the purpose of brass framed revolvers

N

Newton24b

Moderator
parts is what they really seem to be meant for.

the cost of the basic parts for everything except the brass reciever, is the same as that of the steel guns. the cost of fitting is the same. the final cost isnt as much.

vti would charge 604.00 dollars for replacement parts for the 1860 except for the reciever. thats not fun. as fitting still has to be done.

you can get a brass framed 44 cal 1860 for about 260 dollars from most online dealers. identical to pietta steel frame 1860s.

or you can get a brass framed 1851 in 44 and spend 190 dollars. sure the barrel is a different profile and the rammer and so on, but it still fits your 1860. heck ya can use the octoganal barrel for a cartridge conversion only, and swap back and forth.

or am i nuts?
 
They're just cheap entry level shooters altho some are now based on historical fact. Yeah the parts will swap but some of those you'd never need and the parts you might need are a lot cheaper.
 
Um-got 2 steel frame 1860 armys for less. One is a fluted cylinder w/ white (sim grips) for $250. Fired 12 rounds'polished and cleaned. The other is standard Pietta for 250
 
I think the market was originally Confederate reenactors. Due to a shortage of steel, the Confederate manufacturers during the Civil War made a lot of brass framed, Colt pattern revolvers.
 
Many reenactors I know are more about looking right than necessarily being right.

The question is whether the reenactor is more about the technical side, or the showmanship side.

For the showman types, caliber isn't much of an issue, as the audience won't be able to see what the caliber is anyway.
 
That may be true but most of the reenactors I've met want to be as close to historically accurate as they can.
 
IIRC the Confederates were melting down church bells to obtain brass.
Also most reenactors I have known were not active shooters. A reenactor's firearm is basically a noise & smoke maker.
 
I work with one reenactor enthusiast who got into it because it was an excuse to ride his horse. He's indifferent to guns, although I'm not sure how he trained his horse to be ok with gunfire.

Another friend, who does not reenact, trained his horse by using a starter pistol and food...

Anyway, my co-worker is a Georgia boy, living in the northwest, so he is often tapped to play confederate cavalry. Not sure what guns he's carrying, but he worries more about his uniform pieces and tack. And his sabre, of course - much more dramatic to flourish a sabre than a revolver.

I suspect the reason why they make the brass frames in non-historic calibers is that a lot of BP shooters like .44, have a lot of .44 balls on hand, and may not want to stock up on .36. There must be some reason they sell.
 
I suspect most are sold as wall hanger display pieces. They are not authentic and they are not typical of Confederate revolvers. There was only 1 known Confederate revolver that used a bronze like material , similar to the alloy Henry and Winchester used.

I actually bent/distorted a brass framed Remington-type revolver trying to ram a ball on top of too much powder.

Modern muzzle-loading plains or so-called Hawkens rifles as they are generically called have lots of brass , but the originals did not. They used iron or low grade steel furniture. They were working rifles meant for hard use.
 
Modern muzzle-loading plains or so-called Hawkens rifles as they are generically called have lots of brass , but the originals did not.
Click to expand...

They don't look anything like a Hawken but they do bear a remarkable resemblance to Tryon trade rifles of the 1870's. Brass furnished and single keyed.

tryon.jpg
 
mkk41 said:
There was only 1 known Confederate revolver that used a bronze like material , similar to the alloy Henry and Winchester used.
Click to expand...

Lessee, there was the Griswold and Gunnison, the Spiller and Burr, and the Cofer that were brass framed. Then there was the illusive Schneider and Glassick that was displayed in 1862 in Memphis. Yep.........Only 1 known for sure.

If I were to hazard a guess as to why the Italians reproduction makers chose the brass framed .44 cal revolvers has to do with a couple things. One, brass was easier to machine and was lower cost than steel was in the mid 50s (Less than 10 years after the war) - most steel was being used for reconstruction. Secondly, Smith and Wesson and Ruger were just starting to produce the Model 29 and Super Blackhawk revolvers in .44 Magnum (1956 - which just so happens to coincide with the formation of Navy Arms). Everyone wanted to have the latest super pistol in 44 magnum; so, the Italians obliged with a cheap, brass framed, octagonal barreled .44 caliber pistol to satisfy the burgeaoning .44 craze in the States. Since they are still good sellers, why futz with a good thing???????
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top