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

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

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.

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.

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.