Anomaly: 1849 Colt With Dragoon Barrel

[expat_alaska]

Am looking for info as to whether this ever occurred from the factory.

P. L. Shumaker (Colt's Variations Of The Old Model Pocket Pistol 1848 To 1872) shows on pg. 133 a cased 1949 Colt Pocket "round barreled" version (think Dragoon in .31 caliber).

.

I am thinking that is a spurious copy with the barrel turned down with a lathe.

Nevertheless, I think it is a beautiful version of what Colt could have produced.

If I have some extra money this Christmas, I might get a Uberti 1849 Pocket and employ my machinist neighbor to turn down the barrel on a lathe.

I might even get him to turn my somewhat junker ASM 1848 octagon barrel squareback TG into a mini Dragoon as a fantasy pistol once I get it to function properly.

Pipe dreams galore!

Jim

 

[Jim K]

Colt (both the man and the company) played around with a lot of stuff and never (never!) threw anything away. I have little doubt the round barrel '49 is a factory product, though I would be very careful if I were offered one at big ticket prices.

Jim

 

[Crawdad1]

Problem is I've never seen a Colt without a big ticket price on it.

 

[swathdiver]

They made them, not many though. As did Armi San Marco. The Colt shown in the photo is a six shooter too. ASM also made some six shooters albeit with the shorter rather than longer frame.

 

[4v50 Gary]

Leftover parts thrown together at Colt? Why waste?

 

[45 Dragoon]

Yep, just trying to make a gun look better . . . . (don't blame um !)


Mike
www.goonsgunworks.com

 

[Old Fuff]

A number of round-barreled 1849 model Colts are known. Most are genuine, but a few are not. I think the one that's posted is genuine, simple because it's been carefully examined by some the best authorities in the field.

Then, as now - The Colt Company would fill special orders that were reasonable. All that they required was a customer with deep pockets.

 

[expat_alaska]

Old Fuff

While I have always admired your sage advice on this forum, I have to ask for proof of your knowledge concerning your statement below:

A number of round-barreled 1849 model Colts are known. Most are genuine, but a few are not. I think the one that's posted is genuine, simple because it's been carefully examined by some the best authorities in the field.

Can you post a source as to your statement? I am not challenging you; rather I want to learn. Please do not take it as an affront, sir.

Then, as now - The Colt Company would fill special orders that were reasonable. All that they required was a customer with deep pockets.

Totally in agreement.

Jim

 

[bannockburn]

Definitely neat looking with that round barrel. Certainly true to the title of Baby Dragoon.

 

[Berkley]

Over the years there has been substantial controversy over the authenticity of these ’49 pocket pistols with dragoon bbls. Initially they were thought to have been unauthorized factory production then later experimental or prototypes. However, over the ensuing years numerous revolvers in this configuration have surfaced and have been examined by some of the most knowledgeable Colt authorities in the world. Numerous articles and papers have been written about these studies which are generally inconclusive as to their authenticity. The general conclusion is that the workmanship is of “Colt quality” and if they aren’t factory production they should have been. Certainly these revolvers in this configuration are the most visually pleasing of all the Models 1849.

James Julia Lot No 2247, “RARE INSCRIBED COLT MODEL 1849 POCKET PERCUSSION REVOLVER WITH DRAGOON STYLE BARREL. SN 201631”, March, 2010.
LINK

 

[bannockburn]

Berkley

Thanks for the link. Some very interesting history about John Slidell to go along with the Colt.

 

[Ephraim Kibbey]

Here is a scan of a page from the "Standard Catalog of Colt Firearms" by Rick Sapp published in 2007.

Note the Top picture and the London Model text:

 

[DD4lifeusmc]

customers names inscribed on the gun, wasn't the only product that did so.
Not necessarily DEEP pockets, but more well to do than some.

Remember for the most part Colt revolvers used the make one part that will fit all the others going down an assembly, with only a little minor final fitting.
Colt was one of the first industries to employ this technique.
So it would be a simple matter to pull any old gun / parts needed from the assembly line, and just give it a bit more attention and call it custom.

Another trade that did this was wood planes for shaping wood.
The company name was stamped on it, along with a serial number, the city and state where made, and the customers name that ordered it.
I happened to get one a couple years ago and have been able to confirm it is an original and stamped (IIRC) 1865. Have to dig it out to confirm the date

 

[Old Fuff]

Can you post a source as to your statement? I am not challenging you; rather I want to learn. Please do not take it as an affront, sir.

I could, but I'm pressed for time...

And I can see that some more recent posts have already done this.

But if I come on anything I'll add it to this thread.

 

[Jim K]

I think it might be possible to determine authenticity with very careful examination, including high magnification. The factory would have cut both the front sight hole and the latch stud slot after the barrel was made round. But if they were made when the barrel was octagonal, and the barrel was later turned on a lathe, the holes will show lathe tool drag marks.

Barrel markings should also show evidence of feathering where a flat surface was rounded off. Even though the roll mark is centered, the flat it is on can't be kept untouched if the barrel is subsequently turned, and attempts to correct the situation by hand engraving will be very obvious.

Jim

 

[expat_alaska]

Thanks to all for your comments! IMO, this is the best site to go to when seeking information. Kudos to you folks.

Thanks to Berkeley for the link to the James D. Julia page. From the link:

Another reprint of a book page pictures this revolver in a rare complete Colt casing with caption identifying the backstrap inscription and that it is from the Fred W. Bergman Collection.

I believe the page referred to is p.133 from Shumaker's treatise as I showed in post #1, so I believe this is the same pistol. Shumaker also states that he personally observed 16 specimens of this type in his study from serial numbers as low as #35162 to as high as #293740 (p.134). He states no specific serial numbers for those 16 pistols other than possibly the low and high numbers of the range (and, disappointedly, no pictures of other such pistols), and does not state the serial number of the Bergman pistol.

Which begs the question (in my mind): Why so few iterations of this type spread out over ~258578 1849 .31 Caliber Pocket Pistols, even if the number produced was around 100 (or more) and the vast majority disappeared due to loss, corrosion, or... ? That is a very small percentage. Shumaker states that only 2 of these part round/part octagonal pieces observed were engraved (p.134), so I assume (shame on me) that these barrels were not specialty items for such purpose... or maybe, yes? If so, did Colt have a special barrel parts bin for just such pistols? It would be nice if someone could channel Samuel Colt in order to answer all of the questions...

Does anyone have any other pics/info on other pistols of this flavor?

The Davis pistol has a SN 201631 which is in that range, and also a 5″ octagonal to round barrel with brass pin front sight and two line Hartford address with dashes (this is something I need to investigate further for date range).

(As you might tell, I am thoroughly impressed with Shumaker's 1957 treatise. I must have 15+ bookmarks in various areas and I fear I will wear the book out by thumbing back and forth through it. I think it is a wealth of information. I also have a newly-bought copy of Swayze's '51 Navies and am starting to do the same with it. )

Thanks again for all the responses and your expertise.

Jim

 

[kBob]

Knowing absolutely zip about metal lathes I have to ask, could someone with a bit of skill turn down an octagonal barrel from a cheap brass frame 1849 repro to look like that and still be safe to shoot?

Sort of a baby G&G CSA 1851 .36 clone. Wouldn't that look nice with a G&G and Dragoon in a "family" shot?

-kBob

 

[expat_alaska]

Knowing absolutely zip about metal lathes I have to ask, could someone with a bit of skill turn down an octagonal barrel from a cheap brass frame 1849 repro to look like that and still be safe to shoot?

Sort of a baby G&G CSA 1851 .36 clone. Wouldn't that look nice with a G&G and Dragoon in a "family" shot?

-kBob

kBob:

I am no professional machinist either (luckily I have a neighbor who is), but I would think that the cylinder thickness dimensions would determine the safety of the load (whatever that is), and the turned-down barrel dimensions from octagonal to round would make little difference. If the barrel on my possible future Uberti 1949 .31 Pocket Pistol purchase or my ASM 1848 Squareback .31 that needs some parts and massaging can be turned down, I am willing to go with fantasy pistols. After all, they are not defarbed and not meant to deceive, but just to provide personal pleasure to the owner.

I understand there are folks that will have nothing to do with non-correct pistols, whether replica or original. That's their option and I have no problem with their course of collection.

I am of the persuasion that Samuel Colt (possibly as well as Remington, S&W, and others did many of the same various changes, but I am not a student of that and cannot comment) was a businessman and, as such, availed his company to produce many variations of his pistols and always was looking for a niche and a way to make money, capitalizing upon the use of parts in stock to minimize loss.

So, is Sam Colt guilty of producing "non-correct" pistols? All of us can critique some of the modern replicas as "incorrect", yet are they really?

After his death, I think his widow was at least as astute (or maybe more so) recognizing that the new business was much more aligned with cartridge firearms and pointed the company in that direction with all of the leftover parts from the Civil War production.

I'm rambling, as I usually do.

Jim

 

[Berkley]

Two more for your image collection, Jim.

First, from Haven & Belden’s A History of the Colt Revolver from 1836 to 1940



Next, from James Serven’s Colt Firearms 1835 - 1960

 

[expat_alaska]

Berkeley!

Thank You Sir!

 

[Old Fuff]

Very little is lost when turning an octagon barrel to round. I estimate about .015" to a corner or less. All you have to turn off is the corners of the octagon and hardly touch the flats. Take a close look at the picture in Post #9 where the round part starts. Also as Jim K pointed out you will likely have some problems when the cutting bit reaches the dovetail for the rammer latch, unless you cut the latch down first while leaving the base in the dovetail, and then drive it out later.

Remember, the circumference of the round barrel will touch each octagon flat in the center. No need to go beyond that.

 

[Ephraim Kibbey]

The barrel of my new ASM Dragoon has the high points of the round portion recessed from all of the flats in the breech portion rather than touching each flat at the center.

Photos of 1st gen Dragoons seem to look like the round portion is recessed as well.

In all of the above photos, it looks like there is a shadow where the side flat extends out beyond the round portion.

Here are pictures of another London 1849 Pocket with an octagonal barrel.

Notice that the barrel address begins well forward of the point where the rammer arm enters the barrel assembly/lug or at about the middle of the barrel without the forcing cone.

Turning THIS octagonal barrel would damage the first quarter of the barrel inscription (at least the arrowhead and ADD) but leave the rest intact.

Earlier one line addresses would have even more damaged.

It would be interesting to see pictures of the dragoon barrel pocket's inscriptions to see is if they are all confined to the top flat of the lug.

 

[Berkley]

Norm Flayderman's opinion, from his Guide to Antique American Firearms



OTOH, someone disagreed with him enough to pony up more than $5K for the Slidell pistol in the James Julia auction.

 

[Ephraim Kibbey]

I saw that online at Google Books but it is from the 2007 edition and I do not have a more recent copy. I wonder if he has changed his opinion since more examples have appeared?

Anybody have a more recent Guide?

Also one fake doesn't mean they all are.

 

[expat_alaska]

I am gravitating to Shumaker's opinion that, given the very wide spread of serial numbers and only 16 round barrel 1849 Pocket models observed (in his 1957 study), that these pistols are a "one-off" manufacture: if these guns are of Colt quality, it seems that these may be an off-duty project of one or more Colt employees purchasing (or "lifting") a barrel and/or parts and using Colt tools with or without Sam's blessings. I would not be surprised that Sam Colt would have produced an 1849 Pocket line of pistols of this round barrel genre (and marketed it as a true "Baby Dragoon") if his 1851 Navy .36 (produced starting in 1850) was not such a success. The 1851 Navy was a belt pistol, a gun marketed to bridge the gap between the saddle-holster-type Dragoon and the Pocket Civilian Model, and was widely prized during the Civil War, and proof of that is that any Southern/Confederate manufacturers of Colt copies used the 1851 Navy or Dragoon combination as a basis, and none, to my knowledge, used an 1860 Army, 1861 Navy, 1862 Navy, or 1862 Police as a copy.

As an adjunct, I am hoping some forum historians can link Slidell to Colt, or someone associated with Colt (or a politician of the day) as to how this pistol came to be. If it sold on Julia's auction site for $5K, someone knows something about the pistol; either that or someone bought a pig in a poke. But for that money, again, someone may know some history.

Jim