The THR 1851/1860 Club

The frame is the same. I think "improved" means that the rounded surfaces on the barrel are easier and faster for the manufacturer.
 
ImperatorGray said:
I always figured fewer were imported because there was less of a market, rather than the other way 'round.

My guess has been that many of those who go for the 1851 do so for the octagonal barrel and angular look. For those who prefer the sleeker look of the 1861, there's the 1860 - which is in a more popular caliber, anyway.



I'm interested in what makes the 1861 so much better than the 1851. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Colt's own words, not mine. But better steel was used in the 60 and the 61 although it eventually was used in the 51 also. The new design was held by Colt's to be an improvement over the older designs still in use.

Kevin
 
Nickel Plated- What conversion are you using?
Click to expand...

Kirst gated conversion. And a Uberti factory conversion barrel for the correct .357 bore.
I heard the factory conversion barrels may not fit the C&B frames because of a slight difference in the dimensions. Personally I don't see why Uberti would just randomly change the dimensions of the barrels. But I guess we'll find out.
Worked with my 1858 conversion. Ofcourse the barrels on those are quite a bit harder to swap :banghead:

Not sure whether or not to go with the ejector rod though.
I saw a conversion someone did where they just cut little slots at the rear of the cylinder where the rim is just so they can get their fingernail in there and pull the empty brass out by hand.
Sounds like cool idea to me. The ejector rod always seemed kinda slow and clunky to me. I could probably do it faster by hand and not have the extra weight and bulk of the ejector on the barrel.
But the factory conversion barrels have a slot and screw hole cut in them to accomodate the ejector assembly and might look kinda "incomplete" without it. Like I just started building it and then said "screw it" halfway through.
I'll decide how it looks when the barrel gets here.
But the gun is gorgeous. The case hardening on the frame is almost perfect. Definitely like it better than my Uberti 1858.

I'll get some pics up tomorrow.
 
StrawHat said:
Colt's own words, not mine. But better steel was used in the 60 and the 61 although it eventually was used in the 51 also. The new design was held by Colt's to be an improvement over the older designs still in use.

Kevin
Click to expand...
All right, but I'm asking what about the design is so much better. I ask because I've never rammed a ball home with the "creeping" lever of an 1860 or 1861, so I don't know what it's like.

Does it feel easier? Could it put less stress on the weapon? (The latter would be quite the improvement, considering the strength limits of open-tops.)
 
Last edited:
N.Plated-
The ejector rod works great if you take the time to learn how to use it. If you find a vid of Thell Reed, you'll see the correct way to use it. Much faster than trying to dig them out with a finger nail.
All you do is lay the gun in your left hand and turn the cylinder with your fingers as you punch them out with the ejector rod (using your right hand). It's very easy and very fast. It baffles me to watch folks make such a chore of it!

I. Guy-
Probably "all of the above". The materials were getting better all the time, the " creeping" lever removes a screw and increases mechanical advantage ! You can bend the pivot screw (old system) which makes it hard to remove. The flats on an octagonal barrel have to be hand filed, the round surfaces of the new design are much easier to finish.


Mike
www.goonsgunworks.com
 
Last edited:
Here's my "new guy". It's a 2nd Gen Pocket Navy, along with the mounted Pocket police cylinder and my rawhide covered wedge tool (no marring the revolver & made out of a dog chew toy), the other side is for removing the wedge on my T/C Renegade. Notice on the un mounted cylinder there's a real visible turn line, on the mounted one NONE. This piece arrived so out of time it was ridiculous!! The cam needed to be replaced and the bolt leg slightly modified to fix the problem...no turn lines now!! So much for "Colt Quality" either on a hung over Monday or I wanna go home Friday.
 

Attachments

  • PocketNavy1.JPG
    PocketNavy1.JPG
    54.8 KB · Views: 69
Finally got to taking a picture of my new '61 Navy.

DSC_0733.jpg

The ejector rod works great if you take the time to learn how to use it. If you find a vid of Thell Reed, you'll see the correct way to use it. Much faster than trying to dig them out with a finger nail.
All you do is lay the gun in your left hand and turn the cylinder with your fingers as you punch them out with the ejector rod (using your right hand). It's very easy and very fast. It baffles me to watch folks make such a chore of it!
Click to expand...

I know how to use the ejector rod. I guess the issue has more to do with the fact that it kinda clutters up the look of the gun and puts extra bulk and weight right out there on the barrel. I'd just rather leave it off.
See post #13 in this thread. That's where I got the idea for the little cutouts in the cylinder.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6051734#post6051734

Anyway the barrel conversion has pretty much hit a stop. I can't seem to find one in stock anywhere. And since ALL Uberti parts suppliers are out of them with no ETA. I'm starting to assume that the cartridge barrels are one of those parts that simply can't be had as a spare. So I guess cutting and relining the original is my only option here. Either way I have been reading more reports of the factory conversion frames being slightly bigger, mostly to be able to fit a wider cylinder that can hold 6 rounds of .45 Colt which the true "conversion" cylinders can not. And so the barrel dimensions are slightly increased to match.
 
Didn't mean to step on yer toes NP. You are the one that mentioned an ejector being "slow and cluncky" and that using your finger nails would be faster! Figured if that's the case, maybe you may not know how to properly use the rod. Obviously my mistake. There's plenty of folks here that can help you (if that's what you want).

Mike
www.goonsgunworks.com
 
Oh I didn't mean to imply that. Just wanted to explain my admittedly weird reasoning for not wanting an ejector on there.
 
Mike, I surprised someone hasn't started a club for the 1861 navy. Should we expand and include them here???
Click to expand...

Just obnoxiously piping in here...

Why not include all Colt Belt/Pocket open-top pistols (not horse pistols) in the club and rename it as such?

1849 Baby Dragoon, 1849 Pocket, 1851 Navy, 1855 Sidehammer Pocket, 1860 Army, 1861 Navy, 1862 Police, and 1862 Pocket Navy (did I miss any?).

I love looking and drooling over all the "Club" thread postings, learn and see a lot of things and, with some of the Pietta non-historical offerings, see possibilities with pistols that Sam Colt never produced, including the cartridge conversions which are, technically, not 1851/1860 pistols.

Something like this would, I think, bring a lot of pistols out of closets and safes that we have never seen before, whether original/replica/home-brewed experiments.

Just my $.02 worth.

Jim
 
Nickel Plated said:
Finally got to taking a picture of my new '61 Navy.

DSC_0733.jpg



I know how to use the ejector rod. I guess the issue has more to do with the fact that it kinda clutters up the look of the gun and puts extra bulk and weight right out there on the barrel. I'd just rather leave it off.
See post #13 in this thread. That's where I got the idea for the little cutouts in the cylinder.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6051734#post6051734

Anyway the barrel conversion has pretty much hit a stop. I can't seem to find one in stock anywhere. And since ALL Uberti parts suppliers are out of them with no ETA. I'm starting to assume that the cartridge barrels are one of those parts that simply can't be had as a spare. So I guess cutting and relining the original is my only option here. Either way I have been reading more reports of the factory conversion frames being slightly bigger, mostly to be able to fit a wider cylinder that can hold 6 rounds of .45 Colt which the true "conversion" cylinders can not. And so the barrel dimensions are slightly increased to match.
Click to expand...
Nice 1861! Is that a Uberti?? What kind of surface finish does it have ---- it doesn't look like anything I've seen ....maybe the lighting?
 
Nice 1861! Is that a Uberti?? What kind of surface finish does it have ---- it doesn't look like anything I've seen ....maybe the lighting?
Click to expand...

It's just the standard Uberti bluing. Just the lighting playing tricks on you.
 
Went out for a day in the mountains to go shoot the 1860 Army and the LeMat. The night before, I pulled the Army apart and checked everything for rust or cracks, loose nipples, etc. While shooting, the LeMat was as picky about what kind of caps it prefers as it always is. The Army used everything equally well but seemed to give longer cylinder strings with Rem #10s. 24 grains of powder and the standard 454 round ball gave a very satisfactory BOOM! along with some amazing accuracy. My longest shot to target up a hillside paced out at 65 yards. This gun, orphan make it may be, is solid and so much fun to shoot and reload. Pointable and the recoil lets you know you just fired something potent! Spent caps flick off by them self as the cylinder turns. I really can see why this gun was the Army's preferred sidearm for so many years. ;o) Once the Walker returns from the Goon, this gun is going out to get a spa treatment from him as well. I am _completely_ pleased with it.
regards!
 
Good afternoon,
Full cylinders fired without having to pause after a shot to replace a cap or clear a blockage from a spent cap. The LeMat will throw caps from recoil if I use the Rem #10s but will work seamlessly with CCI #10s. The Army works well with both types but will give load after load with no issues if the Rem caps are used.
regards, J-Bar
 
Back a few decades a lot of people were building these revolvers. Some went by the wayside as everyone figured out that they were junk but some builders like yours PainlessWolf that built exception revolvers just went out of business. Another great revolver that just simply vanished was the Centaur.
 
I want it! Here's my 1860 Colt 3rd gen Calvary commemorative. I have a Nickel one posted in the buy & sell
 

Attachments

  • img_0561.jpg
    img_0561.jpg
    80.6 KB · Views: 39
#1 Choctaw, #2 Crawdad1, #3 Malachi Leviticus Blue, #4 HUnter58, #5 Berkley, #6 volleyfire, #7 dickydalton, #8 Ephriam Kibbey, #9 Prairie Dawg, #10 Fingers McGee, #11 45 Dragoon, #12 Willie Sutton, #13 todd haley, #14 Doubledeuce 1, #15 1KPerDay, #16 J-Bar, #17 sltm1, #18 bannockburn, #19 NineMilePete, #20 Yankee John, #21 mykeal, #22 driver243, #23 44 Dave, #24 ImperatorGray, #25 RS1860, #26 A526051, #27 dwh4784, #28 dagger dog, #29 StrawHat, #30 Skinny 1950, #31 gopguy, #32 RonC, #33 alexander45, #34 daboyleroy, #35 expat_alaska, #36 Brad_Bradsher, #37 perldog007, #38 RCampb6131, #39 jaxenro, #40 NMRevolverGuy, #41 PainlessWolf, #42 Avartarshots.
 
Crawdad1 is a bad influence!!!

I started out wanting a single action revolver for plinking, the odd target shoot informal like, as a hunting sidearm, and to keep one company in the woods in general. So I got around to choosing a BP for what I wanted, and of course the 1858 pattern. Shooting my 1858 was not much different in many respects from shooting a service revolver. More recoil, better 'boom', more smoke, single action, but it was like any service revolver in rapid fire at ten paces. Accurate enough at first blush in my hand and no doubt the gun was capable of more than I was. Perfect.

The 1851 was nice, walked it in with three shots and put three in the 'X' of a Birchwood Casey 18x12 reduced sillohuettte within an inch at seven yards, timed fire.

But the 1861 was the big surprise. I knew it felt good in my hand. That Italian reproduction put five in the money and one called flyer ( last shot in string ) timed fire at twenty five yards offhand. I have not shot a string of timed fire at twenty five yards in years, let alone on a reduced size target. On a full size K5 it would have been 29 points for those six shots. Not bad.

Considering the years past since I did any live fire ( air pistols and rifles for about a decade ) target work, I am quite pleased.

OTOH, I would never have acquired a Colt Pattern in .44 army if it weren't for Crawdad1 and his posts. So I blame him for the bazillion colt pattern copies I am about to own. This one may go to man who deserves some recognition in my neck of the woods. Thinking about taking the presentation box from my model 25 ( which came largely unglued :( ) and putting new velvet and a few odds and ends in with. ( pretty flask, screwdriver, maybe a mold ) and making a presentation of it.

Now I had the Pietta loaded to Colt's original instructions with 2f pyrodex. I filled her up and seated .454 balls and pinched down #10 caps. No misfires in 14 shots ( two cylinders and two 'loosies' so others could touch one off ) and certainly a platform with more accuracy potential than this operator.

I am sure with load development and a stable rest some truly impressive results could be had. As it stands, for my first time using these sights I am very proud of this result, again 25 yards, off hand, timed fire. five shots in the scoring area of teh 18x22 B.C. reduced silohuette target. One on the paper and putting that over a standard K5 we count 29 of 30. This system works, and works well within it's limits.
 
I blame Bannockburn!!!

He's the one that started it all with that pic of his 3rd Generation Colt 1860 Army. After seeing that pic I had to have one. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

U
  • Locked
1860 London particulars
Replies
1
Views
436
Tommygunn
Tommygunn
T
  • Locked
New Pietta 1851 Navy
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
toolslinger
T
expat_alaska
  • Locked
Full Fluted Cylinder For An ASM 1860 Army
Replies
22
Views
2K
Ephraim Kibbey
Ephraim Kibbey
expat_alaska
  • Locked
Pietta 1851 Navy .36 And Confederate Cousins
2
Replies
39
Views
4K
Ephraim Kibbey
Ephraim Kibbey
B
  • Locked
Colt 1851 vs 1860
2
Replies
25
Views
15K
Bad Flynch
B
Back
Top