Cimarron 1860 Richards-Mason Conversion

[sirdutch]

I was wondering which of the two replica Cimarron revolvers would be the more historically accurate.The choices are the 1860 Richards-Mason or the 1860 Richards type 2 as shown on their site. I have included the Cimarron link to clarify things.

http://www.cimarron-firearms.com/conversion-revolvers/1860-conversions.html

I am leaning towards the .44 Colt chambering. However, the 38 special would be cheaper to shoot, Still, the .44 Colt seems the way to go. .45 long Colt is offered by other manufacturers but there seems to be a controversy as to the safety of that caliber due in part to the barrel bore and the claim that the bore is actually a tad too small. Seems to me that would be an easy fix in design at the factory but I've seen some posts on the matter.

Thanks for any comments anyone might have.

 

[AethelstanAegen]

.45 long Colt is offered by other manufacturers but there seems to be a controversy as to the safety of that caliber due in part to the barrel bore and the claim that the bore is actually a tad too small. Seems to me that would be an easy fix in design at the factory but I've seen some posts on the matter.

I have the Type II in .45LC. I considered getting it in the more accurate .44Colt, but the availability of a Lee Classic Hand loading set in .45LC made it much, much easier for me to get into reloading (and thus to be able to shoot the pistol for cheaper and more often). For what it's worth, I've had no problems with mine due to the .45LC; I did need to replace a spring, but that was my own mistake and Cimmaron replaced it no problem). You want to avoid the super, super hot .45LC loads (but you need to do that with any open top design anyways). It's an awful lot of fun and I think it has a very classy look. For what it's worth, both Richards conversions offered by Cimarron are based on firearms that did exist, so in terms of the accuracy it's kind of a wash between the two models. I liked the look of the Type II better, so that's what I went with.

 

[Onmilo]

The cimarron uberti .44 Colt is nothing more that a .44 special "Short". You can make brass using .44 special cases and a tube cutter & they can be handloaded using .44 russian dies.
I use 4 grains of Winchester 231 under a 215 grain cast lead cowboy bullet sized at .430" in my 1872 open tops and as a bonus, these guns will also chamber .44 russian rounds just fine.

 

[CraigC]

Aesthetically, I prefer the Richards Type I and II with the sleek percussion barrel. Practically speaking, there is little difference. I do like the .44Colt chambering. While it uses modern inside lubed bullets and a nominal .44Spl bore, it's as close as we can get without having to fool with heeled bullets.

The cimarron uberti .44 Colt is nothing more that a .44 special "Short".

The .44Colt also has a smaller rim and must use a different shellholder. Starline brass with the proper headstamp is readily available so I see no reason to make it from .44Spl. The sixgun will probably have .44Spl chambers anyway, my Type II does.

 

[Onmilo]

CraigC Good observations and i will address them.
.44 Colt cases do indeed feature a smaller rim diameter, .466" verses the Russian diameter of .494"
I use Lee #1 shellholders for the Russian case and #6 shellholders for the .44 Colt cases.
Because I also shoot .44 Special and .44 Magnum and have lots of split brass, it makes sense to me to recycle these cases in .44 Colt or .44 Russian when they split. Bonus economy.
I do not turn the rims of the .44 Specials down when I recycle and must keep them seperated from my actual .44 Colt cases, however, they size and load exactly the same except for using the #1 shellholders in place of the #6 shellholders.
The measurements are taken from examples of Starline brass and Winchester .44 Special brass and rounded.
Because of the current state of unavailability, it may be hit or miss in obtaining actual .44 Colt cases but .44 Magnums especially, are still available in shootable quantities and are also usually cheaper than .44 Colt cases, go figure.
The 1872 is a straight wall cylinder of 1.62" in diameter while the Richards type revolvers use a rebated cylinder of the same 1.62" at the rear and a larger 1.78" at the front half.
What this means is that both the Richards type revolvers and the 1872s readily accept .44 Russian/Special size cases.
As a matter of speculation since I do not have a newer type of these revolvers available to measure and since they now offer the gun in .45 Coplt caliber. I would not be suprised to find that the cylinder diameters is even larger now than it was when my very early guns were introduced.
Gratuitous gun porn follows.

 

[CraigC]

I agree on cutting split .44Spl or Mag brass for Colt and Russians. What I meant was that I would not set out to make .44Colt cases when they have been readily available every time I've needed them. No, we don't need the smaller rims in the new guns because the cylinders have been enlarged to accommodate the .45Colt.

I just got another 500rds of .44Colt brass from Graf's:
http://www.grafs.com/retail/catalog/product/productId/17838

Whereas all .44Spl and Mag brass is out of stock but they have Colt and Russian. My advice would be to buy all you can while it's available.

 

[sirdutch]

Thanks for all the info gents! It is appreciated!!!!