Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - pitfighter

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Walkers & Dragoons / Re: Beat up Reproduction Walker
« on: September 28, 2019, 10:44:18 PM »

It's also not the same font.

Interesting this is, the originals also have a different looking stamp for the "A" and "numbers" -

These images are of a Walker currently in auction - verified by the Texas Collectors association.

Select Language​▼

White vinegar works well...just watch it carefully and pull it/rinse as soon as the bluing is gone.

Thanks - may well do that to mine.

I like it, what did you use to remove the blue on the cylinder?

Walkers & Dragoons / Re: Beat up Reproduction Walker
« on: September 10, 2019, 11:50:47 AM »
I agree with Hawg. I believe the "A" appearing on the bottom of the backstrap, left side of barrel lug, and left side of the frame is the earlier ASM marking which evolved into the ASM triangular logo with a somewhat stylized A, S, and M of later ASM reproductions.


That is interesting, thank you, yes, the A is off line with the rest of the stamping -

Thanks Len - reading up on the rest of the buy over the next week, or so - An Army Wheelock, an Army Joslyn (rarest of the lot), An English Bulldog and some Flintlock rifles and one Mule Ear Percussion musket oh and a pair of matched box lock muff pistols.

Walkers & Dragoons / Re: Beat up Reproduction Walker
« on: September 09, 2019, 03:27:26 PM »
The Walker is most likely an Armi san Marco with some embellishments. There's a lot of ASM's out there with a Colt barrel address which Colt sued them over.

Thanks Hawg - !

Walkers & Dragoons / Re: Beat up Reproduction Walker
« on: September 09, 2019, 02:51:17 PM »
Hah - just posted some photos and research up at Gunboards on that one - https://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?1110203-British-Revolver-licensed-by-AF-and-manufactured-in-Belgium

Took a few hours last night to read up on it.

That image is on an 1851 Colt Navy alongside an M1851 Deane Adams and Deane - in .50 caliber.

Walkers & Dragoons / Beat up Reproduction Walker
« on: September 09, 2019, 12:52:50 PM »
Hi Gentlemen,

I collect mostly "original" period items, this Walker turned up in a grouping recently.

Obviously it's a fairly "low value" modern reproduction, but I wondered if you experts could tell me a little more about it.
The pictures show all the visible markings.

Rifling is of the modern type and it looks unfired.

My thought is that it's a kit that someone has finished roughly and stamp marked to their own design.
There is no country of manufacture engraved and no proof, or import marks.

The revolver in the center.

US 1847

A Company No 68

A Company No 68

A Company No 68

Blank Patent no. 

Army Models / Re: My 1860 Colt
« on: April 29, 2019, 11:42:54 PM »
You may want to check with Mike Brackett,  Goon's Gun Works.  He is currently working on my 2nd Gen Colt Navy suffering from a loose arbor and broken index pin.  Good Luck.

Thank you!

Very nice 1849 Pocket. Could it also be the tip of the trigger?

As far as the 1st Model Dragoon is there anything specific that makes you suspect a copy? It looks real enough to me.

My issues with the Dragoon:
1. The address and patent stamps are missing - now these revolvers were used and abused and unloved for many years before becoming collectable - and this has been buffed and rubbed and beaten and dented and whatever, sooooo - the markings could have been lost to time (they have on several of my other Colts), According to last owner, this was at one time Gold plated (brass/nickel/gold) had to be removed, could have removed details - !
The patent has had an "attempt" at recovery - by hand-stamping individual letters! - something Colt wouldn't have done, but again could have been done years later to an original in the misguided effort to restore - I suppose.

2. The Serial numbers are double stamped - and although the "font" used, is historically darn-close to correct, it is not recorded anywhere that I can find that they would double stamped numbers on Dragoon parts - but my research is internet based, so feel free to chime in.

3. Looking directly down on the top of the revolver - The channel in the frame on either side of the hammer - on originals these extend to the cylinder, ending at a right angle - on mine the edges are flared around where the hammer touches the cylinder.

4. Where the frame meets the barrel assembly - on originals there is a small (1-2mm) step - on mine is is a flat join.

5. The brass grip frame - beveling around the rear of trigger guard - on an original it is almost concave allowing the second finger to rest, on mine not is almost straight.  The brass grip frame is also inlet and bevelled at the frame, where mine is a "little" more crudely finished.

Everything else looks good, including the slow "rifling" - the hand-drawn screws - the internal-parts fit and finish - I compared it to two originals in hand (I did not take down the originals to compare the revolvers internally as they did not belong to me and I was at a gunshow) - and the above text and serial number issues are the stand alone differences.

While doing this I have come across several Walker copies and one or two Dragoons that were made in the time before the Italian replicas were available, and were supposedly made by a craftsman and his apprentices out of Texas - this "story" has been so often repeated around the US and on collector forums and by Elmer Keith in his book Six Guns, that I think it must be one of his.

Too nice to be a Mexican or Spanish, Belgian copy, those all had specific "aesthetic issues" that are quite easy to spot.

It is a nice collectable oddity, and that is fine.

Thanks Guys ~ !

As I age I prefer the "r" in C&R collecting.

There are guns for blasting 10 cent projectiles through paper targets and there are guns where the representative history and emotion they "trigger" are what justify their collecting.

This little revolver left the factory in the middle of the Civil War, who knows the stories it might tell if it could talk.

I think surrounding them with a few items that stimulate the imagination is the best way to look at them.

However, if I get my grubby mitts on an original Whitneyville Walker, that one will have a frame all to itself.

I found this beat-up and "fixed-up" (somewhat-repaired) little number and the price was right, so now its in my small collection.

All numbers "on show" are matching.
Except for a replacement cylinder-wedge.
Solid mechanism lock-up on a no-wobble barrel - no half cock sadly.  it's there, just doesn't hold.
Some cosmetic "repair" to barrel.
Address and patent inscriptions are good.
Also a fair amount of the cylinder-roll is still visible.

Here is an image with a First Model Dragoon for scale.

Here's a character who chose to carry two dragoons in his belt.

At this point I decided to look up the serial number on the Colt site - as I had decided to do this, I thought I'd take out all of the old Colt's and look up their numbers, too - for fun.

#My Colt 1860 Army serial - is listed on the Colt Site as being manufactured 1862.
#My Colt First Model Dragoon - is listed on the Colt Site as being manufactured 1849.
(If it's a period copy they may have copied an original and pilfered its numbers.)

With 1851's.

Doesn't mean much, but its fun to do.

Colt Pocket Model 1849 - 213285
Colt Site data: Year of Manufacture 1862 Model 1849 POCKET (.31 CALIBER WITH STAGECOACH SCENE ON CYLINDER)

Colt Dragoon First Model of 1849 - 7496
Colt Site data: Year of Manufacture 1849 Model 1ST MODEL DRAGOON

Colt Army Model of 1860 - 56144
Colt Site data: Year of Manufacture 1862 Model 1860 ARMY (.44 CALIBER WITH NAVAL ENGAGEMENT SCENE ON CYLINDER)

Colt Navy Model of 1851 - 212172
Colt Site data: Year of Manufacture 1871 Model 1851 NAVY (.36 CALIBER WITH NAVAL ENGAGEMENT ON CYLINDER, OCTAGONAL BARREL)

I post the serials here in public, as this is not really like posting the serial numbers on a registered firearm, that will track back to my FFL, etc.,

Colt Collecting / Re: Collector?!
« on: February 06, 2019, 01:20:48 AM »
Nice one, Mazo!

1873 SAA Colts / Re: Colt .45 SAA on a Black Powder frame 1884
« on: February 04, 2019, 12:58:03 AM »
Hi Big Ted,

I've been out of the US on a job for a few months.
I sourced some ammo for this from Buffalo Arms and may or may not shoot it.

It's a good restoration, but not Turnball grade, the barrel is an EMF made one, so I think it will fine with nice low pressure BP loads.

I will update the post if it goes to the range for sure!

Thanks for asking,


1873 SAA Colts / Re: Colt .45 SAA on a Black Powder frame 1884
« on: August 01, 2018, 03:06:21 AM »
Yes, indeed.

With this revolver, being a blackpowder frame pre-proof, pre-metal treatment - the question of firing really is two pronged.

1. Should you fire a refinished Colt?  The answer for me is yes, it's a sub $2K firearm, it's not as rare as an original finish, essentially it could be refinished again and again and not depreciate any more, as the harm has been done.

2. Is it safe to fire?  A little research led to a lot of research, and these BP frames self-destruct, and not occasionally, they appear to be one of the most destroyed frames by self-destruction - the internet has dozens of pictures off ruptured cylinders, split and burst frames.  They existed in a time when knowledge was still being amassed at a slower rate than cartridges were being advanced, people shot smokeless .45 through these and nothing happened....   Until it happened, and blew their revolver up.
It happened a lot, and was a problem -

I will fire this revolver, but with pure black-powder, low recoil loads, with a lighter projectile.

I am pretty positive it will be a wonderful experience, I'll film and photograph the hell out of it, and it will be tucked safely away in the safe after cleaning.

Thanks for the encouragement, and inspiration!


1873 SAA Colts / Re: Colt .45 SAA on a Black Powder frame 1884
« on: July 17, 2018, 09:01:53 AM »
Thanks Gents - as I wrote, always skeptical of "restored" Colt's - but I was assured this one was unserviceable and a save, rather than a restoration.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4