1871/72 Open top vs 1851/60 Richards Mason conversion

[Warhawk]

1871/72 Open top vs 1851/60 Richards Mason conversion


I've got an itch for something strange to go with my 1866 Yellowboy in 38 Special.

Two local shops sell the Uberti cartridge conversions, but I know nothing about them. They don't look very strong to me, but I would only shoot standard pressure loads in one. And I think I want to stick with a .38 special.

The factory open tops (1871 and 1872) have a tiny rear sight on the barrel, while the Richards Mason conversions use a front bead sight with a notch in the tip of the hammer. I doubt either arrangement is going to be very effective, or even close to hitting point of aim.

Has anyone owned or shot these revolvers that can provide some insight? Is there anything about the factory open tops that would make them preferable to the conversions?

[Trailrider]

While I can only comment on .44 caliber versions, you shouldn't have any problems with the .38's as long as you stick to factory or factory-equivalent standard velocity or even lighter handloads.  As far as POI/POA is concerned, most of these will shoot high unless the modern manufacturer gave you an extra-high front sight. You may need to put on a higher front blade (some may have a dovetailed sight, but if not, you may need to have the blade built up or replaced using silver soldering), or simply learn to aim a bit lower. At CAS distances, it may not make that much difference even with the factory sights. Also, your loads can affect point of impact.

[Long Johns Wolf]

What Trailrider says plus:
The 1860 RM conversion has the bigger Army grip which I prefer.
The 1871/72 OT can be have with the bigger Army grip ("New Model") and the smaller Navy grip ("Old Model").
The 1851 RM has the Navy grip.
I used 1860 RMs and 1871/OTs in .44 Colt cal. in CAS matches for 2 years. Had no issues regarding "fragility of the systems" or tiny sights, but I am an 1860 Army pattern pistol aficionado. These were highly accurate pistols with reproduceable POI at short (CAS) and longer distance (> 50 yards) once the arbor was bottomed out and I did my job.
On the 1851 Navies in .38 Special I owned the ejector rod and the position of the cylinder in the half-cock position was not correct for the ejection of the empties. That is reportedly often found in this type of Ubertis.
All these Uberti conversions and OTs have a beefed-up cylinder/frame/barrel assembly which may offend the purists.
Long Johns Wolf

[Advertising]

[Warhawk]

I should point out that I am not a CAS shooter.  These will just be for fun, plinking, etc.

[Warhawk]

I stopped by one of the local shops today and bought a (slightly) used Cimarron 1851 Navy R-M conversion.

[Abilene]

Warhawk, I have four of those (two 7 1/2" and two 5 1/2") and really love them.  I hardly use the rear sight.  With the lack of a topstrap, the nose of the cocked hammer pretty much lines up with the flat top of the octagonal barrel.  My sight picture is to just put the front brass post on top of the hammer.  Enjoy your new gun.  And by the way, since you are new here, I will mention that when you get a new gun you are supposed to post a picture 

The STORM forum here on CASCITY is dedicated to these types of guns.

[Major 2]

Warhawk, I have four of those (two 7 1/2" and two 5 1/2") and really love them.  I hardly use the rear sight.  With the lack of a topstrap, the nose of the cocked hammer pretty much lines up with the flat top of the octagonal barrel.  My sight picture is to just put the front brass post on top of the hammer.  Enjoy your new gun.  And by the way, since you are new here, I will mention that when you get a new gun you are supposed to post a picture 

The STORM forum here on CASCITY is dedicated to these types of guns.

what he said