1851 Frame?

[AZbpBurner]

How many of you have an 1851 Colt with the capping groove on the right side, down the middle of the loading cutout?

I've seen pics of some that do have it, and my Pietta doesn't. Which is correct?

 

[hawkeye2]

Either is correct, there were 3 variations of the frame on the original '51 Navy. The later frame had a smaller cutout in the recoil shield and the capping grove added. The early frame had a larger cutout and no grove. The other variation was similar to the first but was cut for a shoulder stock and had the 4th. screw. Actually there was another difference in that the London Navies had a slightly larger diameter arbor.

 

[hawkeye2]

To clarify, the shoulder stock version is similar to the early or first version with no capping grove. Sorry for any confusion.

 

[Mean Gene]

Hi Hawkeye2, I was considering using a small round file and cutting a cap grove in my guns that do not have it.

Question is do you gave an opinion of how well or not this grove works for placing caps on the nipples? I believe it's function was as a guide for the caps.

 

[hawkeye2]

It's meant to be a guide for capping and I have never tried it. I have 3 '60 Armies with the groove but I have never fired any of them and none of the other revolvers I have has a groove. You would need a curved round file to match the cutout and a straight groove wouldn't look right, also if you don't have one your gun has the large cut in the recoil shield which gives more room for capping. Since the early cutout is larger cutting a groove in it would probably come out too low to meet the nipple anyway.

 

[Mean Gene]

Yah every time I think of doing it I talk my self out of it.

Thanks for your insight on the matter.

 

[DOUBLEDEUCE 1]

I have a very old Uberti version of the 1851 Navy. There is no groove for capping. :idunno:

 

[Grumpa]

I have an Uberti '51 LONDON Navy bought decades ago, it has the groove.

 

[AZbpBurner]

Thanks everyone! I thought that maybe Pietta just left out a manufacturing step on mine. The frame cutout isn't deep enough to seat a cap straight on & the cap wedges and jams when I try to push one on by hand. It's easier to use the hammer cutout - I can even use a capper there.

 

[Wes/Tex]

If you can't cap from the side, there is a problem...I'd never keep one so poorly designed!
:shocked2:

 

[DOUBLEDEUCE 1]

I checked my 2nd Generation Colt 1851 last night, just out of curiosity... no capping groove in the recoil shield. Now I am going to have to check the others. :idunno: :rotf:

 

[Zonie]

After looking at dozens of photos of real, original Colt 1851 Navy's made in both Hartford and London I've come to the conclusion that none of them were made with a "capping groove" cut in the relieved area of the recoil shield .

None of the 1848 and 1849 Colts had a capping groove in the cutout on the right side of the recoil shield either.

The first 1860 prototypes did not have capping grooves but the production Colt 1860 Army did have the feature.

 

[hawkeye2]

I quote Nathan L. Swayze author of "51 Colt Navies" from a speech given to a convention of the American Society of Arms Collectors (I am unable to obtain a usable copy of the photo):

"The top frame is what I call the "Early Frame" for no improvements have been made. The percussion cut-out is larger and deeper, and it does not have the cap guiding groove. This percussion shield cut-out is more in the lower one-half of the percussion shield, although it doesn't appear this way in the photo due the angle of the camera. The middle frame is the "Late Frame." You will note that the cap guiding groove has been added, and the percussion shield cut-out is smaller, shallower and more in the center of the percussion shield. The bottom frame is the 4 screw cut for stock frame. The primary difference here is the addition of a fourth screw, which is actually a stud for the prongs, or fingers, of the stock attachment. Also, the bottom of the percussion shield has been milled to fit the prongs, or fingers, of the stock."

To the best of my limited knowledge no London Navies had a capping grove. Flayderman's does not have a photo of a Navy with a capping grove but does Say "The number of variations is considerable, all are detailed in the standard reference Work "51 Colt Navies": by Nathan L.
Swayze".

 

[Zonie]

I'll buy that, but Flayderman's also mentions the Colt 1851 model was made from 1850 thru 1873.

As Colt had added the capping groove to the 1860 Army, I suppose a "Late Frame"model 1851, could easily be one that was made after that 1860 date and the groove from the 1860 Army was added to it.

Speaking of Navy, Flayderman's 9th Ed. Guide shows two 1861 Navy pistols. One has the capping groove while the other one doesn't.

 

[AZbpBurner]

In the instance of my frame without the groove, the cutout needs to be just a hair deeper to allow seating the cap straight-on. Caps can be inserted at an angle, but they often bind up. I don't have this problem with an 1861 with the groove.

 

[hawkeye2]

I think you have a good point re the timeline for frames and the photos of the ’61 Navies may back you up. There were a number of variations of the parts (frames, barrel lugs, lever latches, trigger guards, grips, etc.) on the ’51 Navies depending on who made the parts and when. The parts were placed in bins and used as needed so its possible 2 Naives made an hour apart might have different features. An example would be the unused London Navy frames sans groove which were brought to Hartford and used to assemble revolvers.

 

[hawkeye2]

I have always wondered if it just might be me but I have found all Colts to be more challenging to cap then the other revolvers.

 

[Mean Gene]

I have a Ted Cash sale capper that I couldn't get down in close enough to get the cap on streight because the cut out in the frame isn't big enough. So I had to file away some of the tip on the capper in order to cap the nipple.
These Colts arnt easy to cap and wonder if the first generation was so dificult.