Cimarron announces Colt pocket model .380!

This is awesome

CraigC said:

If you'd rather shoot cap & ball, why even read a thread about a cartridge conversion?

Show me a Colt pocket model conversion cylinder. No, you can't buy conversion cylinders for ANY of the pocket models. They discontinued the 1849 converter because accuracy sucked in the oversized bore of the .31 barrel. Even if they did make a conversion cylinder for the pocket .36's, you'd have the same problem. Sorry but give me a .380 pocket model over something I have to use heeled bullets in any day of the week. Sure, I'd rather it was a .38Colt that still used .358" cast bullets but beggars can't be choosers. A common cartridge like the .380 probably made more sense from a marketing standpoint.

The excitement here is that one can procure a factory cartridge conversion on a Colt pocket platform. Previously, if you wanted one, you paid about $2000 and waited 2-3yrs to have one built.

Click to expand...

I thought exactly the same thing looking at the barrel specs on the 31 caliber offerings. After putting the R&D cylinder in my 49 pocket and the 63 pocket remington, I was pleasantly surprised at how accurate they are. Of course you need kentucky windage for elevation but both will hold a group. I put a taller sight on the remington as they hit around 4 feet high at 25 yards with the standard front sight. I cast the lee 93 grain round nose in 32 s&w (comes out to ~90grains at .321 powder coated). With both guns, if I do my part, I can put all 5 shots on an 8 inch steel round at 25 yards. I need to put them on paper to see what they're really doing accuracy wise. I did recover some bullets from the berm where I shoot and much to my surprise the bullets have nice clean rifling marks all the way around. I'm assuming the alloy might be bumping up to fill the bore...not sure. My alloy is range lead so I'm guessing it's anywhere from 9 to 12 hardness. I haven't slugged the barrels of either gun.
Now the 36, which I'd love to convert to cartridge, is agreeably way too much of a stretch to fill the bore with any 35 caliber bullets. I too, have no interest in casting heeled bullets. Ashame too, because my 62 police has to be one of my all time favorites.

CraigC said:

Yes but you're using a larger diameter bullet. Standard .32 bullets are .312".

Click to expand...

You got me curious and you're correct. My bullets aren't .321, my mistake. Went down to the cave to measure. Guess I'm casting too many and losing track of all those numbers ;-)

Reviving an old thread part 2. I just got my hands on the Cimarron 1862 pocket conversion pistol. I took it to the range yesterday. It is a sweet shooter and as usual with Cimarron firearms, it is beautiful. It won't win any matches for accuracy, but the original was built to stick in a person's belly and pull the trigger. Anybody getting one won't be sorry. I am totally satisfied.

ERIC M. said:

Reviving an old thread part 2. I just got my hands on the Cimarron 1862 pocket conversion pistol. I took it to the range yesterday. It is a sweet shooter and as usual with Cimarron firearms, it is beautiful. It won't win any matches for accuracy, but the original was built to stick in a person's belly and pull the trigger. Anybody getting one won't be sorry. I am totally satisfied.

Click to expand...

Very cool ! A little disappointed to see the MSRP on this though. I know prices will be high as these are essentially niche items from a production stand point. Thanks for the info ! I'll have to give this one some thought.

I paid $525.00 for it. I have a bunch of Cimarrons and many original old west guns so I thought that this one had to come home with me.

ERIC M. said:

I paid $525.00 for it. I have a bunch of Cimarrons and many original old west guns so I thought that this one had to come home with me.

Click to expand...

Forgot to ask...does this have additional bolt stops on the cylinder to carry safely with 5 rounds? Not that it really matters....just my OCD when loading from an ammo box. ;-)

Not really. It feels somewhat like my Cimarron Scofield cylinder but not as smooth. I would have no problems with safety about anything on this gun. I hope this helps.

Eric M.,

If you have an older version of the PocketPolice revolver, please, compare the dimension between the two. When Uberti accommodated the 45 long Colt crowd they did so by enlarging the frame, barrel and cylinder dimensions to accept the larger, historically incorrect, cartridge. It messed with the balance and handling of the piece.

I have a couple of old ones so if you don’t we can measure and compare.

Thank you.

Kevin

StrawHat. I don't have the older version so I can't compare. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the ATF boy scouts made Cimarron use a 6" barrel. I was contemplating having my gunsmith cut the barrel to 3" but Cimarron etched their writing across the entire barrel which nixed that idea.
4v50 Gary. I have a Uberti 1847 Colt/Walker .44 percussion that I shoot. One black powder is enough to clean. .380 is beautiful in my book

CraigC said:

The 6" barrel is to meet weight requirements for importation.



Or for people who want to buy ammo. Let's face it, most people don't handload and fewer still do so with blackpowder. A .380 appeals to more folks and makes more sense than trying to resurrect the .38 Short Colt.

Click to expand...

We need the 32 Short and Long Colt resurrected for those of us with the 32 rimfire Marlin 92's and such!

dickydalton said:

We need the 32 Short and Long Colt resurrected for those of us with the 32 rimfire Marlin 92's and such!

Click to expand...

Periodically there have been runs of those cartridges done. They show up infrequently at shows.

Kevin

Last night, at the pistol league that I run, a bunch of my shooters shot this little gun. Everyone came away with a smile on their face, and everyone feel in love with it. The consensus also was that it was too bad that the barrel couldn't have been 3"

ERIC M., that open top is a beauty!
Are you shooting lead ammo. and is it okay to fire FMJ ammo with it?
How difficult is it to even find commercial lead ammo.?

I'm also interested to know how well the sights are regulated compared to the other black powder Colt revolvers.
Does it shoot much higher than the point of aim?

I'm shooting factory fmj. Don't even count on the sights. At 10 yds It's shooting 5" high. I'm used to shooting Kentucky windage so I have no problem with it. None of my shooters had any problems. One guy stated it best. He said that it was only intended to shoot the distance from one side of a card table to the other.

I found Magtech lead round nose ammo at Lucky Gunner: ---->>> https://www.luckygunner.com/380-auto-95-gr-lrn-magtech-50-rounds
The only user review at Lucky Gunner said:

"Good accuracy very dirty
Shot very good groups but very smokey.
More smoke than if I had a cigar. I got 25 boxes. Would buy the PMC or American eagle at current price. 1 Ftf in 50 rounds."

I also saw that it was discontinued at MidwayUSA so maybe it's old stock.

CraigC and others. The geometry of the ratchets on the Pocket Police and Pocket Navy are wrong for simply boring through conversions. To use a rimmed cartridge would require moving the hand toward the arbor and the use of a two pronged hand. This is how the Colt’s factory built the Pocket models for cartridges.

I had asked one of the conversion artists about it a while back and got it explained to me. The best we could do was a rimless and he was reluctant to try that because of lack of space. That is why I asked about dimensions.

Kevin

StrawHat said:

CraigC and others. The geometry of the ratchets on the Pocket Police and Pocket Navy are wrong for simply boring through conversions. To use a rimmed cartridge would require moving the hand toward the arbor and the use of a two pronged hand. This is how the Colt’s factory built the Pocket models for cartridges.

I had asked one of the conversion artists about it a while back and got it explained to me. The best we could do was a rimless and he was reluctant to try that because of lack of space. That is why I asked about dimensions.

Kevin

Click to expand...

Not to mention the black powder frames are sooooooft steel. I dealt with this on my 49 pocket with the 32s&w cylinder. Mind you my hand loads are very light for this but it was still compressing the ring on the frame recoil shield. Needless to say this was causing exaggerated end shake and timing issues as well as damage to the hand. I found a place that sells run out shims for lathes and managed to make a spacer to fit over the cylinder to take up the gap of the compressed ring on the recoil shield. Ordered a new hand and tempered it to a nice purple/blue hardness. Now she shoots like a dream and the action is silky smooth. The R&D conversion cylinders are very high quality and the teeth on the back of the cylinder are much harder than the hand in a black powder revolver. The hand will wear quickly under these conditions. So in a nutshell, I seriously doubt a black powder frame in a colt design will hold up to conversion to 380 acp. I'm specifically talking about the small pocket police and 49 pocket frames. Just not enough meat on the recoil shield to prevent compression with smokeless rounds. Remingtons in general, don't have this issue because the of the design of the recoil shield.

atom, it wouldn't have happened if the "arbor length" had been corrected. A nice close .002" end shake would have kept the cyl from battering the ring.

Hand damage typically happens when the hand is long with a slightly misaligned chamber (over rotation) attitude. Firing causes the bullet to "align" (or attempt to) which jams the ratchet into the hand. Over time, it's "self correcting" at the expense of damage to the hand. Ideally, there should be no contact of the hand and ratchet at lock-up.

The 380 is a gated set-up which has a conversion ring which is the recoil surface supported by the recoil shield (same as the Kirst and factory conversions Colt offered). The R&D, Howell type conversion cyl. mimics the C&B cyl which transfers the recoil to the original ring which is a much smaller surface. That is why the cyl movement must be kept to a minimum to prevent it from pounding the much smaller ring. That said, correct set up will allow for a good shooter.

As for the Colt design, it is more than an adequate platform for the correct conversion set-up. For this reason, I like the Kirst conversions for open top revolvers but the "drop cyls" in the top strap designs (Rem., Ruger, and others). That is, . . . untill I'm done with my gated conversion for the ROA !

Mike

45 Dragoon said:

atom, it wouldn't have happened if the "arbor length" had been corrected. A nice close .002" end shake would have kept the cyl from battering the ring.

Hand damage typically happens when the hand is long with a slightly misaligned chamber (over rotation) attitude. Firing causes the bullet to "align" (or attempt to) which jams the ratchet into the hand. Over time, it's "self correcting" at the expense of damage to the hand. Ideally, there should be no contact of the hand and ratchet at lock-up.

The 380 is a gated set-up which has a conversion ring which is the recoil surface supported by the recoil shield (same as the Kirst and factory conversions Colt offered). The R&D, Howell type conversion cyl. mimics the C&B cyl which transfers the recoil to the original ring which is a much smaller surface. That is why the cyl movement must be kept to a minimum to prevent it from pounding the much smaller ring. That said, correct set up will allow for a good shooter.

As for the Colt design, it is more than an adequate platform for the correct conversion set-up. For this reason, I like the Kirst conversions for open top revolvers but the "drop cyls" in the top strap designs (Rem., Ruger, and others). That is, . . . untill I'm done with my gated conversion for the ROA !

Mike

Click to expand...

Hi Mike !
I defer to your expertise in this matter as your reputation proceeds you. Interesting points you make about conversions. Ironically, my 49 pocket probably had the best arbor fit out of any of my c&b revolvers(don't get me started on my 62 police). That being said I don't think it ever had a gap as small as .002. It was interesting to me that the drop in cylinder crushed that tiny ring so quickly and it did its damage from the 10 o'clock to 2 o'clock location on the ring which led to me to believe the cylinder was rocking on the arbor under recoil. That caused the cylinder to ride very strangely on the harbor. Since only a portion of the ring was crushed, I had to take the rest of the ring down to equal dimensions to make the shim idea work. I agree I think the hand was a little too long( shaped wrong for the r&d cylinder as well)and did stay in contact with the ratchet during recoil. My hand actually had a groove cut in it from the rachet(think forked like a snakes tongue) which caused the hand to lock into the ratchet, jamming the revolver. My hillbilly fix is working remarkably well. I have several shims cut and in my shooting box to change quickly if the current shim ever wears out. Your point about the recoil shield, gated conversions makes perfect sense. I always wondered why the r&d drop in colt cylinders weren't machined with a ratchet deep enough to engage both the ring and the channel the ratchet rides in, on the frame. This would in effect, spread the recoil load over the ring and the channel. I suppose that would be difficult to do as I'm guessing channel depth varies from revolver to revolver just enough to be a factor. Thanks for your insight !