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

I will try to get Major 2 to post a couple pictures of it.
1899 4 3/4" .45 Letters to Factory Nickel and Ivory.  It has blue screws, they were not listed in the letter. SN: 179XXX.

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.

I don't think he has 2'' webbing? 

I do have one of his Fair Weather Christian belts in .45.

I'm looking for a .38 cal. Mills pistol belt but a 2'' belt.  Navy blue or tan.  H buckle type.  Coon Creek used to carry one but now it shows unavailable. 

If anyone help on this would be appreciated!!

Thanks!!