For the record:
Having torn down, examined, 'smithed, and reassembled a fair number of original Colt cap & ball revolvers, and some "open top" cartridge conversions as well, I think that denster is right, and respectively suggest that pohill needs to read more then patents. On most post-1848 Colts the barrel and cylinder arbor were individually fitted so that the arbor bottomed in the barrel's hole, and then the back of the barrel was filed if necessary to establish a correct barrel/cylinder gap. Subsequently, a wedge was also fitted, and usually serial numbered to the gun. Sometimes you will find a partial serial number on the arbor. All of these numbers were necessary because the fitting was done while the parts were still "in the white" and not finished or case hardened.
As I mentioned in a previous post, patents were obtained to tie down as many features as possible, so that future competitors couldn’t use them. Over the years Colt constantly made changes – small and large – and modified manufacturing methods and procedures to improve his products.
Last but not least, current reproductions of Colt’s cap & ball revolvers do not always follow the original production techniques in many respects. Thus you cannot use Colt’s patents or patent drawings as a guide to addressing issues in these modern revolvers.
I would have bought a .44 Remington by now to give me another example of the gunmaker's art, but I had the hots for another BP rifle.
