Who made this revolver?

[bedbugbilly]

OP - so what is the caliber? If it is a .44 cal., it is a 1860 clone - if it is .36 cal. it is a 1861 Navy clone.

Is the cylinder roll engraving "turned" off or does it just appear to be "white" due to the reflection of light in the photo? I can't imagine why anyone would go to the trouble to rurn the roll engraving off . . but you never know I guess.

As far as a "shoulder stock" for it goes . . . it's highly unlikely that the seller will have one. In years past, shoulder stocks were usually sold and an "accessory" if a person wanted one. Some repros were sold with a shoulder stock but the majority were not. I remember that in the early '60s, I believe it was Replica Arms who had them available with shoulder stocks IIRC. Be aware that shoulder stocks were usually made to fit specific reproduction revolvers and not always interchangeable between different manufacturers, regardless of if it was the same model revolver.

Yes . . some ASM (Army San Marco) revolvers had the reputation of having "soft" internals . . . but don't let that scare you away - check it out and see if it looks good, indexes properly and has good lock-up. I have know fellows who have had ASM revolvers for years and never had an issue with them. I have owned several through the years and never had an issue with them when I owned and shot them. Yes CVA imported ASM revolvers and usually they will be marked with the CVA stamp. I bought a ASM CVA 1861 about ten or so years ago that was new in the bo made in the early 1980s IIRC. It was a beautiful revolver - excellent fit and finish - smooth action, etc. I picked it up at a reasonable price just to have as a "back tip" on the shelf - I have always favored '51 Navies. I have way too many C & B revolvers and I showed the '61 ASM CVA Navy to a fellow one day and he wanted it in the worst way, so I sold it to him. As far as I know he still is shooting it and had never had an issue with it. I also ran across a ASM '61 Richards and Mason conversion one time (38 spl.) and it was a beautiful handgun. I passed on it as I was buying two other cartridge revolvers from the dealer at the time and I have always regretted passing it up.

Check the revolver out and if it is a good one, then you can decide as the $200 price you mention is a fair price. If I ran across one like that - either a '60 Army or a '61 Navy, it would be going home with me.

Good luck!

[indian joe]

OP - so what is the caliber? If it is a .44 cal., it is a 1860 clone - if it is .36 cal. it is a 1861 Navy clone.

Is the cylinder roll engraving "turned" off or does it just appear to be "white" due to the reflection of light in the photo? I can't imagine why anyone would go to the trouble to rurn the roll engraving off . . but you never know I guess.

As far as a "shoulder stock" for it goes . . . it's highly unlikely that the seller will have one. In years past, shoulder stocks were usually sold and an "accessory" if a person wanted one. Some repros were sold with a shoulder stock but the majority were not. I remember that in the early '60s, I believe it was Replica Arms who had them available with shoulder stocks IIRC. Be aware that shoulder stocks were usually made to fit specific reproduction revolvers and not always interchangeable between different manufacturers, regardless of if it was the same model revolver.

Yes . . some ASM (Army San Marco) revolvers had the reputation of having "soft" internals . . . but don't let that scare you away - check it out and see if it looks good, indexes properly and has good lock-up. I have know fellows who have had ASM revolvers for years and never had an issue with them. I have owned several through the years and never had an issue with them when I owned and shot them. Yes CVA imported ASM revolvers and usually they will be marked with the CVA stamp. I bought a ASM CVA 1861 about ten or so years ago that was new in the bo made in the early 1980s IIRC. It was a beautiful revolver - excellent fit and finish - smooth action, etc. I picked it up at a reasonable price just to have as a "back tip" on the shelf - I have always favored '51 Navies. I have way too many C & B revolvers and I showed the '61 ASM CVA Navy to a fellow one day and he wanted it in the worst way, so I sold it to him. As far as I know he still is shooting it and had never had an issue with it. I also ran across a ASM '61 Richards and Mason conversion one time (38 spl.) and it was a beautiful handgun. I passed on it as I was buying two other cartridge revolvers from the dealer at the time and I have always regretted passing it up.

Check the revolver out and if it is a good one, then you can decide as the $200 price you mention is a fair price. If I ran across one like that - either a '60 Army or a '61 Navy, it would be going home with me.

Good luck!

re the stock --never hurts to ask eh!

[Rex in OTZ]

I have a ASM mfg 1989 (1860 .44), internal parts are pretty rough, I'd broken the cylinder hand spring a couple times, shooting till it starts to bind is bad for those delicate parts, even more so with parts as rough as the ones I found inside my ASM.
In end I used Uberti 1851 parts from Brownells to repair my 1860.

[Jackrabbit1957]

I have a ASM mfg 1989 (1860 .44), internal parts are pretty rough, I'd broken the cylinder hand spring a couple times, shooting till it starts to bind is bad for those delicate parts, even more so with parts as rough as the ones I found inside my ASM.
In end I used Uberti 1851 parts from Brownells to repair my 1860.

Yes some ASM revolvers are lower quality than others. That being said they tune nicely and can be very accurate revolvers. The critical thing is to correct the short arbor, especially on the big horse pistols like the Walker's and Dragoon's.

[Der Gebirgsjager]

It is odd how bereft of markings some of the early replicas are. I have a CVA 1861 Navy that only has a tiny CVA stamped on the left side of the frame, and you have to look closely to find it as it isn't very deep. No other markings at all.

I have a 1892 Win. .44-40 replica made by ASM. Beautiful and seemingly well made--but out of the box it didn't work. It wouldn't feed, and it took lots of disassembly and file work to make it happen. Ended up very nice.