Confused about the Captain Captain Schaeffer 1851 (original, not repro) loading lever?

[Jamesbeat]

I am fascinated with the Captain Schaeffer 1851 Navy, not the Pietta repro, but the original gun that the repro was based upon.

I have a question about the loading lever, that I am hoping some more experienced members might be able to clear up for me.
It's obvious that the loading lever is vestigial, and could not be used in the conventional manner. I had thought that maybe an extension rod, now lost to time, may have been supplied with the gun, or maybe the idea was to simply use a mallet on the stub.
My guess is that it was just left in place for the sake of appearance, and one would have to remove the cylinder for loading.

I was looking at the photos again just now, and I noticed something peculiar - the catch that holds the lever in place does not appear to be functional.
If you look at the loading lever catch on an 1851, whether original or replica, there is a slot in the loading lever for it to slide back and forth. There is a visible gap behind the catch, to give it room to slide backwards and release the lever.

Looking at the Captain Schaeffer revolver, there seems to be no such space behind the catch; it looks as though it would be impossible to move the catch rearward far enough to release the loading lever.

It may just be the angle of the photo - maybe there is a small gap just enough to get the lever to release, but it really doesn't look that way. There is what could be a very small gap, but it looks more like a shadow.
Could it be that the whole assembly is just for show, and lever was permanently locked in position?

 

[2 shots]

the notch in the catch looks very shallow , seems it would move back enough to release.

 

[45D]

I'm pretty sure it's just for looks. Personally, I think they are rather "ugly" . . . never been a "snubby" cap gun fan.

Mike

 

[Jamesbeat]

the notch in the catch looks very shallow , seems it would move back enough to release.

Yeah, it could be. It's just that some of the 'gap' actually appears to be black oxide on the steel of the catch itself. If there is a gap there, it must be very small. As you say though, there is very little engagement for the catch.

It's quite possible that this is just a result of it being a finer fit than most Colts. Someone would have had to do a lot of the work by hand, so maybe they were able to keep to finer tolerances than the production guns.

I wish there were some better photos of the gun online. The auction site ones are very sparse, and only show one side of the gun.

 

[Jamesbeat]

I'm pretty sure it's just for looks. Personally, I think they are rather "ugly" . . . never been a "snubby" cap gun fan.

I love them all, long and short. I saw an article in Guns & Ammo magazine many years ago about the cut-off 'belly guns' or 'avenging angels', and I have just had a fixation with them ever since.