Old Colt - UPDATED - What is it? Image Heavy

[oink]

Well they do look very thin!

 

[DWalt]

Adler’s book gives SNs for the Richard Type I conversions as being within the range of 167000 to 200614, in the 1860 percussion series. Check. Also, it indicates that only the Type I conversions were made with 12 cylinder stops, described as “the rarest examples”. The number of those 12-stops made is not stated. Seems to me that describes the revolver in question. Also stated is that some Richard conversions were made outside the Colt factory by private gunsmiths. Whether any of those had 12 stops was not stated. Distinguishing characteristics of the Richard Type I conversion are given as: Integral rear “V” sight cast cast into the top of the breechplate; An internal firing pin; and, A 1/32” overlap of the cylinder at the breech.

That is all the information I can provide.

 

[oink]

Thanks. Well this one clearly doesn't have the cast V sight or an internal firing pin.

So what is it?

 

[AJ]

Thanks. Well this one clearly doesn't have the cast V sight or an internal firing pin.

So what is it?

Did you ask on the Colt Forum?

 

[DWalt]

Thanks. Well this one clearly doesn't have the cast V sight or an internal firing pin.

So what is it?

A possibility is that it could be a Richard conversion done outside the factory. The Colt Forum would probably be a better source to produce an answer. I know a lot about Colts, but only those of the 20th Century.

 

[StrawHat]

Not a twelve stop Richards. The plate is wrong, no rear sight and it does not overlap the cylinder. I can not see the face of the hammer but it should be flat with a spring loaded firing pin in the conversion ring. Also the frame lug is not correctly shaped for a Richards. And the biggest give away is the tube around the ejector rod is too close to the fron edge of the cylinder.

I have two ASM replicas of the Richards conversion. They are not perfect but closer than the OP’s to an original.

Here you can see the length of the ejector tube, the shape of the frame lug and the rear sight. You can also see that ASM chose not to have the conversion ring overlap the cylinder.

This image shows the rear sight, flat faced hammer and rebounding firing pin.

Kevin

 

[DWalt]

That points to its being a non-factory Richard conversion performed by someone who took liberties with the factory design details. But that does not in any way suggest that it is undesirable and has no collectible value. Someone who knows much more about Colt C&B conversions should be consulted.

 

[oink]

Yes, I've posted on the Colt forum. I've received a number of responses. The responses are similar to what has been received here. Just what it is exactly appears to be still unknown.
Old Colt? conversion? | Colt Forum

 

[DWalt]

Not a great deal of additional ID resolution from the Colt Forum. But it does seem more highly probable that it is a non-factory Richard conversion of a legitimate 1860 performed by an unknown maker. Even though there is no pedigree, I’d guess that many collectors of Colt revolvers from that time period would be interested in it. This is a good overview of how the conversions came to exist: GUNS Magazine Colt's Cartridge Conversions - GUNS Magazine
BTW, the metallic .44 Colt cartridge used in the conversions was much like the later .45 Colt, but a little shorter, and it used a heeled bullet. I have seen a few of the Italian knockoffs at gun shows, and came very close to buying one back in the pre-Covid days. I believe someone was making .44 Colt ammunition, as the revolver I nearly bought came with a full box. But I do not remember who made the ammunition.

 

[StrawHat]

BTW, the metallic .44 Colt cartridge used in the conversions was much like the later .45 Colt, but a little shorter, and it used a heeled bullet. I have seen a few of the Italian knockoffs at gun shows, and came very close to buying one back in the pre-Covid days. I believe someone was making .44 Colt ammunition, as the revolver I nearly bought came with a full box. But I do not remember who made the ammunition.

For the original conversions to 44 Colt, yes, they did use the heeled bullet and a bored through cylinder. The ASM conversions to 44 Colt used a modern version of the cartridge with an inside lubed bullet and a 43 caliber barrel. I size my bullets to .430 and load them over as much 3f as I can fit in the case. Not a bad load but not as much as the 45 long Colt. Less recoil also.

I have to believe ASM chose this route knowing that very few would chose to Load heeled bullets. When Uberti introduced their version of the conversions they increased the size of the frame, cylinder and barrel so they could chamber it for the next 45 long Colt cartridge. Again as a convenience to the modern shooter. There were no conversion done originally to 45 Colt. That cartridge was introduced in the Colt Model P in 1873. The size difference in the revolvers is small but noticeable. Unfortunately, it Carrie’s over into all the revolvers that use the same frame.

Kevin

 

[DWalt]

Seems to me that the Italian replicas should have been chambered and barreled for the .44 Special. Would probably have had more customer appeal. The .44 Colt actually was an official US military cartridge for a couple of years, until replaced by the .45 Colt and the .45 Schofield.

 

[BigMuddy]

Some Italian replicas are indeed chambered for 44 Special. Those guns will also chamber and fire “modern” 44 Colt.

True that 44 Colt was used by U.S.Military. I once handled a US marked 1872 open top so chambered.

Dan

 

[StrawHat]

Seems to me that the Italian replicas should have been chambered and barreled for the .44 Special. Would probably have had more customer appeal. The .44 Colt actually was an official US military cartridge for a couple of years, until replaced by the .45 Colt and the .45 Schofield.

The Cowboy shooters were in love with the 45 and the replica industry even made rifles for them. They also made some in 44 S&W Special but for each 44 imported there were probably 20 45s brought in.

Kevin