Open Top vs. Cartridge Conversion.........

[BobWright]

There was a considerable discussion regarding Colt cartridge converted revolvers vs. the Open Top. I don't want to start a brouha here, but I'm still not clear on a certain point. Let me illustrate my thinking on the subject.

The original Colt Richards and Richards Mason cartridge conversions were cap-and-ball revolvers that had had parts added to adapt the revolver to accept metallic cartridges. These parts were the breech plate ring with loading gate, and had a new barrel installed with the ejector assembly. Simply put, the conversion parts could be removed and the gun restored to cap-and-ball operation, actually an early "convertible."

The original 1872 Open Top revolver had a frame made to accept metallic cartridges from the start. No amount of parts swapping would make it into a cap-and-ball revolver.

In short, in my mind at least, a converted revolver could revert back to cap-and-ball.

Now, as to the gun from Cimarron, which is an Open Top Pocket Navy, can never revert to cap-and-ball use, hence I claim it is not a conversion.

This is my point of view, and maybe I'm dense on this subject, but what am I missing to refer to the Open Top Pocket Navy as a "cartridge conversion" revolver?

Bob Wright

 

[Jim Watson]

I do not see an Open Top POCKET Navy on the Cimarron www. They list an Open Top Navy with barrels as short as 4 3/4". Which would have been a gunsmith job in the day, Colt only made 7 1/2" and a few 8".
The 1972 Open Top Frontier was offered with both Army and Navy grip patterns but the Navy butt is much less common.

As far as 19th century conversions go, there are two types. There were actual percussion revolvers converted to cartridge. Could they be returned to percussion? I think that would have required a new hammer at least. The Richards hammer was flattened to hit the ring mounted firing pin, the Richards Mason had a firing pin added to the hammer. Were there other changes that would make it difficult to reconvert? I don't know.
Then there were the guns assembled on leftover percussion frames with conversion type cylinders and rings but new barrels without provision for rammers. Some had ejectors, some did not. Could you have rounded up percussion parts and changed those guns to C&B? I don't know that, either.

 

[Curator]

Neither the Richards or the Mason-Richards "conversion" revolvers can be easily restored to cap & ball configuration. Both frames were milled to thin the recoil shield so the "firing pin/breech ring" would work. A C&B cylinder will not reverse this modification. These revolvers were made new from the factory for metallic cartridges, not true conversions..

 

[CraigC]

Your gun is not a Pocket Navy and no such gun exists in factory replica form.

The original guns could not be reverted back to percussion operation. They were not made to be "convertible".

Don't get hung up on the configuration Colt shipped the gun in originally. Whether a gun was made new as a factory conversion from a previously unfinished frame or was converted from a finished percussion gun is irrelevant. They are still considered "cartridge conversions". Because they still "converted" a percussion frame to utilize cartridges with the Richards or Richards-Mason "conversion" methods. Dennis Adler and Bruce McDowell have excellent books on the subject for further reading.

 

[Gaucho Gringo]

Now Remingtons are a different story. There are some that came with both percussion and cartridge cylinders new from the factory, The cartridge cylinders are very similar to the Howell conversion cylinders being sold today.. I also recommend Dennis Adler's book on conversions, the pictures alone are worth the cost.

 

[BobWright]

My head is swimming from all the input regarding what is and what wasn't.

From information from various sources, my Uberti is not made on the 1851 Navy frame, but on a smaller frame. The gun depicted in U.S. Cartridges and their Handguns (which I cited elsewhere) is indeed a cartridge conversion of a Pocket Navy.

In short, the Uberti Open Top Navy is not an authentic replica, as its not made as a conversion. The photo I cited is incorrectly captioned as an Open Top Navy.

The only Open Top (large framed belt gun) was the 1872 Army in .44 Henry/Colt rimfire.

Regrettably, I was pretty dense at the first reading of posts, but now I've seen the light!

Bob Wright

 

[CraigC]

It's hard to keep all the facts straight. It's a highly convoluted subject that has not been written about anywhere near as much as the SAA. I've spent several years pouring over all the information I could gather.

Your "Open Top" is probably slightly larger than the Navy frame, as it was designed specifically as a .44 cartridge gun, without the rebated cylinder of the 1860. The Open Tops were not conversions, as Colt designed a brand new cartridge frame that did away with the need for the conversion breechring.

The "Navy" is in regards to the grip frame, nothing more. There were indeed original guns made that way. Only the chambering and barrel length of your gun are not historically correct.

 

[Dog Soldier]

Any thoughts on the Karst conversions? I have been talking to Mike at Goons about these. It does require machining making the revolvers fall under modern handgun rules.

http://www.kirstkonverter.com/1851-61-colt-navy.html

 

[CraigC]

The Kirst conversions are excellent. Member Hoof Hearted (Gary Barnes) converted my 3rd model Dragoon a few years ago.

No need to involve the ATF, it does not make it a modern gun. They are shipped back as a percussion gun and still function that way. It's up to the user to re-install the Kirst converter to make it a cartridge gun, which takes all of about 30 seconds.

 

[BobWright]

The Kirst conversions are excellent. Member Hoof Hearted (Gary Barnes) converted my 3rd model Dragoon a few years ago.

No need to involve the ATF, it does not make it a modern gun. They are shipped back as a percussion gun and still function that way. It's up to the user to re-install the Kirst converter to make it a cartridge gun, which takes all of about 30 seconds.

Craig,

Wonder if you could find, and retrofit, a Richards Mason barrel assembly, complete with ejector assembly, that would fit your Dragon without much trouble?

Bob Wright

 

[CraigC]

No, everything about the Dragoon is considerably larger. An ejector would have to be fabricated, like the custom gunsmiths who build them do. Jack would probably build one if I asked him to. I usually just carry a piece of ¼" hardwood dowel when I shoot it.

 

[BobWright]

No, everything about the Dragoon is considerably larger. An ejector would have to be fabricated, like the custom gunsmiths who build them do. Jack would probably build one if I asked him to. I usually just carry a piece of ¼" hardwood dowel when I shoot it.

If you leave it unsharpened, those red Coca Cola pencils work very well. Better than those yellow Eagle pencils!

Bob Wright

 

[CraigC]

I've thought about having it modified like the Man With No Name "conversion". The rammer is really two pieces, with the end coming out to form a hand ejector rod.

I put that in quotes because they call it a conversion. While it's made to emulate an 1851, it's actually built on the Open Top cartridge frame, rather than the 1851 Richards Mason cartridge conversion.

A picture will explain it better than I can.