..., Given the design of the Colt replicas, if one really wanted to have the historically accurate .375 diameter, they could have that by switching the cylinder and the barrel. ....Idk, what do you guys think? Great idea or am I a stupid kid with a dream?
What the Italians did back in the 1960's, and what they do today can be a mystery. There are several "houses" that produced cap-n-ball revolvers out of Italy that made revolvers for Europe. It's likely that the countries where they were in demand had some sort of restrictions on bores that matched modern ammunition, AND probably had laws that did not apply to the revolvers so long as they were copies of the originals.
Once the copies were in production, it's very hard as long as sales are maintained, to get the Italians to switch to anything. They will discontinue stuff since that doesn't cost them any money, but switch....not so much.
An example is the Pedersoli Bess, which is supposed to be a 2nd Model, a Short Land Pattern British musket, but the musket copied by the Italians was probably either a militia musket made in England for use by what we'd think of as a
home guard, or a civilian contracted copy of the actual musket, which was misidentified in the 1960's as a Brown Bess. Further it is not an accurate musket for the F&I War (The Seven Years War in Europe) and it's wrong for the Napoleonic Wars. Yet they still crank them out and get $1600.00 for them with the bayonet.
Seven Years War reenactors and Napoleonic Reenactors are doomed to use them even though they are very very incorrect when it comes to history.
Pedersoli could retool the lock, and the sideplate, and produce a correct musket for the F&I, and the American Revolution, for reenactors, and add the correct 3rd Model Bess for the Napoleonic crowd in Europe. But..., they don't.
WORSE, they also produce a short Bess Carbine which doesn't conform to any known Bess in existence...., it's a fantasy gun.
The Japanese tried to cut in on the market in the 1970's, but the Bess that they used was damaged, and the trigger guards kept that damage all through production.
They, however, were trying to cut in on an established market with a very similar product.
So NOW your idea is good. It's an extra sale to all those folks who currently own .36 cap-n-ball revolvers, so might make a pretty penny, in addition sales of newly designed .357 black powder revolvers to new owners. They owners could use modern .357 molds, and soft lead, and have no worries, and a .357/.38 conversion cylinder would not need for the shooter to use bullets with a deep base cavity to cause the bullet to flare before it enters the forcing cone, and hits the rifling to give better accuracy. BUT....,
What kind of liability do the revolver makers face IF somebody puts one of the new barrels onto the old cap and ball revolver, neglecting to switch over to the proper matching cylinder, and tries to launch a .376 projectile through a .357 barrel?
What kind of stress on the steel or worse the brass frames, happens if folks are shooting from a .357 chambered cap-n-ball cylinder, into a .357 barrel, BUT they aren't using soft lead hand cast bullets, but have bought very hard cast, lead alloy bullets made for modern handguns.
Do the manufacturers need to use better quality steel in their frames to cover possible high stress and lower product life, and thus raise the price, when for right now sales are good?
There are probably other factors involved, but as long as they are satisfied with their incoming money and sales...., nothing will change.
LD