Quote:
|
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
|
No. The breechring is NOT part of the receiver. It is added on. As we plainly see, any gun can be fitted with any type of breechring. The sixgun does NOT have the wrong barrel on it. As I said before, more than once, there were three types of barrels on the 1851 cartridge conversions, all of the same basic design. The gun in question has one of those types, the later model solid lug barrel. NOT an Open Top barrel.
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:
|
the type I was far superior to later conversions
|
Actually operate the different designs and see if you still think that.
Quote:
|
Colt went to the firing pin in hammer to save money nothing more
|
Prove it.
Not semantics at all. Maybe you should look up the meaning of that word. The devil is in the details and this discussion is about details.
Quote:
|
For the sake of clarity, there was actually 3 conversion types.
|
You're deflecting. There were three conversion types on the 1860. Completely immaterial to this discussion, except that YOU think these variations are all interchangeable between models. How many times will you be proven wrong and still maintain your tired old arguments?