View Full Version : Need too id a revoler

November 28, 2010, 08:45 PM
Need too id a revolver or smt like that lol

So can anyone tell me is this like a pietta or smt or is it like the ad say an "antik" revolver i only have the pic too go by

take a look and give me any info at all


the rifleer
November 28, 2010, 08:54 PM
It looks like an 1860 colt to me. :)

November 28, 2010, 09:45 PM
It's a 60 Colt with a brass frame. Pietta is the only one currently making brass frame Colt's. BTW there never were any real Colt's made with brass frames.

November 28, 2010, 10:17 PM
It's a brass framed "repro" like others pointed out. It's hard to tell who mfg. it as over the years, there have been several that reproduced the "60 Army with a brass framed. What would help further to possibly identify the maker is if you could give some close up photos of any of the markings on the frame, barrel, etc. Then it might be easier for someone to pin down the mfg. of it. Thanks! :)

November 28, 2010, 10:22 PM
It looks like a '61 NAVY to me because the cylinder is not rebated, the grip is the short '51 grip and the chamber walls are too thick for a .44!

November 29, 2010, 12:11 AM
Brass frame, round barrel, .36 caliber = Griswold & Gunnison. High Standard made them, and Pietta had a version, too, but neither had Colts Patent stamped on the side. What other markings are on it?

November 29, 2010, 03:57 AM
Brass frame, round barrel, .36 caliber = Griswold & Gunnison.

Ummm no. G&G had a part octagon barrel like the rear portion of the 51 Navy. Junkman is right it's a 61 Navy I just wasn't paying attention to detail.:o



November 29, 2010, 05:00 AM
Thou are correct. I wish I could say I was just testing ya, but I just got lazy.
I have a High Standard about 20 feet away but, well, it's waaay over there.

Doc Hoy
November 29, 2010, 10:16 AM
I think this revolver does not have a historical prototype (that I am aware of..please correct me if I am wrong) therefore it is a stretch to call it an "1861 Navy" unless we purposely leave out the word, "Colt" even though "Colts Patent" is stamped on the port side. (I use the word "Port" instead of "Left" because we think it is in Navy caliber.) Certainly if it is a .36 which we believe it is, it is "Navy" caliber and certainly it has many common features with an 1861 Colt but the most glaring difference is the brass frame. As it has no basis in history, we might just as well leave out the year as well.

Nearly everyone who posted, referenced this and so I am not claiming a new addition to the thread. Not trying to say that I caught something that no one else caught. There are many folks on the forum who are far better informed about the history of these revolvers than I am. I am just being argumentative.

Lets talk about pistols which do have a place in history. The G&G, S&G, and L&R are not (to my knowledge) refered to by any specific year except in the Cabela's catalog when addressing pistols which look like the G&G and S&G. Did the manufacturers refer to these revolvers as 1851s because they had copied the design of the 1851 Colt? Did they refer to the revolvers by their first production year or company design year? Or did they simply call them by a name and not a year at all?

If we call the revolver referenced in the OPs question, an 1861 Navy on the strength of the argument that it closely resembles an 1861 Colt Navy, then we might as easily call it a G&G because it has a brass frame that looks like the G&G brass frame and is in .36 caliber. I have several pistols which have very long names. ("Pistol that looks like an 1860 Colt but has a brass frame" or "Pistol that looks like a G&G except that it is .44 caliber.")

When I started accumulating BP revolvers I was not in the least bit interested in historical accuracy. In point of fact I probably have not changed much in the feeling. But it does bother me when manufacturers cobble together pieces of this and pieces of that and then infer some connection with an actual piece. In cases where there was aprototype, call it by its correct name.

Now having said this, let me hasten to add that probably half of my revolvers are not even close to historically accurate. And I don't know the real names of the other half.

Perhaps I woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.

November 29, 2010, 12:13 PM
There were alot of prototypes out there that never made it into production. I went to the Colt Collection at the Hartford, Ct State Library a few years ago and they had several unusual prototypes - Dragoons with topstraps, a .44 "Army" with the hinged loading lever of the 1851 .36, etc. Maybe Colt experimented with brass framed guns that he never produced. My theory is - if it shoots, and it's safe, then it's fun.
Check this out: (I know it's not Colt-made but it's still interesting)

Doc Hoy
November 29, 2010, 12:19 PM
"If it shoots its fun"

Agree completely.....

I am just being crotchity about stuff I don't generally get crotchity about.

November 29, 2010, 08:50 PM
Perhaps I woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.

At least you woke up this morning.

November 30, 2010, 10:38 AM
That's a very interesting brass frame 61 navy clone. The "Colt's Patient" on the frame is not a common stamp mark on clones. I can't make out the stamp mark on the grip panel.

How about more photo's. Is it for sale?

November 30, 2010, 12:42 PM
I love to see some more pictures. The "Colt Patents" is different:D


A really bad stamp job. I'd say someone did a Defab job.

But it's all in good fun.