found a 1849 Pocket shooter

I posted recently about finding a shootable 1862 Pocket after being on the hunt for some time -- this particular model being my favorite design of all BP revolvers -- and that I was also looking for a shooter 1849 Pocket... the real trick being one that was affordable to me.

Well, that search too has come to a successful conclusion. Thanks to a GB listing, I found a really nice example, pre-war no less (manuf. 1854), with a beautiful patina, a fair amount of original finish, especially on the backstrap, and lockup as solid as my unfired Signature Series 3rd gen example.

31 cal, 5 shot with 5" barrel. All numbers matching, all original, and even the nipples are in great shape.

Next stop, a trip to the Superstition Mountains to light off a few balls out of this amazing 170-year-old survivor, while the 3rd gen remains unfired. Ironic!

Now that has great character.

Very cool!! Report back after a range trip!!

Awesome

How heavy is the mainspring in that original compared to your 3rd gen?

I envy you.

Blackpowderwarrior said:

How heavy is the mainspring in that original compared to your 3rd gen?

Click to expand...

I completely disassembled the vintage gun for cleaning and inspection, but didn't compare components with the 3rd gen. It'd be easy enough to take down either/both and take some photos.

Other than comparing mainsprings, is there anything else you're looking to know, or want photographed?

gregdr01 said:

I completely disassembled the vintage gun for cleaning and inspection, but didn't compare components with the 3rd gen. It'd be easy enough to take down either/both and take some photos.

Other than comparing mainsprings, is there anything else you're looking to know, or want photographed?

Click to expand...

Just a picture of the springs compared would be cool.
That and you telling me how much heavier it feels to you.

Beautiful revolver, you did very well.

Blackpowderwarrior said:

Just a picture of the springs compared would be cool.
That and you telling me how much heavier it feels to you.

Click to expand...

There aren't many activites I enjoy more than working on unmentionables, but getting the hollow-ground bits on a vintage BP, that needs almost no prompting...

Colt 1849 Pocket 3rd gen signature series, manuf. 1997/'98
trigger pull weight: 2.4lb (average)
mainspring measurements:
base below screw: 0.400" (width) / 0.074" (thickness)
midway (best estimate): 0.290" / 0.065"
top, at contact with hand/base of hammer : 0.236" / 0.050"

Colt 1849 Pocket, manuf. 1854
trigger pull weight: 3.0lb
mainspring measurements:
base: 0.396" / 0.073"
midway: 0.285" / 0.060"
top: 0.235" / 0.051"

As you can see/note in the images, there's not a big difference in mainspring dimensions. The 3rd gen backstrap looks pretty unfinished in terms of casting quality and finish work (or lack thereof). Whereas the antique pistol's backstrap is finely finished and baby's butt-smooth, the 3rd gen looks like it came straight from the mold, and without even a dollop of finishing work.

I no longer own a Uberti, Pietta, ASM or other manufacturer's example of a 1849 repro, but I'm now curious to see if they are done as "on the cheap" as the modern Colt.

I agree with your observation about interior finishes; I've noticed the same on the several originals I have or worked on as compared to replicas, even the Colt 2nd & 3rd generations.

Spiffy!
I have an Uberti reproduction. Fun little gun.

I have two 3rdgen colts a pocket police and 1849. Both have the same rough brass casted interior backstrap.

My uberti is no different

The mainspring on the Sig has been ground on the back side of the spring. Not the best way to do that. (has someone been watching YouTube videos? ). I'm only pointing it out because it's a good pic of it. Not implying the op did it.
It's best not to disturb the "tension" side of a flat spring. If you are going to reduce the "spring weight" by reducing the thickness ( not the width), take it from the "compression" side (belly) and with the grain - not across the grain.

Excellent point @45D.

gregdr01 said:

There aren't many activites I enjoy more than working on unmentionables, but getting the hollow-ground bits on a vintage BP, that needs almost no prompting...

Colt 1849 Pocket 3rd gen signature series, manuf. 1997/'98
trigger pull weight: 2.4lb (average)
mainspring measurements:
base below screw: 0.400" (width) / 0.074" (thickness)
midway (best estimate): 0.290" / 0.065"
top, at contact with hand/base of hammer : 0.236" / 0.050"

Colt 1849 Pocket, manuf. 1854
trigger pull weight: 3.0lb
mainspring measurements:
base: 0.396" / 0.073"
midway: 0.285" / 0.060"
top: 0.235" / 0.051"

As you can see/note in the images, there's not a big difference in mainspring dimensions. The 3rd gen backstrap looks pretty unfinished in terms of casting quality and finish work (or lack thereof). Whereas the antique pistol's backstrap is finely finished and baby's butt-smooth, the 3rd gen looks like it came straight from the mold, and without even a dollop of finishing work.

I no longer own a Uberti, Pietta, ASM or other manufacturer's example of a 1849 repro, but I'm now curious to see if they are done as "on the cheap" as the modern Colt.


View attachment 298565

Click to expand...

I just replaced mine last month with VTI gun parts and definitely is nicely finished like this one. Not like that corroded one.
My Uberti 1848 Wells Fargo was made 2004. Twenty years long time. Maybe they were better back then. The backstrap is nicely finished, not as nice as exposed casting but nice enough.

45D said:

The mainspring on the Sig has been ground on the back side of the spring. Not the best way to do that. (has someone been watching YouTube videos? ). I'm only pointing it out because it's a good pic of it. Not implying the op did it.
It's best not to disturb the "tension" side of a flat spring. If you are going to reduce the "spring weight" by reducing the thickness ( not the width), take it from the "compression" side (belly) and with the grain - not across the grain.

Click to expand...

Note too, the grinding was sloppy enough it also hit the top part of the bottom screw.

This is an unfired revolver, but I'm not the original owner, so it may have come from the "factory" like this, or its prior owner thought the pull should be lighter... who knows? Wasn't me, however!

Such a nice find!