How did we get these "Calibers"?

[Abilene]

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.

[Mako]

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

[Abilene]

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.

[Advertising]

[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

[Abilene]

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.

[Mako]

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]

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

[Mako]

Abilene,
Are the images still not showing?  If so what are you viewing them on, a phone?  If you can't see them let me know the way they have you copy the link changed on me.

I think my world is level again...the last time we were talking about this was probably 12 or 13 years ago.  You have confirmed what I believed then.  All large caliber R-M and Richards II revolver and frames are larger.  AND the Richards Type II no matter what the caliber are oversized.  Only the R-M .38s (Navy model conversions) are the same size as the Percussion frames and cylinders.  I am speaking in generalities, there are differences but not like the Uberti Richards Type IIs and the large caliber Uberti Richards-Masons conversions.

These are the dimensions from several of mine. Note there is a difference on several of my Navy model Percussion cylinders:


Thank you for all of your help and putting up with me.

~Mako

[Abilene]

The imgur photos do not show up on my new HP laptop with Windows 11, using Opera browser.  Tried Edge browser, same.  A post from someone else on another topic that also used Imgur, that pic doesn't show up either.  Tried with ad-blocker turned off as well, but it is something with this laptop because your pics show up on my Android phone.

Back to the dimensions.  As I mentioned, the cylinders on my '51 conversions are also 0.1" larger than originals - for some reason I had thought the small caliber conversions were the same as original.

[Griff]

Regarding the misnomer 45 "Long" Colt.  There is evidence that the government developed a shorter cartridge differing from the Schoffield by having the same rim diameter as the 45 Colt.  Elmer Keith wrote "...Some newcomers to the game claim there is no such animal, but if they had shot the short variety that Remington turned out in such profusion before, during and after World War I they would see there was some basis in referring to the .45 Colt as the .45 Long..." (]Sixguns, page 285).  but, it still doesn't change the name of the 45 Colt.

The case is 1.1" long. The powder charge was black powder, approximately 28 grains. The bullet weighed right at 230 gr. and was lubed with a white chalky-looking substance. I fired one from my Ruger 7 1/2" barreled .45 and it went through the chronograph at near 750 fps.  I understand production was ceased sometime in the 1930s.

[FriscoCounty]

Regarding the misnomer 45 "Long" Colt.  There is evidence that the government developed a shorter cartridge differing from the Schoffield by having the same rim diameter as the 45 Colt.  Elmer Keith wrote "...Some newcomers to the game claim there is no such animal, but if they had shot the short variety that Remington turned out in such profusion before, during and after World War I they would see there was some basis in referring to the .45 Colt as the .45 Long..." (]Sixguns, page 285).  but, it still doesn't change the name of the 45 Colt.

The case is 1.1" long. The powder charge was black powder, approximately 28 grains. The bullet weighed right at 230 gr. and was lubed with a white chalky-looking substance. I fired one from my Ruger 7 1/2" barreled .45 and it went through the chronograph at near 750 fps.  I understand production was ceased sometime in the 1930s.

It is not "evidence" it is absolutely true.  The Frankford Arsenal stopped production of .45 Colt (250 gr bullet / 30gr BP) August 20, 1874. In early 1875 it rolled out the new compromise Berdan primed cartridge (230 gr bullet / 28 gr BP).  In 1882 it was changed to Boxer primed. The final version of the cartridge was the M1887.

Ref:
Hackley, Woodin and Scranton, “History of Modern U. S. Military Small Arms Ammunition” Volume 1
McChristian, "THe U.S. Army in the West, 1870-1880 Uniforms, Weapons, and Equipment"
Photos from “The Cartridge Collector” website

[Mako]

There are some very true statements about the alternative cartridge the Army adopted to use in both of their service pistols in the 1880s.

The ".45 Colt Government", ".45 Government", ".45 Army", M1887 or various other names given to the cartridge that would fit both the Colt and the S&W was definitely a cartridge.  But they were all definitely not the .45 Colt. 

The .45 Colt was,  the .45 Colt; and as others have also pointed out the .45 Colt has always been and always will have a 1.6" long case.

It's interesting to look back at how people may have begun to identify the .45 Colt as the "Long Colt" to differentiate it from the shorter original .45 S&W cartridge (.45 Schofield) or the later M1887 cartridge and I believe today most people call it that out of habit and at some point in the 40s, 50s or 60s called it that because of the .45 ACP.  I have had a lot of people argue with me that it is the Long Colt and that ammunition boxes are marked that way.  They are either surprised or continue to argue when they can't find a manufacturer that calls it "Long Colt".

I tend to not even correct people anymore when they call things like magazines, clips (it really doesn't matter), but when it comes to ammunition, correct nomenclature is important, such was the case in the 1880s and it is today as well.   Rims matter, on this and other cartridges.

~Mako

[Abilene]

...45 Colt has always been and always will have a 1.6" long case. ...

... They are either surprised or continue to argue when they can't find a manufacturer that calls it "Long Colt"....

Well, 1.6" OAL, not case.  But yeah.

Armscor and Fiocchi call it "45 Long Colt".  But heck, they ain't even American, so probly got lost in translation. 

[AntiqueSledMan]

Hey Guys,

I know a lot of people get their undies in a bundle when someone refers
to the .45 Colt as the .45 Long Colt, but these are changing times.
When I started playing with the .44 Colt I discovered that it also changed.
Now I try to refer to mine as the .44 Colt Original, not the new stuff with a .429" projectile.

AntiqueSledMan.

[Mako]

Abilene,
It looks like Fiochi and Armscor have blown my statement away.  I stand corrected...sheesh ferninors' 

And, yes the AOL length of 1.6 (I think that is actually max.  Case is just under 1.3" or close to it.  I had 1.6" on my mind because of cylinder length discussions a while back.

So call it whatever you want.
 

[Mako]

Sledman,
The bullet changed but from my research I found the the case remained more or less the same . Well the length, case outside diameters and rim diameter are similar, but the case head style (non balloon head and thick) and rim clearance are very different.  As you well know it has that very small rim diameter to allow it to fit in an original 1860 Conversion which has been carried forward to today.

I've also never seen an inside lubed bullet loaded in old factory ammunition (.43 caliber).  There may be some, but I think the people who think they have seen an internal bullet doesn't realize how thin the case wall were and probably have seen pictures of a heeled cartridge.  Plus, I have no idea what revolver they would have been made for.  the SAA had some .44 Rimfires but no .44 Colt I am aware of.  There were some centerfire model '66 Winchesters, maybe that is what they saw, but I have only seen Heeled bullets in those.

Starline has had a couple of iterations on the clearance cut at the rim to case juncture.  I have some of both kinds, wide groove and a slightly narrower groove at the bottom of the groove.  Most of my Starline cases  measure close to Ø.49 at the rim.  The one WRA original I have measures Ø.484 and an unmarked case measures Ø.480.  The unmarked case may be a Colt or a U.S. Cartridge company cartridge.  John sent me that one example from a box he purchased on an auction site.

I can shoot the Starline cases in my Uberti '66 (or my .44 caliber cartridge revolvers) but I don't think the original cases would extract from the Uberti.  The deeper clearance cut above the rim on the Starline allows the extractor to get a purchase.  I quit loading them and just use .44 Russian brass or .44 Special now.  The .44 Colts aren't made often enough by Starline  to lose them when ejected from my rifle, my carbine has a carrier (originally intended for .45 Cowboy) that limits me to .44 Russian, the .44 Colt is a hair too long with the Mav Dutchman bullet.

I just call the cartridges intended for a true conversion a ".44 Colt with Heeled Bullet", I guess "original" is just as descriptive if people actually know they had .45 caliber heeled bullets loaded in them.

Cartridges are interesting...

Thank you for sharing.

~Mako

[Abilene]

There is a guy on the Wire classifieds selling a "3rd generation 45 Long Colt."  It has a 7 1/2" barrel.  Maybe he's talking about the barrel?