Anyone have a Pietta 1851 (Sheriff ?) renamed Marine 44

[ssb73q]

Hi Hewy, congratulations on getting off the pot and placing an order. IMO the 1851 in .44 caliber is a gun that Colt would have loved to make if metallurgy allowed. Some 1851s with conversion cylinders:



The 1851s with five bullets are .44 caliber.

Mike really likes his .44 1851:



Regards,
Richard

[45 Dragoon]

Well actually, the 1860 Army is nothing more than a Navy with a clearanced (modified) frame to receive a rebated .44 cal cylinder, fitted with a smoother barrel with an updated rack and pinion loading lever. Slap on a plow handle grip and viola! 
All the action parts are the same so, they could have beaten Pietta to the punch
I'm sure Sam thought an octagonal barrel would have been seen as a "step back" after the '60 barrel made the scene.  They wouldn't want a "Cadillac" to look like a "Camaro". (No offence to either set of owners!! Lol!!)

Mike
www.goonsgunworks.com
Follow me on Instagram @ goonsgunworks


 

[ssb73q]

Hi Mike, Colt made the .36 1862 Navy with an octagon barrel.

People with average sized hands appreciate the smaller 1851 grip size.

Regards,
Richard

[Hewy]

After all my looking , and wondering about Colt history , being correctly authentic etc etc etc,
fiqured it could have been. I do like the design, although not a Navy 36, it might well have been a......
 "Marine Corp 44"

[45 Dragoon]

According to my books, all '62s had round barrels. The 5 shot "pocket Navy" had an octagonal barrel and was introduced in 1865 (3 yrs after Sam's death).

 Some Armys have been found with Navy grips on them and I believe you could order them that way as well. It's definitely not a new thing.

Mike
www.goonsgunworks.com
Follow me on Instagram @ goonsgunworks

[sourdough]

According to my books, all '62s had round barrels. The 5 shot "pocket Navy" had an octagonal barrel and was introduced in 1865 (3 yrs after Sam's death).

Mike
www.goonsgunworks.com
Follow me on Instagram @ goonsgunworks

Mike, you know very much more than I about these pistols.

I would like to propose a hypothetical.

If the .36 Pocket Police was produced in 1862 (with the newer Army type round barrel and the creeping load lever), why would Colt's widow (and her company) produce the .36 Pocket Navy (with the "old" style octagon barrel and the "old" type load lever) three years later in 1865?

I'm sure Sam thought an octagonal barrel would have been seen as a "step back" after the '60 barrel made the scene.

Both were based upon the smaller 1849 Pocket Pistol frame, so she could not have tried to use up excess 1851 Navy barrels from the parts stock.

The Pocket Police and the Pocket Navy had serial numbers that sort-of "leapfrogged" during production, which is curious (P. L. Shumaker, 1957).

In 1862, Colt started stamping the left rear of the trigger guards ".36 CAL" on both models so as not to confuse troops in the field with the 1849 Pocket Pistol (stamped .31 CAL in the same place) from about the same time period. (Shumaker).

Not looking for an argument, just opinions.

Jim

[45 Dragoon]

Jim,
 No argument from me! Just because a feller has a couple of books doesn't make him an authority! Lol  My books show the pocket Navy with an octagonal barrel as an 1865 offering so, I guess we'd have to ask them why. 

 Personally, I never even held a reproduction of such until I started tuning revolvers. Couldn't understand why anyone would want such a small revolver!! I guess some folks like um though, I've had more than a few run through here!! Since  I can't convert them to 45s, reckon I won't ever own one so .  .  .  .    When I was shooting bp, all I ever owned / saw was Armys, Navys, Walkers and Dragoons. Didn't know the "pocket guns" even existed except for the originals. I guess I still don't see the "lure" of them. I like revolvers that go BANG !!!!!!!!! LOL

Mike
www.goonsgunworks.com
Follow me on Instagram @ goonsgunworks

[sourdough]

Mike, thanks for the reply. I never thought you would argue the point (you never do) but your input is always valuable. I would like a reference to the books you are speaking of so that I can learn. Jordan or others?

To be clear, I have never sent a pistol to Goon because I am on a limited retirement income, although if I had more funds I surely would do so. Mike has so much knowledge and expertise that he will gladly expound upon the subject with no fear that his business will suffer a deficit. He is that good. And I have learned a lot from him over the years just on forums and on the phone, when he is a hoot to talk to.

Jim

[sourdough]

Actually, Colt did experiment with a .40 cal. Navy but it never made production.
Serial no. 1 had a 7-1/2" barrel
Serial No. 2 had a 6-1/2" barrel
Serial No. 3 had a 5-1/2" barrel*...right up your alley, Hewy!
Reddish Uberti-style  grips, steel TG and BS, non-rebated cylinder.
Apparently it was an overbore of a .36 cal Navy.
I would post a photo from the book, but it would probably violate copyright laws. Shoot me a PM if you want to see it...

* reference Colt, an American Legend, RL Wilson, pp. 56

Very good info, Mr. Shatner!

I'll bite. Got it and 6 others of this pistol about 18 months ago on a forum, according to the picture file properties. Can't really tell it is a .40 caliber, other than a possibly larger load aperture. Seems to have a shorter than a 7-1/2" barrel, probably a 6-1/2".  The front sight seems to be set back from the muzzle as opposed to the 7-1/2". It also has the load lever rammer pivot screw entering from the left side, which denotes later manufacture.

I'm not worried about infringement as there are no watermarks on the photo and I am not using it for commercial or financial purposes.

So Sue Me! 



If anyone wants to see the other photos, I'll post them, if the mods allow.

Jim

[Hewy]

Very interesting bit of Colt's history. A 40 whoda thunk! Could be they didn't forsee a market ?
We can only speculate.

[Captainkirk]

Very interesting bit of Colt's history. A 40 whoda thunk! Could be they didn't forsee a market ?
We can only speculate.

From what I understand regarding these guns, apparently Sam felt .40 was as large as he could overbore a .36 safely, not having come up with the idea for the rebated cylinder and cut water table yet.

[Captainkirk]

I'm not worried about infringement as there are no watermarks on the photo and I am not using it for commercial or financial purposes.
So Sue Me! 



If anyone wants to see the other photos, I'll post them, if the mods allow.

Jim

I would not mind seeing them. And it's not me you have to worry about lawsuits from...

[Hewy]

Overbore a .36 makes sense to be concerned ,given metal at the time.

[Hewy]

As is usual for us Westerners the wagontrain takes awhile to get over the Rockies.
UPS sez they got my 1851 44 on a truck. Spoken  be at the ranch this comin Monday.
Ifin  dont slows em down.............

[G Dog]

Thinking that the .36 is a little light in throw weight, it seems .40 would have been a very effective and nearly ideal caliber.  Half way between .36 and .44 would make a nice light but powerful handgun.  I wish Colt had produced those.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Colt+.40+prototype&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiUgb_jxa3WAhUE1CYKHQQKD2wQsAQIJQ&biw=1067&bih=524


https://www.joesalter.com/category/products/Rare-Colt-1851-Navy-Prototype-Enlarged-Caliber-Revolver