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 Abilene on Today at 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.
2
1911 & Wild Bunch Shooting / Re: Wild Bunch Naval uniform
« Last post by Drydock on Today at 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.
3
The Darksider's Den / Re: How did we get these "Calibers"?
« Last post by Mako on Today at 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
4
The Longbranch / Re: I bought a rifle to go under a scope.
« Last post by deniolpa on Today at 02:07:39 AM »
I completely understand and agree with the logic presented.  :)
5
The Darksider's Den / Re: How did we get these "Calibers"?
« Last post by Abilene on Yesterday at 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.
6
The Darksider's Den / Re: How did we get these "Calibers"?
« Last post by Mako on Yesterday at 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
7
The Darksider's Den / Re: How did we get these "Calibers"?
« Last post by Abilene on Yesterday at 04:26:43 PM »
Okay, just did some comparisons between the .38 type II, the .44 type II, and a '51 R-M.  The frame and cylinder on all the .38's is the same (which you can tell by parts list numbers as well).  The .38 cylinders measure ~1.63" diameter.  On my oldest 'R-M, it measured 1.61".  1.63" is also the diameter of the rear portion of the .44 cylinder.  I seem to recall looking up in McDowell's book once and the Uberti '51 R-M cylinders are the same as original, as you have also noted.

The .38 frame is not stepped.  So the .44 cylinder will not fit. To get a .44 cylinder to fit on the .38 frame would require milling the front of the water table for the wider portion of the cylinder. The .38 cylinder and barrel fit on the .44 frame, although the frame and barrel would not quite meet at the locator pins, maybe a thousandth or two gap.  I think the arbor was bottoming out in the hole in the barrel.  I could not get the .44 barrel to attach to the '51 frame.  The locater pins "looked" like they lined up, but must have been off the tiniest bit because I couldn't get them started in the holes in the barrel.  Something like a plastic mallet might have made it go on but I didn't want to force anything.

Note too, that the .38 cylinder is shorter than the .44 cylinder, so it has a longer gas seal on the front of it to reach the barrel, and the barrel has a longer extension on the rear (the part where the forcing cone would be).  So, a .38 cylinder on the .44 frame with the .44 barrel attached left a .165" barrel to cylinder gap! 

The two frames both measured .750" wide across the bottom directly in front of the trigger guard, just before the edges are beveled on the bottom.

Regarding your Note 3 - I assume you mean a .44 conversion barrel, since the percussion barrels will not fit the conversions.

Regarding your Note 4 - I was able to trade off the Army grips and frames that came on both of my Type II's for Navy (all Uberti '60 conversions, Type II and R-M, have Army grips regardless of caliber).  You could do the opposite if needed, but if you start with a Type II (or '60 R-M) it will already have Army.  The only Uberti conversion to come with a Navy grip is the '51 (I'm not counting the Opentops, which come with either).

Obviously the '60 conversions never came in .38 back in the day, and just as obviously Uberti likes to make various guns in the more popular calibers of today.  But I don't know why they made their '60 conversions in .38 with the Navy frame/cylinder.  It would have been just as easy to chamber a stepped cylinder in .38 and at least the gun would have LOOKED right, even if the caliber was not authentic.  The '60's with the Navy frame and cylinder just looked wrong.  But fortunately for me, that made it easy to make the '61 conversion.  Charles Hudson at Texas Jacks once opined that Uberti did this so there could actually be a '61 conversion without having to go through the regulatory steps and fees required for acceptance of any "new" product that they come up with.  That may be true, but not many people know about it.  And a '60 R-M in .38, even with a Navy grip, would be a frankengun since Colt never made a Navy conversion with that barrel style.
8
The Darksider's Den / Re: Which rifle for BP?
« Last post by DeaconKC on Yesterday at 03:56:35 PM »
I certainly do appreciate the offers from you fine folks to buy me guns in a Dash cartridge, it is awfully thoughtful of you.
9
The Leather Shop / Re: Man With No Name
« Last post by River City John on Yesterday at 10:43:20 AM »
This guy sells “printable  pdf patterns” for a number of rigs, and claims his man with no name pattern is accurate.
I have no clue, just manged to find it, and it seems to be the only vendor i can find.


www.londonjacksleather.com.


Prf mumbles

PLUS, his name is John, so ya can't go wrong!
10
NCOWS / Re: 2024 Jerry Barnes Match
« Last post by River City John on Yesterday at 10:38:45 AM »
Hay no joke that was a clean stage for me.

Same goes for me, Wooly Dan. The only one, I think.

It was a fun match with great people. There were shooters representing Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Texas and Oklahoma. (May be more, but that's all I'm aware of.)
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk
© 1995 - 2023 CAScity.com