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 11:02:46 AM »
Quote from: 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.

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.
2
The Winchester Model 1873 / Re: Recreating the original .32WCF loading
« Last post by Major 2 on Today at 10:57:21 AM »
Of mine, only the 73 gets BP or APP and the Springfields Slim cast bullet on the left.

The Hi-Teks are on the right for the Smith & Wesson
3
The Winchester Model 1873 / Re: Recreating the original .32WCF loading
« Last post by Coffinmaker on Today at 10:46:46 AM »

I know you guys already know this, but Hi-Tec coatings do absolutely nothing for Black Powder shooters.  Shooting BP you gotta have enough BP compatible lube.  Hi-Tec is acceptable though, iff your shooting APP.
4
Colt Firearms / Re: New old Colt
« Last post by Coffinmaker on Today at 10:40:30 AM »

 :) Ah forgot  ;)

Abilene, since the cylinder isn't native to the gun, I'd also check the Head Space (fail to fire), although some of the fail to fire may be attributed to "operator error"  ::)
5
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.
6
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??)
7
CAS City Classifieds / Re: WTB: Uberti Bisley stocks
« Last post by Crossdrawnj on Today at 09:15:08 AM »
Quote from: Abilene on Yesterday at 06:58:22 PM
Until you said wood grips, I was going to suggest http://www.gripmaker.com/ and https://gungrip.com  for faux ivory grips.  The latter is N C Ordnance, and they say theirs is for a Beretta Stampede Bisley which I've never even heard of but probably made by Uberti.

I saw them too in my search.  The Stampede is an early gun and probably has a to piece grip frame. All Bisley's coming out of Italy now by Uberti have a one piece grip frame.  Stocks for one will not fit the other, from what I have learned.
8
The Winchester Model 1873 / Re: Recreating the original .32WCF loading
« Last post by Major 2 on Today at 08:35:28 AM »
I'll try to give you more about the Missouri Bullet Co.s Hi-tech coated.

You can see the Red Hi Tech coated on the right in the photo above size to .313" dia.

Here is the Marlin
Dads Smith & Wesson Hand Ejector
and my Colt
9
The Winchester Model 1873 / Re: Recreating the original .32WCF loading
« Last post by Little Dalton on Today at 08:24:06 AM »
Quote from: Jeff Michel on Today at 06:10:08 AM
Lyman 3118, 115 grain.

That looks like exactly what I want, thank you. Now to get that in a 5-6 cavity block from Accurate- I do wonder how close his 31-110L is, it looks like the same bullet, possibly with slightly larger lube grooves which isn't a bad thing. I wish I could find a measured drawing of the Lyman bullet to compare.
10
The Winchester Model 1873 / Re: Recreating the original .32WCF loading
« Last post by Major 2 on Today at 08:04:13 AM »
The 32 WCF (32/20) is a cartridge near and dear to me.
It was the first round of any power beyond 22 short and LR, I got the shoot as 9-year-old kid.

It was my Dads S&W Hand ejector circa 1926, I still have it and load a cast LEE 93 grain .(311  311-93-1R)
It is however not the bullet for your 73.

I have a Circa 1891 Mod 73, for it I use the BP Big Lube Bullets from Springfield Slim.  These are a little heavier at 115 grains and mic at .313.
Sadly, Springfield Slim is no longer casting, however I purchased a supply when he was.
I also have a cache' of Missouri Bullet Co.s Hi-tech coated.

I also have a Colt SAA in 32/20 and a Marlin Classic. 



                                                                                                                                               
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk
© 1995 - 2023 CAScity.com