Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
1
The Darksider's Den / Re: How did we get these "Calibers"?
« Last post by Mako on Today at 03:23:51 PM »
:)  Well Heck  ;)

Just a tiny little point here.  Nearly as I can remember from my spotty research, Colt didn't convert the 1861 percussion guns to cartridge.  The Navy only had 1851 Navy guns, of which they (the Navy) did send a pile to Colt for conversion.

This was the basis for my only (other than no quality control) criticism of the late Armi San Marco "1860" Richards conversions.  Those guns were ALL based on the 1861 which Colt did not convert.  Although I still think the Armi San Marco conversions were the best looking "modern" conversions even if historically incorrect.

Coffinmaker(onewurd),

It appears the U.S. Navy had 1861 and 1851 revolvers converted after the war.  This is one of them with U.S. Navy markings, including the anchor acceptance mark.



In 1866, the Navy started to sell off their excess inventory of percussion revolvers and by 1873 the only percussion revolvers in the US Naval inventories were .36 caliber M1851 and M1861 Colts. In 1873 the Colt Patent Firearms Company approached the Navy with a potential solution that was low cost and allowed the Navy to upgrade many of their obsolete percussion revolvers to cartridge handguns. General W.B. Franklin, Vice President of Colt, offered to upgrade existing stocks of M1851 and M1861 Navy revolvers to centerfire cartridge via the Richards-Mason conversion system for $3.50 each. In a 10 July 1873 letter to Franklin, USN Chief of Ordnance William N. Jeffers accepted the offer from Colt and noted that he had “…advised the Commandant(s) of the Boston, New York and Philadelphia Navy Yards to send to your manufactory 100, 400 and 300 pistols respectively for alteration.”


Thus began the process by which some 2,097 US Navy owned .36 caliber Colt percussion revolvers were altered to metallic cartridge by the Richards-Mason system. The guns were all altered to .38 Long Colt, and while some sources suggest the barrels were reamed and re-rifled, the reality is that the bores of the guns were not altered, although a few barrels were replaced by Colt due to the poor condition of the bores....The hole in the front of the frame through which the rammer plunger passed was not modified on the M1851 Navy revolvers but was plugged on the M1861 revolvers. A Mason pattern ejector rod assembly was added to the right side of the barrel, consisting of an ejector rod tube, with a spring loaded ejector rod that was tipped with a kidney shaped plunger tip with concentric rings embossed on the front to ensure a good grip while using the ejector rod. Colt refinished the pistols after the alterations were completed.

The US Navy had acquired a total of 3,370 of the New Model Navy revolvers, with the first deliveries being made on September 28, 1861. This delivery was of 200 New Model Navy revolvers to replace an order of M1860 Army revolvers that had not passed US Naval inspection at the end of August 1861.

I never knew how many New Models that Navy had purchased, there were less than a 39,000 total 1861s produced, with about 9% of those officially being accepted by the Navy (many more were in use by individuals or accepted but not going through inspection). I can only guess how many were actually US Navy purchases because of the haphazard and frenzied acquisition during the war.    I have always paid more attention to the .44 Caliber Army models.

By the way I have one of those 1861 Armi San Marco "Richards Type I conversions" in .38 Spl., they just marked the box as a Colt 1861 Conversion.  This is mine below, it was imported by Traditions, I still have the box:


~Mako

2
Tall Tales / Re: May we move on, for coffee and chat ?
« Last post by Delmonico on Today at 01:01:48 PM »
Another one for people who think the way they eat their steak is the only proper way, seen this a lot also. ::)

Made Slim, Micha and I T-Bones on night and did the well, not my favored medium well because that's what Micha wanted.  We ate the with just metal forks but I grabbed a plastic for fun, tried it and it worked.  But it does take a very good cook, so after trying mistakes people seem to like half cooked. 

Myself it's just pepper and nothing else most times, sometimes Lea and Perrins, but no other brand it fit that I've tried.
3
Tall Tales / Re: May we move on, for coffee and chat ?
« Last post by Major E A Sterner on Today at 12:49:18 PM »
50 and raining here with 93% humidity,wont see the sun until Tuesday, then more rain from Thursday on.Y'all have a good day.
4
Colt Firearms / Re: New old Colt
« Last post by Abilene on Today at 11:07:40 AM »
At this point, I attribute the misfires (I think there were two out of 30 rounds in the match) to an EXTREMELY hour-glassed mainspring.  ;)
5
Tall Tales / Re: May we move on, for coffee and chat ?
« Last post by Coffinmaker on Today at 11:06:44 AM »

I have to be in agreement.  Ifin it takes morin 20 minutes with a Vet to get back on its feet, it be overcooked fer sure.

looks like 65 here in the North.  May go to 72 or 3 in the afternoon.  We're also forecast for Thunderstorms.  Be time to hop out onna Veranda and watch the Lightning and enjoy the Ka-Boom.  Love Thunderstorms.
6
The Darksider's Den / Re: How did we get these "Calibers"?
« Last post by Abilene on Today at 11:02:46 AM »
:)  Well Heck  ;)

Just a tiny little point here.  Nearly as I can remember from my spotty research, Colt didn't convert the 1861 percussion guns to cartridge.  The Navy only had 1851 Navy guns, of which they (the Navy) did send a pile to Colt for conversion.

This was the basis for my only (other than no quality control) criticism of the late Armi San Marco "1860" Richards conversions.  Those guns were ALL based on the 1861 which Colt did not convert.  Although I still think the Armi San Marco conversions were the best looking "modern" conversions even if historically incorrect.

Colt converted both '51 and '61 percussion guns, but only as Richards-Masons.  Never converted either of them to Richards type 1 or type 2 (well, they made ONE type 2 '61 that is shown in McDowell's book, which is what I use as the basis for my type 2 '61  :) ).

The '61 R-M barrels were sleeker than the percussion barrels, had the bottom trimmed off.  No modern manufacturer has ever reproduced that one.
7
The Winchester Model 1873 / Re: Recreating the original .32WCF loading
« Last post by Major 2 on Today at 10:57:21 AM »
Of mine, only the 73 gets BP or APP and the Springfields Slim cast bullet on the left.

The Hi-Teks are on the right for the Smith & Wesson
8

I know you guys already know this, but Hi-Tec coatings do absolutely nothing for Black Powder shooters.  Shooting BP you gotta have enough BP compatible lube.  Hi-Tec is acceptable though, iff your shooting APP.
9
Colt Firearms / Re: New old Colt
« Last post by Coffinmaker on Today at 10:40:30 AM »

 :) Ah forgot  ;)

Abilene, since the cylinder isn't native to the gun, I'd also check the Head Space (fail to fire), although some of the fail to fire may be attributed to "operator error"  ::)
10
The Darksider's Den / Re: How did we get these "Calibers"?
« Last post by Coffinmaker on Today at 10:08:13 AM »

 :)  Well Heck  ;)

Just a tiny little point here.  Nearly as I can remember from my spotty research, Colt didn't convert the 1861 percussion guns to cartridge.  The Navy only had 1851 Navy guns, of which they (the Navy) did send a pile to Colt for conversion.

This was the basis for my only (other than no quality control) criticism of the late Armi San Marco "1860" Richards conversions.  Those guns were ALL based on the 1861 which Colt did not convert.  Although I still think the Armi San Marco conversions were the best looking "modern" conversions even if historically incorrect.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk
© 1995 - 2023 CAScity.com