Do converted c&b 44's have any cracking issues?

[Tornado]

I found this site while researching for my next single action.  I want a short barreled open top of some type.  I was first drawn, like many others, to the Uberti 1872 in 45 colt to match my other revolver and several future revolvers and a lever gun.  After finding this site and reading about the cracking forcing cone, I backed off that choice.  My question is if I got an c&b .44 1860 Pietta, 45c Kirst converter with the gate and ejector would it have the same cracking issues as the 1872?    

[Raven]

Hi Tornado,

In a word .... No  

The cracking problem in the open top is caused by cutting clearence in the bottom of the barrel for a Gas Ring.
Conversion cylinders do not use a Gas Ring.

Raven AKA Jay Strite
Kirst Konverter LLC.

[Tornado]

Thanks Jay,
Funny you answered, I wrote to you at Raven Roost last week about your conversions fitting the Dance & Brothers by Pietta.  That would have been a cool platform to start with.  Right now I am leaning toward an 1860, but I like the navy grips better.  I know it wouldn't historic but an 1861 in .44 would be perfect.

[Advertising]

[Raven]

Tornado,

I like the navy grips as well.
It would take some fitting but you can fit the navy grips to the 1860. The biggest problem would be in finding a set of grips, trigger guard, and back strap that are the same size (fit to the frame) or larger (so that they can be fit) than the frame on your gun.
We may have a set around... I will take a look. And I'm sure someone around here will have the parts.

Raven

[Fox Creek Kid]

They "crack" your wallet. 

[Raven]

Six of one, half a dozen of the other

Ultimatly about the same price as the Open Top and you don't have to pay the transfer fees or deal with an FFL or the background check.

Besides Life Cracks Your Wallet

Raven

[rifle]

I've noticed that with newer made Open Top barrels by Uberti that the milled relief at the bottom of the forcing cone is a good bit thicker than guns I have where the barrels cracked.  I managed to get a few newer barrels and now....with the thicker area the the milled relief to the bottommof the forcing cone the cylinders with the integral bushings don't fit the barrels of my older guns. I guess now I have to turn down the bushings on the cylinders to be very thin.
Anyway...I think getting newer barrels with thicker relieved areas under the forcing cones may mean Uberti has remedied the problem. Looking at a new Open Top and assessing the thickness of the bottom of the forcing cone would calm my concerns about that.
Not doing the FFL thing and having a conversion that goes back to percussion and parts that are actually available and not defective to boot and cheaper would be a good selling point to the Kirst Konverters. The Open Tops I have didn't have any acceptable return policy,all needed (five at least) wedge/arbor slot/barrel wedge slot/cylinder gap/barrel mounted properly work done on them to be proper. That's just my bad luck and doesn't mean all are that way but.....buying from a retailer with a good customer service policy and return/exchange policy is a must with any of the Italian guns. Well....a must with any guns ,even USA made.

[Mako]

Thanks Jay,
Funny you answered, I wrote to you at Raven Roost last week about your conversions fitting the Dance & Brothers by Pietta.  That would have been a cool platform to start with.  Right now I am leaning toward an 1860, but I like the navy grips better.  I know it wouldn't historic but an 1861 in .44 would be perfect.

Tornado,
I think you have the wrong impression.  A Navy grip on an 1860 is not "un-historic."  In fact in the very first batch that went out in 1860 there were small gripped Army models.  Here are two from 1860:







and the second






Samuel Colt was the "King of Customized,"  it is one of the reasons he ran into trouble with the Paterson and had to fold the company.  You could order your pistols almost anyway you wanted, including barrel lengths, grip types, grip frame materials, etc.

Regards,
Mako

[Harley Starr]

(saved for future referrence.)

[Mako]

Tornado,

I like the navy grips as well.
It would take some fitting but you can fit the navy grips to the 1860. The biggest problem would be in finding a set of grips, trigger guard, and back strap that are the same size (fit to the frame) or larger (so that they can be fit) than the frame on your gun.
We may have a set around... I will take a look. And I'm sure someone around here will have the parts.

Raven

Raven,
Your wording may give someone the impression that the Army and Navy grips are different in size where they interface the frame.  I had to read it twice myself.  That being said, on Ubertis you can often mix and match the grips with no fitting required. I haven't tried to change a Pietta grip.  

I do understand exactly what you mean though because I have replaced the steel trigger guards on my Transition Model Army models with the more "authentic" (I should say more common) brass trigger guards.  They were semi-finished and required a cut at the back of the guard where the frame meets the stock and the front strap was left oversize and had to be thinned to fit in the stock slots.

You already know this, but many readers won't, But they either come as parts in the as-cast condition or in the polished but semi-finished condition.  In other words, fitting required and not always minor.  Now if you swap someone a pair of grips already fit to a Uberti frame you might be surprised how often they fit.

I know about the grip interchangeability because I have used Army grips on my 1861s in matches and I have put Navy size grips on a pair of Army models for a friend who wanted to try that out.  He ultimately decided on '71/'71 Open Tops with the Navy size grip instead of percussion pistols.

Regards,
Mako

[Tornado]

Mako those 1860's look great.  Now I have a few more questions.  After looking at some originals, I noticed most of the 1860 conversions have a different barrel lug than the 1861 conversions.  Most 1860's I've seen have an steped shape where they simply removed the rammer, while the 1861's are a line straight from the frame to the barrel, like someone modified it with a grinder.  The loading levers look about the same on both of them as percussion revolvers why the difference when they converted them.  I assume the caliber difference has something to do with it.  How did they alter them, plug the hole and grind to the shape you want?  Can you do this with the repos?
1861:   http://www.collectorsfirearms.com/admin/product_details.php?itemID=34307
1860:   http://www.collectorsfirearms.com/admin/product_details.php?itemID=30269

[Paladin UK]

Ho Tornado
Nice ta see ya postin pard 
That second pistola ya posted................ the seller has got one hell of a good imagination!! or he`s gotta be plain short sighted!!

Colt 1st Model Richards Conversion .44 caliber revolver. Excellent original nickel remains throughout. Excellent cylinder scene and markings. Grips are slightly undersized due to shrinkage. Beautiful original gun! $5,950.00 Item# C5151

  1860:    http://www.collectorsfirearms.com/admin/product_details.php?itemID=30269

Now............... I`m NO expert, but as far as I can see that pistola ain't in  `EXCELLENT` condition, and the cylinder scene... well if thats `Excellent` I just plain dont get it!! I know they are very rare and collectable pisolas BUT theres NO Way I`d pay anything like that amount, the first one however now I reckon thats a real peach and worth every penny!!

The above is just MOHO 

Paladin (What lurvs fairy tales  ) UK

[Mako]

Mako those 1860's look great.  Now I have a few more questions.  After looking at some originals, I noticed most of the 1860 conversions have a different barrel lug than the 1861 conversions.  Most 1860's I've seen have an steped shape where they simply removed the rammer, while the 1861's are a line straight from the frame to the barrel, like someone modified it with a grinder.  The loading levers look about the same on both of them as percussion revolvers why the difference when they converted them.  I assume the caliber difference has something to do with it.  How did they alter them, plug the hole and grind to the shape you want?  Can you do this with the repos?
1861:   http://www.collectorsfirearms.com/admin/product_details.php?itemID=34307
1860:   http://www.collectorsfirearms.com/admin/product_details.php?itemID=30269

Tornado,
I had the Fox Creek Kid set me straight in this.  The 1861 is actually a Richards-Mason conversion even though it has a modified barrel profile taken from the percussion pistols. The Army model R&Ms had a new barrel design, but unless the Kid corrects me I believe the 61s were exclusively the profile you show in the picture you posted.  The 1851s (not '61) used either the original barrel or a newly manufactured barrel barrel without the cut outs as well.  The Uberti reproductions are relatively faithful to both the Army model R&Ms and the 1851 R&Ms, but there is no '61 R&M reproduction currently being produced.

I have an Armi San Marco "1861" conversion imported by Traditions and even Cimarron imported them at one time, but they are not faithful to the streamlined barrel lug shape.  In fact mine actually has a Richards 1st model (sort of) ring and is really a "Frankenstein pistol."  The Fox Creek Kid keeps telling me that there was a toolroom design 1861 Richards 1st model as depicted in McDowells book, but I have refrained from telling him it is actually a "bastard" design as well because even though it has a floating firing pin and the ring with the overhanging lip, it doesn't have the ring mounted sight or even a gate...

The R&M designation really has more to do with the patent and design features.  Ejectors, gates, rings, etc. determine the type.  Colt's just used up what they had.  They finished out barrels originally intended as percussion barrels with the new profile and built up "conversion" pistols.  Not all (and some contend most) pistols were actually conversions.  Many came out of the factory as cartridge guns, actually much like the "conversions" we buy from Uberti.  They were never percussion pistols.

If you look carefully at your posted pictures you'll notice the '61 doesn't have a bored through hole for the rammer assembly.  Some did and were filled.  These are filled lugs:




These have barrels that were never bored for the rammer:








The Army model you show is a Richards 1st Model.  It has a percussion barrel profile (which was standard), a floating firing pin, a ring mounted sight and the lip of the ring overhanging the gap between the ring and cylinder.  It looks like this one also has the earlier helical spring spring on the gate, they later switched to the flat springs to avoid patent infringement.

To answer your question about making a reproduction look like the '61 you have shown, the answer is yes.  It is just filled like the one in the picture above.

Regards,
Mako

[Raven]

Mako, you've been really lucky In my experience and I have swaped quite a few grip frames.. 1 in 5 will fit without work and thats on Uberties.. more like 1 in 20 on Piettas. And the square back trigger guard and backstraps are completrely different than the round triggerguard sets .... they will not mix and match.
A lot depends on the workman who did the final fitting.. everyone does it different
The barrel lugs on 1860's and 61's are all different which is why we leave extra metal on the ejectors..we also leave a little extra metal on the "foot" of conversion rings so that the can be fit to the individual revolver as every frame is different.

We are currently building a small batch of Thuer conversions and I suspect the reason Uberti droped the project is that each conversion ring must be hand fit to the revolver... no way to make it a drop in due to the varience from frame to frame.

I wish I had your luck as every grip frame I have swapped has been a royal pain!   Can't screw up a customers colorcase.

Raven

[Mako]

Raven,
That is about the only thing I have been able to swap and the fit isn't the line to line that you would require before sending it out to a customer. It was good enough to shoot and I've seen some factory fits almost as bad.

I haven't had that success with anything else on a Uberti, I've had issues with firing group components, firing pins for conversions or Open Tops, and other small parts.  Haven't yet been able to swap a barrel from frame to frame, cylinders aren't interchangeable.  Everything is close, but they are not interchangeable.   I tried to cobble up one of those "kit guns" on the Open Top frame and I realized it was going to require some machining to get it actually right.

Back to the grips, the amount of fitting after swapping a grip out would be minimal and on the four I have swapped intentionally it wouldn't require any alteration of the frame, it was just a wood and brass proposition for the most part, the backstraps even matched up to the rear of the frame pretty well.

I will tell you that I once accidentally swapped the grips on one of my pair of competition '60s for maybe as long as a month and didn't notice.  I break them down in pans and keep the parts separated by pistol, but I goofed up with the grips.

Somehow I swapped the backstrap and stocks, the trigger guards stayed with the right frame probably because I rarely clean the backstraps and the stocks so I must have set them on the bench  The trigger guards require major monthly cleaning, you'd be amazed at the junk including cap fragments I find inside the frame when I pull the trigger guards .  I noticed the swap at the end of the second month when I stripped them down for a total cleaning.  I know it was about a month because I do a full strip clean after the 4th Saturday match.  I have marked all of the parts including the stocks on the inside now to avoid future swapping.  The only thing I don't worry about are theTreso cones, I soak them all together for a few days and finish in an ultrasonic cleaner.

I don't know about being lucky, well maybe I have been fortunate with the grips, everything else has been a minor gunsmithing escapade.

Regards,
Mako

[rebsr52339]

Mako, just thought I would give a heads up that I found and purchased "another" ASM .38 Conversion. I will post the pair when it gets here next week. It has had only 10 rounds thru it. Am I happy or what 

[Tornado]

Thanks guys for all the information!   I will slowly start collecting parts this summer as funds allow. 
My shopping list:
1860 Pietta .44 - for barrel
1851 Pietta .44 - for grip and frame
.45 Colt Kirst Converter and ejector
then break out the Dremel!

[Mako]

Thanks guys for all the information!  I will slowly start collecting parts this summer as funds allow.  
My shopping list:
1860 Pietta .44 - for barrel
1851 Pietta .44 - for grip and frame
.45 Colt Kirst Converter and ejector
then break out the Dremel!

Tornado,
I was going to tell you hold on and not buy an 1851, but after digging up some prices for you it it may in all absurdity be your best option.

You only need:

• Pietta 1860
• Kirst Converter
• Kirst Ejector
• Navy Trigger Guard
• Navy Back Stap
• Navy Grip

But these are the prices even for unfinished parts at VTI

• P/N 680   Navy Trigger Guard  $16
• P/N 679   Navy Back Strap  $14.50
• P/N A889   Navy Grip   $35

http://www.vtigunparts.com/store/shopdisplayproducts.asp?id=66&cat=Pietta+1851+Navy

In fact Cabelas has the 1851 with a brass frame and in .44 caliber for $149.  You actually don't need it to be .44, the frames are the same as far as the grips are concerned between the '51, '60 and '61, caliber has no bearing in the matter for the grips.  But, follow my logic because you could make a whole new category of Army model.  If you swapped out the grips for the longer Army grips no one would notice, it's already a "platypus" gun with the .44 rebated cylinder and even more so with the brass frame.  I'll bet you could get someone to pay $125-$135 for it with the Army grips new and unfired.  

In fact I am amazed at how many people are buying the brass framed guns and especially in .44 cal. You could call it an 1851 Army model and we'd be reading about it a week later as the "lost" design of Samuel Colt.   Someone actually was wondering why they hadn't made '51s in .44 not that long ago.  But you could spice it up a bit and call it a "Confederate 1851 Army model."  Was that your plan?

~Mako

[Tornado]

Yea I looked at but the parts only, but when I compared it to buying a complete gun, I could sell the extra pieces or make another "platypus" with the remaining parts and sell it.  I haven't decided if I should get the brass '51 for $150 for the grips(maybe keep the barrel also) and selling the frame and cylinder.  Or get the steel '51 civilian for $230 and use the grip and the frame(no fitting issues) with the '60 barrel on it and parting out the rest of the '60.  It sounds silly to buy a whole gun for just a barrel but the barrel cost $125 and the whole gun is just $200.
There is a difference beteen the .36 and the .44 frame isn't there?  I couldn't use the .36 steel frame '51, right?

[Raven]

Tornado,

Simple answer is you gotta go .44 to .44

Buy one of the Pietta Bastard .44 Cal 51 Navies and swap a 60 barrel onto it

Raven