I'm lamenting the fact that they are making a 1860 Army Richards Type II conversion in .38 caliber with a non-rebated cylinder. It's just wrong. Another perfect replica of a gun that never existed.
Don't get me wrong. I'm glad Uberti is making conversions. But there are enough conversions available in .38 cal that they don't need to be making the '60 Type II in a caliber that it was never originally chambered for. Using a non-rebated cylinder is just adding insult to injury.
Seth,
If they are making a non-rebated cylinder in .38 without the frame cut then it is an 1861 conversion, not an 1860. The only difference was the standard barrel length, the '61 was 7 1/2" instead of 8"; the cylinder was the non-rebated diameter the entire length and the frame didn't have the corresponding clearance cut for the larger forward diameter. You keep calling it an 1860 Army Richards Type II in .38 with a non-rebated cylinder, Cimarron doesn't call their pistols that, they call them "Richards Transition Models." I guess that name is sort of "correct" as far as a description goes for either an 1860 or an 1861 conversion, they aren't R&Ms.
Your lament about incorrect caliber applies to every factory made conversion pistol you can buy today. You are one of the few that has anything that might be considered the “correct” historical caliber when you obtained your Type 1 conversions. I have a pair of Open Tops in .44, and a pair in .38 spl. but those are not the correct caliber, no one has a modern Open Top in the correct caliber, there hasn’t been rimfire ammunition available since it quit coming out of Mexico and South America. All of the Richards-Masons, Richards Type IIs and Open Tops are “incorrect calibers.” This actually includes the Navy models as well because they are modern calibers as well. Now if you are saying that a .38 special in an Army Model Richards Type II “just aint right,” then I understand. But I have a daughter who is going to shoot a pair of Open Tops in .38 Spl. She might disagree with you.
Now I have to talk to Abilene, because I haven’t seen a Transition Model in .38 with non-rebated cylinders. I looked at a .38 and I’m pretty sure it had the standard Army profile cylinder. I’m with Fox Creek Kid, if they have them I’ll be on them like a chicken on a June Bug. I love the 1861 and would shoot them more if I had a better bullet, the balls are just too small. One in .38 special would allow me to shoot 160 grain Snake Bite Grease Wagons.
~Mako