How did we get these "Calibers"?

[Mako]

Mako,

I had a LEO friend (he was with the PD, I was with the SO) who called the 40 S&W the "38-40 Short, Straight, Rimless, Smokeless". Try stamping that on your duty weapon...lol.

As for the 44-40 designation, I read somewhere that name came from Marlin when they introduced their new short action lever rifle in that chambering. There was no way they were going to stamp "44 WCF" on their rifles/carbines so they came up with the 44-40 name. They even loaded their version with 215g bullets, not the 200g RNFP of the Winchester cartridge. I did in fact read that in a real book, not on the Wicki thing.  (smile)

Dave

Dave,
Marlin got their first patent for a lever action rifle in 1879.  Colt's had been producing "Frontier Six Shooter" that were marked .44-40 two years previous to that.  I'm sure Marlin didn't want the 44 WCF, but Colt's already had given the cartridge a second name in 1877.  Ids there some earlier Marlin in .44-40 that I am not aware of?

~Mako

[Mako]

I went through some of my old paper references. The .38 Long was introduced in 1875. It was avalable as both a heeled bullet with a 0.879 case (130 gr bullet 15 gr BP 770 fps) and as an internally lubed bullet with a 1.017" case (150 gr bullet 18 grain BP 770 fps) both with the same overall length (1.324"). 

The 1878 UMC catalog lists the 38 Short adapted to Colt's B.L. Police Revolver and the 38 Long adapted to Colt's Navy Revolver.  Both are heeled, C.F. cartridges.  The 38 short had a 0.765" case. 

My guess is that only Colt produced the internally lubed bullet and UMC produced the heeled bullet, hence the differentiation between the .38 Long and .38 Long (Colt's).  This would fit in with Colt and the .41 cartridge used in the Thunderer.  It was rifled for the heeled cartridge, but Colt stopped production of the heeled cartridge and only produced the internally lubed version for it.

Frisco,
Yes that is correct, 1875 for the .38 Long, and as you said it was in both flavors.  However Colt's was converting Model '51s and '61s to .38 Colt in 1873.  The Navy sent over 3,000 of them to be converted.  I believe those were the .88" length case.

People are easily confused by markings and not paying attention (or knowing the specifications of things like chambers).  Colt's was bad about marking everything .38 Colt no matter the actual cartridge.  Shorter .88" cases, true 1.03 Long Colt cases, heeled bullets of Ø.375 diameter and internal bullets of Ø.358.  They also had Rimfire cartridges  and Central Fire cartridges.  All were marked .38 Colt from what I have read.  I saw a .38 Rimfire once but I can't remember for the life of me how it was marked for the cartridge type.  If I had to guess I would say it simply was stamped. .38 Colt.  I'll look at my conversion book later maybe it has a picture of one.

~Mako

[Hair Trigger Jim]

Dave,
Marlin got their first patent for a lever action rifle in 1879.  Colt's had been producing "Frontier Six Shooter" that were marked .44-40 two years previous to that.  I'm sure Marlin didn't want the 44 WCF, but Colt's already had given the cartridge a second name in 1877.  Ids there some earlier Marlin in .44-40 that I am not aware of?

~Mako

Mako, are you sure Colt actually marked any guns .44-40 in the 1800s?  I'm aware of the Colt Frontier Six Shooter barrel markings and the little. 44CF mark sometimes found on the trigger guard, but I didn't think Colt marked any 1st gen SAAs .44-40.  But I'm not terribly experienced and am mostly parroting those who know more.

[Advertising]

[FriscoCounty]

Winchester and W.C.F. were trademarked names.  When UMC wanted to manufacture .38 W.C.F. and .44 W.C.F. cartridges they couldn't use the W.C.F. on the head stamp.  Their solution was to use .44-40 or C.F.W. on the head stamp. In the catalog it was listed as 44 Winchester.  The same for the .38 W.C.F. - .38-40 or 38 C.F.W headstamps and 38 Winchester in the catalog. 

By the way the UMC 1882 catalog lists the loading for the 38 Winchester and 40 gr of BP and 160 gr bullet, The 44 Winchester was listed as 40 gr BP and a 200 gr bullet. So, the theory about 38-40 be in reverse is wrong. 

As for why .44 and .38, I have never found a contemporary explanation.  If I were to guess it would be that the .44 W.C.F was replacing the .44 Henry and they wanted people to associate the two.  As for .38, I like the theory that .40-40 was easy to confuse with 44-40.

[Mako]

Mako, are you sure Colt actually marked any guns .44-40 in the 1800s?  I'm aware of the Colt Frontier Six Shooter barrel markings and the little. 44CF mark sometimes found on the trigger guard, but I didn't think Colt marked any 1st gen SAAs .44-40.  But I'm not terribly experienced and am mostly parroting those who know more.

Jim,
That is a good question.  I have seen Gen 1s marked as .44-40, but I actually don't know when they started marking them as .44-40.  This is a Gen 1 below.



But, Colt's was bad about their caliber marking as we were discussing with the .38 Colt.  If someone here is a SAA expert, please chime in.  I have the two book set The Colt single action revolvers: A shop manual--volumes I & II by Jerry Kuhnhausen and  small pocket serial number and feature identifier but I would not call myself a SAA expert.

This is why I enjoy these discussions I get schooled a lot.

~Mako

[Coffinmaker]

   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.

[Abilene]

  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.

[Mako]

  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

[Abilene]

Mako, that's an Army grip, right?  Did it come that way?

[Mako]

Mako, that's an Army grip, right?  Did it come that way?

Yes it did, which is why I bought it.  I have big hands and prefer the Army grip.  I have never seen an original  '51 or '61 with the Army grip but you could order the '60 with the Navy grip from Colt's back in the day.   pbbbbbbb, little girl handed West Point graduates.  I have seen pictures of originals with Navy grips and they had brass trigger guards with brass back straps.  The brass back straps jump out at you when you see a color picture or in a collection.

I have '51s (Leech & Rigdons) and '61s which I can easily shoot with the smaller grips because they are mousegun caliber.  Basically the power factor of a .380 ACP.  The '60 army shooting balls is actually equivalent to a .38 spl. (140gr ball at less than 950 fps by my chronograph...)

I actually like the size of the later Dragoon Grips, I want my pinky on the grip and not underneath it.  I made the mistake of getting one pair of '71-'72 open tops in .38 Spl with the Navy Grips and another pair in .44 with the Army grips.  I wanted an "early model" and a "Late model" I wish they were all Army grips. 

Know anyone who wants to trade a pair of .44 spl (or .44 Colt) with Army grips for a pair of consecutive serial number 7 1/2" barrel .38 spl revolvers with Navy grips?  I don't care if they are Conversion Models or '71-'72s (barrel length doesn't matter). The .38s are very clean and shot very little.

~Mako

[Coffinmaker]

Well Hot Diggity!!  All this time I have been of the impression, Colt didn't convert the 1861s to suppositories.  I will say I have never seen one in captivity nor in the wild.  I also rate the Armi San Marco Richards as some of the best looking and shooting conversions built by any modern Mfg. even if 75% of them were mechanically KRAP.

Coffinmaker

[Mako]

Coffinmaker(onewurd),
I know this is a rather personal question... but, what is your barrel length?

You too Abilene...

~Mako

[Abilene]

I think Coffin "Hacksaw McGurk" Maker (forwards) likes his around an inch and a half, right Mike?  Or to the ejector, sometimes. 

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. Colt made the one tool-room model we have a picture of, with a 7.5" barrel and no loading gate.  But this gun would have been easy to make, even back in the day, just a parts swapper.  Let's say somebody has a '51 R-M conversion, and they blew up the barrel or otherwise ruined it.  You take a '61 barrel, the ejector assembly of a'60 type II should fit, and put them on the Navy frame.  Ta-Da.

I have a matching .44 that is a little more period correct, or at least common. I put Navy grips on it as well since that's what I prefer.  I shoot smokeless Specials and BP Russians in it. 

Oh yeah, to answer the question, 5 1/2" since that's as short as they come.  I do have my Kirst-Strite '61 with a 7 1/2" barrel as well.

[Mako]

I think Coffin "Hacksaw McGurk" Maker (forwards) likes his around an inch and a half, right Mike?  Or to the ejector, sometimes. 

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. Colt made the one tool-room model we have a picture of, with a 7.5" barrel and no loading gate.  But this gun would have been easy to make, even back in the day, just a parts swapper.  Let's say somebody has a '51 R-M conversion, and they blew up the barrel or otherwise ruined it.  You take a '61 barrel, the ejector assembly of a'60 type II should fit, and put them on the Navy frame.  Ta-Da.

I have a matching .44 that is a little more period correct, or at least common. I put Navy grips on it as well since that's what I prefer.  I shoot smokeless Specials and BP Russians in it. 

Oh yeah, to answer the question, 5 1/2" since that's as short as they come.  I do have my Kirst-Strite '61 with a 7 1/2" barrel as well.

I believe I have admired those in person.  They are beautiful Abilene.  and I do like the barrels, including the length.

~Make

[Coffinmaker]

  Well Heck MAKO 

PLUS ONE (mostly) for Abilene.  It is rather well known I have a preference for "Short" barrel guns.  My Go-To Cap Guns are custom built Pietta SNUBBIES with Three-n-Three Quarter inch barrels.  However, since we are considering Suppository Shooters, my normal knee jerk reaction is to cut the Barrels to the Ejector Housing.

My Go-To Armi San Marco conversions were set up this way although most of my "Parts Stash" guns were OEM at 7 1/2 inches.  I only used the 7 1/2 inch guns at match when shooting Josey Wales.  Used the long barrel guns as "rifles."  Still, those ASM conversions were the most accurate SAs I have ever owned.  From a rest, they would shoot a tight "Cloverleaf" real regular.  Was shooting a 125Gr TC bullet with 3.3Gr TightGroup.  Super nice load.

As an aside, my current Pietta 1860 Conversions actually have three sets of barrels.  A set of 1851 Navy pattern barrels cut at the Ejector Housing, a set of 1860 Army pattern barrels cut at the Ejector housing and a set of Eight inch Army pattern barrels just for Ha Ha's.  My Alter Ego, Hacksaw McGurk get the shakes and begins to drool whenever he spies those eight inch barrels     

[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

[Mako]

Abilene,
I have always admired those bright white "new ivory" grips.  I actually pursued getting a pair for a couple of my '60s , but I ran into only finding aged ivory in the Army grips at the time.  I wrote two companies making them and it came to nothing.  Maybe I should pursue it again.

~Mako

[Mako]

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

[Abilene]

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.

[Mako]

Abilene,
I didn't make myself clear.  I know the 1860s and the conversion frames for them are stepped for the .44s and .45s.  I misunderstood you, I thought you added a '61 barrel to a Richards type 2 that was originally in .38 caliber.  I know they make them in .38, I didn't know if the .38spl frame was up sized like the .44s and .45. 

I had this frustrating conversation with someone at Cimarron about 15 years ago and literally drove over to Fredericksburg to figure it out for myself.  As I said thay didn't even have a Type 2 in .38 spl they were confusing it with a Richards-Mason revolver.

So is your '61 Type 2 you created oversize?  It looks like it has a standard '51/'61 frame size. 

• I was hoping they had made the Type IIs that were chambered in .38 look just like the true Richards Type IIs with a stepped cylinder.
• I was hoping all you had to do was put a true '61 barrel on it, but that doesn't make sense now that I read what I just wrote since your picture shows a frame without the step.
• I seems you just added the Navy grips .
• What confuses me is that I have seen pictures (perhaps the wrong photo (I mean right now) of Type II revolvers with stepped cylinders, but they are in .38 special. 

I've confused myself here, help me out.

~Mako