1851 Fantasy Frame Navy

[dc7x64]

Theoretically...The frame on an 1851 Colt Navy in .44 cal is really a 1860 with a Navy barrel or front end assembly right? So would an 1860 barrel fit on my frame if it was made by the same manufacturer :hmm:

 

[Wes/Tex]

Actually it's the reverse, but the same. The .44 caliber M.1860 was the same frame as the M.1851 "Navy" in .36. The only difference in the two was the rebated milling of the .44 to fit the larger cylinder front. It was improvements in steel manufacturing that allowed Colt to make a lighter weight Dragoon, if you will. But to answer your actual question, it should be possible to make a standard looking M.1860 out of the so called .44 Navy by swapping out barrels. Of course, you'd have an incorrect brass framed version unless you used the steel frame version and the grip would be shorter unless you swapped out the grip frame for the longer M.1860 style.

 

[hawkeye2]

Early 60 Armies used the Navy grip.

 

[Wes/Tex]

Correct, and the early ones even used a non-rebated frame but the cylinder needed more forward diameter for the .44 chambers and a longer grip frame for more comfort. Not 100% sure but think both problems were addressed before military deliveries were made. Metallurgy made the design possible but Colt still needed a little R&D to get it all lined up.

 

[BowerR64]

Ive been shooting both the 51 and the 60 in .44 lately and i prefer the 51 over the 60.

I didnt like the 51 in the .36 for some reason but in the .44 i love it.

I like how the 51 barrel is cut out better for the ball to fit above the cylinder. I also like the smaller ramrod on the 51 it seems more forgiving even though it seems sloppy it actually works better being smaller.

Many times with the remington when trying to ram the ball in the ramrod is just out of position and it wont go down into the chamber and ive some how turned it to far so i cant back it up. I cant rotate it forward because it wont clear the forcing cone so i have to remove the cylinder and put it back in with the ball hanging out the chamber its tricky but with the 51 i never have that happen.

Also the 51 barrel seems so beefy and heavy duty like the remington.

I do like the way the 60 looks all the curves give it a neat look but sometimes when something just works good like the 51 in the .44 it starts to look better.

My next BPP is going to be the civillian model that has the steel frame with the silver backstrap cabella sells.

 

[BowerR64]

I think they already make what your wanting.

I think i have 2 fantacy frames. The /44 1851 Army and the 1860 Navy in brass?

My 1860 was made by CVA

 

[Don]

I'm with you Bower, even though I like the graceful lines of the 1860 there is just something that draws me to the 1851 in .44. I have the 1851 in brass .44 and the .36 in steel but like you I'd really would like to get the 1851 civilian in .44. I love the way my Remingtons sheds cap fragments and give me trouble free shooting but the Colts just appeal to me more than the clunky looking Remmies.

Don

 

[BowerR64]

Also the colt *cough spins the best cough*

 

[wb78963]

Can it be done? Yes it might, but why?
Don't fight the problem just buy a new steel frame 1860 Army and be happy.
Bunk

 

[bang]

This is the Pietta1851 44. Was brass frame. Switched out steel frame of a Pietta 36. Cylinder very close but clears. Nice handling little shooter.
The Rem 1858 Sheriff 36 and 44 Belt pistol are equally nice handling.
The 1858 36 can put a hefty load behind the ball.

 

[Stantheman86]

I kinda like the Pietta steel frame .44 Navy with the plain cylinder.