what replicas arent accurate reproductions,and how to spot a fake?


PDA






andrewstorm
April 8, 2012, 08:20 PM
Can anybody school me on italian and other replicas and the most common means of spotting defarbed modern b p replicas?

If you enjoyed reading about "what replicas arent accurate reproductions,and how to spot a fake?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
mb3
April 8, 2012, 08:35 PM
I am certainly no expert but from what I have read none of the Italian reproduction could be confused with an original musket. Their lock dimensions are off as well as the thickness of their barrels. In addition, a good give away for an original is the condition of the wood. It is hard to duplicate naturally aged 172 year old wood.

SleazyRider
April 8, 2012, 09:13 PM
Aren't the Italian reproductions also threaded in metric as opposed to English threads on the genuine article?

andrewstorm
April 8, 2012, 09:35 PM
good point sle z.......:D also the steel is carbonized,

mykeal
April 8, 2012, 10:59 PM
Well, there are bad fakes, good fakes and really, really good fakes. Bad fakes are probably easy: tool marks, poor stamps in the wrong size and font, wrong screws, missing stamps.

Good fakes are going to be the real problem. It'll come down to a 'suspicion', caused by coloration that's 'too good', or maybe the wrong screws, or a serial number you can't quite authenticate. The serial numbers are probably the hardest thing to fix; they're usually deeply stamped and hard to change. Also look for mismatched numbers under the grips or on the cylinder.

Really, really good fakes - you can't tell. They require an expert appraiser familiar not only with guns but with the specific manufacturer and model.

Pulp
April 9, 2012, 12:22 AM
Neither Pietta or Uberti make exact, parts interchangeable, replicas of Colts or Remington revolvers. They are fairly close, but not exact. One example is the grip shape of the Pietta 1851 Navy. Another example is the brass framed .44 caliber Navy. Colt never made a brass framed '51, and never made the Navy in .44 caliber. Now Cabela's and BassPro will tell you that the Confederates "reverse engineered" the Navy to produce what they now sell. Whether that's true or not, I don't know. It's not totally impossible that it didn't happen, but most likely didn't happen. Folks in the Confederacy did make some brass framed revolvers, but they weren't exactly like Colts or Remingtons. Better students of Civil War firearms can tell you all the names, but Dance is one that comes to mind.

andrewstorm
April 9, 2012, 10:24 AM
Does anyone own or have photos of a real antique ,and a similar reproduction,side by side?.......or know of any books on the subject?

Tommygunn
April 9, 2012, 12:31 PM
Pulp, IMO the Confederacy did copy the Colt design in their Augusta, and other "open top" style revolvers. I don't think the term "reverse engineering" existed back then and one can argue how precisely they "copied" the Colt design. It's striking to me the internals are all pretty similar to Colt even with minor differences in the barrel configuration (ie., round barrel versus octagonal).
BTW the south wasn't the only entity that "copied" revolvers, a northern company called "Manhattan Revolver Co." made "copies of the Colt except made theirs double action.

Tallship
April 9, 2012, 02:43 PM
The easiest way to spot a really good fake:

Take out one of the screws and look at it with a jeweler's loup. Old time screw making machinery made screws with a rounded top on the thread. Modern machinery makes a rather sharp angle at the top of the thread.

Loyalist Dave
April 9, 2012, 02:52 PM
Tallship is spot-on, and IF the faker knows of this distinction, they often use a standard sized screw even if they do it in an English thread pitch, when you pull the screw, pull several of them, check them with the loop, and then check them with a screw gauge..., if they are all uniform, and of a modern standard size = probably faked.

LD

andrewstorm
April 9, 2012, 04:04 PM
when purchasing a real antique ,look at the screws as not to get screwed.also Its a very good point that confederate period copys are also considered replicas,just not modern replicas or (exact replicas,)if such a thing actually exists,take for instance the lemat pistol real ones Ive seen look very different than recent reproductions,and naa,s 1860 cap and ball.......what that looks like i havent the clue?

oxide80
April 9, 2012, 04:36 PM
Top revolver is an original Colt 1860 Army produced in 1863, the bottom is Pietta 1860 Army produced in 2011. Angles of the grips are different, the lines of the barrel taper are different, scroll scene is similar but not the same, trigger and hammer profiles are different, hammer. At a glance they look the same but thats it.

Noz
April 9, 2012, 04:44 PM
Not all of the Italian guns are metric threaded.
Pietta nipples are, Ubertis are not.

My impression is that the italian guns are rarely used to make a fake. More likel;y woould be a 2nd or 3rd gen Colt faked to 1st gen.

Old Fuff
April 9, 2012, 08:01 PM
Concerning Colt's percussion models:

The barrels were rifled with a gain twist, which means that the lands and grooves start out straight, but then begain to twist. None of the reproductions - including those made in modern times by Colt - have gain twist rifiling. They turn from back to front. :uhoh:

Gaucho Gringo
April 9, 2012, 10:36 PM
Tallship, the threads you describe are rolled threads as opposed to modern threads which are cut threads. My father in law who is now deceased used to own a big machine shop and he told me about the different types of threads.

Mike OTDP
April 9, 2012, 11:28 PM
Things I look for include rifling (gain twist was used not only in Colts, but in Remingtons as well), and shape. The Italian repros are often off in shape, sometimes deliberately.

Pulp
April 10, 2012, 12:18 AM
A feller that shot 1875 Remingtons in CAS told me the internals were exactly like a Colt SAA. I don't know that for a fact, but I do know they had a 4 click hammer pull.

And really, when you think about it, just how many ways are there to produce a single action firearm? You've got to have a hammer spring, a trigger spring, a bolt spring, a hand and spring etc etc.

Tommygunn
April 10, 2012, 12:21 AM
I thought the Remington design had the bolt & trigger on the same screw while the Colt had each on it's own. I know that that may not mean too much in terms of how the gun works, overall, but it is a difference ... atleast for those of us who are experienced at picking nits.:rolleyes:

Pulp
April 10, 2012, 08:00 AM
"I thought the Remington design had the bolt & trigger on the same screw"

Tommy, I know that's true on the percussion Remingtons, but have no idea about the 1875. I had no reason to question the feller that told me that, just took his word he knew what he was talking about.

I just did a google, and the 1875 does just have one screw, just like the percussions.

Mike OTDP
April 10, 2012, 11:25 AM
IIRC, the 1875 is identical internally with the 1858.

andrewstorm
April 11, 2012, 09:42 AM
Old fuff,thats a very important point,and a dead givaway for a faker,hard to fake rifleing...........are modern manufacture springs any different than the originals?

Old Fuff
April 11, 2012, 01:30 PM
are modern manufacture springs any different than the originals?

I presume you mean mainsprings, trigger & bolt springs, and maybe hand springs.

The answer is no, at least to the degree that they could be eyeball identified except by an experienced expert, although in some cases the workmanship of the replica springs are more crude.

Also Dixie Gun Works in Union City, TN. (www.dixiegunworks.com) and maybe others offer replacement parts for some original cap & ball revolvers. Barrels however do not have gain twist.

The most outrageous fraud I have recently come across (and one that was easy to do) was a fake Remington New Model Army (often but incorrectly called a "model 1858") where someone screwed an original Remington barrel with correct markings into an Italian replica that had been scrubbed of any proof marks or other identification. The whole package was then finish aged to make it look old. I quickly spotted what it was, but a less experienced buyer was fooled and "took to the cleaners."

Understand that the FBI has a special unit that works on various kinds of antique fraud, and they have succeeded in sending some high profile fakers to the slammer.

andrewstorm
April 16, 2012, 12:04 AM
Understand that I am currently researching federal case law on constitutional tort litigation.and I'M very aware of federal law on antique firearms,My only interest is the gun that jim k said he knows is a fake a 41 colt marked U S N 1902 1892 new navy revolver,he said its fake but offered no explanation as to why,he went off the handle telling me that if i bought it,i wasn't as smart as i think i am,its not my gun I was merely researching the revolvers variations,and military history.

Old Fuff
April 16, 2012, 02:23 AM
My only interest is the gun that jim k said he knows is a fake a 41 colt marked U S N 1902 1892 new navy revolver,he said its fake but offered no explanation as to why,he went off the handle telling me that if i bought it,i wasn't as smart as i think i am,its not my gun I was merely researching the revolvers variations,and military history.

I must have missed that exchange, but I’ll vouch for Jim’s expertise, and admit I’d probably reach the same conclusion.

This is one of those times when a good research book is priceless, but the problem is that because of limited demand they tend to be expensive.

Anyway, the Navy adopted a hand-ejector revolver (the kind where the cylinder swings out to the left for loading and unloading) made by Colt in 1889, and chambered to use the same .38 Long Colt cartridge that they’d had in Colt 1851 Navy cap & ball converted-to-metallic-cartridge revolvers since the early 1870’s. In 1892 the new revolver was revised and upgraded, and was quickly adopted by both the Army and Navy – still using the same .38 Long Colt cartridge.

Colt made an identical revolver for the commercial market that was chambered in either .38 Long Colt, or .41 Long Colt, but the military services only bought the .38 version.

In the case of the revolver you are researching I can see two possibilities.

1. Someone took an original .38 Navy gun, and rebarreled it with a commercial .41 barrel and fitted a .41 cylinder, or bored out the .38 one.

2. Someone took a .41 caliber commercial revolver and stamped the U.S.N. markings on the butt.

There is a very, very slim chance that the Navy, for whatever reason, bought some .41 revolvers, but I highly doubt it though. I’ll look into the matter a bit more when I get the chance.

andrewstorm
April 16, 2012, 09:42 AM
This revolver is original looking to me,and the markings look the same as all the other 38 lc revolvers ive seen,isn't it possible the navy pressed some of these revolvers into service and marked them accordingly,without it being common knowledge a colt letter came with the gun,it was advertised on gun broker as such?please search this thread and give me another opinion.

If you enjoyed reading about "what replicas arent accurate reproductions,and how to spot a fake?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!