[Desert Scorpion]

Which caliber were 1871-1872 open tops chambered in back in the 1800's. And which is the 1871 and which is the 1872 because I know there is a navy and an army model.

[oneshooter]

The caliber was 44 Henry Rimfire. Don't know about the Army/Navy part.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[Old Fuff]

Following the Civil War, Colt had a tremendous quantity of left over parts for various cap & ball revolvers. The ideal answer would be to use them up making revolvers that could shoot metallic cartridges such as the .44 Henry R.F. that had been developed during he war. The problem was that the Smith & Wesson company controlled a patent that covered boring a chamber all of the way through a cylinder. Unless S&W would license Colt to use this patent they were dead in the water. Back before 1856, when Colt held the basic revolver patents, S&W and inquired about making a revolver. Colt said, “No!” so now Smith & Wesson told they’re competitor in Hartford CT. to go pound sand.

Colt did develop a cartridge system that didn’t require the chamber to be bored through the chamber (Thuer Conversion) but it was complicated and didn’t prove to be popular. Thuer style guns were made on all of the basic Colt revolvers, running from the 1849 Pocket Model through the 1860 Army, using special Colt cartridges.

Colt then began designing better conversions that would use regular RF and CF cartridges, even though at the time they couldn’t build any guns. These included the Richards Conversion (named after C.B Richards) and the Richards-Mason Conversion (named after C.B. Richards and William Mason) who were working for Colts. Revolvers using these conversions were made up using surplus C & B parts, with original barrels and modified cylinder assemblies – again running from the small Pocket Models to the 1860 Army. Colt introduced a series of .38 and .44 Colt CF cartridges, and also chambered some for existing RF rounds.

The 1871-72 Model was yet another conversion with improvements over the previous ones. But it was only made from Feb. 1872 through June 1873. They were chambered in .44 Henry RF, and the last of the open-top revolvers based on earlier caplock revolvers. Some were made using Navy backstraps and trigger guards, while other were assembled with the same parts from 1860 Army’s but had new frames that eliminated a rebated step in the cylinder, and the conversion ring at the front of the breech that was necessary when using a C & B frame.

To further confuse the issue, all went into production about the same time in 1872 when the S&W patent expired. Colt was making all sorts of revolvers using various combinations of new parts, combined with left over Civil War inventory.

Clears as mud ???? I thought so. :banghead:

[Old Dragoon]

Actually Rollin White's Patent (Smith and Wesson were Liscencee's) expired in April 1869. Colt and Remington and every other mothers son were designing and building(gunsmith's) conversions (privately owned) before the expiration date. Per Bruce McDowell's Colt Conversion Book. Remington had 46 RF conversions in the field (Army) for testing as early as 1868. You could produce them but you could not sell them without Rollin White's blessing and the crossing of his palms with money.

[Old Fuff]

The Remington revolvers were produced under license from Smith & Wesson, and thus were "legal." Revolvers made by others that had bored-thru chambers were not, and some of the makers got sued by S&W.

Colt contacted the Army in January, 1871, and offered to referbish and convert 1860 Army model revolvers under the Richards patent. They received an order later that month, and begain to deliver revolvers around August of that year. But by February, 1872 they were also making .44 model 1871-72 revolvers, which were considered to be an improvement over the 1860 conversions.

With the exception of some cap & ball conversion work done for the Army (on 1860 model .44 revolvers) and the Navy (done on 1851 model .36 revolvers) most of the so-called "conversions" were really new guns made up using surplus parts from the Civil War, and produced from 1872 into the early/middle 1880's.

[Franco2shoot]

I love these historical threads.. but there's a term you folks are using that I do not understand.

I own a Pietta open top 1860 Colt, and a Remington 1858, one got the Army grip the other Navy, but can't recall which is which. I have always wanted a Mason-Richardson conversion, just so I could have the era covered from cap-n-ball through cartridge. Noticibly, Pietta and Uberti seem to have shy'ed away from the conversion revolvers, presumably because they are unreliable, or would cost more than the public is willing to spend.. also, I believe the only calibre available is .36 and there seems to be less market for the ..36 than the .44 or the .45 Long Colt cartridge which I favor..

Any words of wisdom as to where I could get a solid Mason-richardson conversion?

KKKKFL

[Jamie C.]

http://www.cimarron-firearms.com/Conversions/images/60-R-M.jpg

1860 Richards-Mason Conversions (http://www.cimarron-firearms.com/Conversions/60-R-MConvOpener.htm)

Cimarron Has a few other conversions as well.
http://www.cimarron-firearms.com/Conversions/images/58NewModArmyConv.jpg
1858 New Model Army Conversion (http://www.cimarron-firearms.com/Conversions/58NewModArmyConv.htm)


J.C.

[Old Fuff]

A "bored-thru" chamber is one where the charge hole goes all of the way through the cylinder (as in modern revolvers) so that a metallic cartridge can be inserted from the back. Cap & Ball revolvers had a nipple or “cone” at the back, so a charge of powder and a ball or bullet had to be loaded from the front.

A man named Rollin White took out a patent on a revolver design that used a bored-thru chamber (but not metallic cartridges) in 1855. Horace Smith and Daniel B. Wesson were pioneers in developing metallic cartridges, and in fact their earlier work eventually led to the Henry and Winchester lever-action rifles as well as modern metallic cartridge revolvers.

In 1856, Smith & Wesson wanted to make a cartridge revolver, but they realized they couldn’t unless they controlled the White patent. So they made a deal with White and bought exclusive rights to manufacture revolvers under his patent.

This deal had a tremendous impact on U.S. history, because for all practical purposes during the Civil War, and early Indian Wars thereafter, Union troops were armed with Cap & Ball rather then metallic cartridge revolvers. Had the White patent not been in place, and under Smith & Wesson’s control, they might have been able to obtain Colt and Remington revolvers that used that same .44 R.F. cartridge made for the Henry rifle. As it was this didn’t come about until 1869 or later.

Today, reproductions of these early cartridge revolvers are made that use the following cartridges – but stick to reduced loads or black powder.

.32 S&W and .32 S&W Long
.38 Colt and .38 Special
.44 Colt
.45 Colt and .45 ACP

[Old Dragoon]

Remington actually had S & W build some of their conversions as they were not set up to do it at the time. A lot of the "Factory" conversion Remy's were in fact done by the S & W Factory. Whitneyville Armory did some under liscence from Rollin White too. Some were converted by Remington and The Armorys for private owners. Rollin White's pattent did not cover individuals from having their own pistols converted by Remington or the armories.

Bruce MC Dowell thought that Remington had their 46 Rimfire Conversions in Army field test without the Rollin White royality being paid because they were not being "sold" only tested, and at the time late 1868 the Rollin White patent was about to expire and it was widely known that Rollin White would not be able to renew his patent, because of all the havoc it caused the Military during the Civil War.

I'm working on an Original 46RF Remington 5 shot Conversion now, it has also been converted to C.F.

It has the original S/N's under the bbl and on the grip frame, then 3 different small numbers on the grip frame, also a Large "B" on the grip frame and the TG. This "B" I believe is the latest conversion to C.F.

The other small numbers (2 are 4 digit in the 3XXXX series and one is a two digit number 4X ) I believe these to be repair numbers and possibly one of these is the factory conversion to 46 RF number. This pistol had all the Sub-Inspector marks on it and was possibly issued in the Civil War before being converted, or perjhaps warehoused, but it was purchased by the Army.

I have never seen this many numbers on a Remy grip frame before. usually the coinversion numbers are found on the hammer, under the TG, on the Grip Frame and under the bbl and behind the recoil shield. This pistol was missing the recoil shield that had been dovetailed into the frame. I made a new one for this pistol, among other work.

The 46 R F Remington conversions could use the 46 RF Long Remington(rifle) cartridge as well as the 46 RF cartridge.

[Steve499]

Ahem! Where's the picture of that piece, Dragoon?

Steve

[Old Dragoon]

I'm afraid to post pictures of this piece, I'm sure the owner doesn't care, but I don't want to be overrun with folks wanting me to replace their lost recoil shields.....ROFLMAO!

I'll try to get some of it before I send it back home.

I fired it today and I think it's the first time this century and maybe last too, that it has been fired. It likes 44 Spcl brass full of BP with the 44 Rem. 248 grn outside lubed bullets. It also likes 44 Mag brass full of Bp with the same bullet. I'll try 44 Russian brass and the same bullet tomorrow.

It does not like 44 Colt brass with 28 grns Bp and the same bullet. She shoots it fine, but forces that brass into the chamber as the rim is too small a dia. Not a bad stick, but a stick in the chamber none the less.

The 46 RF and the 44 mag/44 Special rims are almost the same dia, if not the same and the pistola loves those.

This pistola has a unique firing pin system that I have never seen before. It consists of a flat piece of steel (swing arm) that acts as the rear site (original rear site machined out of the groove) and it is pivoted by a pin through the frame at the rear top of the frame. This arm is about a half inch long and has a firing pin located near the bottom that pivots with the arm into the primer.

This feature made making the recoil shield real interesting as I had to work around that feature. A simple firing pin hole in the recoil shield would not work due to the arc that the arm and firing pin travels. So I had to cut a square window in the area of the firing pin. I was afraid that this would cause the primers to back out. Not the case, as the firing pin and arm keep the primers in place. WHEW!!

I have a little timing work to do on it yet, but She ROCKS!

I want one! An original 46 RF Conversion with the 5 shot cylinder.

[Franco2shoot]

As in I'm a little...
If I take the cylinder out of my Pietta open top I can see where someone that wanted to convert it would need to remove the nipples... but were it me, I would drill from front to back first, then slightly over size the rear so the cartridge would seat. Next you would need a gate along the side, and one would need to replace the hammer so it would strike the edge for a rimfire, or put a point on the hammer for a center fire..

Doesn't seem all that complex, and I'm surprised you could patent the process. Another approach would be for the Gunsmith just to replace the cylinder altogether, as well as the hammer, file a notch in the side. With the new cylinder all drilled out for a cartridge, where's the patent issue?

That's where I'm losing the historical story anyway..

Thanks
KKKKFL

[MrAcheson]

Revolvers made by others that had bored-thru chambers were not, and some of the makers got sued by S&W.Actually they were probably sued by Rollin White. When White licensed the patent to S&W he made two horrible business mistakes. He gave S&W exclusive rights and he was required to defend the patent contractually. The legal fees from defending the patent practically bankrupted him. In order to make some money, he tried to bring out his own revolver, but he actually had to license his own patent back from S&W to do it.

[J.T. Gerrity]

Doesn't seem all that complex, and I'm surprised you could patent the process. Another approach would be for the Gunsmith just to replace the cylinder altogether, as well as the hammer, file a notch in the side. With the new cylinder all drilled out for a cartridge, where's the patent issue?


If you look closely at the conversions shown above, you'll notice that the cylinder has been bored and shortened, with a machined addition to the frame that contains a loading gate, rear sight and recoil shield. This, along with the improved cartridge ejector, is the patented part; kind of like a modern Kirst Konverter.


http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=56375&stc=1&d=1176269615

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=56376&d=1176269648


The Army found the '72 open-top to be accurate and hard-hitting, but convinced themselves that top-strap revolvers were more reliable (???), thus the Colt SAA was born.


http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=56374&stc=1&d=1176268662

[Old Fuff]

Another approach would be for the Gunsmith just to replace the cylinder altogether, as well as the hammer, file a notch in the side. With the new cylinder all drilled out for a cartridge, where's the patent issue?

In another context, Rollin White had patented the feature of having a bored-thru chamber in a revolver cylinder. Smith & Wesson had leased exclusive rights to manufacture revolvers under the White patent. Because of the patent, no one, including the U.S. Government, could legally make revolvers with a bored-thru chamber (necessary to use regular metallic cartridges) until 1869. Colt and Remington patents covered certain features incorporated into the conversion systems they proposed to use after the White patent expired, and the bored-thru chamber became a moot point.

[Onmilo]

It is interesting to note that the 1872 revolvers were chambered for the ".44 Colt's conical bullet rimfire cartridge".
Those that have had the opportunity to try have found that most all the surviving Colt 1872 revolvers are not capable of chambering the ".44 Henry rimfire flat nose cartridge."
Those that can usually show evidence of non factory gunsmith alteration.

I believe Colt Firearms being Colt firearms intentionally made the guns dimensionally different so that the owner had to buy the proprietary Colt cartridges and this little trick made the guns not so popular with frontiersmen who wanted interchangeability in their firearm cartridges.

It is the same reasoning that had Colt introduce the ".45 Colt" cartridge, a cartridge that no other manufacturer would or could offer for years after it was introduced.

Shooters of that time saw metallic cartridges as revolutionary and convenient.
Colt Firearms saw metallic cartridges as just another way to capitalize on the market.

[Old Dragoon]

Old Fuff,
All the gunmakers COULD make and develop Metallic Cartridge Guns and they did, they just could not SELL them! White 's patent didn't hinder the production or the conversion, just the rights to market them. That is why the Military was so against White's patent being extended...along with all the gunmakers and their distributors. Simply because White tied up everyone and hindered handgun progress during the Civil war. I read somewhere that there had even been an attempt on White's life. The thinking being that if he were dead then the patent was dead as well. Faulty logic I'm thinking.

[Old Fuff]

All the gunmakers COULD make and develop Metallic Cartridge Guns and they did, they just could not SELL them!

Absolutely true! That's why I said:

Colt and Remington patents covered certain features incorporated into the conversion systems they proposed to use after the White patent expired, and the bored-thru chamber became a moot point.

There is a story that I can't confirm, to the effect that President Grant made it clear that if Congress passed a patent extension he would veto it in the national interest. Colt had informed him that if the patent was extended they might be forced out of business, and the government would lose the Colt Armory as a manufacturing facility during wartime or other emergencies.

Even so, White unsuccessfully continued to lobby for an extension as late as 1877.

[Old Dragoon]

I believe that Statement about Grant was true per McDowell's book.I believe he says that very thing. (I'll have to go back and read up on it)He goes into some of that and the uproar about not extending the patent and why. That is the part where he says he believes that Remington had their 46 RF's in the field before the patent was over, and that they were not royality paid items, because they were for "Test" purposes. I think Remington and the Military in Cahoots in that scheme. Remington produced the 46 RF Long for their rifles and I'm sure supplied the round to the Army, more than enough for just the rifles....say to equip the 46 Rf's in the field.... Since Convieniently, the 46 RF would chamber and fire the 46 R.F. Long as well as the regular 46 R.F.

Everyone was trying to circumvent Rollin White's patent in any way they could...Legally or Shadily.

[Old Fuff]

Everyone was trying to circumvent Rollin White's patent in any way they could...Legally or Shadily.

They had to if they were going to remain in business. The caplock era was just about over. Metallic cartridges weren't perfect, but they were fast to load and unload - plus waterproof.

Colt had tons of parts they wanted to use up. They couldn't take them as an income tax loss back then. Remington could see big bucks selling a revolver that with a cylinder swap could shoot loose powder and balls, or metallic cartridges - a plus on the far frontier.

[Old Dragoon]

All the makers had tons of parts left over. The Military had thousands of pistols in warehouses of all makes that they needed converted to use the new Cartridges. Lots were sold off as surplus after the war (C & B's) to distributors that wanted them converted also. I must have been a booming business upon the demise of the Rollin White patent.

Somewhere I saw a picture of a Colt Patterson that was converted some fifty years after it was produced. it is the classic picture with the wide cross hatched grips (checkered, but about 1/2 inch between the grooves). Writer surmised that the gun was 50 years old when converted.
Wish I could find that picture again. I thought it was in Mc Dowell's book, but I cannot find it there.

[TallPine]

In another context, Rollin White had patented the feature of having a bored-thru chamber in a revolver cylinder.
That just seems so bizarre to me ... getting a patent for a hole in something. I can't imagine what the patent office was thinking :rolleyes:

[Old Fuff]

That just seems so bizarre to me ... getting a patent for a hole in something. I can't imagine what the patent office was thinking

The hole was part of a bigger application, and what was really patented was what the "hole" would do, or be used for..

But it had a substantial effect on U.S. history of that period. ;)

[Gaucho Gringo]

Old Dragoon, two pictures of the Paterson conversion are in Dennis Adlers book "Metallic Cartridge Conversions" on page 164. One is of the original and the other of the reproduction of it. It also states the original picture was in "Paterson Colt Pistol Variations" by R.L. Wilson & Philip R. Philip.

[Old Dragoon]

Thanks,
By Gum I knew I had seen it in a book I have. I have Dennis' book also. Haven't looked at it lately. Been doing too much research in McDowell's book for other pards.

[Tommygunn]

:banghead: :banghead:
I was at a gunshow today, and saw a great Uberti 1851 Navy conversion in .38SP New. The dealer wanted $550 for it -- but WOULDN'T take a check! Only CASH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!:fire: :cuss:
And it's not like I have this kinda $$$ everyday to spend!!!:scrutiny:

[Old Dragoon]

Go to the ATm and get cash and go back and offer him $500.00 Cash for it and see if he jumps on it. It's worth another trip.......isn't it?

[Old Fuff]

Tommygunn:

Always take cash to a gun show, rather then plan on using a check or credit card. You will always get the best possible price when you lay $$$ on the table, no matter what you are buying. If you don't spend it (I usually don't) it goes back into the bank on Monday.

Unlike your friendly local dealer, the seller at a gun show doesn't know you from Adam. Cash is always a sure thing. Some dealers are setup too do credit card transactions, but usually cash will get you a lower price because of the bank charges.

Next time go loaded... :what: With money that is.. ;)

[Tommygunn]

:D
SUCCESS!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks for the advice Old Dragoon! Unfortunatly ... I wasn't able to get 500 from my stingey ATM ... but I got $400, and we split te difference with a check!
It's a Uberti 1851 Richards-Mason conversion, with a barrel slightly longer than 5.5 inches.
Chambers .38 special. Just got done wiping off the preservative oil.:D

Old Fuff; thanks for the advice; in the future I will attempt to do that. IT was only my short-sightedness this time that caused the problem. Normally, it's lack of $$ that causes the problem.:mad: :uhoh: :rolleyes: I'm sure most people here have experienced that problem!
Oh well ...now off to find some light cowboy loads for my new toy!

[Old Fuff]

I can hardly stand all of this bad news... :rolleyes: Hope you can hold up. :D

If you don't have too much experience with open-top Colt's be careful you don't drive the wedge in too far. It is not suppose to go all of the way to the shoulder on the bottom, and it should just stick out on the other side. Driven too far will ruin the wedge, may crack the basepin at the front, and will often cause the cylinder to rub the muzzle end of the barrel.

Otherwise you should be good to go.

[Tommygunn]

I know. I have a number of repro C & B revolvers, Uberti, Pietta, and some of them are open top Colt designs. This is just the first cartridge conversion I have.
There are slight differences on this than on the C&B. The wedge doesn't have a spring in it, and the wedge screw has a flat side that has to be aligned correctly during dissassembly. See, I read instructions! :p :D

[Old Fuff]

See, I read instructions!

Well don't let the word get out... :what:

[hildo]

One thing surprises me.
Why, during all these years, did the US Army keep buying all kinds of brands cap & ball revolvers when they could have simply bought a metallic cartridge revolver from Smith & Wesson instead?

[Gaucho Gringo]

Because Smith & Wesson did not produce a large caliber revolver at the time. They did not want he US Army armed with .22's fighting against .44's.

[Old Fuff]

Gaucho Gringo:

Ya' need to bone up on your history... :uhoh:

Smith & Wesson introduced their big .44 top-break (rapid loading) No.3 American Model in 1870, at least a year before the others got going. The Army tested, and then bought some of them. They were generally well liked, but because of cost reasons they decided to go with converting some of the substantial numbers of Colt 1860 Army revolvers they had on hand. The U.S. Navy did the same with their model 1851 cap & ball revolvers. The Army also chose to convert muzzle-loading muskets rather they buy new ones.

Meanwhile the Russians discovered the Smith & Wesson, and placed orders so large they dried up any meaningful supply for the domestic western market.

[hildo]

Still... find it strange that during all these years Smith & Wesson never started to produce their own .44 design for the Army as early as possible. If you have no competition this would have meant a huge advantage for S&W. They could have supplied the army during the Cival War eara with big caliber cartridge revolvers. The Shofield was to my knowledge the only big caliber revolver they have made. But why so late? They did make large quantity smaller cartridge revolvers.
Even a single shot cartridge revolver could probably have a higher firing rate than a six shot percussion revolver.
Why would the army not have gone for that instead?

[arcticap]

Maybe the volume of pistols & ammunition required to make a significant difference would have made purchasing such a large quantity of them cost prohibitive.
When resources are scarce, decisions are made based on cost effectiveness and the bottom line.
Since the enemy didn't have them, it's not like Washington was trying to maintain parity (equality of arms).
I wonder to whom and where they would be issued, and would it have created a logistics problem to resupply them in the field with ammunition, parts etc...?
Maybe because they were short range weapons, they were given a low priority in relation to all of the other weapons, goods and payroll necessary to outfit an entire military war/operation.
In the overall scheme of things, how much of a difference would purchasing some of these have made, and how many more would have been needed to make any real difference?
I'm just speculating, but plowing money into one project usually means a reduction in funds somewhere else. So choices were made.
Maybe even who was manufacturering them and who was making the final decision or recommendation about buying them was the deciding factor.
If you were the President (or present) at the table along with the top military "brass" at the time, maybe you too would have readily agreed with the decision to not purchase any of them. :scrutiny:

[Gaucho Gringo]

I assumed we were talking about the mid to late 60's time frame in reference to S&W vs Colt & Remington cap & ball revolvers. !870 & later S&W had a .44, before that no. I stand corrected as to the era .

[hildo]

Done a quick little research, correct me when I'm wrong.
The first metallic cartridge revolvers by S&W were very early, and they are not very scarce. A lot of these little guns still exist today.
Model 1 1857-1860 (.22 short) 11.674 made
Model 2 1861-1874 (.32 rimfire) 120.000 made
1st issue Model 1 1/2 1865-1868 (.32 rimfire) 26.000 made
2nd issue Model 1 1/2 1968-1875 (.32 rimfire) 74.000 made
I have had a S&W 1 1/2 in my hand once, even shot it, however I was not impressed much and would not want to depend on it's (lack of) fire power in a gun fight. .44 cap & ball guns are a different league.

The first serious gun, the .44 Schofield, was introduced in 1870. Very late.
Articap does makes a lot sence with his assumption that it may have been too costly for the army to buy a lot of cartridge revolvers during the civil war time.
However there must have been a lot of civilians who would rather have a cartridge gun. Such a gun may have been more expensive then a cap & ball gun that everybody made at that time, but there are enough advantages to a big cartridge gun that would make it attractive to more wealthy civilians... or maybe not. I'd even say mismanagement by S&W? Think they could have made a lot of money on their Rollin White patent if they had introduced a .44 early on. The demand was there as can be seen since cap & ball revolvers were instantly no longer in demand when the cartridge guns appeared after the S&W Rollin White patend ended.
So it remains a not logical to me that S&W did not offer a .44 cartridge gun, even it would only be for civilian use.

[Old Fuff]

The first metallic cartridges that were introduced in the United States were rim-fires, and the first one in .44 or .45 size that might have been adapted to revolvers was the .44 Henry Flat. It was intended to be used in the Henry lever action .44 rifle and came out about 1861. It had a 200-grain lead bullet and a powder charge of about 26 to 28 grains of black powder, which would match anything fired from a Colt 1860 Army cap & ball revolver. For the record, some of Colt's open-top 1871 model revolvers were chambered for this round, so it was possible that both Colt and Remington could have had the same revolver in production as early as say... late 1862 or early 1863.

So why didn't they?

First and foremost, Smith & Wesson's control of the Rollin White patent.

Second, they were tied up trying to meet the demand for cap & ball revolvers, and really didn't have the capacity to develop, tool and produce an addition cartridge revolver during wartime.

Smith & Wesson was equally tied up with orders for their .22 and .32 revolvers, and had no capacity to add still another model. In addition, S&W’s “tip-up” barrel design was too weak to be expanded to use a larger cartridge. They tried and failed.

Facilities to make metallic cartridges were limited, and it would take time to expand them.

In the far frontier of the American West, percussion caps, powder and lead to mold bullets or balls was easily available. Metallic cartridges of all sizes were not always so, during the middle-later 1860’s and early 1870’s.

Frontiersmen didn’t always have the fixation about cartridge power that’s seen so often today. I have a copy of a buffalo hunter’s journal where he notes that on a trip to Ellsworth, Kansas to sell his hides he traded his old 1860 Army cap & ball revolver for one of the “new” .32 Smith & Wesson’s and a supply of cartridges. The attraction was rapid reloading, and the cartridges were waterproof. Historical accounts suggest that if the above hunter had to settle a shooting argument, the other party would have been hit with a BIG slug from a Sharps rifle, not a smaller one from any handgun.