Cimarron 1860R-M vs. 1872 Open Top

[RedTape]

I'm looking at getting my first black powder revolver and want either a Cimarron 1860 Richard-Mason conversion or the 1872 Open Top. What is the difference between these two models/is one stronger than the other. I was planning on getting it in .45LC.

Thanks for the help.

[CraigC]

The 1860 Richards Mason is a replica of the latest version cartridge conversion for that model. The 1872 Open Top is a replica of Colt's first cartridge revolver, built as a cartridge gun from the start. For me, the Open Top is a little more refined in its design (obviously) and more suitable for regular use but not quite as attractive as the 1860 Richards Type II. I have one of each in .44Colt but lack the Richards Mason version.

[RedTape]

So other than some cosmetic differences they should function the same?

[CraigC]

The 1860 will have the rear sight on the hammer, the 1872 will have it on the rear of the barrel. A significant decrease in sight radius but I don't find it to be a problem. Both sight setups are rather crude, although I do like the 1872 a little better. The 1860 will have a conversion ring while the 1872's frame is one-piece. I also find the loading gate to be easier to manipulate on the 1872. Overall, the two are very similar. Between the two, I'd prefer the Open Top for a using sixgun. Which is what I do with mine. I load it up with a 240gr SWC or HPSWC over 4.0gr Titegroup and pack it in an El Paso 1849 Californian. Eventually I'll end up with at least one of each, including the 1851.

[RedTape]

Thanks for the info. I'm heading to a gun show next week so hopefully I'll find one or the other. I wouldn't mind having one of each myself.

ETA: Is there a difference on the frame size between the .44 and the .45?

[CraigC]

No, they should all be the same size. Which is why they're a little overweight for my tastes when chambered in .38Spl.

[Jbar4Ranch]

I love those old guns! (Repros anyway) I've got three 1851 RM conversions in .38 spl, three 1860 C&B's, and a pair of 1872's in .45 Colt, but no 1860 RM conversions.

Two of my 1851 RM's showing the conversion ring.

[RedTape]

Very nice looking guns. Maybe I'll find something at the show tomorrow.

[JJF]

Hello all! From a new owner and poster.

A reply to something CraigC said;

"For me, the Open Top is a little more refined in its design (obviously) and more suitable for regular use but not quite as attractive as the 1860 Richards Type II."

I can't agree more as I just purchased a nib Cimarron Tranistion Conversion which I think is also refered to as the Type II, meaning I think we are talking about the same piece.

Beautimus shooting iron!

[CraigC]

That sleek percussion barrel on the Type II is just sexy!

[JJF]

...overall seem very good. This is my first revolver of any type, have not fired it yet, but action seems good and well to me. So far could not have been happier with the fit nd finish until I looked at the muzzle. Two deep "vise bites" on outer edge and two fine "nicks", one very close to the barrel opening. I needed a magnifying glass to see that the close one was in fact not actually compromising the barrel opening, it is about 1 milimeter(or less) clear. These marks are not post manufacture damage as all are blued over. I would not have let this leave the factory as quality manufacture. Am I being too picky?

Thanks for any opinions.

[CraigC]

Well, mine was one of the early Richards Transition models from Cimarron with the short ejector rod. I had to return it because it was so rough on the outside, I couldn't see letting it slide for the $520 I paid for it. Cimarron replaced it with a new one that also came with the proper long ejector rod. It is not as nice as the Open Top pictured above but it's acceptable. So if it's unacceptable to you, I'd return it.

[JJF]

...with these reproductions being of checkered output no matter the name on the box. For half a grand, I expect better! Since they let it go, if I fire a chunk out of the barrel, they will still have to deal with it one way or another. At least you saw here that they may have left me, and bystanders, in harms way!

At time of order Cimarron said they had two in stock. Why did they send me the(maybe)worst of the two?

I just super hate calling to task someone eleses poor judgement!

I don't want to screw around with sending anything back to anyone.

Just do it right the first time!

[CaptainCrossman]

to the OP:

the best looking and most "dashing" conversion ever made by Colt, and copied by the Italian repros, was the Richards First Conversion. It has the rear sight on the breech ring, and an imbedded firing pin in the breech ring, and a flat hammer, just like a modern single action or double action pistol- the original was actually way ahead of its time.

The problem with the original was, it cost too much to convert Colt pistols using the Richards First method- it was too exotic. So they put the rear sight and firing pin back on the hammer, and opened up the breech ring like the old C-B pistols, so the pin could strike the cartridge- to make it cheaper to produce.

It appears the same cost problems affected the Italian gunmakers as of late, because the Richards First Model is no longer made as a repro either- it's been discontinued recently.

considering the 3 choices today for new guns, I'd take an Open Top for heavy shooting use, but a Richards Second Transition or R-M Third model, for looks- the breech ring gives the guns added character.

the problem is, all of these guns cost over $500 each, some are banging on $600- I managed to get one local dealer down to $465 plus tax/transfer, but that gun would still be $500 when I was through- it just seemed like too much for an Italian repro, regardless of quality.

yesterday, the blackpowder gods smiled on me, when I found a new in box, unfired Richards First conversion model (now discontinued, out of production) at a gun show, for only $400- much less than any new conversion gun currently available- and exactly the configuration I wanted.

pics

[mykeal]

Please reduce the size of your pictures.

[Smokin_Gun]

I can only see about a 1/3 of it with a 17" widescreen Notebook... yes please...
Ooops din't see them thank you...

[CaptainCrossman]

You'll have to click on the links in my last post to see the pictures, I can't get the pictures to downsize. I did remove the oversized pictures.

Here are more pictures of the Richards Type I conversion repro, showing the breech ring, imbedded firing pin, flat hammer, and rear sight on breech ring. These features are what made the Type I superior to the firing pin in hammer/sight on hammer of the Richards Type 2 transition, or the R-M Type 3.

but it was pricey to produce in the 1870's, so they came out with the Types II-III to make conversions worthwhile and cost effective

The Richards Type I operates like a modern gun, and the sights are much better to use than the sight-in-hammer design. The sight on the breech ring looks better, IMHO. The firing pin is foolproof- a more refined, sturdier design- the hammer is flat, and drops down out of the line of sight, when cocked- much easier to aim the gun.

it's a damned shame that in today's economic times, the same rules apply as in the 1870's- they stopped making the Richards Type I repro, for the same reasons- it's a more costly gun to produce.
I have never seen a Richards Type I repro for sale on gunbroker yet- people hang on to them. The value for this gun going up due to these reasons- they are a superior conversion, and hard to find as of late.

[CaptainCrossman]

JJF: My thoughts exactly- that's why I went looking for a 2nd hand gun, and at vintage authentic Colt 1860 Armys. The real McCoy is starting to look like a viable alternative.

[CraigC]

Oh yes, very nice! I'd love to have one too. Weren't they made by ASM and imported by EMF?

[CaptainCrossman]

Yes, this is an ASM made gun, it is in a Traditions box.

[JJF]

...everyone for your help to this replica western revolver newbie!

Happy great clouds of BP smoke!(Although, I'll be firing modern ammo.)

JJF.