Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10
61
The Darksider's Den / Re: How did we get these "Calibers"?
« Last post by Abilene on May 09, 2024, 12:51:42 PM »

But is that '61 barrel on your beautiful conversion a Percussion barrel or one intended for a conversion revolver?

Yes, that's what came on the conversion.  I only changed the grips to Navy

After you telling me that the Type IIs in .38 Special are actually on the "original" correctly sized frame I am seriously considering getting a pair to use as practice guns since they will feel and handle the same.  ...

Did I say that?  If I did it was earlier before I discovered that the Uberti Navy cylinders are in fact 0.1" larger than originals.  I have no idea how any of the frames compare to originals.  The frame does not have to be made larger for the Ubertis anyway, except for the recoil shield part so that the bore axis can be a little higher to allow for the larger cylinders

Your IMGUR photos do not show up for me on that last post. Edit: they show up on phone
62
Please check one (or up to three above).  You can change your votes later if you want to.

  • Please tell us a bit more about your lube and journey to get there if there is one.
  • If you buy your bullets already lubed please tell us what the caster claims it is and whether or not it works well.
  • Do you get any leading in your bore, not Powder fouling, but real leading?  This is for both those that lube their own and those that by store bought.

~Mako
63
The Darksider's Den / Re: How did we get these "Calibers"?
« Last post by Mako on May 09, 2024, 11:20:24 AM »
No.  I did not say that at all.
Your question: "Are the frames for the Richard-Mason .44 and .45 Conversions the same as the .44 and .45 Richards Type 2 Frames?"
My answer: Yes - only the barrel assemblies differ.

Abilene,
Thank you, I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, I just wanted to make sure I understood.  That is what I have understood ever since I got my pair of Type IIs right after they came out.

But is that '61 barrel on your beautiful conversion a Percussion barrel or one intended for a conversion revolver?

After you telling me that the Type IIs in .38 Special are actually on the "original" correctly sized frame I am seriously considering getting a pair to use as practice guns since they will feel and handle the same.  The percussion revolvers are not a a disadvantage in a match since there is a lot of time between stages but it sure extends my range time when practicing.  In fact I believe that cartridge guns may catch on and even be here to stay (we will see...Wild Bill wasn't fully convinced).

Truth be told and as I have said in the past the .44 Army with a round ball is basically a .38 Spl in power.  Tom even has a nice 140gr Ø.358 BP bullet design that would be almost an analog to the .44 Army load with equivalent powder with a heavy crimped bullet. 

The lack of a crimp to build pressure upon firing is the one downside to the percussion revolvers.  You are limited to the fit between the bullet/ball and the chamber for your initial resistance.  I could chronograph the normal loads and duplicate the velocity with the cartridge. It wouldn't surprise if they wouldn't be equivalent with a "19gr" (17.5 by weight) I know will fit under that 140gr bullet  That bullet depth from the base to crimp groove is almost identical to the .38 Snakebite Grease Wagon I normally use.  But, just what I need is another mold, I just ordered that Snakebite analog design I submitted to him.  The original Big Lube Snakebite and the new one he's making actually weigh 160gr even though almost everyone refers to them as 158gr (even me on my loaded boxes).  That is in soft lead, even the 20:1 ratio or wheel weight lead bullets weigh over 159gr. The old fellow I was buying from a couple of years ago thought I wanted "hard cast" bullets since that is what everyone talks about.  He later cast  500 for me with a softer but not dead soft full Lead alloy. I lube my own with my homemade lube (I actually use my "Summer" formulation for bullets and use either my Summer or Winter lube based on outside temperatures.  Summer formulation is mainly adding more paraffin in place of reduced mutton tallow.




My normal .44 load spouts (marketed as 30gr) on my powder flasks throw about 28.5gr by weight (Goex 3F) of the same powder. I have a "25gr" and a "15gr" spout as well but I can't remember what they actually throw weightwise with Goex 3F.

I have tried the smaller "25gr spout" and couldn't tell much difference in impact point or recoil.  I just went back to the "30gr spouts"  because the that "30gr" load is actually very inefficient and spews a LOT of burning powder out of the muzzle making a spectacular fireball and stream of fire towards the target.  If you're gonna go big, go big!  However, sometimes on a humid windless morning I have resorted to 25gr (probably 23 by weight) because the targets are totally obscured by the 2nd or third shot.  I will admit I have wimped out after a couple of stages of shooting blind and reduced my pistola loads to what most mortals shoot.  I might add I use homemade greased Wads (homemade and thoroughly soaked in Mutton Tallow/Bees Wax/Paraffin Lube) between the ball and powder for all percussion loads whether .44 or .36 caliber.

Lubed wads on left:


~Mako
64
The Darksider's Den / Re: How did we get these "Calibers"?
« Last post by Abilene on May 08, 2024, 05:43:04 PM »
Abilene,
Are you telling me that Uberti has the frames for the.44 and .45 Richards-Mason conversions more or less correct dimension wise  and they just went nuts with the Richards Type II frames and Cylinders?  I always thought all of the large caliber frames for cartridge conversion guns that Uberti made were oversize....

No.  I did not say that at all.
Your question: "Are the frames for the Richard-Mason .44 and .45 Conversions the same as the .44 and .45 Richards Type 2 Frames?"
My answer: Yes - only the barrel assemblies differ.
65
The Darksider's Den / Re: How did we get these "Calibers"?
« Last post by Mako on May 08, 2024, 05:11:03 PM »
Abilene,
Are you telling me that Uberti has the frames for the.44 and .45 Richards-Mason conversions more or less correct dimension wise  and they just went nuts with the Richards Type II frames and Cylinders?  I always thought all of the large caliber frames for cartridge conversion guns that Uberti made were oversize.

If the .44 and .45 R&M frames and cylinders are correct then I wonder if a '60 barrel from a Uberti percussion revolver would fit on that frame.  I guess I could do a heeled bullet...

~Mako
66
The Darksider's Den / Re: How did we get these "Calibers"?
« Last post by Abilene on May 08, 2024, 02:00:55 PM »
1. Yes, except for the step in the .44 frame.

2. right

3. Yes - only the barrel assemblies differ.

4. I don't know and have no ASM nor any percussion guns to compare.  Let me know if you would like any specific measurement.

5. Yes, as the larger part of the .44 cylinder is only 0.1" bigger than the .38.  I guess my holsters are loose enough - none were made specifically for these guns. My '51 conversions fit in any of my SAA holsters, but these Type II's only fit in 4 of them, due to the larger barrel underlug area.  I might be able to feel a tiny bit more resistance pulling the .44 pistol from one or two of the holsters, but it is subtle.
67
1911 & Wild Bunch Shooting / Re: Wild Bunch Naval uniform
« Last post by Drydock on May 08, 2024, 01:54:37 PM »
Most USN landing parties went ashore in undress whites. What price glory often has excellent sets of this uniform, San Francisco Hat makes a correct pre 1922 white hat.
68
The Darksider's Den / Re: How did we get these "Calibers"?
« Last post by Mako on May 08, 2024, 01:05:25 PM »
Abilene,
I'm starting to understand why this is so confusing.  I have a few questions:

  • In the picture you show both a .44 and a .38 caliber conversion.  Are the frame sizes the same for both?  In other words if you took the cylinder and barrel from the .38 could you put them on the .44 frame?  I don't mean perfect pin alignment for the studs on the frame to the barrel for instance, but are they basically the same?
  • I also don't mean the length off the cylinder. You said those were different.
  • Are the frames for the Richard-Mason .44 and .45 Conversions the same as the .44 and .45 Richards Type 2 Frames?
  • Are the frames for the .38 Spl Richards Type 2  conversions basically the same size as my Armi San Marco.  That is basically true to size 1851 or 1860 Percussion frame but in .38 caliber?
  • Except for the slightly larger stepped diameter of your .44 revolver, will it fit in the same holster as your .38?  What if you swapped the cylinder, would it fit?
~Mako
69
The Darksider's Den / Re: How did we get these "Calibers"?
« Last post by Abilene on May 07, 2024, 07:30:57 PM »
Yes, I just changed the grips.  And as I said, the frame and cylinder on every conversion they make in .38, regardless of model, is the same frame and cylinder as on the '51 conversion.  The frames of the Army and Navy conversions appear identical except for the step in the Army frame, plus the conversion ring is wider than the cylinder on the Army and is the same or a hair smaller than the cylinder on the Navy.  And I had to go back and recheck my memory on the dimensions with McDowell's figures, and no, the Uberti Navy conversion cylinder is a tenth of an inch bigger, same as the Army.  I  also checked, and the distance from the bottom of the frame to the top of the hammer is the same on the Navy and Army conversions.  Since I never shot percussion guns, I'd never know the difference.

Cimarron never bothered to show any pictures of an actual .38 '60 R-M or Type II.  All the pics on their website and catalogs just show the two barrel lengths with stepped frames and cylinders.  I mention that to them but they didn't care.  Every once in a while somebody would order one and then be pissed when they got it.
70
The Darksider's Den / Re: How did we get these "Calibers"?
« Last post by Mako on May 07, 2024, 06:22:38 PM »
Abilene,
I didn't make myself clear.  I know the 1860s and the conversion frames for them are stepped for the .44s and .45s.  I misunderstood you, I thought you added a '61 barrel to a Richards type 2 that was originally in .38 caliber.  I know they make them in .38, I didn't know if the .38spl frame was up sized like the .44s and .45. 

I had this frustrating conversation with someone at Cimarron about 15 years ago and literally drove over to Fredericksburg to figure it out for myself.  As I said thay didn't even have a Type 2 in .38 spl they were confusing it with a Richards-Mason revolver.

So is your '61 Type 2 you created oversize?  It looks like it has a standard '51/'61 frame size. 

  • I was hoping they had made the Type IIs that were chambered in .38 look just like the true Richards Type IIs with a stepped cylinder.
  • I was hoping all you had to do was put a true '61 barrel on it, but that doesn't make sense now that I read what I just wrote since your picture shows a frame without the step.
  • I seems you just added the Navy grips .
  • What confuses me is that I have seen pictures (perhaps the wrong photo (I mean right now) of Type II revolvers with stepped cylinders, but they are in .38 special. 

I've confused myself here, help me out.

~Mako
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk
© 1995 - 2023 CAScity.com