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.

This guy sells “printable  pdf patterns” for a number of rigs, and claims his man with no name pattern is accurate.
I have no clue, just manged to find it, and it seems to be the only vendor i can find.


www.londonjacksleather.com.


Prf mumbles

PLUS, his name is John, so ya can't go wrong!

Mine was made by putting a Navy grip on a "1860 Type II" as Uberti calls it, in .38.   Their 1860 conversions in .38, both R-M and Type II, come with the Navy frame/cylinder.  Since the Type II '60 barrel is the same shape as a '61, it is easy to turn it into a '61 Type II with the Navy grip.

Abilene,
Okay, you might know this since you had the affiliation with Cimarron.  I tried to physically see some, but every time I was in Fredericksburg they never had the Type IIs in .38 for me to compare.

• Are the .38 spl Type IIs the same frame and cylinder (diameter) size as the .44 and .45 Uberti Type IIs?
• I know the '51 Richards-Mason conversions are "correctly sized".
• I want to put a '60 barrel on a correctly sized .38 frame already set up for cartridges and just open up the chambers to .44 Russian/Colt.   
• I would prefer to have the frame already having Army grips because I found it is almost impossible to get "replacement" Grips, Back straps and Trigger Guards in the Army grip size
• I actually want a Franken-Gun of sorts, however it would be more correct than the oversized Richards Type IIs I have now.  If I actually had my druthers I would take a '61 barrel and have it rebored and rifled for Ø.428 bullets and shoot internally lubed bullets.
• I don't like the way the Uberti Type IIs in .44 caliber sit in my hands, the hammer spur is off (too high) and something just seems off about them.  I can close my eyes and if you hand me a '60 grip first and the Type II grip first I can tell in an instant the difference.  I would love to have a pair as much for practice as for using them as my wet weather guns as I do now. 
• I have thought about getting two sets of revolvers, a pair of '60s and a pair of any flavor '51 cartridge conversion and swapping out the barrels and rechambering the .38 cylinder to .44, but by that time I might as well just get a conversion back plate and convert a pair of '60s.
• I was thinking pretty hard about it about 15 years ago until life sidetracked me... 

You're a bad man making me want pretty things...

~Mako

Coffinmaker(onewwurd),
I believe I had read a post a long time ago from you where you said you had multiple barrels.  For some reason a 5 1/2" barrel on a cartridge revolver seems right.  I think it may be that the first revolver that was "mine" was a SAA with a 5 1/2" barrel, I shot it the first time when I was 10 (put a dent in my forehead, from shooting it sitting with my arms on my elbows on my knees).  My grandfather remarked, "Well I guess it is yours now, it's marked you..."  Happy memories.

I have looked at those Pietta 5 1/2 '60s that Midway USA used to put on sale from $199 to $225 and never could get an order in when they were in stock (they wouldn't honor the sale price for back orders, I can't blame them the price was righteous).  If I had two pairs of those I would turn one set into cartridge revolvers and use heel based bullets in them.

~Mako