|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
June 1, 2009, 06:55 AM | #1 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 2, 2009
Posts: 381
|
Richards Type 1 model conversion $290
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=129829986
now that was a good deal on a cartridge conversion pistol is historically incorrect and a mix/match of different parts though: Richards type 1 rear sight on conversion ring, which is the best sight of them all, easiest to use Richards-Mason Type 3/1871 Open Top ejector assembly Richards-Mason Type 3/1871 Open Top solid lug barrel it should have a Richards Type 1cap/ball barrel and Type 1 ejector assembly that may be why the low price, that and the barrel length being shorter- the conversions just look better with a 7" barrel |
June 1, 2009, 09:22 AM | #2 |
Junior member
Join Date: November 28, 2001
Location: West Tennessee
Posts: 4,300
|
The gun was cheap because it's a used ASM.
So how could an 1851 (octagon!) be fitted with an "Open Top solid lug barrel"? No, it's a correct 1851 cartridge conversion with a solid lug barrel as per the Richards-Mason design. The odd feature is the conversion ring mounted rear sight that is historically incorrect. 1851's maintained the hammer mounted firing pin, hammer notch rear sight and a cut through in the ring for the hammer to pass. There were no Richards Type I conversions on the 1851, that patent related specifically to the 1860. On the 1851 there was only the Richards-Mason conversion that utilized three different barrels. A modified percussion barrel, a "scooped" barrel with the recess for inserting balls but no channel for the loading lever and a solid lug barrel. I disagree, while they look great with their original percussion length barrels, I also love how the shorter barrels look. Especially a 5½" Type I 1860 and a 4¾" 1851. |
June 2, 2009, 05:50 AM | #3 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 2, 2009
Posts: 381
|
Depends how you want to look at it:
The gun has a Type I Richards rear sight on the conversion ring, and floating firing pin in the conversion ring, with a flat hammer- only the Richards Type I had that the Richards-Mason conversions, Type 2 and Type 3, had the rear sight on the hammer groove therefore it's not a Richards-Mason conversion, not with that sight and firing pin setup the sight and firing pin being part of the receiver, dictates what type of gun it is- the barrel is easily interchangeable- this qualifies as having the wrong later model barrel on it receiver takes precedence over barrel, in determining type of gun it is. being a 38 caliber, they had to call it an 1851- because otherwise it would have to be a conversion of an 1861 Navy in that caliber- and the barrel is incorrect for an 1861 conversion this is what happens when they stray from the original design parameters and patterns. A mix and match hybrid to put it nicely, or a bastardized gun to put it bluntly. Used ASM guns are not junk, and not cheap either. This recent downturn in prices occurred in the past week or so, a month ago that gun would be bringing $350-$400 the reason for the downturn: people are dumping old cast frame guns, to replace them with forged frame Ubertis. Not a bad thing altogether, if you want to try out some different guns on the cheap- and prices on existing cast frame BP/CB pistols are only going to drop further, when all those forged frame Ubertis hit the market- who would want the cast guns, when they can have forged ? barrel length: watch the current gunbroker trends, the shorter barrel guns always bring less, or get less bids- if that gun had a long barrel, it would fetch $350 no problem- the longer barrel looks better on a C/B/Conversion, it sets off the open top cylinder and ejector assembly- and also looks more like a Spaghetti Western gun Last edited by CaptainCrossman; June 2, 2009 at 06:53 AM. |
June 2, 2009, 06:11 AM | #4 | |
Junior member
Join Date: April 2, 2009
Posts: 381
|
Quote:
easily: make the parts historically incorrect, then put the barrel on, and slip the wedge in FWIW, if you lived in the late 1870's and had a Richards Type I pistol with a defective/bent/broken barrel, and sent it back to the factory for repair, they may very well put a solid lug barrel on it, and send it back to you Colt used whatever parts were laying around, until all the inventory was depleted Last edited by CaptainCrossman; June 2, 2009 at 06:58 AM. |
|
June 2, 2009, 10:28 AM | #5 | |
Junior member
Join Date: November 28, 2001
Location: West Tennessee
Posts: 4,300
|
You really need to do more reading. The barrel is octagon, it is an 1851 barrel, period, not an Open Top barrel. As I said, the `51's were made with barrels EXACTLY like the one in the auction.
If it is a cartridge conversion on the 1851, it IS a Richards-Mason because no others were patented. YOU can't change the name, which relates directly to the patent, just because the manufacturer used the wrong parts. As I also said, there were NO RICHARDS TYPE I conversions on the 1851, that patent pertained specifically to the 1860. The bottom line is that ASM used the wrong style hammer and conversion ring. That is all. I didn't say ASM's were junk, nor did I imply it, did I? It's a used gun, used guns go for less money than new ones and cartridge conversions are a niche within a niche. Why would anybody pay $400 for a used ASM when they could have a new Cimarron for $430??? Quote:
|
|
June 2, 2009, 12:44 PM | #6 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 2, 2009
Posts: 381
|
semantics, Craig.
some call the Type 2 the "transition" model. For the sake of clarity, there was actually 3 conversion types. the rear sight on the conversion ring, and floating firing pin, is the Richards Type 1 design only- no other. That is what the gunbroker $290 gun has. Not a Richards-Mason by any stretch the type I was far superior to later conversions, as follows: it had a floating firing pin, hammer, and rear sight like a modern 20th century revolver-it set the bar in that respect, and was decades ahead of its contemporaries of the time Colt went to the firing pin in hammer to save money nothing more Last edited by CaptainCrossman; June 2, 2009 at 01:24 PM. |
June 2, 2009, 02:36 PM | #7 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 16, 2009
Location: Portageville, MO. 63873
Posts: 162
|
Wish I won the bid on that at GB.
|
June 2, 2009, 06:18 PM | #8 | |||||
Junior member
Join Date: November 28, 2001
Location: West Tennessee
Posts: 4,300
|
Quote:
One more time, there WERE NO Richards Type I or Type II conversions on the 1851. You cannot overlook that fact and those terms simply cannot be applied to the 1851. You cannot change historical fact. Both Charles Richards and William Mason are dead. They are creating no new patented designs. The Richards-Mason design was the only one applied to the 1851 so you cannot call them anything else just for your own convenience. Call it whatever you want, it is a replica of the original Richards-Mason design utilizing the wrong style of conversion ring. ASM using an 1860 Richards Type I "style" breechring does not make it a Richards Type I cartridge conversion because no such animal exists. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
|
|