Colt Model 1860 Army

[bayonet]

Bayonet:

Here's a story that deals with differences between value and effort.

A high powered and connected Washington Lobbyist, I think it was Clark Clifford, listened to his client's question, sat a moment, thought a moment, said "The answer to your question is "No" and billed this client for several thousand dollars for his fifteen minutes.

When he got a complaint which asked why his 15 minutes was worth so much, the answer was that it was worth it because he knew the correct answer ("No"), and he billed this client another thousand for questioning the bill.

I think the story goes on to say that the client paid that original fee and the fee for questioning the fee, because his client knew his wisdom of the way of Washington could not be matched and was worth his fee, and I would guess he wanted to be able to get such questions answered in the future.

I think the point of the story is that the value was in all the many years of wisdom the lobbyist had accumulated, not that it took only 15 minutes.

Sort of like the guy who cuts a raw diamond, and how well he does may make hundreds of thousands of dollars difference in the value of the cleaved diamond. If you own that diamond, you are not paying for the five seconds it take for him to make that strike, but for all the years of knowledge that he used to know how and where to strike it.
Colt has exclusive access to those records.

Colt learned that some customers are willing to pay $300 for that information.
They ask that much
The customer pays that much

That's the way the free capitalist society is supposed to work.

That Washington Lobbyist must of been a Lawyer. Maybe the same one that handled my Mothers Estate that I caught billing me 3 times for the same thing!
"15 minutes" I bet they can do it in less. Open your letter and process your payment (faster if ordered online): 3 minutes. Look for the serial # on their computerized files, transfer the info to the fancy online form, and hit the Print button: another 3 minutes. Place the form in an envelope, put your address on it, stamp it, then throw it in the mailbox on your way to lunch: another 3 minutes!
9 minutes total way under 15!

 

[ConfederateCanuck]

That Washington Lobbyist must of been a Lawyer. Maybe the same one that handled my Mothers Estate that I caught billing me 3 times for the same thing!
"15 minutes" I bet they can do it in less. Open your letter and process your payment (faster if ordered online): 3 minutes. Look for the serial # on their computerized files, transfer the info to the fancy online form, and hit the Print button: another 3 minutes. Place the form in an envelope, put your address on it, stamp it, then throw it in the mailbox on your way to lunch: another 3 minutes!
9 minutes total way under 15!

9/15 of $300 = $180...still a ripoff in my opinion.

 

[Bonedaddy]

Very nice 1860 Army Colt. I like the look of it. I agree that for what information that they provide in the letter for $300 is an overly excessive price and not anywhere near worth that cost. Thanks for showing.

 

[bayonet]

Bayonet:

Here's a story that deals with differences between value and effort.

A high powered and connected Washington Lobbyist, I think it was Clark Clifford, listened to his client's question, sat a moment, thought a moment, said "The answer to your question is "No" and billed this client for several thousand dollars for his fifteen minutes.

When he got a complaint which asked why his 15 minutes was worth so much, the answer was that it was worth it because he knew the correct answer ("No"), and he billed this client another thousand for questioning the bill.

I think the story goes on to say that the client paid that original fee and the fee for questioning the fee, because his client knew his wisdom of the way of Washington could not be matched and was worth his fee, and I would guess he wanted to be able to get such questions answered in the future.

I think the point of the story is that the value was in all the many years of wisdom the lobbyist had accumulated, not that it took only 15 minutes.

Sort of like the guy who cuts a raw diamond, and how well he does may make hundreds of thousands of dollars difference in the value of the cleaved diamond. If you own that diamond, you are not paying for the five seconds it take for him to make that strike, but for all the years of knowledge that he used to know how and where to strike it.
Colt has exclusive access to those records.

Colt learned that some customers are willing to pay $300 for that information.
They ask that much
The customer pays that much

That's the way the free capitalist society is supposed to work.

Well Jeff you got me thinking now. Wouldn't a smart "Capitalist" say "If we lowered the price we would get more requests and there for make more money". In the Boardroom Mr Moneybags makes the presentation up on the big screen to Mr WallStreet and Mr Scrooge. "At present we make 30 Colt Letters a year, at $300 each we make $9000. If we lowered the price for a Colt Letter to $100 our prediction is we will make 300 or more Colt Letters a year and make $30,000 or more a year"! "Your a Genius Mr Moneybags I will finally let you Date my Daughter"!

 

[tmorr]

If I may chime in… you have a beautiful '60 that MAY have been shipped to the 7th Indiana. If I were you I would set aside a little money each month and get the Colt letter once you've saved up for it. While much of the info that you'll receive in the letter, you already know, it's the shipping destination that you need. And even then there's really no way to tell if your '60 went to the 7th unless you find reference to it in a diary, letter or some other document squared away in the archives.

Colt did not ship revolver's sequentially. For instance I have '61 Colt Navy #3097 that I dug years ago relic hunting. I lettered that to find it shipped in a batch of 100 to a store in Philadelphia in November 1861. I was then able to narrow it down to a specific unit (Anderson Troop then 15th Penn Cav) due to many other circumstances, including some unexpected help and research from Charlie Pate as he found a revolver in that 100 unit shipment a few years ago.

Then…Thirty years after digging my Colt I found '61 Navy #3131 (34 numbers away from the dug example) on line. I purchased the revolver because it was in nice shape (matching numbers all around including the grip/stock) and given the serial number proximity to my dug example I thought it might have been in the same shipment. So I lettered it….to find out that 3131 shipped to the Boston Navy Yard a month earlier (October 1861) than my dug example despite being numbered after.

It was an expensive fact finding mission to get this letter but it was part of my research process, even though it didn't show what I hoped. It will help resale value down the road for anyone looking for a Boston Navy Yard Colt.

It's your choice. Save the money over time and if you decide you don't want the letter after all, you've set aside a little cash for something else.

You never know where the research will take you

 

[Jeff in Ohio]

If I may chime in… you have a beautiful '60 that MAY have been shipped to the 7th Indiana. If I were you I would set aside a little money each month and get the Colt letter once you've saved up for it. While much of the info that you'll receive in the letter, you already know, it's the shipping destination that you need. And even then there's really no way to tell if your '60 went to the 7th unless you find reference to it in a diary, letter or some other document squared away in the archives.

Colt did not ship revolver's sequentially. For instance I have '61 Colt Navy #3097 that I dug years ago relic hunting. I lettered that to find it shipped in a batch of 100 to a store in Philadelphia in November 1861. I was then able to narrow it down to a specific unit (Anderson Troop then 15th Penn Cav) due to many other circumstances, including some unexpected help and research from Charlie Pate as he found a revolver in that 100 unit shipment a few years ago.

Then…Thirty years after digging my Colt I found '61 Navy #3131 (34 numbers away from the dug example) on line. I purchased the revolver because it was in nice shape (matching numbers all around including the grip/stock) and given the serial number proximity to my dug example I thought it might have been in the same shipment. So I lettered it….to find out that 3131 shipped to the Boston Navy Yard a month earlier (October 1861) than my dug example despite being numbered after.

It was an expensive fact finding mission to get this letter but it was part of my research process, even though it didn't show what I hoped. It will help resale value down the road for anyone looking for a Boston Navy Yard Colt.

It's your choice. Save the money over time and if you decide you don't want the letter after all, you've set aside a little cash for something else.

You never know where the research will take you

View attachment 493198
View attachment 493199

Letters showing shipment to the Navy is worth the price,I think.

 

[Old Soldier]

It is a Colt Army model 1860. Just love it!

 

[Jim in Wisconsin]

Johnny67- would you mind checking on something for me. Some people say the end of the arbor (cylinder pin) makes contact with the bottom of the hole in the barrel assembly when it's put together. Does yours do that? It would show marks on the very end of that shaft or the bottom of the hole (if that can be seen). Your gun is in such nice shape this would be a good example of how they were made new.
I think another way to tell would be to put it together with barrel off to the side and see if it then goes too far in. I hope I'm explaining this ok.

as much as I like the Remingtons, yours is really nice revolver! Thanks
Jim S.

 

[CowCavalry]

If I may chime in… you have a beautiful '60 that MAY have been shipped to the 7th Indiana. If I were you I would set aside a little money each month and get the Colt letter once you've saved up for it. While much of the info that you'll receive in the letter, you already know, it's the shipping destination that you need. And even then there's really no way to tell if your '60 went to the 7th unless you find reference to it in a diary, letter or some other document squared away in the archives.

Colt did not ship revolver's sequentially. For instance I have '61 Colt Navy #3097 that I dug years ago relic hunting. I lettered that to find it shipped in a batch of 100 to a store in Philadelphia in November 1861. I was then able to narrow it down to a specific unit (Anderson Troop then 15th Penn Cav) due to many other circumstances, including some unexpected help and research from Charlie Pate as he found a revolver in that 100 unit shipment a few years ago.

Then…Thirty years after digging my Colt I found '61 Navy #3131 (34 numbers away from the dug example) on line. I purchased the revolver because it was in nice shape (matching numbers all around including the grip/stock) and given the serial number proximity to my dug example I thought it might have been in the same shipment. So I lettered it….to find out that 3131 shipped to the Boston Navy Yard a month earlier (October 1861) than my dug example despite being numbered after.

It was an expensive fact finding mission to get this letter but it was part of my research process, even though it didn't show what I hoped. It will help resale value down the road for anyone looking for a Boston Navy Yard Colt.

It's your choice. Save the money over time and if you decide you don't want the letter after all, you've set aside a little cash for something else.

You never know where the research will take you

View attachment 493198
View attachment 493199

Still loaded? I see whats left of the caps I think. Thats and amazing find and story, care to say where you dug it?

 

[tmorr]

Still loaded? I see whats left of the caps I think. Thats and amazing find and story, care to say where you dug it?

Yes fully loaded. Found at Stones River (private land) in the area where the 15th Pennsylvania Cavalry was engaged with some South Carolina infantry on 12/29/1862. If you would like, send me an email address via private message and I'll send you an article that I wrote as well as one by Charlie Pate that tells the story as I know it so far. I don't want to derail this thread any further…

 

[Jeff in Ohio]

Johnny67- would you mind checking on something for me. Some people say the end of the arbor (cylinder pin) makes contact with the bottom of the hole in the barrel assembly when it's put together. Does yours do that? It would show marks on the very end of that shaft or the bottom of the hole (if that can be seen). Your gun is in such nice shape this would be a good example of how they were made new.
I think another way to tell would be to put it together with barrel off to the side and see if it then goes too far in. I hope I'm explaining this ok.

as much as I like the Remingtons, yours is really nice revolver! Thanks
Jim S.

All the Colt percussion are designed so that the end of the arbor touches the end of the bottom of the hole in the barrel. That's if they are properly fitted. Antique Colts left the factory that way. Modern replicas, not so much.

 

[Jim in Wisconsin]

I know that is what is commonly accepted to be the case, but the few I have been able to handle didn't show any sign of the arbor end touching. then again, they were rough examples - not even close to being as "new" looking as Johnny67's.
Maintaining that depth of hole in the barrel assembly and getting a flat bottom to it, then matching the length of the arbor so that the gap at the cylinder is just right could be done with today's machine tools without too much trouble. In 1860 that must have been sort of tough.
Letting the wedge determine the position of the barrel assembly would have been easier to do - seems to me anyhow.

 

[Jeff in Ohio]

I know that is what is commonly accepted to be the case, but the few I have been able to handle didn't show any sign of the arbor end touching. then again, they were rough examples - not even close to being as "new" looking as Johnny67's.
Maintaining that depth of hole in the barrel assembly and getting a flat bottom to it, then matching the length of the arbor so that the gap at the cylinder is just right could be done with today's machine tools without too much trouble. In 1860 that must have been sort of tough.
Letting the wedge determine the position of the barrel assembly would have been easier to do - seems to me anyhow.

Yes, easier but not as good. Using the wedge to space barrel and frame allows the slot in the arbor to stretch out and so the gun becomes loose.
One modern fix used to repair these is to drill and tap the end of the arbor, and install a set screw into the end of the arbor and that screw can be adjusted so that will touch the bottom of the hole beneath the barrel and so create solid contact between the frame arbor and the barrel.

 

[Patrick H]

It sure looks like a nice one to my unschooled eye. All the things I would check for are present and in fine shape: Minimal dings and scratches, clean undamaged screw slots, crisp numbers and matching, cartouches on grips, clean engraving on cylinder. That's a nice piece!

 

[Old Soldier]

On the other hand, the wedge is supposed to position the barrel, isn't it? It wedges the barrel back along the arbour until it can go no further making it secure. That is the theory and the patent explanation:

"Figure 19; is the wedge which passes through the mortice C, of the barrel (Figure 18), and the mortice B, in the arbor (Figure 8), to hold the plate (Figure 16), and the barrel (Figure 18), in contact with the cylinder (Figure 13), and the cylinder in contact with the shield (Figure 29); the small end of the wedge enters the mortices, and when it is pressed into them the edge a, acts on the end d, of the mortice C, in the barrel (Figure 18), the other edge b, acts on the end h, of the mortice B, in the arbor (Figure 8), which causes the plate (Figure 16), and the barrel (Figure 18), to be drawn to the fore end of the cylinder (Figures 13 and 15) with any requisite degree of tightness." (Colt Patent 1835 UK, 1836 USA)

"To keep the barrel secure in its place a key f, is introduced through slots in the bracket or projecting piece of the barrel, and through the spindle b, its upper edge acting on the forward end of the slot in the spindle, and its lower edge acting upon the lower end of the slots in the bracket of the barrel ; the effect of which is to draw the barrel towards the cylinder breech and lock frame as the key is pressed in, and pins projecting from the end of the lock frame enter corresponding recesses in the bracket piece of the barrel." ( Colt UK patent 1849)

 

[Jeff in Ohio]

On the other hand, the wedge is supposed to position the barrel, isn't it? It wedges the barrel back along the arbour until it can go no further making it secure. That is the theory and the patent explanation:

"Figure 19; is the wedge which passes through the mortice C, of the barrel (Figure 18), and the mortice B, in the arbor (Figure 8), to hold the plate (Figure 16), and the barrel (Figure 18), in contact with the cylinder (Figure 13), and the cylinder in contact with the shield (Figure 29); the small end of the wedge enters the mortices, and when it is pressed into them the edge a, acts on the end d, of the mortice C, in the barrel (Figure 18), the other edge b, acts on the end h, of the mortice B, in the arbor (Figure 8), which causes the plate (Figure 16), and the barrel (Figure 18), to be drawn to the fore end of the cylinder (Figures 13 and 15) with any requisite degree of tightness." (Colt Patent 1835 UK, 1836 USA)

"To keep the barrel secure in its place a key f, is introduced through slots in the bracket or projecting piece of the barrel, and through the spindle b, its upper edge acting on the forward end of the slot in the spindle, and its lower edge acting upon the lower end of the slots in the bracket of the barrel ; the effect of which is to draw the barrel towards the cylinder breech and lock frame as the key is pressed in, and pins projecting from the end of the lock frame enter corresponding recesses in the bracket piece of the barrel." ( Colt UK patent 1849)

yes, and it is supposed to hold that barrel "in place" so that the arbor / cylinder pin bottoms out. That cylinder pin is what is supposed to support the connection between frame and barrel, not the wedge.
I've owned many Colt percussion revolvers, and the ones that didn't show much wear always fit so that the pin exactly bottomed into that barrel.
That's a lost degree of craftsmanship.

 

[Johnny676767]

I've been out of town but will investigate when I return.

 

[Old Soldier]

yes, and it is supposed to hold that barrel "in place" so that the arbor / cylinder pin bottoms out. That cylinder pin is what is supposed to support the connection between frame and barrel, not the wedge.
I've owned many Colt percussion revolvers, and the ones that didn't show much wear always fit so that the pin exactly bottomed into that barrel.
That's a lost degree of craftsmanship.

The cylinder pin/arbor supports the barrel, but the wedge positions the barrel correctly - and fixes it there. It was not the only way a two piece frame/barrel could be correctly assembled, but the simplest AT THE TIME (1835). The 'solid frame' (1873 Colt Army) which combined the two was far better and stronger, but at the time, could not easily be produced on production-line machinery - and cost a lot more. Besides, it was Colt's patent and he stuck to it.

 

[Jim in Wisconsin]

Seeing as how the force that would cause the wedge or slot to get battered loose would be in the opposite direction from the arbor, it seems to me that there isn't any particular good reason to have it bottom on the hole.
Having it bottom out would sort of defeat the principle of the wedge wouldn't it? It would be difficult for the wedge to actually draw tight if the barrel to frame assembly stopped short.

 

[tmorr]

The wedge is slightly tapered and with its spring and the set screw in the barrel it can be locked - to a degree - in the position needed for optimal operation. Bottoming out the arbor, would in theory better allow the wedge to do its job as the gun was used and metal fatigued etc. Push the wedge in a tad and you take up some of the nearly created slack.

As a side note , When I compare my originals to my repros the difference in quality literally jumps out at me. Despite the age on the originals the workmanship is far superior, the machining more precise and everything is just better defined and better made. Despite the "weaker" steel when compared to today's the originals are Something to behold.

Here's a pic of the wedge on '61 Navy #3131 that shipped to the Boston Navy Yard in October 1861. You can still see evidence of the original blueing that was preserved and showing how far the wedge was inserted. It also clearly shows the taper in the wedge to allow for adjustment.