Colt 1860 Army Revolver

The trigger guard looks original antique Colt
The main spring looks original antique Colt
The barrel looks original antique Colt
The backstrap looks original antique Colt
The wedge looks original antique Colt
The cylinder is new
The wooden grips are new

I don't know about the frame.

The key to all of this is that this is all newly blued and case colored, and I think the only original serials are on the brass guard and on the wedge.
 
They *are* the experts
I suggested that 2 pages ago and he did. We gave him basically the same info on the Colt forum that he got here. We have MANY folks here that are members of both so I guess we are all *Experts*
 
I'll tell you what I say since some here like to beat a dead Horse. It's a REPRODUCTION, every inch of it. There is nothing on it at all thats vintage 1860. Sorry to burst your bubble. It's a great paperweight. Sell it to some CW reenactor or someone else that collects fakes and buy yourself a real Civil War Colt M1860 Army. After all that's what I did when I brought my first 'REAL" CW Colt M1860 Army. Sold something I inherited that turned out not to be the story that went with it, and used the funds to buy the Colt. Or just take your wife out for a nice Steak Dinner after you sell the paperweight.
 
Here ya go Red Rider or Raider, get yourself a real Colt M1860 Army (it's the one above the Colt Navy) for your wall like I did.:smile coffee:
COLT.jpeg
 
I took the advice on here to seek out additional expert opinions and had the good fortune to make contact with Charles Pate and Michael Beliveau. Michael was able to put to bed the Gen 2 discussion as he stated "I can guarantee you it is not a 2nd Gen gun". I then corresponded with Charles Pate. While not an expert on modern reproductions, he felt "the cylinder is a repro cylinder and the stock, of course, is not original, but some of the other parts appear to be original, just thoroughly reworked. Someone went to a lot of trouble/effort and had some good skills."

It's an interesting piece for certain and has been fun going through every detail of it. I appreciate everyone's input in trying to help me determine the origins of this gun. It's been an interesting and fun discovery process!
 
Glad you got the info you needed to settle a lot of the issues with it. Still a neat gun. If only it had been an original in that condition, it would be worth a considerable amount of $$$$$.
 
Well, look at it this way: It's reworked by a good craftsman, it contains many original parts, it looks great, and it's a heck of a conversation piece. I think you can be very happy with it.
 
I took the advice on here to seek out additional expert opinions and had the good fortune to make contact with Charles Pate and Michael Beliveau. Michael was able to put to bed the Gen 2 discussion as he stated "I can guarantee you it is not a 2nd Gen gun". I then corresponded with Charles Pate. While not an expert on modern reproductions, he felt "the cylinder is a repro cylinder and the stock, of course, is not original, but some of the other parts appear to be original, just thoroughly reworked. Someone went to a lot of trouble/effort and had some good skills."

It's an interesting piece for certain and has been fun going through every detail of it. I appreciate everyone's input in trying to help me determine the origins of this gun. It's been an interesting and fun discovery process!

I don't know Michael Beliveau, but for many years, I sent Charles Pate info and photographs of Colt 1860s I had owned (dozens and dozens) or examined in hand (hundred and hundreds), and you'll find a few 1860s which were owned by me pictured in his 2017 book The Colt Model 1860 Army Revolver . It is heartening to my aging powers of observation and memory that Col. Pate agreed with my evaluation that the cylinder and wood grips (aka "stock") are not original, but other parts appear to be original but thoroughly reworked. An in hand examination by an expert could tell you which parts are original. I myself believe the trigger guard, backstrap, barrel and wedge are original, and I can't tell about the frame without an in hand look. But if the frame is not original, the other parts against it would not fit well, it is likely original, too.
 
Last edited:
I took the advice on here to seek out additional expert opinions and had the good fortune to make contact with Charles Pate and Michael Beliveau. Michael was able to put to bed the Gen 2 discussion as he stated "I can guarantee you it is not a 2nd Gen gun". I then corresponded with Charles Pate. While not an expert on modern reproductions, he felt "the cylinder is a repro cylinder and the stock, of course, is not original, but some of the other parts appear to be original, just thoroughly reworked. Someone went to a lot of trouble/effort and had some good skills."

It's an interesting piece for certain and has been fun going through every detail of it. I appreciate everyone's input in trying to help me determine the origins of this gun. It's been an interesting and fun discovery process!
Well, look at it this way: It's reworked by a good craftsman, it contains many original parts, it looks great, and it's a heck of a conversation piece. I think you can be very happy with it.
I have similar feelings about a Remington conversion musket I've featured here before, mostly original but definitely restored and having some replacement parts: https://civilwartalk.com/threads/m-...ard-tape-priming-system-rifled-musket.142599/

1618246893817.png
 
The door knob and that little screw headed latch for the door are too shiny, but they look correct in shape. Consider rusting them to match the rest of the gun is what I would do. I think the screw in the side of the barrel bolster is larger than an original, but looks good to me anyway and I would likely leave it - for all we know, someday it may be discovered that such a larger, dome headed cleanout screw has some historic meaning - there are plenty of situations where someone changed something to "correct" what turned out to be an entirely correct, even desirable, variation.
One of my favorites, since we started this thread about the 1860 model Colts, is that R L Wilson's coffee-table type book on the Colt revolvers stated (INCORRECTLY) that there was a "US" stamped on the side of the frame of US purchased 1860s.....and so some nice and correct 1860 percussion revolvers started to show up for sale with a US stamped there. Colt did so stamp the most of the Colt Dragoon revolvers (both military and civilian contract ones) and the Colt Navy model 1851 revolvers made on US contract (and some others, too), but Colt never did stamp US on any 1860 model frames, ever.
 
I had to go look. this is the cylinder scene on my original 1851 Colt Navy. the engaged clearly seems to say
ENGACED . the second C does not have a G thingy on the bottom.
I
bu4898i.jpg
also checked my Colt 1870's reissue 1860 Army 44, and it CLEARLY reads ENGAGED. the second G is clear and deeply struck.
What do I think. either you have a $20,000 original in perfect condition, or you have a Colt reissue worth $700
nice gun in any case. (did your Dad work in a museum, and was he in charge of the antique Colts???? just askin')
 
Back
Top