see the difference in the two close ups that I posted? There is a difference
-
Yeah, the ejector rod housing is shorter on the top one.
-
So Hawg. Would that be a representation of an earlier transitional gun?
-
Black powder barrel vs the "S" barrel.
Mike
-
Black powder barrel vs the "S" barrel.
Mike
Hey Mike, Please splain? Thanks, Desi
-
It's just a Richards Conversion. They are different from the 72 in a few aspects. One being the ejector rod set up. I believe what Mike is referring to is the "S" curve under the barrel on the 72.
-
It's just a Richards Conversion. They are different from the 72 in a few aspects. One being the ejector rod set up. I believe what Mike is referring to is the "S" curve under the barrel on the 72.
Yes, the Richards used the percussion barrel. The ejector rod housing fit into the ram hole. The RM has no ram hole.
-
Right, and the newer (cost saving ) S lug barrel held the long ejector housing with a single screw. The '72 used an S barrel but had and integral rear sight cast into it.
Mike
-
Right, and the newer (cost saving ) S lug barrel held the long ejector housing with a single screw. The '72 used an S barrel but had and integral rear sight cast into it.
Mike
Thank you Mike. Do you own any RM's? Like to see a picture if you do and have time?
-
Hey Zulch, no but I work on a lot of them!!
Here's a couple that just came in.
-
Hey Mike, are those Jedi Knight's guns?
-
No sir, his are already on their way back to him. These just came in and are "new in the box". I cut the tags off just to make the pic. Jedi Knight's are 20 yrs old. ( they ran like a fool last weekend though!! Lol)
Mike
-
Awesome Mike!
I should send you my 72 to work your magic on. Speaking of which, I still need to get my Dragoon and Walker in the mail to you. I've just been busy as hell.
-
Mike, are those the 1851 conversion? Thanks for posting. Someone is a happy owner of those.
-
Yessir, '51 RM's. They seem like really nice examples and have [21] date.
Mike
-
Mike, worked on 21 to date?? I think I would prefer the army model RM (round barrel). I noticed on GB that their are plenty of Cimarron 1851's.
-
The original RM's were all round barrels.
-
The original RM's were all round barrels.
No foolin'? Hmmm? I need more education on these lil guys. So are the 1851 considered "fantasy" of sorts Hawg?
-
The original RM's were all round barrels.
No foolin'? Hmmm? I need more education on these lil guys. So are the 1851 considered "fantasy" of sorts Hawg?
Richards converted 51's but the RM's with octagonal barrels made today never existed. The .38 RM's back in the day were based on 61 navies.
-
No Zulch, the date code on the pair is 2021. Lol!!
Mike
-
No Zulch, the date code on the pair is 2021. Lol!!
Mike
(7+" Okay Mike. Sheesh. I sure do need help.
-
The original RM's were all round barrels.
No foolin'? Hmmm? I need more education on these lil guys. So are the 1851 considered "fantasy" of sorts Hawg?
Richards converted 51's but the RM's with octagonal barrels made today never existed. The .38 RM's back in the day were based on 61 navies.
Wow, thanks Hawg, that was/is very nice to know. I sure like the round barrels. Thanks again.
-
The original RM's were all round barrels.
No foolin'? Hmmm? I need more education on these lil guys. So are the 1851 considered "fantasy" of sorts Hawg?
Richards converted 51's but the RM's with octagonal barrels made today never existed. The .38 RM's back in the day were based on 61 navies.
Actually, that's not so. There were 51 Navy RM conversions as well. They also made Pocket Models.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51932740510_b5130459b7_z.jpg)
The gun on the far left is a 51. The two on the right are 61's.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51932740505_fa5015c29e_z.jpg)
But none of the current 72 Open Top guns are correct. The originals were all in .44 Henry Rimfire caliber.
-
Thanks Dave, cool pictures. How did you find those? Nice. This is the one I've got my sites set on.
1860 Richards Transition Model®, Type II .38 Special, 8" Barrel Not sure what the "Type II" means???
So, .38 Special existed back in the day?
-
Those are some handsome irons.
The .38 S&W Special is usually dated from 1898.
-
How about this. I enjoyed reading this article. Maybe most of you have already read. It's a good short read. Pictures snagged from the article. I really appreciate everyone's input on this thread to date an would like to hear more. I'm sure this is "old hat" to most of you but I do thank you all for helping me out. This is all very new to me so I am really having a ball getting educated on these.
https://gunsmagazine.com/guns/handguns/colts-cartridge-conversions/
-
I have heard that Colt offered a "conversion service" for most of their BP revolvers. It cost probably less than a third of the price of a new '73. So I would imagine there could be a lot of different combinations out there. If I remember correctly, the price for a new '73 was around $7.50. The cost of having the conversion done was about $1.25.
-
Wow!! Great information Mick thank you. If I understand you correctly that means if I were living in those times and had an 1860 for instance, I could take it to a gunsmith and upgrade it to accept cartridges. I wonder how much that would correlate into today’s money.
-
Well actually, you'd send it back to Colt. I believe they were the only "authorized" way to get it done. It was just a service Colt did.
William Mason and Charles Richards hit a real winner when the copied the Remington top strap configuration for the 73 and finally got rid of the less than practical barrel pin set up.
-
Ahhhhh👍👍 I see. Thanks Mick
-
There were quite a few gunsmiths doing conversions. If you were too cheap to send one back to Colt. (7+"
-
There were quite a few gunsmiths doing conversions. If you were too cheap to send one back to Colt. (7+"
Lol.... hey postage was extra!
-
There were quite a few gunsmiths doing conversions. If you were too cheap to send one back to Colt. (7+"
Lol.... hey postage was extra!
I’m sure it was🤣 maybe 5 cents?
-
Tim, I got those pictures and info from Adler's book, "Colt Single Actions"
-
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
-
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.
-
The Richards conversion is sometimes called a type one even tho Mason wasn't involved. Richards Mason's are often called 1872 open tops.
-
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.
-
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?
-
Some interesting reading
https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/colt-model-1871-72-open-top-the-revolver-that-begat-the-single-action-army/
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :-*
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
OH YEAH!! Makes perfect sense. Especially the fact that a rimfire cartridge is a one time use? Hope I understood that correctly.
-
So I found another good article on the Richards Mason transitional Gun or Model 2.
https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/1860-richards-transition-model-sixgun/
Short video clip also:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfShfBlqYHg
-
That's some kinda shooting!
-
I thought so too Cap.
-
Good articles on the history of the RM conversions
https://gunsmagazine.com/guns/handguns/colts-cartridge-conversions/
https://americanhandgunner.com/handguns/colt-conversion-sixguns/
-
Hey Cap. Great and thanks I’m headed for some good reading😁👍
-
Good articles on the history of the RM conversions
https://gunsmagazine.com/guns/handguns/colts-cartridge-conversions/
https://americanhandgunner.com/handguns/colt-conversion-sixguns/
From the first link, the author states:
"Surprisingly, the Colt Conversions made in the greatest numbers were those built on the 5-shot frames of the .36 caliber Model 1862s. According to Flayderman’s Guide To Antique American Firearms, Colt produced about 25,000 of these between 1873 and 1880. They too became .38 caliber cartridge handguns: some rimfire and some centerfire.
The cartridges developed for these conversions are likewise interesting. What was done to make them was simple. The bullets were built like those used in cap and ball revolvers, the elongated projectiles and not round balls. These had a reduced diameter shank at the base that fit into the cap and ball cylinders. Then the wider portion was swaged as the projectile was forced into a cap and ball chamber by the rammer. Cartridge designers of the 1870s built cases that fit onto that reduced diameter shank and made the widest part of the bullet the same diameter as the outside of the cartridge case. These are called “heel-base bullets.” End of quote.
I think the author is a bit confused, he is actually referring to the Thuer conversion made by Colt in the late 1860s to circumvent the Rollin/White bored through cylinder patent. It was Colt's first attempt at a cartridge conversion model. The Thuer conversion cylinder was not bored through and the cartridge was loaded from the front using the loading lever.
-
I have two of the ASM version of the Richards Conversion of the Colt’s 1860.
You can see the shorter ejector rod housing, the rear sight on the conversion ring and the loading gate.
In the second image, you can see the spring loaded firing pin in the conversion ring.
In the third image you can see the modification to the hammer face.
These are both chambered for the modern 44 Colt cartridge. The original 44 Colt used a bullet of about .455 caliber with a heeled base and loaded it into the case only as deep as the heel. The modern 44 Colt utilizes technology similar to what Colt’s did with the 41, 38 and maybe the 32 Colt when the modernized them. They used a bullet that would fit inside the case and tightened the bore to match. In the case of the 44 Colt, ASM chose to use a .430 bullet and a .429 bore. (Just like the 44 S&W Special and the 44 Remington Magnum).
I load a 200 grain RNFP cast bullet over as much black powder as I can comfortably squeeze into the case. BP lube and a primer and I am good to go.
No one currently makes a copy of the Richards Conversion which is too bad. To me it is the finest of all the conversion revolvers.
Kevin
-
Nice looking hardware, Kevin! You still have those pieces?
-
Yes, still have them and exercise them a couple times a year.
Kevin
-
Good and long (and long winded in spots) treatment of this topic at CASCity. From 2020. Good pics. They work the topic over rather well.
https://www.cascity.com/forumhall/index.php?topic=63491.0
-
Good and long (and long winded in spots) treatment of this topic at CASCity. From 2020. Good pics. They work the topic over rather well.
https://www.cascity.com/forumhall/index.php?topic=63491.0
Indeed they did! (7&