Tell me more! 1860 Colt Army help

[obal7]

I recently picked up this, what I believe is a 1860 Colt Army revolver with serial number 35705 that is on the Brass Trigger guard, frame and faintly on the Barrel. ( with this number, it would seem to be manufactured in the 1862 range). The back strap has been replaced with what seems to be an after market piece. The "Colts Patent" is on the left side of the frame. The Colt Address on the top of the barrel is either missing or completely warn off. I tried to look very closely, but could "possibly " see what may be lettering. But my eyes may be playing tricks on me. There is no trace of a Navy Scene on the cylinder and I assume is a replacement. The only inspection stamp (I assume) is a small "S" to the rear of the brass trigger guard.
I know very little about 1860 Colt Army revolvers and would like some help, thoughts, opinions and information that could be added to what little that I have explained.
Any thoughts on the missing Colt address on the top of the barrel? The inspection Stamp "S"? Real, repro, original etc. Also if it is worth replacing the back strap with a period replacement.
Thanks for your help.

 

[ConfederateCanuck]

The "S" inspector marking is legitimate. Based on the serial number, your gun was most likely manufactured in February 1862. I have one with a S/N in the 40,000 range, and I know it was delivered to the US Army in April 1862.

Re the naval scene, this is often missing on 1860 Army's that saw hard use. Mine doesn't have it either. We would need a lot more pictures of the cylinder (front face, back end, pictures all around its circumference) to make a more definitive assessment.

Look through the barrel. Does the rifling twist at a uniform rate (reproduction gun), or does it start with a gradual twist that increases as you get to the muzzle (progressive twist that denotes an original Colt)? The missing Colt address is common on guns that saw hard use and/or substantial "cleaning" (i.e. gun was "polished" to remove rust to make it look like its in better condition). The rifling twist will tell the tale of whether or not its original, as does the serial number (which matches, and the font looks correct).

Re the iron backstrap, I can't look at it in detail at the moment, but I do know there should be a serial number just behind the screw in the bottom. That too might have been worn off....need more pics of the entire backstrap (after removing it from the gun) to check it properly.

I don't have time for more analysis at the moment, but I suspect others will chime in. I'll try and take a look at your questions again tonight.

 

[plymouthairrifle]

To be honest if this was mine I would not put any more money into it. Look for another 1860 that is in better condition that you can afford and be more pleased with. Then send this one down the road. Just too much wrong with this gun.

 

[bayonet]

The "S" inspector marking is legitimate. Based on the serial number, your gun was most likely manufactured in February 1862. I have one with a S/N in the 40,000 range, and I know it was delivered to the US Army in April 1862.

Re the naval scene, this is often missing on 1860 Army's that saw hard use. Mine doesn't have it either. We would need a lot more pictures of the cylinder (front face, back end, pictures all around its circumference) to make a more definitive assessment.

Look through the barrel. Does the rifling twist at a uniform rate (reproduction gun), or does it start with a gradual twist that increases as you get to the muzzle (progressive twist that denotes an original Colt)? The missing Colt address is common on guns that saw hard use and/or substantial "cleaning" (i.e. gun was "polished" to remove rust to make it look like its in better condition). The rifling twist will tell the tale of whether or not its original, as does the serial number (which matches, and the font looks correct).

Re the iron backstrap, I can't look at it in detail at the moment, but I do know there should be a serial number just behind the screw in the bottom. That too might have been worn off....need more pics of the entire backstrap (after removing it from the gun) to check it properly.

I don't have time for more analysis at the moment, but I suspect others will chime in. I'll try and take a look at your questions again tonight.

To add your wooden grips do not look original to the gun which is in rough shape but the grips are not. The wedge and wedge screw also do not look original to the gun since there patina do not match. What did you pay for it and he can tell you if you got a good deal (or not).

 

[JOHN42768]

It had seen hard duty in it's life. The replacement parts stand out and detract from it's character.

 

[obal7]

Thanks for the comments, input and suggestions. FYI, the rifling does NOT twist at a uniform rate. It does start with a gradual twist that increases as you get to the muzzle.
I also understand about the Colt Address not unusual being worn off. I also understand that the wood grips are not original or even period. The back strap also seems to be after market or a repro.
Thanks for the manufacture date, according to the serial number. (I may want to try to get the shipping records through Colt. I have done that in the past with a Colt 1851 Navy that I once owned).
I welcome and respect your opinions, not to put any more money into this Colt. I was aware of the replacement grips, blackstrap, wedge and some screws when I bought it. But it seemed that the main serial numbers matched. And I liked the "been there " look.
I've always wanted an example of a 1860 Colt Army revolver and for $300, I thought I would take a chance. The seller was selling it for a lady, whose 85 year old Husband, who was also a gunsmith, passed. He had it in his collection for 50 plus years.

 

[plymouthairrifle]

Enjoy this gun just as it is!

 

[bayonet]

Thanks for the comments, input and suggestions. FYI, the rifling does NOT twist at a uniform rate. It does start with a gradual twist that increases as you get to the muzzle.
I also understand about the Colt Address not unusual being worn off. I also understand that the wood grips are not original or even period. The back strap also seems to be after market or a repro.
Thanks for the manufacture date, according to the serial number. (I may want to try to get the shipping records through Colt. I have done that in the past with a Colt 1851 Navy that I once owned).
I welcome and respect your opinions, not to put any more money into this Colt. I was aware of the replacement grips, blackstrap, wedge and some screws when I bought it. But it seemed that the main serial numbers matched. And I liked the "been there " look.
I've always wanted an example of a 1860 Colt Army revolver and for $300, I thought I would take a chance. The seller was selling it for a lady, whose 85 year old Husband, who was also a gunsmith, passed. He had it in his collection for 50 plus years.

Well for $300 not bad but plan on spending another $300 (or is it $350) to get the fancy 1 page document from Colt. NOT worth it unless you have a $3000 Colt 1860 that may have been carried by Custer or Stuart! The Colt Bums charged $25-50 many years ago when it was worth getting.

 

[obal7]

Yikes! Good tip. Lol. I think I will nix that Idea. You'all gave me enough info to satisfy my taste. A while back, I did get a Colt record at "a reasonable price".
But I am toying with the idea of getting some original "era" parts. Like older Wooden grips and a period back strap.
I know, it would be putting more money into a poor condition piece. But any thoughts?
Any recommendations?
But truly, I do appreciate everyone's input and help.

 

[Jeff in Ohio]

A factory letter on a Colt 1860 is seldom worthwhile. That's because most 1860s were sold to the US Government, and that's all the letter will show you. Your 1860 shows all the marks of being a government contract gun (the original grips would have an acceptance stamp in the wood which is called by collectors a "cartouche" to absolutely show this,) but there's not a chance in a thousand that this would letter as sent to anyplace other than a US government depot. Such a letter would not tell you where the government sent it. So you would not learn anything more than you know now, and you would have spent $300!!

 

[Conquerordie]

It's not bad for $300 in my opinion. I got one of those letters from Colt for an 1877 Thunderer I own. Not worth it! Instead of finding new old parts for your pistol, as long as the new parts fit well, try just ageing the new parts to match the old ones. Then it will display better. Plenty of ways to age wood and iron or steel. I know some might think that's in bad taste, but when professionals restore old firearms, ageing the parts is part of the process. You have to make the repairs blend. You could do that with this pistol.

 

[obal7]

Thanks for the thoughts about the letter. I'd have to think about that one.

 

[Jeff in Ohio]

Thanks for the thoughts about the letter. I'd have to think about that one.

Remember that any serious collector KNOWS this was bought the the US and shipped to the Army. That's all a letter will state, and a serous collector doesn't need a letter to tell that.
Folks who look at is and are not serious collectors won't know anything, but will sure believe you when you tell them this is a genuine civil war colt army revolver. They don't need a letter to tell them that.
You can find something better to do if you have an extra $300 to spend.

 

[obal7]

Thanks for all of you thoughts and comments.