Fantasy Colt 1851 Navy Second Model .36 Belt Dragoon

[sourdough]

I have an affliction named "Parts-Changer Syndrome", and assume I am not alone "suffering" from this. Actually, the only thing that suffers is my wallet...

This is a parts gun that started out as a Pietta 1851 Navy (date code CM/2014) "tail" gun. I swapped out these parts: new replacement wood from an Ebay seller, smooth cylinder, part round/part octagon barrel, and squareback trigger guard.



Regards,

Jim

 

[EZFEED]

Nice!!!!

 

[Stantheman86]

You basically made a Leech & Rigdon

 

[Gun Tramp]

Jim, what is a "tail" gun?

 

[sourdough]

You basically made a Leech & Rigdon

Except that it has a squareback trigger guard.

 

[sourdough]

Jim, what is a "tail" gun?

I wrote this awhile ago on another forum:

This thread is about Pietta 1851 Navy grip assemblies (I won't be addressing "bird's head" types as those are out of my realm/experience), and it is not my purpose to discuss the merits/demerits of each type.

Many of you know that I have an affliction called "parts-changer syndrome"; thus my reason for posting is for others similarly afflicted.

Conventional wisdom has it that there are two types: "tail" grips and "non-tail" grip assemblies. Up until last month I thought that was true, but I have found a third variation that fits between the two. For the sake of this discussion I will label them as the Large Tail, the Small Tail, and the Non-Tail.

Large Tail grip assemblies seem to have been manufactured from ~2001 (when Pietta went to CNC machining) through 2014. Non Tail grip assemblies were manufactured from 2015 to present day. During the past month I have procured a Pietta 1862 Dance .36 revolver (date code BH/1996 SN C00013) and a Pietta 1851 Navy .36 4-screw frame (date code AZ/1990 SN 18852). Both have what I will term the Small Tail grip assemblies, and this is why:

Top: 1851 Navy .36 2nd Model Squareback (CM/2014 SN 636005) Large Tail
Middle: 1862 Dance .36 (BH/1996 SN C00013) Small Tail
Bottom: Leech & Rigdon .36 (formerly an 1851 Navy) (CP/2016 SN 673674) Non Tail



I have taken measurements of all three backstrap butts, as follows:



A: Length of butt front to back
B: Length between back and attachment recess
C: Length of attachment recess
D: Length between front of screw and front

Large Tail:
A: 2-5/16"
B: 1/4"
C: 3/8"
D: 3/16"

Small Tail:
A: 2-1/4"
B: 1/8"
C: 3/8"
D: 3/16"

Non Tail:
A: 2-1/4"
B: 1/4"
C: 3/8"
D: 1/8"

There are also differences in the curvatures of both the backstraps and the trigger guards, as well as the wood. That is why individual parts are not interchangeable from type to type, but as a 3-piece assembly they will all fit any Pietta 1851/1860/1861 frame.

Top: Large Tail
Bottom: Small Tail



Top: Non Tail
Bottom: Small Tail



I do not have access to any Pietta 1851 Navy revolvers manufactured prior to 1990, and would be interested if anyone owning one could post their findings/measurements. I used a standard draftsman's scale and not a caliper.

I hope you are not bored to tears by now.

Regards,

Jim

 

[Gun Tramp]

Nothing about percussion revolvers bores me and thank you for taking time to explain.

 

[Long Johns Wolf]

Could one call the "tail" shape grip "tailed bell" shape?
Long Johns Wolf

 

[sourdough]

Could one call the "tail" shape grip "tailed bell" shape? Long Johns Wolf

Yes, along with "trumpet" shaped and a few other not-so-nice descriptions! I personally like how they fit my hand much better than what Pietta produces these days.

Regards,

Jim

 

[hawkeye2]

A lot of folks abhor the Pietta tail and the usual comment on why they remove it is "so that it will look like an original Colt". Basically a cosmetic reason. The tail and also the curve of the back strap above it control how the revolver fits in your hand and even a small change in any of them will affect the point of impact, usually vertically. I do admit the large tail looks overdone but a complete removal by grinding and polishing looks even worse. I actually prefer the feel of the tail.

I don't have "parts-changer syndrome" as I've never had enough extra $$ to indulge but I've often though of the variations I would build if I did have. I do have a Pietta .44 steel "Navy" that's currently at Goon's Gun Works. I have 3", 5.5" and original length barrels with it as well as a smooth cylinder and a conversion and I do plan on getting a 12" barrel for it. I have a couple of shoulder stocks but unfortunately this gun isn't cut for one. I'm planing on a case for the entire package including accessories after I get it back.

Sourdough I have enjoyed your posts to date, keep 'em coming and welcome to the forum.

 

[sourdough]

A lot of folks abhor the Pietta tail and the usual comment on why they remove it is "so that it will look like an original Colt". Basically a cosmetic reason. The tail and also the curve of the back strap above it control how the revolver fits in your hand and even a small change in any of them will affect the point of impact, usually vertically. I do admit the large tail looks overdone but a complete removal by grinding and polishing looks even worse. I actually prefer the feel of the tail.

Agreed. I usually compare those differences with the grip "angle" differences on the 1911 and the 1911-A1 because of the shape of the MSH.

I don't have "parts-changer syndrome" as I've never had enough extra $$ to indulge but I've often thought of the variations I would build if I did have. I do have a Pietta .44 steel "Navy" that's currently at Goon's Gun Works. I have 3", 5.5" and original length barrels with it as well as a smooth cylinder and a conversion and I do plan on getting a 12" barrel for it. I have a couple of shoulder stocks but unfortunately this gun isn't cut for one. I'm planning on a case for the entire package including accessories after I get it back.

I, for one, would love to see some photos of your upcoming cased set! Also, Mike does good work and is not afraid to impart his knowledge on many forums at no charge.

Sourdough I have enjoyed your posts to date, keep 'em coming and welcome to the forum.

Thanks for your kind words, sir!

Regards,

Jim