Thoughts on a 1860 Uberti Richards Army Conversion Revolver

[Rockrivr1]

I'm going to be looking at a Uberti reproduction of a 1860 Richards Army Conversion Revolver in 45LC tomorrow afternoon and was wondering if anyone has any experience with this model. I love these old type handguns as they are fun to shoot and own. Is there anything in particular I should be looking out for with this? I own a few Uberti firearms and they work great, but this will be my first 1860 model. With any luck I'll be coming home with it.

Thanks

 

[brewer12345]

I'd be worried about the usual short arbor in a Uberti.

 

[Rockrivr1]

I'd be worried about the usual short arbor in a Uberti.

I'm going to have to look that one up. Thanks

 

[ontarget]

I'd be worried about the usual short arbor in a Uberti.

Please elaborate. I'm not familiar with this issue.

 

[brewer12345]

Please elaborate. I'm not familiar with this issue.

in black powder ubertis, the arbor that holds the cylinder is often short resulting in excessive play in the cylinder upon firing. You can ruin a gun quickly if you don't correct it.

 

[ontarget]

in black powder ubertis, the arbor that holds the cylinder is often short resulting in excessive play in the cylinder upon firing. You can ruin a gun quickly if you don't correct it.

How common is this problem? Wouldn't a short arbor cause the cylinder to be too tight when the wedge is installed? I'm trying to visualize this condition.
I'm asking because I'm also interested in an open top or a conversion.

 

[1KPerDay]

It results in the arbor pulling or stretching, the wedge slot deforming, the wedge being buggered, or all three. Basically a short arbor means the nose of the arbor isn’t seated firmly against the seat drilled in the barrel assembly. So when you drive in the wedge and shoot the gun, it puts too much stress on all those areas. You can fix it with shims or JB weld but I’ve never done it as I mostly buy piettas. I’d ask @Jackrabbit1957 or goon for specifics.

 

[brewer12345]

How common is this problem? Wouldn't a short arbor cause the cylinder to be too tight when the wedge is installed? I'm trying to visualize this condition.
I'm asking because I'm also interested in an open top or a conversion.

It is so common to Uberti that many of us won't buy them.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

45 Dragoon seems to be the expert on short arbors.

Go over to the Black Powder forum and look him up.

Here is a post where he talks about it.

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/the-wedge-on-open-top-colts.896224/

 

[StrawHat]

The short arbor is easily corrected. Enough said.

I do not have an Uberti Richards but I did do an internet search and based on what I saw and read, the Uberti Richards conversion is the second Model Richards. The first Model Richards incorporated a frame mounted firing pin and the rear sight was mounted on the conversion ring. Or it may be a Richards and Mason conversion.

I do have a pair of Richards conversion revolvers, these were made by ASM. You can see the gap between the ejector housing and the cylinder. Also, the rear sight on the conversion ring.



In this image you can see the hammer does not have a firing pin on it.



In this photo, the spring loaded, frame mounted firing pin is visible as is the ring mounted rear sight.



Is the ASM perfect? No, the conversion ring is not rebated so it does not cover the breech end of the cylinder. The other “problem” is ASM choose to chamber it for the modern 44 Colt fining a 43 caliber internally lubed bullet instead of the historically correct 44 Colt which used a 45 caliber bullet seated outside of the case similar to the 22 rimfire. They did this as a nod to handloaders who felt it easier to load the 43 caliber bullet.

Mine shoot very well. A 200 grain FP cast bullet correctly lubed over a full charge of 3f powder is a wonderful experience!

Kevin

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

StrawHat's ASM revolvers are replicas of the Colt Richards Conversion revolver.

Uberti consistently gets the name of their Richards conversion revolvers wrong.

This is an actual antique Colt Richards Conversion revolver. Based on the Colt 1860 Army Cap & Ball revolver.






Cylinder modified to accept cartridges from the rear. On the left is a Peitta replica 1860 Army Cap & Ball cylinder, on the right the Richards Conversion cylinder. The rear of the cylinder where the nipples were was machined away and new ratchet teeth fashioned. The 44 Colt cartridge was developed for this revolver.






A Conversion Ring was screwed to the frame to take up the space where the nipples used to be.






Spring loaded firing pin located in the Conversion Ring, rear sight integral with the Conversion Ring, and flat faced hammer to strike the firing pin.






Loading gate incorporated in the Conversion Ring.






An ejector rod assembly fashioned and mounted in the hole where the loading lever had been.






The Richards Conversion was a successful design, but it was expensive to produce. William Mason, who later did most of the design work on the Colt Single Action Army revolver, made modifications that made the Richards-Mason revolver less expensive to produce. He eliminated the frame mounted firing pin, instead reshaping the hammer with a long spike shaped firing pin, and redesigned the ejector mechanism to make it less expensive to produce.


What Uberti is producing is a replica of Richards-Mason Conversion revolver.

They also sell a replica of the Open Top (yes, they all are open tops, but that is what it was called) with a cylinder without a step on it and a small rear sight mounted at the rear of the barrel.

 

[45 Dragoon]

The OP need not worry about the short arbor, it is an easy fix. If you're satisfied with the looks and function and take it home, I'm sure it will be or can be made to be an excellent shooter. Keep us posted.

Mike

 

[LaneP]

The free arbor space on my 2018 manufactured Uberti 3rd model Dragoon is approximately .0585", measured from the highest point of the bore hole profile (i.e., closest to outer walls as opposed to center where it is slightly deeper due to drill point profile).

 

[halfmoonclip]

For the OP, just how much will you actually shoot this gun?
Unless you are going SASS, you likely won't have any arbor trouble with moderate shooting.
If you're like many of us here, you likely won't shoot any one gun enough wear it out.
Buy it, and don't sweat the small (redacted).
Moon

 

[Rockrivr1]

Ok guys/gals. This is probably to quick to get a good answer but seller also has a 1875 Uberi “Frank” Outlaw in 45LC as well. Now I’m torn. I love the look of the sail. Decisions decisions. 1860 or 1875. Both is just a little to much of a stretch.

 

[halfmoonclip]

Do I recall the 'Frank' being based on the Remington single action?
Moon

 

[45 Dragoon]

For the OP, just how much will you actually shoot this gun?
Unless you are going SASS, you likely won't have any arbor trouble with moderate shooting.
If you're like many of us here, you likely won't shoot any one gun enough wear it out.
Buy it, and don't sweat the small (redacted).
Moon

Of course, you don't have to ever correct the arbor and " casual shooting " can kill it just as fast as anything . . .all depends on your specific gun. An easy fix is an easy fix so . . . why wouldn't ya? If you sell it, the next guy/ gal ( sorry l, I only go so far with the political correctness bs !! Lol) will certainly appreciate it!!

Mike

 

[Rockrivr1]

So after a bunch of handling I decided to go with the 1875 instead of the 1860. I’ve always liked the sail under the barrel. Now it’s time to hit the range.

 

[45 Dragoon]

Congratulations!! Very nice Remington!! I probably would have made the same decision, mainly because of the "too thin for me" cylinder wall of the 45C version of the '60 conversion and the fact that I've never owned a '75 or '90 version of the Remington!!

Mike

 

[CraigC]

What Uberti is producing is a replica of Richards-Mason Conversion revolver.

Uberti produces both the Richards-Mason and the Richards Type II. The one in the OP is a Type II with the early ejector that was immediately changed to the longer version.

I see a Remington 1875 was chosen but I would've encouraged the OP to get the conversion in .44Colt. I know .45Colt is more common but I just can't do it. Here are my two .44Colt's flanking the 1851 Richards-Mason conversion.

 

[45 Dragoon]

Yep, a 44 would have been the difference for me but a '75 or '90 would still be welcome!! Lol!

Gonna have to work on that one o these days!

Mike

 

[1KPerDay]

So after a bunch of handling I decided to go with the 1875 instead of the 1860. I’ve always liked the sail under the barrel. Now it’s time to hit the range.

View attachment 1062508

Nice. I got one a while back and it’s one of my favorite pistols. Here’s a video if interested.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

After wanting an Uberti replica of the 1875 Remington cartridge revolver for a long time, I was able to find an affordable actual antique 44-40 Remington 1875 a few years ago. (Problems buying the replica here in MASS, I won't go into the details here)






Interestingly enough, the originals were never chambered for 45 Colt. 44-40 and a proprietary 44 Remington cartridge with a heeled bullet, but other than perhaps 1/2 dozen chambered for 45 Colt for the Army Trials, the 1875 model was never sold to the general public chambered for 45 Colt.


Unlike the replicas, there was no spring loaded cylinder latch mounted just in front of the cylinder. The very long cylinder pin had a spring loaded catch all the way at the front. Depressing this catch allowed the cylinder pin to be pulled forward enough to remove the cylinder.






Although very similar in design and operation, the 1875 Remington never caught up in sales to the Colt Single Acton Army. The SAA had contracts with the Army starting in 1873, and by the time Remington offered up the 1875 model, Colt had too strong a foothold with military contracts. Also, unlike the Colt, the extractor of the Remington was exposed to the elements, which was a strike against the Remington design.




The video is correct about the grip shape of the 1875 Remington being different than the grip shape of a Colt. The grip of the Remington extends further back from the trigger guard than the Colt.






Notice how much further back the grip of the 1875 model extends than the grip of this replica 1858 Cap & Ball model. A lot has been written about the web under the barrel of the 1875 Remington. Lots of stuff about how much stronger it made the revolver. Frankly, I don't buy it. The web is attached to the barrel by one screw up at the front, and a slip fit over a pin at the frame. Not a recipe for a strengthened barrel to frame connection. Personally, I have always felt that the web under the barrel of the 1875 model was simply a stylistic attempt to keep the familiar shape of the loading lever of the 1858 Cap & Ball revolver.






The later 1890 Remington reshaped the web under the barrel, almost eliminating it.






The pin securing the rear of the web to the frame can be seen in this photo of my Model 1890 Remington. The same arrangement as the 1875 Model, but the web was cut back enough to reveal the pin.

 

[halfmoonclip]

I have read that Remington retained the web to facilitate holstering. It does make the Rems visually different than Colts in media.
Moon

 

[CraigC]

It also guarantees that a Remington won't fit a Colt holster.