Author Topic: What is your favorite replica Colt cap and ball revolver? (Read 5089 times)

His lordship. · « **on:** December 26, 2010, 08:57:51 AM »

I have owned several replica Colt cap and ball revolvers over the years, had an 1847 Walker, two 1851 Navy's, and a Pietta 1860 Army. Thinking of getting the Uberti 1860 Army later this year as the grip fits my hand, it is streamlined, with a better loading lever setup, etc. The Walker was too big and heavy, the 1851's grips are too small.

I also might look at other types too, but again the grips are small on the 1861, the 1862 Police, and the baby dragoon. I chose not to include other revolvers like the Remington, I have one of those and it is a different animal than what ol' Sam Colt designed.

Overall, what has been your personal favorite of the replica cap and ball Colts.

Fingers McGee · « **Reply #1 on:** December 26, 2010, 03:14:42 PM »

'51/61 Navies...... Definitely '51/61 Navies

FM

AtlLaw · « **Reply #2 on:** December 26, 2010, 04:28:53 PM »

My 3rd Model Dragoon for some reason. $:-\$ Don't know why but I love to shoot it!

I like the look and feel of my '61 Navy a whole bunch also.

Pat/Rick · « **Reply #3 on:** December 27, 2010, 12:38:27 PM »

The navies. Actually any of the .36's

fistmil · « **Reply #4 on:** December 28, 2010, 03:57:34 PM »

51 Navy, specifically the Uberti London model. I like the black iron trigger guard and back strap more than the brass on the other models. I have small hands, therefore like the small grips of the Navies.

StrawHat · « **Reply #5 on:** January 01, 2011, 12:37:20 AM »

I like the 1860s, both Uberti and Pietta. I consider all Italian clones to be kit gins and need some work, Ubertis less so than the other. I have owned maybe a dozen or so and once they get "broken in", they are all pretty good. My favorite is this one, shown with the clone Pocket Police.

and a solo pose

It started out with an 8" barrel but a judicious application of a hack saw and some follow up with a file and stones gave me a short barreled revolver simialr to a cartridge conversion I saw.

AtlLaw · « **Reply #6 on:** January 01, 2011, 04:54:18 AM »

Pretty!

What are those grips?

They sure look good.

StrawHat · « **Reply #7 on:** January 01, 2011, 11:52:18 PM »

Quote from: AtlLaw on January 01, 2011, 04:54:18 AM

Pretty!

What are those grips? They sure look good.

They are what I have taken to calling American Ivory, elk antler with the bark removed. Sounds fancier than it really is! I can't afford ivory but was able to find a couple of shed antlers so made these for the revolvers. Not a big fan of antlers with bark on them but when smoothed out I sure do like the way they look. Elk is somewhat porous but there are ways to overcome that also.

AtlLaw · « **Reply #8 on:** January 02, 2011, 06:15:26 AM »

Quote from: StrawHat on January 01, 2011, 11:52:18 PM

I can't afford ivory

Ain't that the truth!

Quote

Not a big fan of antlers with bark on them

Me either.

Quote

when smoothed out I sure do like the way they look.

Me to! I really like the way they look!

Quote

Elk is somewhat porous but there are ways to overcome that also.

What did you do? I've tried stabilizing antler with super glue. $:-\$

Quote

was able to find a couple of shed antlers so made these

Nice work! I want to put a set of nice grips on my Navy and one of my SAA's. I think ones such as your really dress up a revolver.

cwlongshot · « **Reply #9 on:** January 02, 2011, 07:20:09 AM »

Quote from: Fingers McGee on December 26, 2010, 03:14:42 PM

'51/61 Navies...... Definitely '51/61 Navies

FM

Here here!!!

CW

Pat/Rick · « **Reply #10 on:** January 02, 2011, 08:48:33 AM »

Strawhat, like them grips! Would bone be less porous and does anybody make them? Guess I'll have to do a search

. Always thought of making a .44 snubbie with a '51 clone. What front site did you use?

StrawHat · « **Reply #11 on:** January 02, 2011, 10:17:53 AM »

Quote from: Pat/Rick on January 02, 2011, 08:48:33 AM

Strawhat, like them grips! Would bone be less porous and does anybody make them? Guess I'll have to do a search . Always thought of making a .44 snubbie with a '51 clone. What front site did you use?

For the front sight, I dovetailed a front sight I had bought to use on a rifle. A bit large but nothing that could not be fixed with a miniature hand held milling machine, or an 8" file. Actually, they are one and the same.

StrawHat · « **Reply #12 on:** January 02, 2011, 10:51:42 AM »

Quote from: AtlLaw on January 02, 2011, 06:15:26 AM

...
Quote
Elk is somewhat porous but there are ways to overcome that also.

What did you do? I've tried stabilizing antler with super glue. $:-\$

I have used super glue to stabilize the porous spots I uncover when I removed the bark. Also shellac. I may try some thin epoxy but all I can find is the thick, gel stuff. I rub it in good, let it cure and sand it smooth.

Quote from: AtlLaw on January 02, 2011, 06:15:26 AM

Quote
was able to find a couple of shed antlers so made these

Nice work! I want to put a set of nice grips on my Navy and one of my SAA's. I think ones such as your really dress up a revolver.

Thank you, they do look nice. I may try to fit a pair to my short barreled Walker.

coyotejoe · « **Reply #13 on:** January 03, 2011, 05:00:58 AM »

My 1851 groups a bit tighter from rest but I prefer the grip of the 1860, just fits my hand and points more naturally for me. It's shown here with the Kirst conversion cylinder and the taller front sight needed to zero with .45 Colt.

StrawHat · « **Reply #14 on:** January 03, 2011, 10:53:26 PM »

Quote from: coyotejoe on January 03, 2011, 05:00:58 AM

My 1851 groups a bit tighter from rest but I prefer the grip of the 1860, just fits my hand and points more naturally for me. It's shown here with the Kirst conversion cylinder and the taller front sight needed to zero with .45 Colt.

Nice looking comversion, I have always liked the look of the 1860. The conversion cylinder, is it a five shot or six? I have a replica of the Richards conversion in 44 Colt and it is six, not sure if six of the 45s would fit.

coyotejoe · « **Reply #15 on:** January 05, 2011, 06:01:36 AM »

That's exactly why Colt designed the .44 Colt cartridge, it's the biggest round that can fit six holes into an 1860 cylinder. Mine is five shot and you can see in the photo that the chamber walls are paper thin in the rear of the rebated cylinder. Colt produced a wonderful weapon when they shoehorned a .44 caliber into the same frame size as the .36 caliber 1851. Then they really outdid themselves when they converted it to cartridge.
The Uberti replicas of the Richards/Mason conversion are not built on an 1860 frame. They increased the frame size and the cylinder diameter to accommodate six .45 Colts. It just sort of resembles an 1860 conversion but the slim, graceful lines just aren't there. I had one of the Uberti Richards/Mason conversions as well as an 1872 open top and it appears that what they did was use the opentop frame and rather than rebating the cylinder smaller at the rear they made it larger at the front to sort of appear rebated. Still neat guns but just not an 1860.
Kirst makes several different conversion cylinders for the 1860, both with or without a loading gate. I wanted the gated conversion because the conversion ring was part of the look of the originals. I think they did list a six shot gated conversion for .45 ACP and I would have gone that way but the retailer didn't have any in stock so I settled for the five shot in .45 Colt.
One thing about converting an 1860 is that the rifling twist is really too slow for long bullets like the 255 grain, accuracy with those was very poor. I found that bullets no longer than a 200 grain flat point were best in the barrel originally rifled for round balls. Round balls over a light load of Bullseye shot as well as with the percussion cylinder and shot to the sights originally zeroed for percussion. The 200 grain bullets shot jut a bit high but not too much and grouped nearly as well as the balls.
The Kirst conversion cost nearly as much as a new Uberti so-called Richards/Mason revolver but at least it does look like an original conversion.

wellfedirishman · « **Reply #16 on:** January 07, 2011, 08:21:18 AM »

StrawHat,

The snubbie looks great! Did you have any particular way of making sure the muzzle cut was a clean 90 degrees? I wouldn't mind doing the same, but I'd need to use a beater revolver barrel, I don't want to mess up a nice one.

Did you recrown it, or just stone the muzzle smooth? If you recrowned it, then how?

Thanks

Quote from: StrawHat on January 01, 2011, 12:37:20 AM

It started out with an 8" barrel but a judicious application of a hack saw and some follow up with a file and stones gave me a short barreled revolver simialr to a cartridge conversion I saw.

StrawHat · « **Reply #17 on:** January 07, 2011, 03:31:25 PM »

I made the first cut with a hack saw and then dressed the muzzle square with a file. I made a series of bore diameter rods and that is how I determined what was square. Crowning the muzzle is merely a matter of taste. Some like to use a big brass round headed screw with an abrasive paste on it and turn it with a slow drill motor. Others leave it square. Heck you could probably use a cue ball and emery paper as long as you take you time and do it evenly. I left this one sqaure to the bore and have suffered no ill consequences.

I have considered converting this to 44 Colt but if I wait long enough the urge passes.

FourBee · « **Reply #18 on:** January 07, 2011, 03:48:39 PM »

Well; years ago I picked the Colt .44, and still favor it above all the rest.

coyotejoe · « **Reply #19 on:** January 08, 2011, 06:10:31 AM »

The problem with converting an 1860 to .44 Colt is that a .431" bullet doesn't shoot very well out of a .451" bore. You have to use either a heeled bullet like the original load or a hollow based bullet to upset enough to fill the bore, neither of which are very convenient to load nor are they generally very accurate. Otherwise you can get the bore relined to modern .44 caliber. The Uberti replicas of conversion revolvers come with bores correct for the caliber and my open top and Richards/Mason conversions both shot very well with Black Hills .44 Colt ammo or comparable handloads.

P.A. Myers · « **Reply #20 on:** January 23, 2011, 01:23:42 AM »

My favorite of the Colts is my 1847 Walker. Big power, very accurate.

The snubs are fun too.

Charcoal · « **Reply #21 on:** March 01, 2011, 04:35:42 AM »

I like my old Navy Arms/Uberti Colt 1862 Pocket Police .36cal.I like the feel of the smaller grip in my hand.The recoil is nil and hits accurately once you adjust for the high point of impact.I like my .36s alot more because I can cast more balls per pound and use less BP.

bubba15301 · « **Reply #22 on:** March 03, 2011, 04:37:44 PM »

all of them

El Gringo · « **Reply #23 on:** March 05, 2011, 10:11:30 AM »

Love my 1860.

FourBee · « **Reply #24 on:** March 05, 2011, 10:38:30 AM »

Quote from: El Gringo on March 05, 2011, 10:11:30 AM

Love my 1860.

That's what I'm shooting here - - - - with some K I K black powder. I'll just stick with the GOEX, I like it better for some reason.....