Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
1
The Darksider's Den / Re: Which rifle for BP?
« Last post by Sedalia Dave on Today at 06:09:33 PM »
To clean flush the action and barrel with hot water.  I Pull a Remington Squeeg-E through the bore and follow up with a wet patch.
Spray some Ballistol into the action and cycle a few times. Wipe down and you are good to go.

Every 3 to 6 months do a complete tear down and regrease the internals.
2
The Darksider's Den / Re: Which rifle for BP?
« Last post by Sedalia Dave on Today at 06:05:43 PM »
357 Mag will have significantly less blow by than 45 colt.  Load your 357s with enough 3F APP to just below the base of the bullet.

Clean your rifle and lube with a BP compatible lube. Your 92 will easily run 18 stages over 3 days with just little Ballistol sprayed in the action at the end of the day followed by a wipe down of the outside.
3
The Darksider's Den / Which rifle for BP?
« Last post by DeaconKC on Today at 05:39:09 PM »
Okay guys, gonna try loading some APP and try BP loading.  Okay, which rifle of these two will play better with BP, my Rossi 92 in .357 Magnum or the Uberti 1873 in .45 Colt? Rifling, cleaning, etc?
4
The Longbranch / Re: The "Card Game"
« Last post by DeaconKC on Today at 05:18:26 PM »
Deacon throws a busted belt buckle into the pot.
5
The Longbranch / Re: gunoholic
« Last post by DeaconKC on Today at 05:17:39 PM »
Just got most of the van unloaded from the Alabama Sate Championship but gonna have to show this off, a .357 Magnum New Vaquero. Really clean gun.
6
The Darksider's Den / Re: How did we get these "Calibers"?
« Last post by Mako on Today at 03:23:51 PM »
:)  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.

Coffinmaker(onewurd),

It appears the U.S. Navy had 1861 and 1851 revolvers converted after the war.  This is one of them with U.S. Navy markings, including the anchor acceptance mark.



In 1866, the Navy started to sell off their excess inventory of percussion revolvers and by 1873 the only percussion revolvers in the US Naval inventories were .36 caliber M1851 and M1861 Colts. In 1873 the Colt Patent Firearms Company approached the Navy with a potential solution that was low cost and allowed the Navy to upgrade many of their obsolete percussion revolvers to cartridge handguns. General W.B. Franklin, Vice President of Colt, offered to upgrade existing stocks of M1851 and M1861 Navy revolvers to centerfire cartridge via the Richards-Mason conversion system for $3.50 each. In a 10 July 1873 letter to Franklin, USN Chief of Ordnance William N. Jeffers accepted the offer from Colt and noted that he had “…advised the Commandant(s) of the Boston, New York and Philadelphia Navy Yards to send to your manufactory 100, 400 and 300 pistols respectively for alteration.”


Thus began the process by which some 2,097 US Navy owned .36 caliber Colt percussion revolvers were altered to metallic cartridge by the Richards-Mason system. The guns were all altered to .38 Long Colt, and while some sources suggest the barrels were reamed and re-rifled, the reality is that the bores of the guns were not altered, although a few barrels were replaced by Colt due to the poor condition of the bores....The hole in the front of the frame through which the rammer plunger passed was not modified on the M1851 Navy revolvers but was plugged on the M1861 revolvers. A Mason pattern ejector rod assembly was added to the right side of the barrel, consisting of an ejector rod tube, with a spring loaded ejector rod that was tipped with a kidney shaped plunger tip with concentric rings embossed on the front to ensure a good grip while using the ejector rod. Colt refinished the pistols after the alterations were completed.

The US Navy had acquired a total of 3,370 of the New Model Navy revolvers, with the first deliveries being made on September 28, 1861. This delivery was of 200 New Model Navy revolvers to replace an order of M1860 Army revolvers that had not passed US Naval inspection at the end of August 1861.

I never knew how many New Models that Navy had purchased, there were less than a 39,000 total 1861s produced, with about 9% of those officially being accepted by the Navy (many more were in use by individuals or accepted but not going through inspection). I can only guess how many were actually US Navy purchases because of the haphazard and frenzied acquisition during the war.    I have always paid more attention to the .44 Caliber Army models.

By the way I have one of those 1861 Armi San Marco "Richards Type I conversions" in .38 Spl., they just marked the box as a Colt 1861 Conversion.  This is mine below, it was imported by Traditions, I still have the box:


~Mako

7
The Darksider's Den / Re: How did we get these "Calibers"?
« Last post by Abilene on Today at 11:02:46 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.
8
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.
9
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??)
10
The Powder Room - CAS reloading / Re: Reloader 7 in .44-40
« Last post by Sedalia Dave on Yesterday at 09:00:35 PM »
go to the Hodgdon web site they will have data for Accurate as well as other powders.
Hold center
Bunk

Reloader 7 is made by Alliant not Accurate / Hodgdon.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk
© 1995 - 2023 CAScity.com