Earliest Colt variants?

[Slowhand Bob]

I mentioned something on another forum that I would like more edumacation concerning and know several of you guys are into the history of the guns and might have the answers.  Literally within the last month or so I have read two facts concerning the earliest Colt '60 Army with little extra concerning the history of such.

Someone posted a photo of a '60 that had a facory installed '51 Navy grip on it.  There might have been something stated to the effect that the larger grip was planned from the outset but were not ready in time so those first '60s went out with the smaller grip frames.  Is there any further information available and especially the serial number range of such guns that were shipped?

Now here is where it gets tricky, I also just recently read elsewhere that Colt produced the first few  '60s with the 7 1/2" barrel to be standard but decided to add the extra 1/2" later.  If this were a true statement then there should have been an overlap at the front of the line, no?   Are both of these statements completely true and there does exist a shorter barrel version with Navy grips or is something missing from the equation?

[Mako]

http://www.cascity.com/forumhall/index.php/topic,37610.msg480302.html#msg480302

Bob,
I have never seen a picture or ever heard of a Navy grip from the factory that wasn't on a 7 1/2" barrel.  It is very possible that there are some, even very probable considering the multitudes of variations that Colt's produced.  The reason the barrels are 8" long and the longer grips were standard was because during Army trials that is what was requested by the trials board.

Standard 8 inch 4 screw with shield cutouts for the addition of a optional detachable stock (this is the most common variant produced)


7 1/2" Barrel with "Navy" Length Grips (back strap is also brass). You can tell the barrel is shorter by the distance from the loading lever latch base to the end of the barrel.  Notice it has the 1851 style round front sight. Serial # 61 produced in 1860.  Also note it is a 3 screw variant and doesn't have the shield cutouts.


7 1/2" Barrel with "Navy" Length Grips. 1860 style "blade front sight." Serial # 35 produced in 1860.  Note it is a 3 screw variant and doesn't have the shield cutouts


The larger grips were due to the requirements set out by the ordnance board with input from the cavalry wanting the longer grip like the U.S. Model 1848 ("Dragoon") for use with gauntleted hands.  They had 1851 Belt Pistols to try and found the grip shorter than they wanted for manipulation while wearing gauntlets.  I have never read why they preferred the 8 inch barrel, perhaps someone else has a reference.  If I had to venture a guess I would say it increased the sight radius and increased the muzzle velocity slightly.  The Army was used to the longer sight radius of the U.S. Model 1848.

Both 7 1/2" "Navy" gripped pistols have features that are commonly called "civilian" traits. They don't have provisions for detachable stocks and they have brass back straps.  I disagree with the Colt Collector Association members who consider brass back straps a "civilian" feature.  Only the U.S. Model 1847 ("Walker") and the Whitneyville-Hartford "Dragoon" commonly had iron back straps before the 1860 model.  There were what we call "London" models which have all iron grip hardware, but that is not what is meant by "civilian" grips.

Personally I believe the low serial number 7 1/2" barrel, short grip guns were typical of Colt's clearing out it's parts bins.  They were gearing up to fill government contracts for 8" Army grip pistols and cleared out their pipeline, including all sights, barrel types and grips.  Since the grips are interchangeable between the 1851 and 1860 frames those had probably already been fit for sample guns and they just sold them that way.  At any other time besides the start up of a government contract I would say they were just trying to cover all possible corners of the market.  In this case they had to scramble to keep up with the government contract, they had little or no additional capacity and selling what they had on hand was a means of generating revenue and clearing the shelves.

~Mako

[Slowhand Bob]

Thanks a ton Mako, I really like this information and will print it out for my notebook, to dang cheep to buy real books!   I particularly love the combination that made up # 35 and would love to see Uberti recreate this for Cimmaron, they particularly love to do the little history stories to go with their special offerings.  I would gamble that more shooters would choose the Navy-sized version over the standard Army configuration if they had experience in handling the two.  The Navy size, as used on Colts SAA, is undoubtedly the most popular grip in Cowboy Action Shooting.

[Advertising]

[Mako]

Bob,
There were so few of the smaller gripped 1860s made there may not be any "historical" demand for them.  Cimarron and Uberti typically spin "historical" variations to their market advantage.

For instance take the 20" short barreled 1866 and 1873 rifles.  There are historical example of such and because the length is handy and offers a heavy barrel advantage over the 19" carbines they produce them.  These are some of the most popular barrel lengths and configurations they produce.

They did the same with the Brass "Navy" grip 1872 Open Top, there are actually more historical examples of this than the same grip on 1860 models. Then they make short barrel variants of these pistols which are very popular for modern shooters but their pedigree is dubious.  The same is true for short barrel "Sheriff" versions of 1851, 1860 and and 1861 revolvers.  The short barrel versions are popular but the accuracy is suspect.

The niche for "Navy" gripped .44 caliber 1860 models is already occupied by the "1851 .44 caliber" revolvers primarily made by Pietta.  The very inaccurate anachronisms are very popular if you read the forums on other boards.  It meets the fantasy requirements of people who like the octagonal barrel styling, smaller grips and the .44 caliber.  Then there is a subset of those who have purchased those pistols with "Confederate" brass frames because of cost.  They are the ones  who really don't give a hoot about authenticity, yet they want an "old fashioned" looking pistol.  That's fine, they are BP revolvers and the reality of it is that most of us are just dressing up like cowboys on Saturdays anyway, so who are we to be judgmental?  I like the looks of the "Sheriff Model" 5 1/2" 1860 as well.  I know there are some die hard Army model fans who shoot the 1851 .44s because they prefer the bigger bullet.  It's all good fun.

There is potentially some good news...you don't have to wait for Cimarron or Uberti to get an 8" version.  The front sight makes a 7 1/2" version a bit more difficult, the slot is right where you need to make that cut.





If you cut it behind the loading lever latch retaining block you would have a 6 7/8" barrel like this.  You would have to re-cut the block dovetail and shorten the loading lever arm.



That's all a lot of work...You can easily switch out short grips for your Army Model Grips.  Sometimes they need fitting, at other times they don't.  I had some I used to switch back and forth between two pairs of 1872 Open Tops.  I no longer have the pair with the shorter grips.  It is possible there might be someone on this forum who would be willing to swap their "Navy" model grips for Army Models.

In conclusion I think the primary reason that Uberti doesn't make a small grip version of the 1860 is because that is part of the identity of an Army model  We even call the grip length, the "Army Grip."  When describing the 1860 we say, they started with an 1851 frame , made a frame cut to allow the rebated .44 caliber cylinder to fit, added the new swept profile barrel with the creeping loading lever and added the Army length grip with iron back strap.  It is part of the major identity of the 1860.  The reason they could just add the short gripped variation to the 1872 is that there was no name or identity relationship to the grip and the model.  Well that's my story...and I'm sticking to it.

Regards,
Mako