Richards Type 1 model conversion $290

[CaptainCrossman]

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?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

 

[CraigC]

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.

 

[CaptainCrossman]

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

 

[CaptainCrossman]

So how could an 1851 (octagon!) be fitted with an "Open Top solid lug barrel"?

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

 

[CraigC]

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???

people are dumping old cast frame guns, to replace them with forged frame Ubertis.

People??? No, YOU are trash-talking about the cast frame guns. YOU have yet to even prove that the manufacturing method changed and YOU have yet to prove that forging is necessary in this application. As you did in the several emails you sent me, all you do is rant that "forging is better". YOU have created this debacle all on your own.

 

[CaptainCrossman]

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

 

[SamStafford]

Wish I won the bid on that at GB.

 

[CraigC]

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.

the type I was far superior to later conversions

Actually operate the different designs and see if you still think that.

Colt went to the firing pin in hammer to save money nothing more

Prove it.

semantics, Craig.

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.

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?