Colt Forum banner

Colt M1851 Markings

7K views 65 replies 12 participants last post by  Jonl51 
#1 · (Edited)
Hi All,
I need some expert guidance on what the correct New York City address looks like on an original Colt M1851 Square back. I have seen three variations and don’t know what is correct. Further, were all Colt Navy
M 1851s made with walnut grips?
Lastly, were the serial numbers on these early navies stamped with individual number dies? Some guns have perfectly aligned numbers while others have numbers not perfectly aligned. Thanks much! View attachment 664567 View attachment 664567
 

Attachments

See less See more
3
#2 ·
The barrel shown in your photos has the correct (and only) address stamped on squareback 1851s. It is distinctive because all squarebacks had the "NEW YORK CITY" address. Walnut grips as opposed to.....? Walnut was the standard grip material. Special orders were available with ivory, bone, etc. Hard rubber was never used. I believe that all the numerals in all serial numbers were stamped with individual dies.
 
#4 ·
Blackjack, Walnut grips as opposed to another type of wood. Sorry, wasn’t clear. If the serial numbers were stamped with individual die, would their alignment vary somewhat by which employee was doing the stamping?
Do all square backs have a crowned barrel? Much obliged !
 
#9 ·
Blackjack, I’m no expert, but I have seen many Colts with uneven numbers. Was just told by a recognized expert ( dealer )that the numbers should align because they were machine stamped. I thought perhaps Colt started with individual number die hand stamped on the early guns and then later used machines, but the serial number in your last post sure looks hand stamped. Thanks
 
#11 ·
So, you have (2) squarebacks showing -- 1203 & 2117. I have (3) and on some locations the numbers are lined up almost perfect, and one area that looks similar to the uneven example you show. My earliest one (219) has all s/n's pretty well lined up.

Wasn't aware that any were machine stamped, maybe learned something new here.
 
#13 ·
Berkeley, as far as the serial number stamping goes, I’m trying to learn what method Colt used. Just know I’ve seen some Colts with aligned numbers and others that were not aligned. The dealer’s point was misaligned like #2117, can’t be a Colt as they would never do such a poor job. Hmmm, can’t say I agree with that logic, based on all the misaligned serial numbers I’ve seen. But hey what do I know, just a novice trying to learn.
 
#18 · (Edited)
All (3) of my Sq Bk's have the same barrel address as yours. Two of them have the same hammer x-hatching (s/n's 27xx & 36xx), but s/n 219 is much different. There is a slightly raised 'mushroom' shaped surface on the hammer that contains the x-hatching. Too dark to get any pictures tonight. I will try to get a picture tomorrow, but my camera pictures are no where as near as sharp as yours.

Text Handwriting Drawing Font Sketch


This is a sketch of that slightly raised surface on the hammer that contains the x-hatching.

Funny, several times last night this sketch would not upload, but tonight uploaded without any problem.
 
#19 ·
All (3) of my Sq Bk's have the same barrel address as yours. Two of them have the same hammer x-hatching (s/n's 27xx & 36xx), but s/n 219 is much different. There is a slightly raised 'mushroom' shaped surface on the hammer that contains the x-hatching. Too dark to get any pictures tonight, and for some strange reason the photo of a sketch I made will not upload here. I will try to get a picture tomorrow, but my camera pictures are no where as near as sharp as yours.
Berkeley,
Would you mind also sending a picture of the barrel address on one or two of your squarebacks? Thank you! Jonl
 
#26 ·
Along with the Sq Bks I have several other later '51 Navies -- none of them have pins that look this good. In fact, several cylinders have the pins entirely worn down/off.

Only (1) of my Navies has any plating still remaining. It would need to have been a 'drawer queen' to last this long without experiencing appreciable wear, and if it went through the Civil War I think you would recognize that kind of 'patina' (really beat up).

My guess is that yours led a pretty 'soft' life.
 
#36 ·
Well, I finally got a few good pictures of the 'strange' x-hatching on the hammer. It clearly shows that slightly raised section of metal that contains the x-hatch.

This is on s/n 219, a 'pull-back' model (with the wedge screw above the wedge).

View attachment 665413 View attachment 665415 View attachment 665417 View attachment 665419
Cool crosshatching very precise looking. In your pics the cylinder seems to have small slots/ notches showing between the standard cylinder stops? Should my squareback have these too? Thanks for the pics! John
 

Attachments

#33 · (Edited)
Berkeley,

I think trying to make sense of what parts Colt used for whatever revolver is a crapshoot. He was one never to let parts go unused, and did not care if it fit the norm like we go by these days on modern guns.

Colt closed the London factory in 1856 and brought many parts back to Hartford. Maybe yours is a factory repair/retrofit?

I hope you are able to somewhat come to a good conclusion, sir!

Regards,

Jim
 
#51 ·
I also have the other reference mentioned -- 1851 & 1861 Colt Navies & Conversions by Jordan & Geri. It is another good reference that carries on discussions regarding these revolvers. If you can afford the Jordan book pick it up later, but for all around details on the '51 model you have the best one on the way.
 
#56 · (Edited)
The only pictures I posted of s/n 219 were on post #22 showing the top of the barrel with the Colt address and post #30 showing the hammer area. You mention London proof marks on this revolver but I have not noticed them. Am I missing something here? Colt did not display any revolvers in London until the Great Exhibition in May 1851, after this revolver was produced (1850). All the display revolvers were brought over as completed guns. Thanks -- Randy.
 
#63 ·
The nipple from the Navy squareback did fit into the Colt Army and tighten up. The Army nipple seemed a hair bigger and started but I did not want to force it. The threads look the same, see attached picture. The squareback was made in 1850, the Army in 1863. Perhaps a very slight difference in nipple size, very slight? Thanks and best regards. John
 

Attachments

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top