44 Colt to 44 Special

[Professor Marvel]

I'm sorry all, but I just couldn't stand it.  I got bored and pulled out my copy.

See below from the scribe's "own hand", well actually typeset...

~Mako

OMG, My good Mako, this amongst other delightful historical delights is why we love you in the abstract.

[Tuolumne Lawman]

Actually, if they infer that, that's on them.  I only stated that there were some were actually made in .44 Russian, and that at least two are still in existence. I never inferred it was a production caliber, as I was very careful in my wording to say only that some were made.  I also say that, with two .44 Russian examples in existence, technically a Uberti Open Top in .44 Russian would be correct.  Since production guns were in the now extinct .44 Rimfire, .44 Russian is a viable choice.

[Tuolumne Lawman]

 You are being selective in what you post from the book. Why don't you also post page 294 of the book that shows the two .44 Russian 1872 Open Tops, serial No. 4 & 6, while you are at it?  That is as relevant as the page you posted, certainly? I won't even get into the "Baby Open Tops" in .32 and .38 Colt, which were prototype only.

[Advertising]

[Mako]

You are being selective in what you post from the book. Why don't you also post page 294 of the book that shows the two .44 Russian 1872 Open Tops, serial No. 4 & 6, while you are at it?  That is as relevant as the page you posted, certainly? I won't even get into the "Baby Open Tops" in .32 and .38 Colt, which were prototype only.

Making absolute statements can troublesome, I believe you may have hoisted yourself with your own petard.  Please refer to page 295 below which follows the page 294 with the photos you are referring to.

However I notice that that McDowell refers to the .44 Russian variant as a "PROTOTYPE".  Maybe your argument is with McDowell...  However he did "get into those two pistols (.44 Russian), even though they are in fact "Prototypes" "(pardon the paraphrasing).

I must confess I must be losing my ability to quickly find information as I get older, I can't find anything in  chapter "The Colt Model 1871-1872 Open Top Revolver" about a small factory run of revolvers in the .44 Russian cartridge in 1872 or 1873. Is it in a different chapter, or even different book?  Dennis Adler also doesn't write about any limited run that I can find.

Ever the humble student, and voracious for information, please school me.

~Mako

[Tuolumne Lawman]

You are arguing about something I never said or implied. Look at my original statement. I never said there was a factory "production run".  I merely said there are at least two in existence in .44 Russian (thus not a wive's tail).  Whether they are considered "prototypes" is irrelevant to my original statement that they exist.  Yes production Open Tops were .44 Rimfire, I do not dispute that.

They also had prototypes in .32 and .38 Colt, referred to as "Baby Open Tops" by collectors.  A few of those are around still.

[Coffinmaker]

  Fun Stuff 

Some Lustrum ago, I had an itch.  Just couldn't let it go.  I just had to have something just like but not quite the same as the 44 Henry Flat partners.  SO:

I sourced up an 1866 Sporting Rifle in 44 Special, acquired a special Carrier Block for short cartridges (made my own too) which allowed the rifle to run 44 Russian.  Then added .44 Cylinders and Barrels to my Uberti Open Tops to also run 44 Russian.  This combination was super kool, except the rifle fouled out terribly (different story). 

I also went another route, Whereby equipped my 1860 Henry Replicant with a Carrier Modification to run with Cowboy 45 Special cartridges and also run C45S Cartridges in my Uberti Open Tops chambered 45 Schofield.  Also works a treat as a substitute Henry Flat round to run in companion guns.

As an aside.  As a retired Gun Plumber, and in my not so humble opine, Uberti should NEVER have chamber their Open Top in .45.  The chamber walls are just too damn thin (another story too).  Please remember, Colt NEVER converted any Percussion Anything to .45 for that very reason.  Burma Shave

Most forgot . . . combined the above with my replicant 1878 Hammer Doubles with All Brass 12Ga hulls.  Just plain SUPER FUN

[Mako]

You are arguing about something I never said or implied. Look at my original statement. I never said there was a factory "production run".  I merely said there are at least two in existence in .44 Russian (thus not a wive's tail).  Whether they are considered "prototypes" is irrelevant to my original statement that they exist.  Yes production Open Tops were .44 Rimfire, I do not dispute that.

They also had prototypes in .32 and .38 Colt, referred to as "Baby Open Tops" by collectors. A few of those are around still.

• True you never said "Production Run" (but we are confused), and what does it mean when you told us you would look up the limited run that took place '82 or '83?
• I believe McDowell never talks about a complete example of any "Baby Open Top".  This is very common with prototypes and pattern room guns.  They are "noodlings", concepts, wild ideas, (fill in your bank here).   

You are being selective in what you post from the book. Why don't you also post page 294 of the book that shows the two .44 Russian 1872 Open Tops, serial No. 4 & 6, while you are at it?  That is as relevant as the page you posted, certainly? I won't even get into the "Baby Open Tops" in .32 and .38 Colt, which were prototype only.

• Weren't the only two known .44 Russian Open Tops also prototypes?

The thing that confuses me is that McDowell has been presented as the ultimate expert on the Colt 1871-1872 Open Top (almost a "he who cannot be questioned because he wrote the book" veneration) and then his assessment of what construes an actual "legitimate" 1871-1872 Open Top is treated as unimportant.  Please see his statement below in the attachment from page 280.  Later, when he writes about prototypes it appears to me (and please remember, I am easily confused, bemused, bewildered, confounded or sumth'n ) that he treats "prototype" examples as merely the musings of the pattern room mechanics, designers and gunsmiths, but even he doesn't classify them as true 1871-1872 Open Tops, he specifically and intentionally calls them "prototypes". 

I actually understand why he treats them that way.  In the world that some of us have lived and worked in there are many, many, many prototypes, pre-production samples, pre-production trial run pieces and all kinds of partial variants.  Many items are one off or are "Frankenstein" assemblies.  These are in many cases not even serialized or have name plates attached.  They don't go on the books and would confuse even the most diligent project manager or plant supervisor trying to weave them into the tapestry of the named "Type".

McDowell includes just the .44 Henry Rimfire revolvers as "the type" (unless altered to .44-40 after leaving the factory) as you can plainly read on page 280 .  What he is doing in that statement is practicing disambiguation.  He is making sure we all understand the breadth and depth of the type before he begins talking about exceptions.

I would proffer that what Coffin Maker and Abilene nicely pointed out was that we should limit the scope of what a True 1871-1872 Colt Open Top is to be exactly the same as what R. Bruce McDowell wrote they were... ".44 Rimfire for all revolvers unless altered to centerfire (.44-40 WCF) after leaving the factory".  Everything else is a prototype and no different than the equivalent a modern "wildcat" cartridge in a firearm not originally intended to be chambered as such.

Respectfully please consider my argument,
Mako

[Mako]

With all of the discussion about the original cartridge the 1871-1872 Colt Open Tops were manufactured in I have a confession to make.

I almost exclusively shoot .44 Russian cartridges with the 200gr .44 Mav Dutchman over 23 grains of FFFg through any of my Colt's pattern Open Top or Conversion cartridge guns.  How's that for irony...

I shoot 23gr because you can't get more powder in the case because the bullet sits deep, That is a heavily compressed load.

I also have a Yellowboy carbine in .44 caliber (.44 Spl) that I have a carrier installed to allow me to shoot .44 Russian ammo through it.  I have another '66 Short Rifle in .44 Spl that has the original carrier and will work with both .44 Colt and .44 Spl.  I don't shoot .44 Colt much (I don't even have 100 cases any more) even though it is technically "more correct" for the Type II '60 Conversions.  Those revolvers are chambered in .44 Spl (those are hard to find in .44 caliber).  I have 500 .44 Russian cases (well had, I lose a few ejected carbine shells) so it's just easier to load them up and use them in both sets of revolvers. 

I actually don't shoot the cartridge revolvers much for matches, I normally shoot loose powder pistols, Colt '60 Army Models.  I use the cartridge guns as wet weather pistolas and sometimes for practice sessions since it'd easier to just reload cartridges instead of loose powder.  Reloading the C&Bs don't slow me down at a match, you have plenty of time to charge them with powder, wad and ball at the unloading table while acting as the safety officer and then just cap them at the loading table.

The Mav Dutchman in a .44 Russian case will measure about 1.220" OAL.  The Original Winchester .44 Henry Flat Rimfire had an AOL of 1.346", basically 1/8" longer.  If I had a different bullet with the crimp groove 1/8" further back I could easily duplicate the 25-28 grain .44 Rimfire loads.  But 23 grains slings them out plenty fast for Cowboy Action Shooting.  The .44 Russian is actually the closest cartridge to the original .44 Rimfire in size and power with a 200gr bullet.

So I'm a closet .44 Russian shooter... Who'd of thunk it.

~Mako

[Tuolumne Lawman]

You are beating a dead horse, sir.   I only maintained that several were produced in .44 Russian and that two still exist.  McDowel'ls book confirms my statement and shows two.  I am sure they ARE prototypes.   I never disputed that production guns were anything but .44 rimfire.  You seem to be inferring more that I said or implied. As for the "82 or 83," that was fat arthritic fingers.  It was supposed to be "72 or 73" as they were early examples. Thank you for pointing out my mis-type.

[Tuolumne Lawman]

When I had Uberti Open Tops, I had them in .45.  I shot my .44 Henry duplication load in them. Using .45 Schofields in them with a .452" 200 grain bullet over 27 grain volume of BP or Substitute (I loaded lond to get that). The .44 Henry was a .442" bullet.  I had an Uberti 1860 Henry in .45 that shot the same load.  as I am a Henry shooter, I went with .45 as Henrys were not available in .44, or I would had duplicated Coffinmaker's set up.

My pair of Dave Anderson 1860 Colt Richards Type I conversions (Pre-AFF stamped) I shoot .44 Colt.  I've only done the 750 rounds of old Load-X 200 grain factory,  but my load is a 200 grain Bear Creek bullet with 4.5/5 grains trail boss.

My Cimarron S&W No. 3 First Model Americans are chamber in .44 Special, but I load .44 Russians for it.  I use a 246 grain RN .44 Russian bullet from Bear Creek with 5.3 grains of Unique, which is a smokeless factory duplication load. It's a thumper. That load duplicates the original BP load at 750 fps, 310 ft lbs.  I can see why the .44 Russian was a respected caliber back in the day.

[Coffinmaker]

   MAKO, Them's be some swell Suppository Shooters indeede!!  As I have eluded too as well, my primary Main Match pistols are Pietta .44 Navy (never never guns) Snubbies, shot one in each hand.  My alter ego match guns are Open Tops, which I consider the most versatile Suppository Guns on the planet.  Especially when the barrels have been whacked off at the Ejector Housing (perfect balance, my opine).

Now, I don't necessarily want to dispute the esteemed McDowell (yes I do) but in the era under consideration, NOBODY converted Open Top pistols to 44-40 (44 WCF).  The original cylinder simply wasn't large enough to accommodate the 44-40 cartridge.  The modern Uberti expanded Open Top Cylinder is marginally large enough for 45 Colt and or 44 WCF.  There may well be examples of conversion to 44 Flat Central Fire as chambered in the last run of Winchester '66s (Export Only).  I would be more inclined to accept field conversions to 44Colt. 

All of this conjecture is purely speculative however.  Strictly academic.  Let us consider, if we can't pick it up and fondle it, or play with it, obviously it doesn't really exist in this part of the continuum.  Also, there are no Be-All or End-All.  Experts??  Nah.  An "Ex" is a has been and a "Spirit" is merely a drip under pressure.  Keep saving those Box Tops kids!!

[Tuolumne Lawman]

Well said, Coffinmaker.  I also questioned that when I saw .44-40.   I have since handled an original Open Top, and was even surprised that there are protos in .44 Russian.  As a side note, the owner of that had a local gunsmith bead blast and parkerize it!  Jesus wept!

[Mako]

Awwwww Coffin Maker you spoiled my next point, which was really why I continued posting on this in the first place... 

~Mako

[Tuolumne Lawman]

  . LOL

[Coffinmaker]

  OH   MY   GOODNESS 

Any Gunsmith worth the title, whom would Bead Blast and Parkerize an original Open Top, regardless of present condition, should be de-frocked, horse whipped, keel hauled then shot.

When attending the Crossroads of the West Antique gun show, one vendor had THREE original Open Top examples, had been cut to the Ejector Housing.  Refused to sell 'em for reasonable money.  They were strictly original, 44 Henry Flat.  I had visions of firing pins and a 44 Colt re-chamber.  If it's already been molested, finish the job right.

[Tuolumne Lawman]

I totally agree.  I tried to talk the owner out of the bastard-child with the park job, but he was fond of it.

[nativeshootist]

here's a open top with a 44 american conversion. https://clarksantiques.com/hand-guns/colt-open-top-and-rig/
I think its viable, a good gunsmith or machinist can do it. least for the frame area.

[Graveyard Jack]

Any Gunsmith worth the title, whom would Bead Blast and Parkerize an original Open Top, regardless of present condition, should be de-frocked, horse whipped, keel hauled then shot.

Amen to that!