"Fantasy gun" defense

[maint1517]

I know the title may be a little confusing, but bear with me please.
I had a conversation today with a fellow I know. Not a forum member here, but who is also into Bp revolvers. We got to talking about our recent purchases, and he got started on a rant about my "fantasy guns". Not at all like the helpful and greatly appreciated advice and opinions I've gotten here. Not going to try and quote him word for word. But told me I had wasted my money, they were useless. And when the word "junk" came out of his mouth, I'd had enough. I stopped him and let him know, ever so politely, that if he didn't like them that was fine. Don't buy any. But that I did, that's why I paid my hard earned money for them. That no, they may not be historically correct and I can't shoot as heavy a load out of the brass frames as steel. But that I liked them, that's why I wanted and bought them and enjoy shooting them.
I ended the conversation after that.
I try to always be respectful toward others. Just because I may not be into a model or type someone else has, I don't talk it down. They obviously wanted it and are happy with it or they wouldn't have posted or talked about it.

Sorry about this long winded post. Just had to get this off my chest.

Maint

 

[rodwha]

I’m not into brass frames on a .44 but that’s because I want to be able to hunt with them. If I were just punching paper, from what I’ve read all too often, a softer charge is typically more accurate. If that’s your thing or you just like the looks of the brass (I like the Spiller & Burr) then do your own thing. You aren’t, but were you, of course many of the brass framed pistols aren’t historically correct.

You obviously didn’t care for his words. But if your aim isn’t historical or heavier loads who cares? And I tell people considering such they can’t handle but mild loads but that’s just the way it is and not because I can’t stand them or that they aren’t correct,

 

[Kaeto]

The only problem I have with the "fantasy" guns is that they are marketed as something they are not. They most often are marketed as "Confederate" guns when they are not.

 

[expat_alaska]

Maint,

I would have asked the "friend" what he thinks about the Italian proof marks and the billboards for historical accuracy.

Here are a couple of brassers that are pretty accurate (with smooth cylinders):

Pietta Griswold and Gunnison .36



Pietta Schneider and Glassick .36



And a steel frame that is not (with a smooth cylinder):

Pietta 1851 Navy Second Model Dragoon .36



And, no, you did not waste your money.

Regards,

Jim

 

[Officers'Wife]

It would be a boring world if everyone liked the same things. Part of my uncle's "redneck philosophy" included a wonderful little saying that goes – everyone has a Gawd given right to screw up their lives as they see fit. In that vein, if you enjoy the look of a brass frame and it gives you that extra bit of enjoyment shooting it – more power to you my friend. Shooting is a recreation, if you can't get as much enjoyment out of your recreation as possible where is the sense of pursuing it?

That said, there is a local club that features rifle matches. I usually end up on the line with a 92 Winchester competing against AR 15's and other semi automatic rifles of more modern design. While I will admit that I am the last one to finish my ten rounds, my score is usually within 3 to 4 points of winning. Make no mistake, I still get teased about my "antique" but they mean it a whole lot differently than they did when I was fourteen and outshot their manly modern weapons. Would my little 32-20 outperform their 5.56 in power? Of course not… But I'm not charging an enemy position. Let me see them use that cartridge to shoot a rabbit and have enough left to fry!

One other small detail, my husband insists on using the homemade black powder seventy-five caliber double rifle to hunt deer. It's too darn heavy for anything but a tree stand and the barrels far too long for a brush gun and the idea of it being historically accurate is a joke worthy of Monty Python. Every year it brings home table meat. In my mind, that's the only history worth worrying about.

 

[Hasaf]

You said "fantasy gun" and I was hoping to see some wild steampunk creation.

Random steampunk themed picture

It seems to come down to the reality that different people enjoy different things in hobbies that overlap a lot of different interests. Imagine that. . . .

One is looking for simple shooters, another is looking for "close to document-able appearance. Those are two different hobbies that just happen to intersect at revolving cylinders and percussion caps. There is no way to say that either is wrong.

As I slowly rebuild my Black-powder collection (which is really more of a random accumulation of things that I feel are, or would be, fun to shoot) I am avoiding brass frames; but that is just my preference and should never be mistaken tor any sort of gospel.

 

[Tommygunn]

I'm a weirdo.

Okay, here I go. I don't like fantasy guns..


But.... I own a few. A Colt .44 Navy snubby with a bird's head grip. A few of those Pietta Police 1862 which are really 1861 Navies with short barrel and semifluted cylinders.
Yea.
Hey, I said I'm weird!
I bought 'em cause I like THEM.
I get the problem an earlier poster brought up about some being marketed as Confederate guns, but which never existed. I've seen a brass frame Remington NMA marketed thusly, and that was a total lie.

Other than that, hey, "to each his own." Buy what YOU like, get some good books on those old guns and learn something, have fun, and be happy!

 

[WestKentucky]

Not much different from the argument between a true Colt SAA and how the Blackhawk is a different action.

 

[paul harm]

Buy what makes you happy. I get criticized for opening up the chokes on my old SxS's - something that can't be seen, and those same people will restock a gun so it fits them better. I have one brass framed engraved nickel plated NMA that looked too pretty to leave lay on the dealers table. It just seemed to have my name on it. I could give a **** less what someone else thinks.

 

[maint1517]

The posts above are proof to my original post. I have no problem with difference in opinion. That is life.
But sharing your difference in opinion, just as all of you always do in a respectfull way,is expected always welcome. No one here has ever, that I have ever seen anyway, went on to the point of belittling. It was pretty much to that point.
I thank each and every one of you for the way you treat noobs like me, and each other.

BTW, this was no friend of mine. Just an acquaintance I run into from time to time at the local gun shop. Never had an encounter with him like that before.

 

[Caliper_Mi]

Heck, some even call the shortened "Sheriff's" versions "Fantasy Guns". LOL. Might not have been common, but the process for shortening a revolver isn't exactly rocket surgery.

I do sigh at the advertising for some of the guns though. Like my 1851 "Navy Yank Sherrif" in .44. Obviously I don't care about the 4 7/8" barrels, but a 1851 in .44 definitely never existed, and even making one back in the day would have been a fair bit of machining (never mind the different steel used in 1851's vs 1860's) However, if you read the advertising description on these things, you'd think that they were all over... I'd rather they just say that people love the look of the 1851 and they love .44 so Pietta blended the two together to make something cooler than what Colt did!

 

[ClemBert]

I agree fully with the OP. I see it all the time on this forum. That is, passive aggressive comments, zingers or one liners meant to denigrate a particular firearm owned by a member. It's one thing to start your own thread to discuss the pro's and con's of a particular firearm but to insert a negative post into someone else's thread if they haven't asked for negativity is not why this website is called THE HIGH ROAD.

 

[Brad_Bradsher]

Maint, I agree with you...and EVERYBODY ELSE posting. It's a matter of taste! My preference is to buy the historically "accurate" models--I have an Uberti '62 Pocket Police, not the Pietta 51/62 hybrid. Yet, the first BP revolver I ever owned was a Navy Arms Griswold & Gunnison brasser stepped-cylinder fantasy .44 that I built from a kit in the '70's...and I still mourn losing it in a burglary years ago.
Certainly, the Colt factory never shipped out "Avenging Angel" 1860 snubbies by the thousands, yet originals are out there...and I'd bet that a stepped-frame .44 1851 would have been made, if Col. Colt's early death and the factory fire hadn't happened almost at the same time to crimp production...Why? Look at the Pocket models, the .36 Police is stylish, beautiful, durn it's perfect--yet the .36 Pocket Navy followed it right out the door. People loved the Navy's balance and looks--so why can't we enjoy a .44 version that Colt might have made? I agree that marketing shouldn't imply that these models are "historical", but for those of us on THR, we know the difference...and viva la difference!

 

[Kaeto]

Colt went to the 1861 design for the Navy because it was cheaper to make the rounded barrel than the hex barrel of the 1851, and the loading lever was improved.

 

[Brad_Bradsher]

Yeah, Kato, but my point is that after they released the rounded, modern '62 Pocket Police, they introduced the "classic" Pocket Navy with the 1851 styling that customers wanted, and sold the "traditional" and "new" pocket models side-by-side...sort of a "Classic Coke" versus "New Coke" marketing mentality. I still propose, that without Civil War production pressures, Col. Colt's death, and the factory fire, that fantasy guns like a .44 1851 might have made the Colt catalog...

 

[Arkansas Paul]

We all like the guns we like for our own reasons. Some of us like fantasy guns and some of us don't.
You don't have to justify what you like to anyone. Shoot what you like.

 

[Brad_Bradsher]

Exactly, Arkansas...For me, it's a half/half propostion. I'll go out and shoot anything, and I've shot some fantasy guns I love. But, as far as what I own, the other half is those evenings with company where you sit after dinner and "click guns"...when somebody who's a Civil War buff visits, it's fun to pull out the Walker, 1849, '51 Navy, 1860 Army, Remmie New Navy, and '62 Pocket Police and show them the line of development with guns that are close to the originals...but it's also fun to set up a tin can CAS stage in the woods and blast away with a 3" .44 brasser 1851/Dragoon hybrid. We're in this to learn AND have fun, and the two aren't exclusive...

 

[expat_alaska]

My preference is to buy the historically "accurate" models--I have an Uberti '62 Pocket Police, not the Pietta 51/62 hybrid. Yet, the first BP revolver I ever owned was a Navy Arms Griswold & Gunnison brasser stepped-cylinder fantasy .44 that I built from a kit in the '70's...and I still mourn losing it in a burglary years ago.

Pietta is lately known for "thinking" outside of the box (wrongly, IMO) with such things as the 1851 Navy "pepperbox" .36 (ugh!) and the J.H. Dance .44, which is based upon a lowered 1851 Navy frame and a larger diameter non-rebated cylinder than the Navy .36 cylinder, which is non-historically correct. Pietta could make many "correct" guns with the CNC tooling and machining they have. As is pointed out by Brad, the Pietta 1862 Pocket Police and the Pocket Navy are produced using a 1851 Navy sized frame, which totally defeats the historical purpose of both, and neither are Pocket pistols.

I would really like to have the sincere ear of the Pietta CEO for 10 minutes just for them to sell more guns and make more correct pistols at little or no cost with the CNC plans and the tooling they have, along with other parts they have in their assembly bins. SMH.

Certainly, the Colt factory never shipped out "Avenging Angel" 1860 snubbies by the thousands, yet originals are out there...and I'd bet that a stepped-frame .44 1851 would have been made, if Col. Colt's early death and the factory fire hadn't happened almost at the same time to crimp production.

I think any originals were not produced by the Colt factory, but rather are cut-down barrels that had gone awry during usage and are salvaged barrels, perhaps as late as the 1930's smiths using "obsolete" guns and parts to create a shooter. These guns and parts were basically worth zilch then. Insofar as a stepped-frame 1851 .44 production, I doubt it. Colt had already committed to the 1860 Army design by then, as evidenced by the 1861 Navy .36. I think that the Colt Pocket Navy (some say first marketed in 1865) was an attempt by Colt's very astute widow to use parts in inventory to market and sell guns. She did the same when the Colt Open-top conversions were marketed in 1871 and the 1873 pistol was on the horizon.

Why? Look at the Pocket models, the .36 Police is stylish, beautiful, durn it's perfect--yet the .36 Pocket Navy followed it right out the door. People loved the Navy's balance and looks--so why can't we enjoy a .44 version that Colt might have made? I agree that marketing shouldn't imply that these models are "historical", but for those of us on THR, we know the difference...and viva la difference!

That's mostly Cabela's advertising/marketing segment trying to sell guns that aren't moving. (When is the last time you saw them put a Pietta 1851 Navy steel .36 on sale? Bought my last one for $170 2 years ago, and now they hardly budge from the $250 mark.) I have seen much more of it since BPS took over. Go to a BPS store and see their basically non-existent BP selections: all BPS personnel do is give you a deer-in-the-headlights look.

You folks that have "non-historical" ACW pistols: just go for it! If you like it, that is just great. The rest of us will just dwell in our replica historicity (whatever that is).

Regards,

Jim

 

[Malachi Leviticus Blue]

Rest assured that there were far more firearms manufactures back in the day than most of us are aware of. Also remember that they were for the most part built one by one with numerous variations and subtle differences between individual examples. The majority of "Fantasy Gun" comments are more out of ignorance that actual knowledge.

 

[Brad_Bradsher]

Getting off topic...or am I? Seems to me there's a mention somewhere here...maybe from a Fleyderman book...of a prototype '51 .44 being built. I'm looking, swear I saw a photo...Ha, I'm debating on favor of fantasy guns I'd probably not buy...

 

[Blkhrt13]

Now I’m curious. I must find some pictures.

 

[Brad_Bradsher]

I might be wrong...but I remember a thread about the possibility of a prototype. Probably apocryphal, the old hands will know...

 

[Brad_Bradsher]

Ok, this is NOT what I was thinking of...but I just found this while searching for a prototype '51 .44...Is this $10,000 .40 caliber prototype "Enlarged caliber Colt 1851" from 1859 for real? Talk about a potential fantasy gun!

https://www.joesalter.com/category/products/Rare-Colt-1851-Navy-Prototype-Enlarged-Caliber-Revolver

 

[Brad_Bradsher]

Ok, anxiously awaiting input on this from someone older, wiser, and holding a copy of Fleyderman's...but I'd buy a fantasy, short-barreled, beefed-up, Dragoonish-looking, 1851, non-stepped cylinder, .40 caliber Colt like this tonight, based on the pics from the Joe Salter auction site:

...and I'll figure out where to get balls later!

 

[Brad_Bradsher]

So Maint, not trying to hijack your thread...but one of my points is that if a gun was a prototype, a custom job, or in any way could have existed back in the day, we should cut it some slack on the "fantasy" slur...but I also understand the resistance to guns that never could have been made without a new factory being built around them. Still wouldn't turn down a G&G brasser .44 like the one I had in '72, for sure!
Good thread!