I recently bought a book called “ANTIQUE PISTOL BOOK” by Smith and Swanson First Edition Copyright 1948. Speedwell Press, Hoboken N.J.
The book has numerous drawings of hundreds of pistols which were made from photographs and actual guns. As it is a first edition, it also has a few errors, one of which I will mention.
I think the following drawing of a Colt pistol (from page 139) will be of interest to you.
We have heard of the possible existence of a 1851 Colt which was made in the .44 caliber as a development gun for the 1860 Colt. It seems to me that the gun in this drawing has characteristics of both guns.
The first thing that seems strange is the “hinge action ramrod”. The 1860 Colt has a “creeping style” loading lever.
I thought it might also be a miss print when it said it was a .44 caliber because the cylinder doesn’t look like it is rebated for the larger chambers however noting the photo of a early Fluted cylinder 1860 Colt (COLT AN AMERICAN LEGEND, R. L. Wilson, page 144) it is clear that the flutes used on the early 1860 Colts ran the entire length of the cylinder and the larger rebated area appears to be a line just forward of the cylinder stops. The drawing shows this line.
The .36 cal Colts had a 7 ½ inch barrel while the text says this one has a 8 inch round barrel which was used on the .44 cal guns.
I believe having both the “Hartford Ct” and the “New York U.S.America markings is unusual? FLAYDERMAN’S GUIDE indicates the “Address Sam’l Colt Hartford Ct“ is a early 1860 marking while the “Address Col. Sam’l Colt New York U.S.America” was used later.
Flayderman says “the two basic barrel markings were”¦” which to me implies to me either marking, but not both.
There are several things about the drawing which are puzzling to me.
First, there doesn’t seem to be a trigger screw showing. This could be because the screw was finished flush with the side frame so it wasn”˜t obvious?
It also shows the screw head for mounting a butt stock, but the cylinder recoil shield does not show the cuts at the lower area for mounting the stock.
The pivot screw for the link style ramrod doesn't show. Of course the book could be wrong and this could be a "creeping" style lever, but it's configuration defenitly is not a 1860 Colt.
I could chalk some of these things up to the fact that it is just a drawing and that the artist took some liberties however, if you look over the drawings below you will see that except for the obvious error in the text saying the upper gun is a .36 cal (note the rebated cylinder of a .44 caliber cylinder), the drawings are very detailed and accurately scaled representing the 1851 and 1860 Colt pistols.
As much as I hate it when the History Channel asks things like this, I have to ask:
Is it possible this is a drawing of the missing development 1860 Colt?
Any information or thoughts will be appreciated.
Zonie
The book has numerous drawings of hundreds of pistols which were made from photographs and actual guns. As it is a first edition, it also has a few errors, one of which I will mention.
I think the following drawing of a Colt pistol (from page 139) will be of interest to you.
We have heard of the possible existence of a 1851 Colt which was made in the .44 caliber as a development gun for the 1860 Colt. It seems to me that the gun in this drawing has characteristics of both guns.
The first thing that seems strange is the “hinge action ramrod”. The 1860 Colt has a “creeping style” loading lever.
I thought it might also be a miss print when it said it was a .44 caliber because the cylinder doesn’t look like it is rebated for the larger chambers however noting the photo of a early Fluted cylinder 1860 Colt (COLT AN AMERICAN LEGEND, R. L. Wilson, page 144) it is clear that the flutes used on the early 1860 Colts ran the entire length of the cylinder and the larger rebated area appears to be a line just forward of the cylinder stops. The drawing shows this line.
The .36 cal Colts had a 7 ½ inch barrel while the text says this one has a 8 inch round barrel which was used on the .44 cal guns.
I believe having both the “Hartford Ct” and the “New York U.S.America markings is unusual? FLAYDERMAN’S GUIDE indicates the “Address Sam’l Colt Hartford Ct“ is a early 1860 marking while the “Address Col. Sam’l Colt New York U.S.America” was used later.
Flayderman says “the two basic barrel markings were”¦” which to me implies to me either marking, but not both.
There are several things about the drawing which are puzzling to me.
First, there doesn’t seem to be a trigger screw showing. This could be because the screw was finished flush with the side frame so it wasn”˜t obvious?
It also shows the screw head for mounting a butt stock, but the cylinder recoil shield does not show the cuts at the lower area for mounting the stock.
The pivot screw for the link style ramrod doesn't show. Of course the book could be wrong and this could be a "creeping" style lever, but it's configuration defenitly is not a 1860 Colt.
I could chalk some of these things up to the fact that it is just a drawing and that the artist took some liberties however, if you look over the drawings below you will see that except for the obvious error in the text saying the upper gun is a .36 cal (note the rebated cylinder of a .44 caliber cylinder), the drawings are very detailed and accurately scaled representing the 1851 and 1860 Colt pistols.
As much as I hate it when the History Channel asks things like this, I have to ask:
Is it possible this is a drawing of the missing development 1860 Colt?
Any information or thoughts will be appreciated.
Zonie
