The Navy has arrived................

[Armored farmer]

I visited a friend in Florida this past week who is very much "into" open top conversions.
I must say, it's quite contagious


The "Avending Angel" is a .22 rim fire conversion.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

Nice Pistol.

I suspect Uberti fudged the dimensions a little bit in order to chamber the 45 Colt cartridge.

I have been keeping it under wraps for several months, but my project for spring, when the weather gets warm enough, is to cast up some heeled bullets for the Colt Richards conversion I bought a few months ago. This revolver was chambered for the 44 Colt cartridge, which was a centerfire cartridge designed to be fired in revolvers with the chamber and barrel dimensions of the 1860 Colt Cap & Ball revolvers. Using a heeled bullet with the same outside diameter as a 44 caliber ball, the cartridge case was the same diameter as the bullet. About .451. When the 45 Colt cartridge was developed it used a more conventional .452 to .454 bullet that slid inside the cartridge case. Case diameter for the 45 Colt cartridge is on the order of .474 to .480.

Here is my Richards Conversion with four original 44 Colt cartridges that I am not going to fire.

As you can see in this photo, there is just enough room between chambers for the 44 Colt cartridge, it is not big enough for chambers big enough for the 45 Colt cartridge. That's why I suspect Uberti fudged the dimensions a little bit to make their version of the Open Top big enough to be chambered for 45 Colt.

When I bought my Richards conversion I invested in R. Bruce McDowell's extensive book about Colt Conversions.

He states that the Richards Conversion revolver and the Richards-Mason Conversion revolvers both used up existing supplies of percussion parts, modified for the cartridge conversions. When they ran out of original percussion parts, new parts were made. But with the Open Tops, they were made from new parts, not converted parts. Technically, the Open Tops were not a cartridge conversion revolver, they were manufactured as a metallic cartridge revolver.

According to McDowell, the Open Top revolvers were chambered for a 44 Rimfire cartridge. There is some confusion over exactly what the cartridge was, it was the old 44 Henry Flat, but there was a patent issued to George R Stetson for an improvement to the design of the bullet, using a swaged bullet instead of a cast bullet. Some Open Tops were later converted to 44-40 centerfire after they left the factory.

Anyway, I hope you enjoy shooting your new Open Top.

You're going to shoot it with Black Powder, right?

Just kidding.

 

[rondog]

Well, I don't know about all that "correct" and other bs, but I'd sure like to have me one of those 7.5" .45's.....

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Well, I don't know about all that "correct" and other bs, but I'd sure like to have me one of those 7.5" .45's.....

Sorry you think presenting historical information about calibers and other things is 'BS'.

I never said there was anything wrong with modifying an old design for modern cartridges, Uberti has been doing that for many years. I just wanted to add some clarity to Bob Wrights understanding about the dimensions of some of the Uberti replicas.

I sincerely hope you enjoy your 7 1/2" 45 Colt Open Top.

 

[rondog]

Sorry you think presenting historical information about calibers and other things is 'BS'.

I never said there was anything wrong with modifying an old design for modern cartridges, Uberti has been doing that for many years. I just wanted to add some clarity to Bob Wrights understanding about the dimensions of some of the Uberti replicas.

I sincerely hope you enjoy your 7 1/2" 45 Colt Open Top.

Now don't get your undies in a knot, I wasn't criticizing you or anybody else. Merely saying that I'm not as concerned about every little detail of a reproduction firearm being as close or accurate to the original as possible.

Some guys demand unpractical degrees of accuracy in details, I'm one that's just happy reasonable reproductions are even available. And if they're affordable, even better! I just wish I could afford the ones I'd like, it's already quite a list and now this one is on it too.

My wife, however.....

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Some guys demand unpractical degrees of accuracy in details, I'm one that's just happy reasonable reproductions are even available. And if they're affordable, even better! I just wish I could afford the ones I'd like, it's already quite a list and now this one is on it too.

Did you or did you not characterize such details as BS? You are still using terms such as 'unpractical degrees of accuracy', and I do find that to be demeaning.

It may interest you to know that when Uberti designed their versions of the S&W Top Break Schofield and Russian revolvers, the lack of an 'unpractical detail' made them just about useless for shooting with Black Powder. The originals were chambered for relatively short cartridges such as 44 Russian and 45 Schofield. In order to be able to chamber more easily available cartridges such as 45 Colt, the cylinders had to be lengthened to accommodate the longer cartridges. Not a bad compromise, similar to making the cylinders of their Open Tops larger in diameter to accommodate larger, more easily available cartridges, again 45 Colt. Nothing wrong with a little bit of creative engineering to make a modern reproduction more attractive to shooters. However the mistake they made with the Top Breaks was not lengthening the frame the same amount that the cylinders had been lengthened. Most likely to keep the overall appearance of the guns the same as the originals. However in lengthening the cylinders, but not lengthening the frames, something had to give. So Uberti shortened the collet at the front of the cylinder, which is what effectively keeps Black Powder fouling blasted out of the barrel/cylinder gap from collecting on the cylinder arbor. The result was that the Uberti Top Breaks bind up with BP fouling much more than the originals did.

Is that an unpractical degree of accuracy in the details? To the average modern shooter who is only going to shoot Smokeless powder through these guns, yes, I suppose you could say that. However I know a lot of Black Powder shooters who do not appreciate that the subtle design change made it difficult for them to shoot these revolvers for more than a cylinder full or two of rounds before they have to clean it to keep it from binding up. The originals could keep shooting Black Powder, which they were designed for, all day long without binding up.

So my perspective is different than yours.

 

[CraigC]

Now don't get your undies in a knot.....

Well it seems that we were having a friendly back & forth on a subject many of us find fascinating before you referred to it as "BS".

 

[CraigC]

Bob, I'm not sure how we're missing each other on this but I'll try again. For the sake of utmost clarity, I may repeat some things you already know. Please do not take offense.

The 1849 was a straight cylinder .31cal. The 1862 Pocket Police and Pocket Navies were .36cal with rebated cylinders.

Your new sixgun:
Is a replica of Colt's first big bore cartridge revolver. While the term "open top" gets used as a generic term to refer to any of the topstrapless Colt percussion guns, it is also used to designate this particular model. Used most often as "1871-1872 Open Top". It was a large frame sixgun built for only those two years. It had an entirely new unitized frame with loading gate designed specifically for metallic cartridges and an unfluted, straight walled cylinder. As opposed to the earlier percussion guns which required a conversion ring installed at the breech. Our replicas are a pretty good representation of the originals, except the chambering, as the originals were .44 rimfire only.

The sixgun in the book:
Is a Richards-Mason cartridge conversion of their small frame Pocket Navy in .38Colt. The book should've referred to it as an 1862 Pocket Navy Richards-Mason conversion. Not an 1872 Navy. And it was incorrect to say that it is not a conversion, because it is a conversion. Whether it was shipped as a new cartridge gun or returned to Colt for conversion after the fact, they're still considered cartridge conversions because they're built on percussion frames, converted to fire cartridges in the exact same fashion. Virtually every percussion Colt of the era saw conversion to metallic cartridges. Colt didn't do any .31/.32 caliber conversions but 1849 frames were used to build new conversions as five-shot .38's by machining the step into the water table.

 

[Bullseye]

Aha! And Oho! So back to my original statement ".......not historically correct."

And, from today' outing:




Some work remains.

Bob Wright

Have fun and be safe. Please tell us how it went.

Thanks for the update on how things went.
Looks like in this case, the 158 gr RNFP load needs working on.
To me the 140 gr looks most consistent, even though you got a tighter group with the 125 gr.

I'd be thrilled to produce either of the other two target results any day.
I'm not a great shot, those would be fine for me.
Wonder what the point of aim would change to shoot out to 15 yds, 25 yds.?
Wouldn't that spread get narrower between POA and POI ?

 

[El Tejon]

Suddenly I want an open top.

Nice pistol, Bob.

 

[Panzerschwein]

I want the new .380 open top from Cimmy.

 

[Gaucho Gringo]

Howdy

Nice Pistol.

I suspect Uberti fudged the dimensions a little bit in order to chamber the 45 Colt cartridge.

I have been keeping it under wraps for several months, but my project for spring, when the weather gets warm enough, is to cast up some heeled bullets for the Colt Richards conversion I bought a few months ago. This revolver was chambered for the 44 Colt cartridge, which was a centerfire cartridge designed to be fired in revolvers with the chamber and barrel dimensions of the 1860 Colt Cap & Ball revolvers. Using a heeled bullet with the same outside diameter as a 44 caliber ball, the cartridge case was the same diameter as the bullet. About .451. When the 45 Colt cartridge was developed it used a more conventional .452 to .454 bullet that slid inside the cartridge case. Case diameter for the 45 Colt cartridge is on the order of .474 to .480.

Here is my Richards Conversion with four original 44 Colt cartridges that I am not going to fire.

As you can see in this photo, there is just enough room between chambers for the 44 Colt cartridge, it is not big enough for chambers big enough for the 45 Colt cartridge. That's why I suspect Uberti fudged the dimensions a little bit to make their version of the Open Top big enough to be chambered for 45 Colt.

When I bought my Richards conversion I invested in R. Bruce McDowell's extensive book about Colt Conversions.

He states that the Richards Conversion revolver and the Richards-Mason Conversion revolvers both used up existing supplies of percussion parts, modified for the cartridge conversions. When they ran out of original percussion parts, new parts were made. But with the Open Tops, they were made from new parts, not converted parts. Technically, the Open Tops were not a cartridge conversion revolver, they were manufactured as a metallic cartridge revolver.

According to McDowell, the Open Top revolvers were chambered for a 44 Rimfire cartridge. There is some confusion over exactly what the cartridge was, it was the old 44 Henry Flat, but there was a patent issued to George R Stetson for an improvement to the design of the bullet, using a swaged bullet instead of a cast bullet. Some Open Tops were later converted to 44-40 centerfire after they left the factory.

Anyway, I hope you enjoy shooting your new Open Top.

You're going to shoot it with Black Powder, right?

Just kidding.

The one thing that never made sense to me was the Richards Conversion revolver and the Richards-Mason Conversion revolvers were chambered for centerfire cartridges where the new Open Top was chambered for a rimfire cartridge. Always seemed like a step back as rimfire cartridges are not reloadable in an era in which a lot of reloading went on. Allthough it is not impossible to reload rimfire(a lot of native americans did) it is much easier in centerfire. Of course after the US Army rejected the Open Top and it's redisign was the famous Colt Single Action Army in .45 Colt centerfire the Open top was relegated to the backwaters of gun history as not that many were ever produced. It endures as being collectable because not that many were ever made.

 

[BobWright]

The one thing that never made sense to me was the Richards Conversion revolver and the Richards-Mason Conversion revolvers were chambered for centerfire cartridges where the new Open Top was chambered for a rimfire cartridge. Always seemed like a step back as rimfire cartridges are not reloadable in an era in which a lot of reloading went on. Allthough it is not impossible to reload rimfire(a lot of native americans did) it is much easier in centerfire. Of course after the US Army rejected the Open Top and it's redisign was the famous Colt Single Action Army in .45 Colt centerfire the Open top was relegated to the backwaters of gun history as not that many were ever produced. It endures as being collectable because not that many were ever made.

During the 1870 period, even the centerfire cartridges were not reloadable ~ centerfire priming methods were still being worked out. The Martin and Benet priming methods were not easily reloaded by everyman. And the cap-and-ball hammers were more easily adapted to rimfire cartridges.

Bob Wright

 

[CraigC]

The idea behind chambering the Open Top for the .44 rimfire was to make it ammunition-compatible with the Winchester 1860/1866 repeating rifles, which Colt thought was the future of the Army. Wasn't so. After trials, the Army rejected the Open Top, wanting a top strap (like the Remington) and an inside lubed (like the .44Russian), .45 caliber cartridge. William Mason designed the Single Action Army .45 in just a few short months and the rest, along with the short-lived Open Top model, is history.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

The idea behind chambering the Open Top for the .44 rimfire was to make it ammunition-compatible with the Winchester 1860/1866 repeating rifles, which Colt thought was the future of the Army.

That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the insight.

 

[BobWright]

The idea behind chambering the Open Top for the .44 rimfire was to make it ammunition-compatible with the Winchester 1860/1866 repeating rifles, which Colt thought was the future of the Army. Wasn't so. After trials, the Army rejected the Open Top, wanting a top strap (like the Remington) and an inside lubed (like the .44Russian), .45 caliber cartridge. William Mason designed the Single Action Army .45 in just a few short months and the rest, along with the short-lived Open Top model, is history.

The Army had rejected the S&W No. 3 because it was a rimfire, in .44 Henry/Colt caliber, wanting a centrefire. S&W's answer was to change the gun to centerfire without changing any cartridge/chamber dimensions, hence the .44 S&W American cartridge.

While the .44 Russian eliminated the heel crimped bullet, I don't believe they were inside lubricated. Cartridges made in Russia at that time are outside lubricated, though not heel crimped. I think it was the Union Metallic Cartridge Co. that developed inside lubrication.

Bob Wright

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

The Army had rejected the S&W No. 3 because it was a rimfire, in .44 Henry/Colt caliber, wanting a centrefire. S&W's answer was to change the gun to centerfire without changing any cartridge/chamber dimensions, hence the .44 S&W American cartridge.

The 44 Rimfire version of the S&W #3 American was quite rare, only about 200 were manufactured in that caliber. Serial #1 was an Army test gun made in that caliber. It is currently located at the Springfield Armory. However the Army did purchase 1000 of the centerfire versions, 800 blued and 200 nickel plated, before purchasing any Colt Single Action Army revolvers. I believe the year would have been 1872, however I am not certain about that. There is evidence some of these revolvers saw service in the Indian wars.

My understanding is the Army eventually ruled in favor of the Colt Single Action Army over more S&W revolvers of the American design because it was perceived the Colt was a more rugged design.