Richards conversion type 1 revolver

[RWMC]

Years ago, the company Armi San Marco used to manufacture a Richards conversion type 1 revolver. It was made like the originals, complete with the flat- faced hammer, the rear sight built into the top of the conversion ring and the floating firing pin built into the receiver. Time has passed. Armi San Marco is no longer in business, and no one is currently making a copy of the Richards conversion type 1 revolver. Those who wish to have a copy are now having gunsmiths individually convert them. They are beautiful pieces, but as you already know, quality gunsmithing is expensive.


I would like to see the folks at Cimarron firearms and/or Taylors and company bring out a new copy of the Richards type 1 conversion made by either Uberti or Pietta. A caliber selection of .45 Colt, .44 special and 38 special would be nice.
.
I have always felt that the Richards type 1 conversion was the most moderen of the Richard type conversions of the Colt 1860 Army revolver. Actor Tom Selleck carried one in the movie, "Last Stand at saber River".

Maybe if some of us would," put the bug into the ear" of Cimarron or Taylors and company, they could convince Uberti or Pietta to fill the conversion type 1 void, and maybe we could see a new Richard's type 1 conversion in a year or two.

 

[Gaucho Gringo]

As always cost of manufacturing is a force in model changes, it was as true 150 years ago as it is now. Colt found as cheaper way to convert C&B revolvers in the Richards Mason conversion which is the only reason they did so. The Richards conversion worked just as well and in my mind it was better that RM conversion but even Colt had it's bean counters. I think the same holds true today, even more so in a very small niche market. As much as I would like to see a new one I don't think it will happen.

 

[StrawHat]

I like them a lot, even if they were not exact replicas. I agree, the price to build such a thing for a very small market is what keeps the Richards a very sought after piece. Sought after by maybe 10 or 15 folks. Growing up, I could buy originals for less than I paid for either of these.

ASM was even kind enough to build these in the correct 44 Colt cartridge, albeit with a 43 caliber bore.

Kevin

 

[stubbicatt]

Lovely. For myself, I think I'll look into the Cimarron 1872 in 44 special. I think they are really neat revolvers.

 

[CraigC]

I'd love to see a new version of the Richards Type I built by Uberti or Pietta. I'll buy one of the ASM guns when one comes my way but their reputation is not very good. Been thinking about just having Kirst & Strite build me one. For now, the Cimarron Type II is close enough.

As always cost of manufacturing is a force in model changes, it was as true 150 years ago as it is now. Colt found as cheaper way to convert C&B revolvers in the Richards Mason conversion which is the only reason they did so. The Richards conversion worked just as well and in my mind it was better that RM conversion but even Colt had it's bean counters. I think the same holds true today, even more so in a very small niche market. As much as I would like to see a new one I don't think it will happen.

It was cheaper to use the old percussion barrels they already had, as they did on the Richards Type I and Type II. They went to the Richards-Mason with the new S-lug barrel because they ran out of them.

 

[StrawHat]

I'd love to see a new version of the Richards Type I built by Uberti or Pietta. I'll buy one of the ASM guns when one comes my way but their reputation is not very good. Been thinking about just having Kirst & Strite build me one. For now, the Cimarron Type II is close enough.



It was cheaper to use the old percussion barrels they already had, as they did on the Richards Type I and Type II. They went to the Richards-Mason with the new S-lug barrel because they ran out of them.

The ASM conversion revolvers seem to have been made during a high point in the scheme of things. The ones I have reflect very good quality. None of the soft parts, common to ASM C&B revolvers, are present in the conversions.

Kevin

 

[CraigC]

That's encouraging!

 

[RWMC]

StrawHat, thank you very much for posting your pictures of your type 1 conversions. They look really nice.

 

[StrawHat]

StrawHat, thank you very much for posting your pictures of your type 1 conversions. They look really nice.

Thank you. They handle and shoot as good as they look. I load the 44 Colt cartridge with black powder and a 200 grain RNFP bullet I cast six at a time. I use an appropriate lube that is a blend of beeswax and (currently) olive oil.

I am considering replacing the grips with s set of either holly or smooth stag. The stag will weigh a bit more and change the feel but I do like smooth stag.

Kevin

 

[BlackWoods]

Original Colt 1860 Richards conversion .44 help?

Hola
I just bought an 1860 Colt Richards Conversion in .44 Colt original cal heeled cartridge . I really don't plan on shooting it much. Can anyone advise me on where to get ammunition, or reloading advice?
Thanks

 

[caltom]

www.cartridgeconversions.com or http://oldwestbulletmoulds.com/ has what you need to load for it. It's handloading only for original .44 Colt using outside lubed heeled bullets. Nobody has made ammo for it commercially in a very long time.

 

[BobWright]

I thought Cimarron offered such a model?

http://www.cimarron-firearms.com/conversion-revolvers/1860-conversions/1860-conversions-1860-richards-type-ii.html

Bob Wright

 

[CraigC]

That's the Type II, which is very similar. The differences are fairly subtle, like the locations of the firing pin and rear sight. Both being in the conversion ring on the Type I, on the hammer of the Type II.