Skip to main content
Help Center Community Shop

dlrjj...a corection and some movie gun history

Comments

5 comments

  • Geri
    T;hank you. You guys are the greatest.
    0
  • captkirk3@dslextreme.com
    Why don't You Post your research on the 'DID YOU KNOW' Locked Topic portion of the Ask the Experts Forum....I personally found Your Topic to be very interesting...Detail what it was You wanted to know and then List all Avenues of Research and Results....Then submit it for Perusal to Hedog down in the South Pacific.....He's got nothing better to do than sit around and swat Mosquitoes and Watch Them Cute Native Girls with the Bone in thier Noses and Short Banana Leaf Skirts......Best........

    Captain Kirk, Tech Staff
    0
  • dlrjj
    shooter93;

    Thanks for the update and the information. I was aware Colt had some problems getting past the S&W owned Rollin White patent for the bored-through cylinder and they tried some unusual things to bypass it. The Thuer conversion with tapered center fire metallic cartridges that loaded from the front of the cylinder was one of the more unusual and least successful efforts tried from about 1868-1872. It used interchangeable cylinders so that it could still be used as a cap and ball if the Thuer ammunition was not available. They also made a .44 rimfire version (similar to the Henry .44) that seems to have been marketed mainly in Mexico. It was the last of their wedge retained barrel models, but did have a grip nearly like the Peacemaker.

    I enjoyed the discussion - nice to converse with someone who doesn't rant - and hope to be able to do it again on another topic sometime.

    "Tax evasion is illegal; tax avoidance is an art form"
    0
  • rhmc24
    Good write-up. Your post says "The Grip frame however is the 1860 Army style so that makes it a conversion." Maybe I'm confused but if the issue is whether it is a conversion or the 1871-72 Open Top, the Open Tops can be either with 1860 Army type grip or that like the 1851 Navy. I once had one with the Army grip and now have one with Navy grip. Conversion ring would make it a conversion for sure because the O.T. had a different frame that eliminated the need for the conversion ring, since it was produced new as a cartridge piece.
    0
  • shooter93
    you're right rhmc24...but it had to do with the glimpse of the ring and then the grip frame. What happened here...and there was some stuff missing that some might have missed...dlrjj and I had answered a post from another fellow and I used the wrong movie in my post. This started the to of us communicating throught here to get the information corrected. The first mistake was mine, I did something I never do...trusted my memory. I have written a number of articles over the years that were firearm related. I always write it quickly firt from memoery..BUT...then I proof read and delve into my research library. Like a fool...lol.. I didn't do the second step here and between the discussions dl and i had I dug out the right information. he peeked my interest and I wanted to correct my mistake. It was an enjoyable exchange. Another thing I have to look up now because of all of this...lol...is when the two different grip frames were offered. If I had to hazard a guess I'd say the navy grip was original on the Open Top just because it was being introduced as a new model and the Army grips were offered to use up old stock as sales for the muzzle loaders dwindled.
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Recent Activity