Cas City Forum Hall & CAS-L
Special Interests - Groups & Societies => STORM => Topic started by: Yellowhouse Sam on March 25, 2024, 01:31:41 PM
-
Who can ream my 44 Colt Open Top cylinder to 44 special?
-
When I was working at Cimarron, they had the reamer in the work area and I reamed a few cylinders that customers sent in, and a few new cylinders when they only had 44 Colt OT's in stock and somebody wanted 44 Spcl. The last time I looked, I couldn't find it and maybe one of their gunsmiths had it. That's some years ago but anyways, couldn't hurt to call and ask. It's also likely that one of their off-site gunsmiths could do it.
Pretty good chance somebody here has one, too! Nice thing about the job is that you can mail a reamer or mail cylinders, no need to ship a gun!
-
Sam,
What kind of shape is it in? If it is excellent you might try selling it and just buying another in .44spl. People are goofy about things like having an actual chambering in .44 Colt and the revolver being marked as such. They might jump on on it.
I actually have .44spl revolvers, rifles and carbines. '71-'72 Open Tops like you have, Type 2 '60 Conversion revolvers (hard to find) and a '66 rifle and carbine. I actually mainly shoot .44 Russian, but I have .44 Colt and .44Spl cases too. I have a carrier conversion in the carbine (originally made to allow .45 Cowboy in a .45 Colt chambered Henry, '66 or '73 rifle/carbine) that allows me to shoot the short .44 Russian case in the '66 carbine. I chose everything to be in .44spl to give me greater cartridge choice.
If case availability is your concern get some .44 Russian from Starline, they almost always have it. They rarely have .44 Colt, but when they do it may sit on their site for a while or get snapped up by people like you looking for brass.
,44spl is not as easy to find anymore, it used to be available quite often as once fired,, now when I find it they want stupid prices for it and I'd rather buy new Starline for less money.
Do you shoot Black Powder or Smokeless? You can get good results with .44 Russian with either. I shoot 200gr Mav Dutchman bullets exclusively in all three cartridges and also in .44 WCF. For cowboy shooting distances the targets clang no matter which case the bullet starts out in. One last thing, a .44 Russian with a 200gr bullet is closer to the .44 Rimfire the original '71-'72s were chambered in if your looking for more of a true analog cartridge.
If you get it reamed, have your cylinder chambers throats checked first and tell the gunsmith you need it reamed with the "throat" leade, just a chamber reamer without leade added will limit your bullet selection and can actually raise your chamber pressures and cause leading.
~Mako
-
As a note, there are actual existing original Colt 1871/2 Open Tops in .44 Russian from the factory. In McDowell's book "Colt Conversions and other revolvers, I believe he has pictures of two that are still in existence. IIRC, there was a small run at the factory in about 1872/3. I'll have to look it up.
With that said, for a Historical purist, .44 Russian would be an original and correct caliber to have an 1872 Open Top in.
-
Who can ream my 44 Colt Open Top cylinder to 44 special?
Is this an original OT Colt's or a replica in ".44 Colt's"? The reason I ask is because the modern so-called .44 Colt's are really short .44 Russians with a slightly different rim diameter. If so, you could even shorten .44 Magnum brass.
-
Is this an original OT Colt's or a replica in ".44 Colt's"? The reason I ask is because the modern so-called .44 Colt's are really short .44 Russians with a slightly different rim diameter. If so, you could even shorten .44 Magnum brass.
Maybe you misspoke, but the .44 Colt is longer than the Russian, between Russian and Special length. And actually, the original OT's were not in 44 Colt, but 44 Rimfire.
-
:) PLUS ONE for Abilene ;)
The original Colt Open Top was specifically developed as a "partner" for the 1860 Henry Improved (Winchester 1866) and was only chambered for production In 44 Rim Fire. (44 Stetson). It has been rumored Colt also built two Prototype Open Top guns in 44 Central Fire. No one I know of has ever seen one, and Colt was known, as was Winchester, to sell their proto guns when they were done piddling with them.
-
Sam are you unable to chamber 44special in that 44colt cylinder?
-
:) PLUS ONE for Abilene ;)
The original Colt Open Top was specifically developed as a "partner" for the 1860 Henry Improved (Winchester 1866) and was only chambered for production In 44 Rim Fire. (44 Stetson). It has been rumored Colt also built two Prototype Open Top guns in 44 Central Fire. No one I know of has ever seen one, and Colt was known, as was Winchester, to sell their proto guns when they were done piddling with them.
Actually, McDowell documents several still existing in .44 Russian (with pictures). He is rather more knowledgeable that any of us.
-
Tuolumne Lawman,
Abilene and Coffinmaker are correct. The original intent of the 71/72 was to make a companion revolver for the Henry and .66 rifles and chambered in .44 Rimfire. It is true there are/were examples of the pistols in .44 Russian just as there are examples of Henrys and primarily '66 rifles/carbines in .44 Central Fire (centerfire).
https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?374154-Original-Winchester-1866-44-Henry-CENTERFIRE-!-help-please (https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?374154-Original-Winchester-1866-44-Henry-CENTERFIRE-!-help-please)
Both Abilene and Coffinmaker are extremely knowledgeable as well. Just because McDowell wrote about it in his book doesn't make it sacrosanct. Heck I've written books and Coffinmaker doesn't quote me... I'm joking (not about the books), but McDowel did say the .44 Centerfires were experimental, In fact Dennis Adler expanded on that in his book and pointed out Colt's "Experimented" with several variations of the Open Top design, including models chambered for .44 Centerfire, .38 Centertfire and .32 Rimfire; and even some variations known as Baby Open Tops on smaller frames. HOWEVER, the only examples ever put into production were chambered for the .44 Henry Rimfire.
I've actually been in Colt's Vault at the factory in East Hartford and it is full of "pattern guns" and one off prototypes, mainly more modern pistols now. The custom shop even had a couple of lockers full of "pattern room guns" which were variation in caliber and features, they never made it to production. There are Thousands of prototypes, pre-production sample guns and guns that died in the factories out there,
Mauser made at least a couple examples of a P08 Luger in .45 ACP, but I would never claim the .45 ACP Luger was a production pistol, there were only 2 produced in 1907 for the US Army trials, only one still exists (there are modern copies now). Also H&K produced the PSP or P7 in .40 S&W, but it never made it out of the prototype stage even though it had major fanfare at the time. Those are just two of the thousands of examples you could dig up.
No, the 71-72 was produced as a .44 Henry rimfire, somewhere around 7,000 were produced, almost all with the larger Army grip.
So, my pontification and $7.58 will buy you a cup of Starbucks coffee (maybe... with inflation the way it is) (the money supply, not my ego...)
~Mako
-
If you read my post, I never claimed (or implied) it was a "production run" caliber, only that they produced some in .44 Russian, so technically it is correct. As for McDowell, he is probably the foremost authority on conversion revolvers, so argue with him.
"As a note, there are actual existing original Colt 1871/2 Open Tops in .44 Russian from the factory. In McDowell's book "Colt Conversions and other revolvers, I believe he has pictures of two that are still in existence. IIRC, there was a small run at the factory in about 1872/3. I'll have to look it up."
I have been on CAS since the CAS-L days, and expected better "I'm right, your wrong". oh well, Adios!
-
:) Well Now ;)
Just to add some fun Mudd to the discussion, which will point out how "some" stories/Rumors/Propaganda/Conspiracies get started . . . I've been kind of a Guru of the Open Top ever since Uberti stuck their toe inna water. They are Chameleons. If one owns a Uberti Open Top, one can simple source Cylinders and Barrels from Uberti in .38, .44 and .45 then swap them around at leisure. I digress. My Point: I was adding a set of .44 Barrels and Cylinders to my Open Tops. The barrels I received are stamped "44-40." Understanding, in actuality, Neither Colt nor Uberti EVER made the Open Top to chamber 44-40 (44 WCF).
Additionally, from time to time Uberti has been known to make Open Tops marked "44 Colt" that are actually chambered for .44 Special as well as marked 44 Colt that won't chamber 44 Special (Go Figure)
Let us also acknowledge, there are many "Old Wives Tails" out there generated by some Scribe who managed to get published, regardless of actual knowledge. Those whom claim to have seen Bigfoot are not necessarily shining examples of knowledge.
Oh heck, almost forgot, there is at least ONE example of an Open Top chambered in 44-40, Not built by Uberti, custom built by its owner. Some day someone will pick it up and say "See! See! See! - They did So!! So there." Burma Shave
-
I am sure that Bruce Mc Dowell does not fit your definition of "some Scribe who managed to get published, regardless of actual knowledge." I also think Bud Firth (the most foremost Colt Conversion/Open Top collector) would be surprised to find that his two 1872 Open Tops (serial No. 4 & 6 shown on page 294 of the book) are merely "wives Tales" and don't exist.
If you are not referring to Mc Dowell with that description, perhaps you are referring to myself, as I have been a staff writer for the Cowboy Chronicle since 1996. If that is the case, I do not appreciate the insult. I do not claim to be an expert, but rather take the information presented by the experts and reframe it in an entertaining and easy to read summary for the masses.
No disrespect to members of this forum, but I'll put my money on McDowell and his 459 page book (which is the definitive work of research on open tops) "Colt Conversions and other Revolvers."
-
Who can ream my 44 Colt Open Top cylinder to 44 special?
Sam are you unable to chamber 44special in that 44colt cylinder?
Something to check out Sam. If you haven't try a 44 Special of the bullet/bullet types you want to fire in your Open Top. Saying this as back in late 2007 when I bought my OT from Cimarron I ordered it in 44 Special. Also a Model 66 Yellow Boy in 44 Special. I was told by guy on the phone at Cimarron that the Open Top will be marked '44 Colt' but chambered in 44 Special. The reasoning I was told was that alot of shooters wanted the 44 Special chambering but didn't want 44 Special stamped on a revolver that was produced in the early 1870's with a cartridge that didn't come about until around 1907.
My plan at the time was to shoot smokeless rounds in 44 Special and black powder in 44 Colt brass. Did so for awhile, but eventually settled for shooting only 44 Colt rounds using FF and FFF black Goex topped at first with Lee 200 grain cast bullet but later used only Dicks BigLube 200 grain Mav Dutchman cast bullet. Have had a harmonious outcome in both firearms with the 44 Colt topped Mav Dutch using only FF powder now. The 44 Colts cycle fine through the lever Yellow Boy.
In late 2008 I bought a Richards II from Cimarron and ordered in also in 44 Special. Was advised at the time that the practice of stamping 44 Colt on revolvers chambered in 44 Special had ceased, now what was ever stamped on the frame is what the revolver is chambered for. The Richards II is stamped 44 Special. I have loaded a few 44 Specials using the Mav Dutchman using FF black but didn't see any advantage over the 44 Colts. Ya never know, possibly your Open Top was made in the time when Cimarron was stamping 44 Colts on 44 Special chambered revolvers. OR if newer, when reamed for 44 Colt it was reamed enough to accommodate a 44 Special round. Worth checking. Just thought I'd toss this into the fray.
-
:) AH Cummon TL ;)
Don't be getting your Knickers all in a Twist. I wasn't necessarily singling any "one" scribe out for the guillotine nor was I specifically referring to you in particular. Were I to insult you personally, I'd call you out by name.
Understand though, even those whom are revered as the "Last Word" have ben known to be mistaken. We all know the Earth is FLAT, right??
-
Lol. Very true ;D
-
As a note, there are actual existing original Colt 1871/2 Open Tops in .44 Russian from the factory. In McDowell's book "Colt Conversions and other revolvers, I believe he has pictures of two that are still in existence. IIRC, there was a small run at the factory in about 1872/3. I'll have to look it up.
With that said, for a Historical purist, .44 Russian would be an original and correct caliber to have an 1872 Open Top in.
Good Morning Tuolumne,
No disrespect intended; Abilene, Coffin Maker and Crow Choker will all attest to the fact everyone will know if I am being disrespectful.
There are people with a lot of experience and expertise on these boards, Coffin Maker and Abilene only fall behind you one year in time as members of CAS City and I only 23 months. I don't think we want to be starting any whipping it out and measuring contests, I know the Monkey (sorry Abilene) would be in trouble.
I think the problem is that the reader would infer from your original post that the .44 Russian was a "common" or even an available caliber for the 71-72 Open Top.
I am always the student, and I have a particular interest in the Colt's Percussion and Open Top Revolvers, in fact they are all that I shoot in Cowboy matches, whether loose powder pistols or conversion revolvers that I use for wet weather guns (I hate trying to load percussion revolvers in the rain...). I even have a pair of Uberti 71-71 Open Tops.
Because I am the perpetual student I have been waiting with interest for the information you mentioned concerning a reference for a "small run of .44 Russian revolvers". That statement infers that there was a small production run of .44 Russian revolvers, maybe that is our failing in assuming you meant production...
I am no longer a historical purist because I quite often find I was mistaken or not privy to some tightly held information (that was either a 0307 or 0203 lesson 101, and hard learned). The fact is, history is often what the first to write a book says it is (No Disrespect to McDowell or his fine book, I have a copy...). But a historical purist might have mentioned that there were also .38 Centerfire and .32 Rimfire cartridges as well. But, as I think you said later the .44 Russians were experimental non-production run examples.
But what's a few experimental calibers among friends?
~Mako
-
I'm sorry all, but I just couldn't stand it. I got bored and pulled out my copy.
See below from the scribe's "own hand", well actually typeset...
~Mako
-
Now I'm gonna have to get a copy to read the next page and see why he says that revolver was in .44 American!
-
Now I'm gonna have to get a copy to read the next page and see why he says that revolver was in .44 American!
Isn't suspense great?
It keeps you regular...
-
I'm sorry all, but I just couldn't stand it. I got bored and pulled out my copy.
See below from the scribe's "own hand", well actually typeset...
~Mako
OMG, My good Mako, this amongst other delightful historical delights is why we love you in the abstract.
-
Actually, if they infer that, that's on them. I only stated that there were some were actually made in .44 Russian, and that at least two are still in existence. I never inferred it was a production caliber, as I was very careful in my wording to say only that some were made. I also say that, with two .44 Russian examples in existence, technically a Uberti Open Top in .44 Russian would be correct. Since production guns were in the now extinct .44 Rimfire, .44 Russian is a viable choice.
-
You are being selective in what you post from the book. Why don't you also post page 294 of the book that shows the two .44 Russian 1872 Open Tops, serial No. 4 & 6, while you are at it? That is as relevant as the page you posted, certainly? I won't even get into the "Baby Open Tops" in .32 and .38 Colt, which were prototype only.
-
You are being selective in what you post from the book. Why don't you also post page 294 of the book that shows the two .44 Russian 1872 Open Tops, serial No. 4 & 6, while you are at it? That is as relevant as the page you posted, certainly? I won't even get into the "Baby Open Tops" in .32 and .38 Colt, which were prototype only.
Making absolute statements can troublesome, I believe you may have hoisted yourself with your own petard. Please refer to page 295 below which follows the page 294 with the photos you are referring to.
However I notice that that McDowell refers to the .44 Russian variant as a "PROTOTYPE". Maybe your argument is with McDowell... However he did "get into those two pistols (.44 Russian), even though they are in fact "Prototypes" "(pardon the paraphrasing).
I must confess I must be losing my ability to quickly find information as I get older, I can't find anything in chapter "The Colt Model 1871-1872 Open Top Revolver" about a small factory run of revolvers in the .44 Russian cartridge in 1872 or 1873. Is it in a different chapter, or even different book? Dennis Adler also doesn't write about any limited run that I can find.
Ever the humble student, and voracious for information, please school me.
~Mako
-
You are arguing about something I never said or implied. Look at my original statement. I never said there was a factory "production run". I merely said there are at least two in existence in .44 Russian (thus not a wive's tail). Whether they are considered "prototypes" is irrelevant to my original statement that they exist. Yes production Open Tops were .44 Rimfire, I do not dispute that.
They also had prototypes in .32 and .38 Colt, referred to as "Baby Open Tops" by collectors. A few of those are around still.
-
:) Fun Stuff ;)
Some Lustrum ago, I had an itch. Just couldn't let it go. I just had to have something just like but not quite the same as the 44 Henry Flat partners. SO:
I sourced up an 1866 Sporting Rifle in 44 Special, acquired a special Carrier Block for short cartridges (made my own too) which allowed the rifle to run 44 Russian. Then added .44 Cylinders and Barrels to my Uberti Open Tops to also run 44 Russian. This combination was super kool, except the rifle fouled out terribly (different story).
I also went another route, Whereby equipped my 1860 Henry Replicant with a Carrier Modification to run with Cowboy 45 Special cartridges and also run C45S Cartridges in my Uberti Open Tops chambered 45 Schofield. Also works a treat as a substitute Henry Flat round to run in companion guns.
As an aside. As a retired Gun Plumber, and in my not so humble opine, Uberti should NEVER have chamber their Open Top in .45. The chamber walls are just too damn thin (another story too). Please remember, Colt NEVER converted any Percussion Anything to .45 for that very reason. Burma Shave
Most forgot . . . combined the above with my replicant 1878 Hammer Doubles with All Brass 12Ga hulls. Just plain SUPER FUN
-
You are arguing about something I never said or implied. Look at my original statement. I never said there was a factory "production run". I merely said there are at least two in existence in .44 Russian (thus not a wive's tail). Whether they are considered "prototypes" is irrelevant to my original statement that they exist. Yes production Open Tops were .44 Rimfire, I do not dispute that.
They also had prototypes in .32 and .38 Colt, referred to as "Baby Open Tops" by collectors. A few of those are around still.
- True you never said "Production Run" (but we are confused), and what does it mean when you told us you would look up the limited run that took place '82 or '83?
- I believe McDowell never talks about a complete example of any "Baby Open Top". This is very common with prototypes and pattern room guns. They are "noodlings", concepts, wild ideas, (fill in your bank here).
You are being selective in what you post from the book. Why don't you also post page 294 of the book that shows the two .44 Russian 1872 Open Tops, serial No. 4 & 6, while you are at it? That is as relevant as the page you posted, certainly? I won't even get into the "Baby Open Tops" in .32 and .38 Colt, which were prototype only.
- Weren't the only two known .44 Russian Open Tops also prototypes?
The thing that confuses me is that McDowell has been presented as the ultimate expert on the Colt 1871-1872 Open Top (almost a "he who cannot be questioned because he wrote the book" veneration) and then his assessment of what construes an actual "legitimate" 1871-1872 Open Top is treated as unimportant. Please see his statement below in the attachment from page 280. Later, when he writes about prototypes it appears to me (and please remember, I am easily confused, bemused, bewildered, confounded or sumth'n ) that he treats "prototype" examples as merely the musings of the pattern room mechanics, designers and gunsmiths, but even he doesn't classify them as true 1871-1872 Open Tops, he specifically and intentionally calls them "prototypes".
I actually understand why he treats them that way. In the world that some of us have lived and worked in there are many, many, many prototypes, pre-production samples, pre-production trial run pieces and all kinds of partial variants. Many items are one off or are "Frankenstein" assemblies. These are in many cases not even serialized or have name plates attached. They don't go on the books and would confuse even the most diligent project manager or plant supervisor trying to weave them into the tapestry of the named "Type".
McDowell includes just the .44 Henry Rimfire revolvers as "the type" (unless altered to .44-40 after leaving the factory) as you can plainly read on page 280 . What he is doing in that statement is practicing disambiguation. He is making sure we all understand the breadth and depth of the type before he begins talking about exceptions.
I would proffer that what Coffin Maker and Abilene nicely pointed out was that we should limit the scope of what a True 1871-1872 Colt Open Top is to be exactly the same as what R. Bruce McDowell wrote they were... ".44 Rimfire for all revolvers unless altered to centerfire (.44-40 WCF) after leaving the factory". Everything else is a prototype and no different than the equivalent a modern "wildcat" cartridge in a firearm not originally intended to be chambered as such.
Respectfully please consider my argument,
Mako
-
With all of the discussion about the original cartridge the 1871-1872 Colt Open Tops were manufactured in I have a confession to make.
I almost exclusively shoot .44 Russian cartridges with the 200gr .44 Mav Dutchman over 23 grains of FFFg through any of my Colt's pattern Open Top or Conversion cartridge guns. How's that for irony...
I shoot 23gr because you can't get more powder in the case because the bullet sits deep, That is a heavily compressed load.
I also have a Yellowboy carbine in .44 caliber (.44 Spl) that I have a carrier installed to allow me to shoot .44 Russian ammo through it. I have another '66 Short Rifle in .44 Spl that has the original carrier and will work with both .44 Colt and .44 Spl. I don't shoot .44 Colt much (I don't even have 100 cases any more) even though it is technically "more correct" for the Type II '60 Conversions. Those revolvers are chambered in .44 Spl (those are hard to find in .44 caliber). I have 500 .44 Russian cases (well had, I lose a few ejected carbine shells) so it's just easier to load them up and use them in both sets of revolvers.
I actually don't shoot the cartridge revolvers much for matches, I normally shoot loose powder pistols, Colt '60 Army Models. I use the cartridge guns as wet weather pistolas and sometimes for practice sessions since it'd easier to just reload cartridges instead of loose powder. Reloading the C&Bs don't slow me down at a match, you have plenty of time to charge them with powder, wad and ball at the unloading table while acting as the safety officer and then just cap them at the loading table.
The Mav Dutchman in a .44 Russian case will measure about 1.220" OAL. The Original Winchester .44 Henry Flat Rimfire had an AOL of 1.346", basically 1/8" longer. If I had a different bullet with the crimp groove 1/8" further back I could easily duplicate the 25-28 grain .44 Rimfire loads. But 23 grains slings them out plenty fast for Cowboy Action Shooting. The .44 Russian is actually the closest cartridge to the original .44 Rimfire in size and power with a 200gr bullet.
So I'm a closet .44 Russian shooter... Who'd of thunk it.
~Mako
-
You are beating a dead horse, sir. I only maintained that several were produced in .44 Russian and that two still exist. McDowel'ls book confirms my statement and shows two. I am sure they ARE prototypes. I never disputed that production guns were anything but .44 rimfire. You seem to be inferring more that I said or implied. As for the "82 or 83," that was fat arthritic fingers. It was supposed to be "72 or 73" as they were early examples. Thank you for pointing out my mis-type.
-
When I had Uberti Open Tops, I had them in .45. I shot my .44 Henry duplication load in them. Using .45 Schofields in them with a .452" 200 grain bullet over 27 grain volume of BP or Substitute (I loaded lond to get that). The .44 Henry was a .442" bullet. I had an Uberti 1860 Henry in .45 that shot the same load. as I am a Henry shooter, I went with .45 as Henrys were not available in .44, or I would had duplicated Coffinmaker's set up.
My pair of Dave Anderson 1860 Colt Richards Type I conversions (Pre-AFF stamped) I shoot .44 Colt. I've only done the 750 rounds of old Load-X 200 grain factory, but my load is a 200 grain Bear Creek bullet with 4.5/5 grains trail boss.
My Cimarron S&W No. 3 First Model Americans are chamber in .44 Special, but I load .44 Russians for it. I use a 246 grain RN .44 Russian bullet from Bear Creek with 5.3 grains of Unique, which is a smokeless factory duplication load. It's a thumper. That load duplicates the original BP load at 750 fps, 310 ft lbs. I can see why the .44 Russian was a respected caliber back in the day.
-
:) MAKO, Them's be some swell Suppository Shooters indeede!! As I have eluded too as well, my primary Main Match pistols are Pietta .44 Navy (never never guns) Snubbies, shot one in each hand. My alter ego match guns are Open Tops, which I consider the most versatile Suppository Guns on the planet. Especially when the barrels have been whacked off at the Ejector Housing (perfect balance, my opine).
Now, I don't necessarily want to dispute the esteemed McDowell (yes I do) but in the era under consideration, NOBODY converted Open Top pistols to 44-40 (44 WCF). The original cylinder simply wasn't large enough to accommodate the 44-40 cartridge. The modern Uberti expanded Open Top Cylinder is marginally large enough for 45 Colt and or 44 WCF. There may well be examples of conversion to 44 Flat Central Fire as chambered in the last run of Winchester '66s (Export Only). I would be more inclined to accept field conversions to 44Colt.
All of this conjecture is purely speculative however. Strictly academic. Let us consider, if we can't pick it up and fondle it, or play with it, obviously it doesn't really exist in this part of the continuum. Also, there are no Be-All or End-All. Experts?? Nah. An "Ex" is a has been and a "Spirit" is merely a drip under pressure. Keep saving those Box Tops kids!!
-
Well said, Coffinmaker. I also questioned that when I saw .44-40. I have since handled an original Open Top, and was even surprised that there are protos in .44 Russian. As a side note, the owner of that had a local gunsmith bead blast and parkerize it! Jesus wept!
-
(https://i.giphy.com/oaZk0WNSO7fXi.webp)
Awwwww Coffin Maker you spoiled my next point, which was really why I continued posting on this in the first place...
~Mako
-
:-[ ::) ::) ::) :o :o :o :o. LOL
-
:) OH MY GOODNESS ;)
Any Gunsmith worth the title, whom would Bead Blast and Parkerize an original Open Top, regardless of present condition, should be de-frocked, horse whipped, keel hauled then shot.
When attending the Crossroads of the West Antique gun show, one vendor had THREE original Open Top examples, had been cut to the Ejector Housing. Refused to sell 'em for reasonable money. They were strictly original, 44 Henry Flat. I had visions of firing pins and a 44 Colt re-chamber. If it's already been molested, finish the job right.
-
I totally agree. I tried to talk the owner out of the bastard-child with the park job, but he was fond of it.
-
here's a open top with a 44 american conversion. https://clarksantiques.com/hand-guns/colt-open-top-and-rig/
I think its viable, a good gunsmith or machinist can do it. least for the frame area.
-
Any Gunsmith worth the title, whom would Bead Blast and Parkerize an original Open Top, regardless of present condition, should be de-frocked, horse whipped, keel hauled then shot.
Amen to that!