Uberti Conversion Revolvers

[gunboat57]

I'm thinking of getting an Uberti conversion revolver or 1872 open top but I have some questions about authenticity.

Didn't ALL Richards conversions of the 1860 Army keep the 1860 barrel profile? If so, Uberti's 1860 conversion is kinda weird because it uses the 1872 open top barrel. Would that make it a Richards-Mason conversion? Looks like the only difference is the rebated cylinder on the 1860 conversion vs non rebated on the 1872.

It seems like the 1851 Navy conversion is the most authentic conversion model Uberti offers and that's the way I'm leaning.

 

[CraigC]

There are essentially three types of 1860 cartridge conversions. The Richards Type I and II utilized the percussion barrel. The Richards-Mason used the same "S-lug" barrel as the Open Top model. They are all quite authentic.

 

[gunboat57]

Thanks, CraigC.

On Uberti's website I couldn't find any Richards Type I and Type II. I guess they don't offer them.

I notice some Uberti Richards-Masons are offered in 45 Colt. I remember years ago when I was drawing up a conversion cylinder for my 1860 replica that there wasn't enough room for the 45 Colt. Even 44 Colt was a tight fit. Did Uberti enlarge the rebated (Richards-Mason) cylinders a bit to allow for the 45 Colt?

Did Uberti enlarge the cylinder for the non rebated (Open Top) cylinders too or did Colt originally make those in 45 Colt with a larger cylinder?

 

[CraigC]

Cimarron has the Type II or aka, Richards Transition Model. I've got one in an 8" .44Colt. So far, the only Type I was produced several years ago by ASM and quality is spotty. THR member StrawHat has one of these guns.

I have absolutely no facts in hand but they had to have enlarged the cylinders on these guns to accomodate the .45Colt. Actually the .44Spl has a slightly larger rim. Even the modern version has a tiny rim. Originally the .44Colt was created as the largest cartridge that would fit and still be able to utilize a large enough heeled bullet to obturate the .45cal percussion bore. So they had to have increased the cylinder diameter to make room for the larger rims of the .44Spl and .45Colt.

 

[gunboat57]

Yup, I found the "Transition" model on the Cimarron website.

I know it's not precise but I put a picture of a Uberti Richards 1860 next to a pic of a Uberti percussion 1860 and adjusted the zoom until the grips were the same size. The Richards cylinder seems to be a tad bigger. Makes sense if they wanted to offer 45 Colt.



Here's a Uberti 1860 Percussion compared to an 1860 R-M conversion.


Here's a Uberti 1872 open top compared to an 1860 R-M.


Finally, a Uberti 1851 R-M compared to an 1851 percussion.


By the way, I lined up the hammer screws horizontally after zooming the two compared images to the same scale. You can really see where the modern repros have been beefed up in the cylinders.

 

[StrawHat]

I have an ASM Richards but have read a bit about the newer models being offered. The biggest flaw I see is them being offered in 45 anything. There was a reason Colts developed the 44 Colt cartridge. It was the largest cartridge they could make that would utilize the existing cylinder. The new guns in 45 have SOME of the parts enlarged but others are not so things are stressed and there have been a lot of reports that forcing cones are splitting on the 45 models. This has been hashed about quite a bit over on the cascity forum, (here is the topic page if you are interested)

http://www.cascity.com/forumhall/index.php/board,56.0.html

As for the barrels I know Colts originally used barrels from the 1860 and when they ran out of those they made new barrels. I doubt they would have made two or three different styles of barrel if one would work.

These are great revolvers but rely on 19th century design so are not nearly as suitable for loads beyond blackpowder as a solid frame revolver.

 

[gunboat57]

Strawhat, thanks for the reply and the link to a lot of useful threads. I have some reading to do.

After doing my photo comparison I realized that for the most strength and most authentic appearance I'd have to go for an 1872 in 38 Special. Uberti enlarged the cylinder on the 1872 but it doesn't look majorly out of proportion. In contrast the SMALL diameter of the 1860 R-M rebated cylinder is as big as the straight cylinder on the 1872. Anyway, 38 Special would leave a lot of wall thickness both in cylinder wall and forcing cone.

 

[CraigC]

My Pietta 1860 percussion measures 1.60" in diameter and the Cimarron Richards Type II measures 1.675" in diameter.

I'm not doubting anyone's experience but I find it to be interesting that the .45Colt's are having issues with the forcing cone. Particularly because the bore of the .44 percussion models is actually dimensioned for .454" roundball. I wouldn't buy one in .45, I just wonder what the difference is.

 

[StrawHat]

CraigC ...My Pietta 1860 percussion measures 1.60" in diameter and the Cimarron Richards Type II measures 1.675" in diameter...

On my ASM, the cylinder is 1.615, the Italians have made them larger in the last 5 or 6 years.

CraigC ...I'm not doubting anyone's experience but I find it to be interesting that the .45Colt's are having issues with the forcing cone. Particularly because the bore of the .44 percussion models is actually dimensioned for .454" roundball. I wouldn't buy one in .45, I just wonder what the difference is...

I have not scrutinized the controversy, but it has something to do with the fact they enlarged the diameter of the cylinder but did not make the coressponding change to the barrel and lug. I had trouble visualizing it but IF the cylinder is made larger and the chambers are further from the arbor AND the bore is left where it was, things are not goint to line up. I doubt it is that simple but that is the best I can do from what I read.

Heck, Colts cure was to itntroduce the Model P (and I believe it was in 44 Colt until the miltary asked for a 45 Caliber cartridge) and discontinue the open top style. If you want something different from 44 Colt, they are available in 44 Special and that seems to work okay.