H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619
-
Posts
9,063 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619
-
-
I have a China Camp USFA in the white.
Here's a closeup.
It is indeed "in the white" with no finish. I am seriously considering sending it to Turnbull to be done up nice. Time and perhaps a refund check on my income tax will tell.
-
You are correct, Creeker. The Lightning Bolt and the 92 Mare's leg were made as pistols.
The 87 has ab 18+ inch barrel and and an overall length well over the minimum, so it's just an impractical shotgun.
the 73 has a 16" barrel, and all i did was cut the stock. It's also well over the minimum length, so its just a rifle with a very shot length of pull. IF the one big beautiful lawsuit throws out the nfa restrictions on sbrs, I'll consider cutting the barrel to 14" Maybe. Time will tell. -
13 minutes ago, Boggus Deal #64218 said:
For me right now, it’s pre-1911 .45 ACPs. Can’t afford them. But I can dream.
In 1987, I spent $400 for a 1911 made in 1913. First handgun I ever bought. Still have it. In 2013, I used it to shoot Wild Bunch at End of the Trail.
I recently learned how much a 1911 made in 1913 in condition comparable to mine is going for. It's a scary thought!
One gun of that era that intrigues me is the 1903 Pocket Hammer pistol in .38 ACP. -
Another thread got me wondering about this. When it comes to "collecting" Colts there are a LOT of variations to consider, even if you limit yourself to just the single action army.
Just for starters, there are the three Generations, the three standard barrel lengths, the Sheriff and Buntline variants, nickeled, blued, Bisley Model, New Frontier, the myriad of caliber options, (even if you limit it to widely produced calibers and don't take super rare ones into account) engraved examples, what the grips are made of, and those are just the "regular" variations. Adding in various custom barrel lengths, calibers finishes and who knows whatever other options existed would make collecting an example of every possible variation all but impossible, even if you HAD the money to do it.
That being said, I think it may be fair to say that for many of us, there might be a specific variation of the SAA that we don't own, but would like to have. It could be something super elaborate, or run of the mill ordinary. Something off the shelf standard, or something that would have to be custom configured.
Thinking about my own collection of both real Colts and clones, I do have a lot of interesting variations on the theme. And I included the clones for a reason; affordability. Sometimes an interesting variation might be impossibly expensive if it was a real Colt, but doable with a clone. And I use "collecting" in the widest possible definition; acquiring a bunch of things because you find them interesting. "Investment collecting" is not something that I concern myself with.
So with all of that said, what kind of a Colt would I like to have, but don't? To be honest, I'm at the point where I have all of the "standard" variations that interest me. For example, I do have a couple of Bisley revolvers, but don't see much of a reason to get more of them with different barrel lengths, calibers, etc.
On the other hand, some rather rare examples would be something I'd be willing to save up for. I have long wanted an otherwise "normal" SAA in .38 S&W. Very few were made, and when they do show up, they tend to be uber expensive.
So I have taken a lot of space to talk about something in general terms and coming to the surprising conclusion that there's nothing calling out to me saying, "Find one like this!"
I am strangely surprised by that realization. -
Handsome gun that I can't afford.
-
-
On 1/25/2026 at 10:33 PM, Injun Ryder, SASS #36201L said:
SASS Legal?
Essentially a Mare's Leg type pistol, so probably not. Still want one. Wish it was .38 S&W instead of .380, but I'll take as is.
Strike that. I just watched the video. Threaded for a silencer. How ridiculous! At least it's a pistol and the threads can be cut off with no NFA '34 violations. Still, it's probably not Mass Compliant anyway.
Lets get all of these legalized, then the above one fits in quite nicely.
Especially if the second from the top is okay.
-
5 hours ago, Griff said:
Although... the diatribe on that Marlin Cowboy bbl is mighty tempting to remove! I have softened it up a bit...
I am of two minds of removing those warnings.
1. They are stupid and ugly, and must be gone!
2. They are original to the gun. Perhaps someday when this nonsense stops they'll be a historical curiosity.
-
-
5 hours ago, Crazy Gun Barney, SASS #2428 said:
gonna do it just because I want to. This gun may be low value because of what has been done to it, but it is priceless to me because of where it came from. The restoration is not to improve resale value because this will never be sold.
That is more or less my attitude towards restoration in general.
Nice story, Crazy. It also illustrates the difference between a proper restoration and a generic "reblue" by a gunsmith that doesn't really understand the process. -
We all know all of the arguments for and against having a gun restored. That's not what this is about. I am going to assume for the sake of discussion that you have decided that a particular firearm you own is going to make "a trip to Turnbull" or some other place that can do comparable work. Now, in my estimation, there are multiple reasons why you may decide to have a gun given this treatment. And, it does not necessarily have to be a vintage firearm.
For example, take a look at these two guys...
Nothing vintage, historical or "significant" about these guns to the general population. But to me, these are wicked cool guns that I own. They are my Big Iron and my Small Iron. Both are already heavily customized beyond their "basic value," and I think it might be nifty to have them done up nice. That's as good a reason as any, I think.
But in a more general sense, I am of the mindset that if a vintage gun has aged well, that it has honest wear, but still looks mostly okay, I'd not consider it a candidate for this kind of work. I'd be more likely to leave it alone and enjoy its well acquired over time character.
In other words, the gun in question has to not look so great anymore, have mechanical issues, or both. But an "ugly" gun does not a candidate for a restoration automatically make. For example...
This a a Stevens .410 shotgun. It's hard to tell in the picture, perhaps, and it looks a LOT better since I rubbed the the thing down with a patch soaked in Hoppes Number 9. Prior to that, it had a thin film of rust all over it, and most of the barrel has "rust spots" on it at well. From the above stated criteria, this would make for an excellent restoration candidate. But the problem is, I don't want to go to that kind of effort for a gun that I got for the whopping price of $100. Sometimes, it's best to just leave things as is, I guess.
But then there is something like this.
A US Krag carbine that has been heavily sporterized. This is one that I would take, not to Turnbull, but to the CMP and have them do the work. I have sent them pictures, and they say they can restore it to proper configuration, but not the finish. Well that's okay. So it's a candidate.Here's an interesting one on specifics.
This particular Marlin 92, in .32, I would not normally consider with it looking like this. It's "honest wear" so to speak. BUT, that's not the original magazine tube, and it has some issues with properly cycling ammunition, so I figure that makes it a good candidate for further work.
Somewhat akin to that, is this.
An honest looking Winchester 86 in .45-70. But, the barrel has been cut to 19", and the original magazine tube had been hacksawed to a button, so I replaced it. While the barrel has good finish left, the receiver clearly doesn't. So this I think is a good candidate to have made look nice again.
This one here is, I think, the "best" candidate.
A Marlin 1889 in .44-40. It has NO original finish left, and you can see the steel wool marks left behind by a previous owner who obviously scrubbed off whatever was left of the original finish.The last rifle I want to look at is this one...
Now, generically, this is NOT one I'd consider having restored. It's not pristine by any measurement, and it has aged honesty. But, not only was this the first Winchester I ever bought with my own money, when I first got it, my father told me I should have it restored. I've never forgotten that, and part of me kinda wants to honor his memory by doing this one up nice.
Now on the one hand, I think this is a perfect candidate for restoration.
On the other, Turnbull does not do nickel. I'd have to find someone else, and I am sure there are people who can do a proper job. I fact, in another thread, I got a couple of good suggestions. The only thing holding me back on this one is that based on what it looks like the restoration would cost, I could get another one in already much better shape for about the same price. That'd allow me to have two of the things. Time will tell if I decide to do anything.
Here's an interesting candidate.
Let me add some detail...
As you can see the nickel finish is pitted and flaking off. Now, this gun is a USPFA revolver. I know it's a glorified Uberti, but it IS a part of the USFA story. Again, I'd have to find someone who can do nickel, or consider changing it blued. If I decide to go forward, that'll be the choice I have to make.
And speaking of USFA...
Now this one is pretty pristine. It's one of the China Camp models. A model that was deliberately left "in the white" so you could have it finished yourself any way you want. I think this is one I want to have done up nice. A perfect candidate for a trip to Turnbull.And here's one that's perfect for a trip to someone else.
Obviously customized, it functions well. So, why am I considering a restoration? Well, like many Broomhandles, the bore is shot out. There are places that specialize in fixing that, so I will likely contact one of them sooner or later.
Here's one that actually NEEDS restoration...
This 1849 conversion needs to be restored not because it's ugly, but because it does not work right. I need to find someone who specializes in these things to correct some mechanical issues. I was gonna have a local gunsmith I trust do it, but he basically begged off saying he COULD do it, but these were not really his area of expertise, and he was afraid he'd have to charge too much to do it. So, I gotta find someone else. Turnbull turned me down too, for what it's worth. Said it was too rare for them to have the proper knowledge to deal with it.
One other '49...
Now this one works perfectly. It's just ugly. But it's nickeled. Finding someone do deal with it not easy. And in truth, before I do anything with it, I want to wait for a factory letter to tell me if it left there as a nickeled gun or if this was an aftermarket modification, Time will tell,
This next pistol, I consider a prime example of a good restoration candidate.
As you can see, this .32-20 is a mess. What's left of the finish is horridly ugly. It shoots well, but that's about it. Making it look as nice as it shoots seems like a reasonable concept to me.
And finally, here's one that I am really on the fence about.
On the one hand, this gun has NO original finish left. But clearly faded away honestly; it was not scrubbed off. But one does wonder how does a 2nd Gen Colt .45 made in 1971 look so badly worn? Mechanically excellent, I am torn on having this one redone. One the one hand, it's "wornness" seems to have been acquired honestly. But on the other, it's pretty ugly. So, I have options to consider.
Now, obviously, I am not going to have ALL of these guns redone. That would be rather expensive. And while I have sorta reached the point in my life where I'd rather put care into the existing collection than adding much more to it, these are things to consider.
So to any of you out there who HAVE had a gun restored, how did you decide to have that particular one redone? How bad was it before? Are you pleased with the after?
I don't know where, if anyplace, I am gonna go with all of this, but I will have SOME fun, when I finally make up my mind.
-
18 hours ago, H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619 said:
Does it have a bayonet lug?Seriously, whenever I see one of those "tachticool" lever actions, I always notice the lack of a lug, and I think it looks like it's missing.
-
Okay...
Saw this yesterday.
All I could think of was to wonder if there is an amateur version.
-
1
-
5
-
1
-
-
19 hours ago, Abilene Slim SASS 81783 said:
I’d like to ask Smith & Wesson the same question. It’s inscrutable. 🤨
You know, I think that's the first time I've ever seen someone correctly use the word inscrutable in a sentence outside of something akin to "he was an inscrutable man" type usage.
-
1
-
-
19 hours ago, Montague Kid said:
NYS compliant “Assault weapon”
Also labeled “The Abomination” by my more traditional pard’s…
Does it have a bayonet lug?-
1
-
-
Thanks, Earl. I learned things from your post. It seems I have an interesting piece here with a curious history. It doesn't look so great, but the gun is in pretty good mechanical condition. Everything locks up nice and tight. I've shot a couple matches with it, usually paired with a S&W New Model 3 in the same caliber. After hearing your assessment of how how it has likely been modified, I looked more closely at thinks like the bottom of the butt, the muzzle, and shape of the front sight. I think I see some evidence of a skill crusher being cut off. Whoever did it smoothed out the grip very nicely but you can feel a flat spot and the "curve" of the bottom of grip looks and feels off just a little. The outside of the muzzle does curve to the front, which seems strangely flat and sharp on the inside, so maybe that does say it was cut down. It has well defined rifling, but the bore is rough. Still shoots well though. The front sight, if you look carefully, you notice that it's ever so slightly tilted to the right, and twisted maybe 1 degree to the right of the centerline. So yeah, the gun's been modified. And one could argue, not all that well. But, like I said, it shoots well enough for SASS. I might decide someday to make it look better. It already has "no collector value," whatever that means, but if it could be made to look good for a reasonable price, I might do that. If I do do that, I don't wanna lose the markings though, so maybe not.
Finally, it seems to me that the whole "assembly numbers" thing was a colossal waste of effort. Why not just use the gun's serial number? I must be missing something.
Heck, in the Stevens Shotgun I mentioned in the initial post, it has "no serial number" but the same number IS stamped on the inside of the receiver, the wooden fore grip, and an internal piece. Makes me wonder why they didn't call that number the serial number. -
2 hours ago, Lead Monger said:
The script on top of the barrel is interesting, it does not say Merwin Hulbert. Is there anything visible on the left side of the barrel?
No, there is not.
-
I got a couple more I had overlooked. Both are Colt 1849's.
First, here is one that has been converted to .32 Colt.
When and were the conversion was done, I do not know. All the number do match, but I don't think it's a factory conversion.
That just doesn't look like any of ones I have seen that are known to have been done at the factory. When all is said and done, it does lock up properly when it cocked, but jams while cocking it, and you need to wiggle and rotate the cylinder by hand a little to get it to move.
Any experts on these old Colts who can help me are welcome to say so!
This next one however, I think IS a factory conversion, and it's even more Frankenish that they above one.
This one does look like other factory conversions I've seen. Where the Frankengun status comes from is how you can see the frame clearly says, 31 CAL, which is what these things were, but this pistol is converted to .38 Colt. Also, the numbers on the frame and barrel match, but the numbers on the trigger guard and backstrap are both different from the frame, and each other.
I have read that as Colt was winding down production on this model, that the last bunch left the factory as cartridge conversions of this type.
-
1
-
-
Here is a query for any experts on Merwin & Hulbert revolvers.
This is what I believe to be a Merwin & Hulbert 3rd Model, in .44-40. It's hard to see, in the above photo, but here's a closeup of what's under the trigger guard...
And here's the top of the barrel.
Again, hard to make out, but as near as I squint out and determine is says, U.S.A Pat. Jan. 24. Apr. 21. Dec. 15. 74. Aug. 3. 75. July 11. 76 Apr.17. 77. Pat. Mar 6. 77
But now, here is my "difficulty." According to Massachusetts, even though it was made in the 1880's, this is a "modern firearm" because you can buy ammunition for it off the shelf. Therefore, it must be properly registered with the state, or I go to jail. But... What the heck is the serial number?
7856, right?
Wel...
Those are both marked 9096.
By the modern definition, the number on the grip frame would be the legal serial number. But what do those numbers on the back of the barrel and cylinder mean? Is this a parts gun that's been together for a long time? Or could the 9096 be some sort of assembly numbers akin to the ones I found on my pre-1968 and thus no serial number Stevens shotgun.
Any experts out here who might know? -
1 hour ago, Chancy Shot, SASS #67163 said:
A cowboy I used to shoot with had a left-handed SSA. It was made from the ground up by a machinist friend of his. Everything was backward. the cylinder rotated the wrong way. The loading gate and ejector were on the left. I am not sure, but I think the rifling in the barrel was also reversed. I saw it once and was allowed to handle it. Will Dunn has passed on and I assume his son has it now.
Will also bought a box of pistol parts for $100 at a farm sale. When He got it home and could really look, there were parts for a complete LeMat pistol in the box. I was locky enough to handle that also.
Chancy
On the one hand, that's pretty cool. On the other hand, it has been argued that the SAA IS a left handed gun. The argument goes the gun can be held, loaded, and fired and reloaded all while held in the left hand. No need to shift hands back and forth like you do if you shoot right handed. Of course, when you see how the trigger is offset to the left a little making it position itself perfectly on the right finger but on the joint of the left, the argument falls apart. It's similar to how the while the thumb safety is on the wrong side, the rest of the controls on a 1911 are easier to manipulate with the index finger of the left hand than the thumb of the right.
Or so it would seem.
-
13 hours ago, Waimea said:
A bit of history:
July 2019 HK Uriah started a thread about Frankenguns. Those are guns that don't exist in production but someone who has serious skills and time on their hands has put together some very interesting pieces.
Photos ensued.
I'd like to see some updated photos of some Frankenguns.
And HK you are welcome to show off that pepperbox again.
Ask. and ye shall receive!
We'll start with these two...
The top is my Big Iron pistol. It's an Armi San Marco SAA clone with Pietta 1860 grips, and a barrel cut down from a Rossi 92 in .45 Colt. It's based on the description of the pistol that inspired the Marty Robbins song that used to be on Wikipedia.
Bottom gun is the above mentioned Pepperbox. It's built on an FIE 1851 frame, and was built by Happy Trails. It's ostensibly chambered for .357 Magnum, but I usually run .38 Long Colts in it.
This technically counts. It's a Colt 1860 that was made in 1860. At some point in its life, it was cartridge converted with a loading gate and everything. Then, at a later point, the loading gate was apparently filled it, and it was rebarreled and recylindered to .32 S&W Long. The barrel and cylinder seem to be of modern manufacture.
This is much more of a Frankengun than I realized. It's a first generation Colt, and the original barrel has been replaced with a .22 caliber one. The cylinder has been sleeved to .22 Hornet, the trigger guard has been replaced with this apparently nickeled one, and it was pointed out to me that is is actually all built on a Bisley frame. The grips are not original. They were broken and falling off.
And then there is this, sitting proudly with my Big Iron is what I am now calling my Small Iron. It's a Pietta. It has a transfer bar. It started life as a .357 Magnum. The barrel has been lined to .32 caliber and the original cylinder sleeved to .32 Long Colt. The blued spare cylinder is now a .32 S&W Long, and the barrel has been shortened to 3.5"
Both guns MAY see some further modification. The Big Iron may get its brass trigger guard replaced with a steel one. The Small Iron may get the transfer bar removed unless doing so is overly complicated. I had considered putting Bird's Head grips on the Small Iron, as I had a pair and they make the gun "look" smaller. But, they are Uberti grips and don't fit here. Finally, especially if I do these additional mods, both guns might make a trip to Turrnbull to be done up really nice. Another quirk of the Small Iron is that you have to take the ejector off to get the cylinder pin out. Unless I can figure out if that can be modified, I may just take it off and make it a non-Sheriff Sheriff's model. Don't know if I'll replace the PVC grips with something nicer. Time will tell.
And finally, there is this. It's a Mann Accuracy Device that I replaced the cut down stock with a 1903 A3 stock that still has the butt, original rear sights, and a clamp on front sight. It's a .30 Carbine. Not much more than a weird single shot plinker. No alterations of any kind were made to the device, and I kept the original stock so it can go back to its as created configuration.
That being said, if I can ever find one in .30-'06, I will likely restock it like this one, but put on a reproduction 03A4 Sniper scope.-
4
-
1
-
-
I have plugged my novels in the Saloon, which are not even Westerns, to no complaints.
-
I keep forgetting to post this...
Small Iron
By Kevin Mickel
aka HK Uriah
To the town of Agua Fria rode a stranger one fine day.
Spoke to everyone around him and he had a lot to say
Everyone asked about his business
And he had a smile on his lip
The stranger there among them had a small iron on his hip.
Small Iron on his hip.It was early in the morning as he rode into the town
He came riding from the north side, eagerly looking all around
He's some kind of a goofball, came the comment from each lip,
He's got nothing but a small gun, a small iron on his hip.
Small Iron on his hip.
In this town there lived an outlaw by the name of Texas Red
Many men had tried to take him, and that many men were dead
He was vicious and killer, though a youth of twenty four
And notches on his pistol numbered one and eighteen more.
One and eighteen more
Well the stranger started talking, made it plain to folks around
Was an Arizona Ranger, wouldn’t be to long in town.
He came here to take an outlaw back alive or maybe dead.
And he said it didn’t matter; he was after Texas Red
After Texas Red
Wasn’t long before the story was relayed to Texas Red
But the outlaw didn’t worry, men that tried before were dead.
Nineteen men had tried to take him,
Nineteen men had made a slip
Number twenty would be the ranger with the small iron on his hip.
Small Iron on his hip
The morning passed so quickly it was time for them to meet.
It was twenty passed eleven when they walked out in the street
Folks were watching from their windows, everybody held their breath
They knew this goofy stranger was about to meet his death
About to meet his death.
There was forty feet between them when they stopped to make their play
And the foolishness of the ranger is still talked about today.
Texas Red had not cleared leather, or a bullet barely ripped,
But the stranger’s bullet bounced off him when fired from the small iron on his hip.
Small Iron on his hip
It then was quickly over and the folks all gathered round.
There before them lay the body of the stranger on the ground
Oh he might have gone on living, but he made a fatal slip.
He tried take out a bad guy with just a small iron on his hip.
Small Iron on his hip
Small iron, small iron
Never try to take out the villain with just a small iron on your hip.
Small Iron on your hip! -
Well, given how much it looks like getting the nickel finish fixed, and how much these pistols seem to be going for on the used market these days, I think I'll be better off leaving this one as is, and getting as second one in better condition. A more "rewarding" use of the funds, so to speak. Granted, it won't look "factory new" but there are some very nice looking ones I've seen that are in the same price range as getting this one redone. And then, I'd have 2 of them!
Thank you to everyone who offered very helpful information.-
1
-
1875 Remington Outlaw
in SASS Wire
Posted
You mean one of these?
I find it to be a nice shooter, and it gets a lot of, "Wait, what is that? It's not a Colt" type comments.
They do feel a little different in the hand when just holding it, but when shooting, the differences quickly vanish. An odd thing about this is that the cylinder is a little shorter than a Colt, so you gotta make sure your cartridges are not too long. I have found that a .45 Colt with 200 grain bullets fits just fine, but 240s were just a BIT too long.
Is the "Outlaw" a specific variant, or just what Uberti is calling these days?