Odd Ball Colt conversion to rimfire

A friend has a S&W .22 conversion similar. Done in Europe to get around the no centerfire cartridge laws. His has Belgian proofs all over it.
 
Once upon a time, a gunsmith's pay for something like that would have been less than the price of a K22 or Officer's Model Target .22.

I once saw a SAA converted like that. Not nearly as complicated with side rod extraction, though.

By gum, I believe the adjustable rear sight was made out of a Krag rear.
 
Nice! Guessing maybe 1920's, maybe 30's? There really were not
any heavy 22 revolvers being made in that era. Some gunsmith put
a lot of time and effort into this one. Split cylinder and setback barrel
to eliminate the freebore jump to the rifling, lots of little custom
touches. Probably cost 3-4,000 to duplicate today.

No real collector value unless it can be tied to a famous smith, shooter
or owner, but I'll bet it's still a sweet shooter.:)
 
I've seen a photograph somewhere of another gun converted like that, only it didn't have the additional cylinder part to mask the gap. BillM is correct in stating that the idea was to eliminate the cylinder jump, presumably (and questionably) to increase accuracy.

There were nice full-size .22 revolvers available in the 1930s as well as the .22 caliber Colt Government Model, which has a name I don't remember. But given the economic conditions during that period, I doubt the sold in great numbers.

Also, because of the differing economics of the period which are difficult to understand today, as well as for other reasons, I think there were more oddball conversions and modifications like that before WWII. Already there were conversions of surplus military rifles being done, even including some that we would be surprised that anyone would bother attempting now. The economies of doing things began changing after WWII but converting military bolt actions became more popular than ever, down through the 1960s.
 
Elme Keith had a photo in his book Sixguns by Keith of a M1917 with the cylinder cut to a length just to contain the .45 ACP, and the barrel extending back to the face of the cylinder. This left a considerable gap between face of the cylinder and front of the frame window. Using part of the cylinder that gap was closed. This .22 could have been left with that gap, but the 'smith chose to close it.

Bob Wright
 
Back in the day, if you wanted a single action .22 you were out of luck, there weren't none. There was one famed gunsmith ( I can not remember his name ) whose call to fame was converting Colt single actions to rim fire. Remember. It was quite extensive work and his work was well received. Remember, at one time Colt single actions were nothing special and a lot of people tinkered with them.
 
The gunsmith referred to above was a man named Crull. Not only did he convert c.f. Colts to r.f., but converted Colt 1877 Double actions (Lightnings, Thunderers) in .38 Colt or .41 Colt to Single Action .22 rimfires.

A few Colt Single Actions were made in .22 r.f., but the SAA was not considered a target grade gun, so at that time Harrington & Richardson made a dandy little .22 break top target revolver.

Bob Wright
 
Looking at the pistol, I am of the opinion that this is a conversion for a Bullseye Competitive shooter.

I know there are some real Colt collectors, so correct me if I am wrong, but I don't remember a factory production Colt New Service in 22LR. I don't remember a S&W N frame 22 LR. If you have a big hand and all of the competition capable 22 LR revolvers are Colt Officer's Model or S&W small frame, maybe a larger 22 LR built around a New Service frame would be just the ticket. Also, the ergonomics would be the same as a 45 ACP Colt New Service, and that is important. I see Bullseye shooters with 22 LR uppers and Colt M1911 lowers.

The revolver in the ad has adjustable rear sights, that would be important to a target shooter.

Competition shooters are willing to sink big money into projects that might gain them extra points. I think someone sunk big money into this revolver, the owner probably could have bought a perfectly fine factory 22 LR target pistol for less.
 
Certainly is an interesting piece. Pretty pricey but I suppose there is a collector for everything. The only thing the person that did the conversion left off was the duct tape? Can you imagine what the cost of something like that would be at today's prices! :eek:
 
Bedbugbilly said:
The only thing the person that did the conversion left off was the duct tape?
Click to expand...

Duct tape hadn't been invented then.

If you are thinking maybe of taping the two halves of the cylinder together, remember the front half does not rotate as does the rear half.


But dadburn it! Wouldn't you love to get you hands on that gun and run through a box of .22's?

Bob Wright
 
The bullet "jump" is eliminated but the b-c gap is not, it is simply moved back. In use, the newly made front half of the cylinder (which is fluted and drilled just for looks) remains stationary with its gap around the barrel; the rear part, whcih appears to be a conversion, rotates as in a normal revolver.

The normal way of achieving such a conversion was to simply install permanent chamber adapters; why that was not done, I don't know.

The same basic system was used in some .22 adapters for the Webley revolvers; the main difference was that they didn't bother to make a fake cylinder front, they just left the gap.

I agree that it was for competition shooting. The adjustable sight (from a Krag), target front sight, and trigger stop pretty well prove that.

Jim
 
Conversion of CF revolvers to .22 RF by using permanent cylinder and barrel inserts are pretty common. One of the first SAA revolvers I ever fired was exactly that kind of conversion. It was heavy as heck and the one orginal .22 SAA I had a chance to hold was the same way. There was a reason Bill Ruger scaled down the Single Six!

Jim
 
It hurts to see a Model 1909 chopped up, no matter how interesting the result.

There were not that many made and they are seriously worth something now. Especially the USMC version with a slightly rounded butt.

History lesson: The Army had a need for .45 caliber guns, thanks to some locals in the Philippines being "resistant" to the .38 Colt revolvers used in the late 1890s and early 1900s. The Army did send some shortened Single Action Army revolvers, but it was not a good idea to fire smokeless rounds in those older guns.

So they adopted the 1909 in .45 caliber smokeless. This gun is the Colt New Service which was also used, a few years later, for the M1917 revolver (in .45 auto caliber, of course).

The M1909 fired the M1909 cartridge, which had a wider rim than the earlier .45 Colt cartridges. The idea was that the SAA could not fire these smokeless rounds but the M1909 could fire any .45 Colt or .45 Gov round from the earlier black-powder days.

And it was formally replaced two years later with the M1911 Colt automatic. So you can see why not many M1909 revolvers were made.

Bart Noir
 
Very interesting old Colt; I would not want to price the conversion in today's dollars. The rear sight resembles the type Giles used on some of his 1911 work. It may be interesting to research if he did any revolver work.
 
Hi, Bart Noir,

You seem to be saying that the Model 1909 cartridge was deliberately made with a larger rim than the .45 Colt/.45 Schofield to keep it from being used in the SAA. That is the first time I have heard that; the usual reason given, and which I have read in several places in the old records, is that the rim was made larger because the .45 Colt jumped the extractor of the Model 1909 revolver, tying up the gun. I wonder if you have a source for the smokeless powder idea.

(Of course, the M1909 cartridges can still be fired in the SAA, though only three can be loaded in the cylinder.)

Jim
 
James, you are no doubt right about the biggest reason for the larger rim diameter. I had completely forgotten about that aspect.

And yes, the M1909 cartridge would fit into the SAA cylinder with every other hole left open.

But now I am wondering about the length of the brass. I believe somebody has mentioned, here on the interweb, that the case of the 1909 was made a little longer.

I need to leave work early and go home and take the M1909 from my collection (cartridge, not revolver, dang-it) and start pushing it into cylinders on .45 Colt revolvers. If it doesn't work I will certainly be coming back here to tell you!

Bart Noir
 
AFAIK, the M1909 cartridge was not deliberately made longer than the .45 Colt and I can't imagine any reason to do so. Colt chambered those guns for the .45 Colt and the Army never changed that. I will note, though, that Frankford at the time had some problems with getting case length right, and specimens show variation. Those who submitted pistols in the various trials where FA ammuntion had to be used complained quite a bit about that. (It is probably the reason the 1911 is designed with a large gap between the breech face and the extractor hook, rather than the close extractor fit used on guns like the Model 1903, which was made for use with a rim.)

Jim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top