An 1898 Colt Bisley Flat Top in .44 Special

What a glorious old sixgun! Can we get a pic of the whole gun?

Definitely one that has been converted and completely refinished. Appears to have a standard Bisley barrel with the target front sight reattached. The cylinder looks more like .44-40. Personally, I'd be VERY leery of shooting smokeless in it. The gun 'may' tolerate it and it might not.

The .44Spl was introduced by S&W in 1907 but wasn't chambered by Colt until 1913.

I would only consider shooting it with VERY light handloads - just out of respect for its age. I have never seen a close shot of the checkered trigger on those guns. I would love to see how that checkering was done on the trigger. It seems odd to me that they marked "Bisley Model" in parentheses using a much more modern script than the other stampings. What a beautiful piece of workmanship. I probably would not shoot it - only because I have plenty of other guns that were bought to shoot. That is a museum piece. Your dad had very good taste......

Howdy

You do have a bit of a mystery here.

First let's set up some ground rules here. I go by what Jerry Kuhnhausen says in his book 'The Colt Single Action Revolvers, A Shop Manual, Volumes 1&2' for just about all information regarding Colts and what one should and should not do with them. According to Kuhnhausen, although changeover from Black Powder to Smokeless Powder took place over a number of years, starting in 1896, he states that Colt did not factory warranty the SAA for Smokeless Powder until 1900. He is emphatic in stating that Single Action Revolvers made before 1900 should not be fired with Smokeless Powder ammunition. Serial numbers for 1900 ran from 192,001 through 203,000. So clearly, your gun was manufactured before that. The 165,000 number is bogus. That is when the current transverse cylinder pin latch became standard, replacing the earlier angled screw that held the cylinder pin in place. Guns with the angled screw are known as the 'Black Powder Frame' models so some make the erroneous assumption that if a gun has the more modern style of latch it is a Smokeless gun. That is incorrect, because Colt started phasing in the transverse style latch in 1892, and it became a standard feature in 1896, four years before Colt warrantied the guns for Smokeless Powder.

Your gun does not have the Verified Proof mark on the trigger guard because Colt did not start stamping that until 1901.

Can you be a bit more specific about exactly what caliber the letter states your gun was chambered for? The Bisley model was never chambered for 44 Special. However, Kuhnhausen states that it was chambered for 44 Russian, 44 Smith and Wesson (the old heeled bullet design), and a great many of them were chambered for 44-40. However, if your cylinder was chambered for 44-40, a 44 Special round would rattle around in the chamber because the rear end of the 44-40 round is larger than the rear end of a 44 Special. Besides that, a 44 Special round would probably not seat all the way in a 44-40 chamber, because the 44-40 is narrower at the front.

The barrel is puzzling because it has the correct Bisley Model marking on it, but as I said, no Bisley models were chambered for 44 Special.

From your photo, according to what I can see of the ratchet teeth, the cylinder appears to be a 1st generation cylinder. Which does not help us much because 1st Gens were made from 1873 until 1940. Are there any markings on the cylinder referring to the SN? Sometimes the front or rear face of the cylinder had three digits of the SN stamped on to them. That would help confirm if the cylinder is original to the gun.

What it all boils down to is when was the cylinder made. The cylinder is the part of the gun that must contain the pressure of a cartridge firing, not the barrel and not the frame. Granted, an old iron frame might not put up well with the pounding from recoil of a Smokeless load, but it is the cylinder that will burst.

I see two possibilities. One is that the original cylinder was chambered for 44 Russian and bored out for 44 Special. This would not be difficult for a skilled gunsmith to do. He may have marked the barrel for 44 Special at this time, but he would have had to 'erase' the old 44 W.C.F. marking on the barrel. In this situation, we know the cylinder is pre-1900 and I would not shoot the gun with Smokeless powder. The other scenario I see is that the cylinder is possibly a 44 Special cylinder from another gun, but now it is unknown when that cylinder was made.

Bottom line is, since we cannot establish if the cylinder was made in or after 1900, I would not shoot the gun with Smokeless powder.

Yes, you can shoot the Buffalo Arms (NOT Buffalo Bore) Black Powder ammunition in that gun. You can shoot their 44 Special ammo, or if you want to save $1.50 you can shoot their 44 Russian ammunition. You can fire 44 Russian ammunition in any revolver that is chambered for 44 Special.

Drail said:

It seems odd to me that they marked "Bisley Model" in parentheses using a much more modern script than the other stampings.

Click to expand...

That is the correct barrel marking for a Bisley model. The barrel marking is almost completely worn off of this old Bisley, but you can see the remnants of parentheses at either end of the words BISLEY MODEL.

My Bisley was converty by Christy Gunsmithung in the 60s to their .22 K Hornet where I have to deep load bluntish bullets, It is not beautiful case hardended like yours tho, it was tank reblued.

A most interesting thread. Thanks for the great photos.

What are the rings around the chambers? Rim cutter on a rechambering reamer?
Blue Book says about as many .44 S&W (American) as .44 Russian, and only a few more .44-40. The first two would clean up to .44 Special, .44-40 wouldn't but that is not definitely the original cylinder.

Is it worth a new cylinder? Will an Eyetalian wheel fit?

Please post a full size image so I can drool some ( I think you have it there as an avatar )
What an amazing Colt !

Two bucks for a Colt letter?

Last time I had a Colt lettered it cost $100. That was in 2004. I shudder to think what one costs today. I do have one old Colt that I am thinking of lettering, will have to look up what it costs now.

Jim Watson said:

Blue Book says about as many .44 S&W (American) as .44 Russian, and only a few more .44-40. The first two would clean up to .44 Special, .44-40 wouldn't but that is not definitely the original cylinder.

Click to expand...

According to Kuhnhausen, there were 62 Bisley Target models chambered for 44 Russian, and 90 standard models.
64 Bisley Target models were chambered for 44 S&W, 29 standard models.
78 Bisley Target models were chambered for 44-40, a whopping 6,803 standard model Bisleys were chambered for 44-40.

The most popular chambering for the Bisley Model was 32-20, with 131 target models chambered for the cartridge and 13,291 standard models chambered for it.
38-40 was a close second with 98 target models and 12,163 standard models chambered for the cartridge.
45 Colt was in the running too, with 97 Target models and 8,005 standard Bisley revolvers chambered for it.

I'd say it was lengthened from .44 Russian after seeing the second step in the chambers,. I am not familiar with the specs of .44 S&W tho so maybe that was lengthed.

Howdy Again

Not sure what to tell you about the cylinder. It is clearly a 1st Gen style ratchet, but we knew that. The chambers look like they have been reworked a bit. They look almost like 44-40 chambers, but not quite. Are you sure a piece of 44 Special brass does not wiggle around in them a little bit? If 44-40, one of those interior surfaces would be conical. It almost appears they have been reamed twice, the second time brought them to their current 44 Special length. There would have been no need to ream them twice to bring them from 44 Russian length to 44 Special length, so I don't know quite what to say about that.

By the way, that is a conical, early style firing pin. Curious, does it wiggle up and down or is it fixed in its hole? I ask because none of my COlts has that style firing pin.

Howdy Again

I only have two 44 S&W cartridges in my collection, they are both running .436-.437 in diameter at the base. These cartridges used a heeled bullet, so the bullet was the same diameter as the cartridge case, (like a modern 22 Rimfire) and the chambers would have been bored straight through all one diameter, with no smaller diameter up front.

I have loaded tons of 44-40 over the years, the modern brass from Starline is running about .463 at the base. A few antique 44-40 rounds are showing .463, .464, .464, and .467 at the base. Bullet diameter with old 44-40 rounds is all over the place. The standard 19th Century rifling groove diameter was .427, but it could vary quite a lot, down around .425 and up to .430 or even more.

A quick sample of some modern Winchester 44 Special brass shows they are running .452-.453 at the base. I don't have any antique 44 Special rounds to measure.

I have two revolvers chambered for 44-40, a very old Merwin Hulbert made about between 1881 and 1883 and a Colt New Service made in 1907.

The rear end of the chambers on the Merwin Hulbert are running around .473. The chamber mouths on this cylinder were very tight, around .425 or so if I remember correctly, so I had them opened up to .428 so as not to stress the old steel with .428 bullets.

Chamber diameters at the rear of the Colt New Service are running around .470. Chamber throats on this revolver were also a bit tight, so I had them opened up to .428 too. I took these measurements using a Starrett small hole gauge, so the numbers should be pretty good.

I have no idea what Wiki says, but here are the official SAAMI (Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute) Spec drawings for 44-40 and 44 Special chamber and cartridge dimensions. These are modern standards, but the old guns will not be far off from these. There are no SAMMI specifications for the old 44 S&W or 44 Russian cartridges, but the 44 Russian dimensions will be the same as 44 Special, just a bit shorter.

44-40






44 Special




So.

Given all this I suspect what you have there is a 1st Generation 44-40 cylinder. The diameter second closest to the camera is the tapered section for the slightly tapered shoulder of the 44-40 cartridge. I cannot give you a good answer about the barrel that is marked both Bisley Model and 44 Special, as no Bisleys were chambered for that caliber, and the Bisley markings at least appear correct.

If you know how to slug a barrel, that would be a good idea. As I said before, the old 19th Century standard for 44-40 groove diameter was .427. The standard for 44 Russian, 44 Special, and 44 Magnum has always been .429. Many modern manufacturers are using the same .429 barrels for both 44 magnum/44 Special as they are for their revolvers chambered for 44-40, but I have slugged some old Winchesters and they usually come out .427. Usually.

I just slugged the barrel of the Colt New Service and it came out as .427.

If you want to know how to slug a barrel I will post instructions.

By the way, does the cylinder rotate and lock up properly?

Dang, my do-list had "Measure .44s" and you have gone and done it already.
So I will just comment that the "44 Special" on the OP's barrel does not look just like the stamp on my (much later) SAA.

What a great mystery.

One thing that really stands out in the pictures is how bright the colors of the caseharding are on the frame. For some reason I would expect the caseharding to have faded and turned more to gray on a 100+ year old gun.

Perhaps Driftwood or some Colt collector can comment on the caseharding.

I thought the flat tops were all blue.

BSA1 said:

One thing that really stands out in the pictures is how bright the colors of the caseharding are on the frame. For some reason I would expect the caseharding to have faded and turned more to gray on a 100+ year old gun.

Click to expand...

The OP states in his first post that the gun has been refinished.

Jim Watson said:

I thought the flat tops were all blue.

Click to expand...

I am pretty sure they were. Too lazy to pore through my copy of Kopec to make sure.

One more thing that I forgot to mention last night.

I have stated that I believe the cylinder is a 1st Gen 44-40 cylinder. That means it was made sometime between 1873 and 1940. We have no idea if it was made after the 1900 cut off date for shooting Smokeless ammunition in a SAA. So if a qualified gunsmith checks the gun out and states that everything is sound and it functions properly, and if the rifling groove diameter matches up reasonably well with the .426 chamber throats, I would not hesitate to shoot it with Black Powder ammunition. I would not shoot it with Smokeless. How's that for covering my butt?

Turn your computer off, dakotaTex, I'm going to be talking naughty.

I know there is a lot of Internet Angst on the Smokeless RATED business, but has powder not improved since 1896?
Has anybody done modern pressure testing for BP Revolver loads? I goog some rifle stuff with widely varying results.
Lyman shows .44-40 starting loads under 8000 CUP. 850 fps in 6".
I don't know about shooting anything in a gun that won't hold that.