1871-1872 Open Top Revolver

[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!
And it's not like I have this kinda $$$ everyday to spend!!!

 

[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... With money that is..

 

[Tommygunn]

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.

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. 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... Hope you can hold up.

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!

 

[Old Fuff]

See, I read instructions!

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

 

[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...

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.

 

[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.