The "Replica" Industry
After doing research into the “replica” percussion revolvers I am now approaching this whole field as a new industry with new designs and variations much better than the original models they were copying. Not as a “Copy Cat” of original firearms.
This industry actually started back in the 1940’s when William B. Edwards was working at Colt and discovered a store room with many old original Colt parts for the 1851 Navy. He ask Colt executives if they were ever going to start making this revolver again. The answer was a laugh and “of coarse not”. “What are you going to do with these parts”, ask Bill. “Throw them away”, was the response. From that Mr. Edwards fabricated two 1851 Navy revolvers that he then used to shoot. One was sold to a friend and the other he kept. It was numbered “82” on the frame. This was the revolver that was smuggled into Italy and used by Uberti and Gregorelli to start the manufacturing of the first 1851 Navy revolver that was imported and distributed by Val Forgett’s new company, Navy Arms. The Navy Arms 1851 Navy Serial #1 is now in the RPRCA collection. This was originally given to William B. Edwards by Val Forgett and Uberti in graditute for the work he accomplished in actually starting this whole industry.
In the beginning the targeted market was the shooters. However, with the availability of custom engraved revolvers also offered by Navy Arms, engraving done in Italy, it is obvious that the market was also the potential collectors that these revolver might interest. Most all the subsequent manufacturers/importers also offered engraved and “special edition” issues that were also aimed at the collector. So much for the narrow opinion that, “replicas are only for shooting, not collecting”.
This new “industry” evolved very quickly into a whole new era of percussion revolvers. The shooters continued to direct the market with their opinions and “wants”. The first evolution by demand was the 1851 Navy in .44cal., not a “real” historically correct “reproduction” of an original Colt.
As prices increased the next “want” was a cheaper version of these percussion revolvers which resulted in the introduction of the brass frame to original Colt designs. The brass frame was part of the original production in the form of the Griswold & Gunnison imported by Navy Arms for the Confederate re-enactor. The brass frame was then introduced on the 1851 Navy (this would be the same as a Confederate Schneider & Glassick but with an engraved cylinder, which I doubt the Confederate manufacturers would be inclined to waste their time in doing), the Baby Dragoons and Pocket models, the Remington, etc.
Other variations came into being as a result of demand and on the part of the importers/distributors that were now in a vast, highly competitive market to increase sales. The increased sales were aimed at, yes the collector. Also, the fun shooters who want something new and different to “Wow” his friends at the range or in the field. One example is the 3rd Model Dragoon with an 18” barrel that came with a shoulder stock with steel hardware and a holster to fit it all into. These were marketed by EMF and Navy Arms. The Remington equipped with target sights was one of the first and most popular variation even till today. Stainless Steel was introduced on Colt, Remington, and Roger & Spencer revolvers.
As can be seen from the evolution of the “replica” revolver, this is a whole new category of firearm and it will have to be approached from that stand point. It is not the “reproduction” of only historically correct firearms but the introduction of many new and original revolvers that may have borrowed their designs from the old originals but has gone far beyond any of the original designs.
For the persons bothered by terminology there are certain facts that have to be lived with. Terms that have been used concerning these revolvers are “fakes”, “counterfeit”, “reproduction”, “copies”, “replicas”, etc. However, the term “replica” seems to be the word that has come into the most common usage and will remain so. Different authors have used different terms but these terms are identified by the author as to their meaning. The need to identify certain terms by the author is a requirement in any research paper.
I love your logic here and I think I will adopt it too. 
The last response was referring to the ROA.
