Steel Hayes
Member
I've never seen (on an original) the .44 stamp by the trigger?
These are from an original,
You be the judge.
These are from an original,
You be the judge.
Is this a legit 1860 Army?
- Thread starter Jimkounter
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 1860 army
- Status
arcticap
Member
Here's a civilian model that's clearly stamped "44 CAL".
Click on the magnifying symbol in the top right corner and see photos #4 & #5 of 11 total:--->>> https://www.1898andb-4.com/guns/colt-1860-army-civilian-model/
To be honest, I've never noticed that stamp before either, and others either don't have it or perhaps it's worn off.
It's retail price is nearly $4,000 due to its condition, and was made in 1868.
Last edited:
Joe Bleaux
Member
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2019
- Messages
- 9
Anyone interested in numerous pictures and the wide range of retail prices of 1860s from a dealer known for such firearms should check out Collector's Firearms' website, collectorsfirearms.com (I have no interest in the business whatsoever other than knowing them from a customer standpoint). Look at both the current offerings and the archives. As to the caliber marking, such a marking on an 1860 is consistent with a potentially correct 1860. I am not making nor will I make any comment - good or bad - on the markings shown in the OP's pictures. And I stand by my opinion: if I were the OP, and especially faced with the law apparently covering him and that gun, and could return the gun pictured for a refund, that is what I would do.
Is the auction house a reputable one ?
Would the auction house face considerable legal risk for selling an unlicensed firearm ?
Does it have gain twist rifling of the type consistent with the firearm of that period?
If it does wouldn't that be rather expensive to reproduce requiring considerable skill, work, and time?
Is it likely that the person/persons having the skills to make such a reproduction would create a reproduction with a refinished (ruined patina etc..) look that would severely diminish it's monetary value?
Would the overall work and effort required to so closely duplicate the parts as to make discerning them from originals difficult exceed the asking price or come too close as to make such an endeavor non profitable ?
Could it have been cobbled together using both old and modern reproduction parts ?
Which parts are or may be modern reproductions ?
In in England what part of the gun is considered the firearm ?
In America it's the frame, provided that the State you live in doesn't consider other parts to be as well. I have read in other countries barrels are regulated. The part that is considered a firearm in England (UK) may be what determines if an antique cobbled together using some (or a lot ????) of modern reproduction parts is legal or not depending on if any of those modern parts are restricted.
Does the UK restrict every modern reproduction part ?
Would possessing this put you in a murky grey legal area that could get you charged by prosecutors eager to resolve and clearly define said matter to the benefit of the government in a court of law ?
Could it have been an attempt to create a forged (fake) mint condition Colt that fell short of the forgers standards (a forgers factory second LOL ?)
I wonder if there is a quick easy test that can determine if the steel has any modern ingredients in it or perhaps a lack of ingredients present in older steel and/or iron. It would be nice if someone came up with one or is there already a way. Maybe someone can chime in with something helpful.
I will agree that there are a lot of questions here.
Off topic and pure conjecture I remember reading somewhere that in Great Britain self defense does not excuse someone from an assault charge. If this is true it does not give me a comforting impression of overall fairness in her justice system.
Would the auction house face considerable legal risk for selling an unlicensed firearm ?
Does it have gain twist rifling of the type consistent with the firearm of that period?
If it does wouldn't that be rather expensive to reproduce requiring considerable skill, work, and time?
Is it likely that the person/persons having the skills to make such a reproduction would create a reproduction with a refinished (ruined patina etc..) look that would severely diminish it's monetary value?
Would the overall work and effort required to so closely duplicate the parts as to make discerning them from originals difficult exceed the asking price or come too close as to make such an endeavor non profitable ?
Could it have been cobbled together using both old and modern reproduction parts ?
Which parts are or may be modern reproductions ?
In in England what part of the gun is considered the firearm ?
In America it's the frame, provided that the State you live in doesn't consider other parts to be as well. I have read in other countries barrels are regulated. The part that is considered a firearm in England (UK) may be what determines if an antique cobbled together using some (or a lot ????) of modern reproduction parts is legal or not depending on if any of those modern parts are restricted.
Does the UK restrict every modern reproduction part ?
Would possessing this put you in a murky grey legal area that could get you charged by prosecutors eager to resolve and clearly define said matter to the benefit of the government in a court of law ?
Could it have been an attempt to create a forged (fake) mint condition Colt that fell short of the forgers standards (a forgers factory second LOL ?)
I wonder if there is a quick easy test that can determine if the steel has any modern ingredients in it or perhaps a lack of ingredients present in older steel and/or iron. It would be nice if someone came up with one or is there already a way. Maybe someone can chime in with something helpful.
I will agree that there are a lot of questions here.
Off topic and pure conjecture I remember reading somewhere that in Great Britain self defense does not excuse someone from an assault charge. If this is true it does not give me a comforting impression of overall fairness in her justice system.
Last edited:
Jimkounter
Member
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2018
- Messages
- 23
Update! So I disassembled it. I can confirm that the barrel has gain twist rifling (see below). The mainspring looks relatively new however it could easily be a replacement.
One thing to note, the backstrap screws are completely interchangeable with those on my Pietta 1851...I'd have expected the thread pitch to be different. Having said that, the wedge screw from the Pietta also fits perfectly in the Colt Army barrel , so I dunno. Here's loads more pics.
How do I check the screw pitch so see if it's metric or not?
One thing to note, the backstrap screws are completely interchangeable with those on my Pietta 1851...I'd have expected the thread pitch to be different. Having said that, the wedge screw from the Pietta also fits perfectly in the Colt Army barrel , so I dunno. Here's loads more pics.
How do I check the screw pitch so see if it's metric or not?
desidog
Member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2008
- Messages
- 2,595
If the metric pietta’s threads fit... you can’t acquit. The frame is Italian.
However, in the UK isn’t the barrel considered the main part? If the barrel is original, then I suppose the auction description isn’t totally off... but that’s splitting hairs. Disingenuous at best.
I wouldn’t want to pay antique prices for a new non shooter.
However, in the UK isn’t the barrel considered the main part? If the barrel is original, then I suppose the auction description isn’t totally off... but that’s splitting hairs. Disingenuous at best.
I wouldn’t want to pay antique prices for a new non shooter.
Jimkounter
Member
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2018
- Messages
- 23
I'm sure the barrel is original (much fainter stamps, gain twist rifling) but this also accepts a modern Pietta screw so it could have been retapped in the recent past. My current thinking that we have an antique barrel and hammer on a modern frame. The wood grips also look very new and on the inside of the grip is a pencil number that doesn't tie up with the serial number of the gun. This is turning out to be very interesting!
RWMC
Member
One gets so sick and tired of hearing about outlandish laws and penalties for such things as ownership of a black powder revolver! Thank God we still have some liberty here in these United States of America! Sorry for the rant but I get so sick and tired of the gun haters and the baby killers and the tree huggers getting the upper hand so often.
Jimkounter
Member
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2018
- Messages
- 23
Some quick research determines that not just the barrel is determined as a firearm. The Crown Prosecution Service guidance is below:
308, CA states that the component part of a prohibited weapon is itself a prohibited weapon. Although there is no statutory definition, the Home Office Guidance to the Police at paragraph 13.70 states the following:
The term "component part" may be held to include (i) the barrel, chamber, cylinder, (ii) frame, body or receiver, (iii) breech, block, bolt or other mechanism for containing the charge at the rear of the chamber (iv), any other part of the firearm upon which the pressure caused by firing the weapon impinges directly. Magazines, sights and furniture are not considered component parts.
Therefore a replacement frame, which this seems to be, would put this as a section 1 firearm and not therefore exempt under the obsolete calibre rules.
I'll definitely be returning it to the auction house for a full refund.
308, CA states that the component part of a prohibited weapon is itself a prohibited weapon. Although there is no statutory definition, the Home Office Guidance to the Police at paragraph 13.70 states the following:
The term "component part" may be held to include (i) the barrel, chamber, cylinder, (ii) frame, body or receiver, (iii) breech, block, bolt or other mechanism for containing the charge at the rear of the chamber (iv), any other part of the firearm upon which the pressure caused by firing the weapon impinges directly. Magazines, sights and furniture are not considered component parts.
Therefore a replacement frame, which this seems to be, would put this as a section 1 firearm and not therefore exempt under the obsolete calibre rules.
I'll definitely be returning it to the auction house for a full refund.
That is terrible. I hate the total disregard by the seller for the consequences such a sale could impose on the buyer. It seems the seller does not care enough about what kind of trouble he and/or she can get into for selling this. It's a sobering reminder to me that people with a self destructive personality can bring others down with them.
PS the way those British laws are written seems to give them very broad leeway as far as deciding the criteria for pressing charges and if the judges are anything like judges in NY (and they probably are) they would be eager to uphold most charges.
PS the way those British laws are written seems to give them very broad leeway as far as deciding the criteria for pressing charges and if the judges are anything like judges in NY (and they probably are) they would be eager to uphold most charges.
Last edited:
theotherwaldo
Member
The most commonly overlooked tell-tale is the grip irons. If you pull the grips and examine the irons then you can tell what molding or forging techniques were used in making that gun. If they are smooth-sided and fit the grips properly then they are properly original. If they show circular casting and vent marks on the sides then they are modern. If they are ground down and the grips are a loose fit then the irons may be original.
- Status
