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.

Cogffinmaker(onewurd),

It appears the U.S. Navy had 1861 revolvers converted and 1851 revolvers 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 and was imported by Traditions, I still have the box:



~Mako

2
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.
3
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.
4
The Longbranch / Re: I Gave Up!
« Last post by Coffinmaker on Today at 09:59:03 AM »

 :) ABILENE !!  ;)

Oh for Pete's Sake.  Digital??  Griff??  Griff with Digital ??  Shirley you Jest.  Just ain't no way.  You know durn'd well Griff be a LUDDITE  ::) (I think??)
5
The Powder Room - CAS reloading / Re: Reloader 7 in .44-40
« Last post by Sedalia Dave on Yesterday at 09:00:35 PM »
go to the Hodgdon web site they will have data for Accurate as well as other powders.
Hold center
Bunk

Reloader 7 is made by Alliant not Accurate / Hodgdon.
6
1911 & Wild Bunch Shooting / Re: Wild Bunch Naval uniform
« Last post by Baltimore Ed on Yesterday at 08:27:21 PM »
The only time I was jealous of my wife’s previous boyfriend was that he took her to the theatrical release of The Wind and The Lion.
7
The Powder Room - CAS reloading / Re: Reloader 7 in .44-40
« Last post by Bunk on Yesterday at 07:27:27 PM »
go to the Hodgdon web site they will have data for Accurate as well as other powders.
Hold center
Bunk
8
The Powder Room - CAS reloading / Re: Shelf life of APP ?
« Last post by Bunk on Yesterday at 07:23:55 PM »
Since APP, unlike nitro powders (ug) is made using stable materials that do not degrade then as long as it is kept dry it should last as long as standard
Gunpowder. Carefully break up the lumps and bang away.
Some I have that is eight or so years old loads and shoots just fine and cleans up a lot easier.
Hold Center
Bunk
9
The Longbranch / Re: I Gave Up!
« Last post by Abilene on Yesterday at 07:09:59 PM »
And 17 years later you still showing that old picture?   :)  You probably didn't even have a digital camera back then.  You do have one of those now, right?   ;D

10
The Powder Room - CAS reloading / Re: Shelf life of APP ?
« Last post by Abilene on Yesterday at 07:06:03 PM »
 I posted in one of Mako's threads on BP shotshells about some old commercial shotshells made with Pinnacle (APP) in paper hulls.  I bought them from a retiring shooter, and they must have been 15 years old.  Anyway, the boomed just fine but the paper had degraded so it split badly and the heads tore from the hull upon extraction.  So I think it would be okay in properly loaded metallic cartridges.  Major, I did the same as you with some of this stuff - I dissected 4 rounds so I could reload a few of the paper hulls with BP (they disintegrated just like with the Pinnacle, so the paper was already degraded) - and the powder in those shells was like a rock which I chipped out with an ice pick.  Anyways, I took those 4 shells worth of powder and chunks and set it off inside a sheet of newspaper on the back porch.  It whooshed and smoked just fine!   :)
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk
© 1995 - 2023 CAScity.com