Conversion Cylinders

[Zulch]

Hello Zulch,

I couldn't agree more with the rest about the issue of dissasembling the Colt for reloading.
The gated cylinder is definitely the way to go.
As far as going from 6 shot to 5, I messed with one of mine switching parts until I found components that worked.
Then I sent my second Colt conversion to Mike, I can't even begin to say what a guy he is.
I almost got to shoot it at deer camp this year, but my cylinder locked up and I couldn't figure it out.
I sent Mike a text from the deer stand and he called me right back, we hashed out what it could be.
When I got back to camp I checked the revolver and the screw which holds the gate in place had worked loose and was binding on the cylinder.
Of course with the Ramington styled revolver, removing the cylinder is very simple.
On mine I went with the .44 Colt Original, leaving the cartridge straigh in the cylinder and still 6 chambers.
Many have the Howell 6 shot in .45 Colt with the angled chambers, and they seem very happy with them.

They are all fun, AntiqueSledMan.

ASM. I really thank you for you input here. I hope you and the family are well this holiday season. So it sounds like you may have initially done a gated conversion on your own and then you also let Mike do one of your other Colts? I've priced Kirst and with purchasing the ejector as well I am looking at almost $500 just for the parts. A rhetorical question to myself is, wouldn't it be better to just purchase an RM? Just doing the math on it. The replica RM s use metals that are safe for smokeless and even jacketed ammo IIRC, not that jacketed would be my first choice. Would it be safe to say that a person using a gated/non-gated conversion cylinder at all would be because they have a BP gun that they just really love and that they like the option of shooting metallic cartridges? Oh, and do you shoot smokeless at all in your conversions or strictly use BP? Thanks again Z

[45 Dragoon]

Thanks Cap and ASM for the very kind words !!

As far as the Howell cylinder, I like them fine but I like the 100% backing ( for the cartridge) support the Kirst setup  gives you vs the  (3/4?) support the cap on the Howell offers. That's why I say stay in tier one with Howell 's.

As for b.p. or smokeless,  smokeless is what they ( the cylinders) are made for so I don't understand the "apprehension" for using it. The cylinder contains the pressure and the platform  is just a support system for it (just like any SA).  Smokeless is all I've ever used in mine and I haven't shot bp in 20 years.

Mike

[Zulch]

Mike, so is it because of the BP only barrel that folks are worried about? I understand the cylinder is safe but should there be any concerns for the BP only barrel in you opinion?

[Marshal Will]

As for b.p. or smokeless,  smokeless is what they ( the cylinders) are made for so I don't understand the "apprehension" for using it. The cylinder contains the pressure and the platform  is just a support system for it (just like any SA).  Smokeless is all I've ever used in mine and I haven't shot bp in 20 years.

A number of years ago I read an article where they tested a Remington with a conversion cylinder using factory smokeless 45 Colt loads. After about 100 rounds, the frame had measurably started to stretch. So the weakness is not in the cylinder but the metal used in the BP frames. In a Colt type design, the arbor gets loose over time using heavy smokeless loads. A factory conversion uses better alloys in their frames. Kirst and Howell have tested their conversions and know the limits. If you stay within the cylinder manufacturers' recommendations you probably won't have any issues.

[45 Dragoon]

Mike, so is it because of the BP only barrel that folks are worried about? I understand the cylinder is safe but should there be any concerns for the BP only barrel in you opinion?

  I asked Walt about shooting jacketed  and plated bullets since that's about all you can buy ( of course you can load lead if you reload) and he chuckled and  told me I'd never wear out the barrel in my lifetime. Out of around 1500 rounds of 45acp, only about 20 have been lead.  About a third have been jacketed and the rest plated. Most of the jacketed have been +p's ( 23Kpsi). The bore is perfect. 
  The warning on the barrel is "legalize" and has to do with the revolver as is. 

Mike

[45 Dragoon]

As for b.p. or smokeless,  smokeless is what they ( the cylinders) are made for so I don't understand the "apprehension" for using it. The cylinder contains the pressure and the platform  is just a support system for it (just like any SA).  Smokeless is all I've ever used in mine and I haven't shot bp in 20 years.

A number of years ago I read an article where they tested a Remington with a conversion cylinder using factory smokeless 45 Colt loads. After about 100 rounds, the frame had measurably started to stretch. So the weakness is not in the cylinder but the metal used in the BP frames. In a Colt type design, the arbor gets loose over time using heavy smokeless loads. A factory conversion uses better alloys in their frames. Kirst and Howell have tested their conversions and know the limits. If you stay within the cylinder manufacturers' recommendations you probably won't have any issues.

  I have a Pietta made '58 Remington with a Kirst gated conversion that has had 100s of factory/ factory equivalent reloads through it and it still has .0015" endshake  with a  .0035" gap ( cyl all the way forward) which is what it had when I installed the cylinder. 
David Bradshaw says "endshake" is the detriment  to a revolver ( and I agree) and I consider myself fortunate to have a conversion cylinder that fits so well  (pure luck).  So, my point is, we don't know what make the revolver was, the maker of the Cylinder,  how much gap and mainly endshake  it had so .  .  .  the validity  of that "test" is "doodly squat".  So, the REALITY is, depending on how well your cylinder fits in your REMINGTON,  is going to be the determining factor in it's lifespan.
  I haven't fired any rounds over tier 1 through it but that will probably change soon. I'll tell you this, the '58 Remington ( P) has a wider and thicker top strap than the Pietta made '73 Frontier that I have which I found out can't handle +p's  that I shoot regularly through my converted '60's  ( U).

  Colt  open-top platform is a superior design in strength as well as being able to easily set up a minimum endshake. The generous endshake most folks leave in their "short arbor"open-tops is what beats the crap out of them.  After shooting the ammo I've already mentioned,  in both of my "60 Army's with absolutely no change ( as well as my Dragoons), it proves the design is more than up to the "modern" task of handling smokeless ammo.

Mike

[Marshal Will]

Glad to hear your experience with them has been good, Mike. So from what you say, if the end shake is no more than .0015, you're good to go.

[AntiqueSledMan]

Hello again Zulch,

The first one I did was the Remington with the 44 Colt Original.
I load my own ammo, the first batch was with about 27 gr of 2F Goex.
Then I switched to Black MZ, where I used the same bulk measurement with a 200 gr bullet.
When I loaded my 45 Colts, I used 20 gr Black MX (by weight) with a Lee 200 gr flat nosed bullet.
I did put a piece of biodegradable packaging peanut over the powder, people say it's not necessary.
I don't try to make max loads, rather shoot lighter bullets and powder charges to stretch components.
My second one was the 1851 Pietta with the Howell cylinder, that's the one I messed with parts to make it cycle the 5 shot cylinder, not as smooth as the last one was the Kirst gated which Mike set up for me.
I can put the 6 shot cylinder back into the gated conversion frame & it cycles just fine.
As far as cost, it would be cheaper to purchase a factory built revolver.
However by doing a conversion yourself, there is no paper trail.
Not that there is any legal reason why I couldn't do this,
I just don't think it's anyone's business whether or not that I have a revolver.

AntiqueSledMan.

[45 Dragoon]

ASM, well said sir !!!

Mike

[Navy Six]

When I got back to camp I checked the revolver and the screw which holds the gate in place had worked loose and was binding on the cylinder.
ASM, I had to laugh at that because I ran into the same problem this morning on my Uberti 1860 Army/Kirst. At first I thought the bolt wasn't releasing but was relieved to find the issue.
Zulch, I just kid about the smokeless thing but the whole appeal with these guns for me is to use them as close to the period as feasible. Almost forgot to mention my other gripe. The hammer face on every one of my conversions( 4 Ubertis and 1 Pietta--all Colt type) take a beating and after a few years of use you start looking for solutions. My first 51 Navy conversion lasted about 10 years of occasional use and quit on me at a Cowboy Shoot. Hammer face no longer contacting the firing pin. Oh yeah--at another Cowboy shoot I had a Kirst firing pin take off on a 60 Army. They replaced the conversion ring but I had to send the damaged one back. Not complaining as I will purchase Kirst again if/when another project pops up on the radar.
Merry Christmas.

[45 Dragoon]

Glad to hear your experience with them has been good, Mike. So from what you say, if the end shake is no more than .0015, you're good to go.

  Well, if it's in a Remington yes! But, .0025" - .003 would probably be fine. I just got lucky. As for open-top platforms,  .0015" -.003" seems to be fine.  My '60's  are both .002" Dragoons are .003" and they shoot the "fun" stuff.

The problem with a "Remington" with "a conversion cyl", "stretched " blah blah    .  .  .  no manufacturer, "who's cyl", how much endshake  .  .  .   It's the same as "a car" can go "200 mph"  so what's wrong with "mine".

 So, the structure  made with "todays mild steel" is quite  superior to the originals and all you need for a great structure. Otherwise I  wouldn't be able to shoot mine with a normal diet of what I'm saying.   And apparently,  the barrel and rifling are fine with jacketed bullets.

Mike

[Captainkirk]

Well, not to chuck a hand grenade into the community outhouse, but...
What about the barrel?
I've read multiple sources that quote both Pietta and Uberti as stating the steel used in their barrels is "mild steel", not heat treated (and possibly a different alloy?) compared to the steel used in replica cartridge revolvers...chiefly because it's cheaper to use the milder steel in guns that should not expect to see pressures and velocities over 850fps or copper jacketed bullets. Naturally, the conversion cylinders can handle pressures way above that, as Mike attests, but once you vent a little gas at the cylinder gap and are pushing through the forcing cone you still are pushing muzzle velocities well above 850 with factory .45LC ammo, and imparting that stress to the barrel. Let that sink in. A decade ago you would have been shunned from any gun range for shooting factory smokeless rounds in a BP gun. Nowadays, it seems everybody has decided that's candy-ass thinking, and damn the torpedoes! But what, if anything, has changed?
Now, this doesn't bother me a smidge, as I hand load...and both my BP and smokeless loads produce 850 or under psi MV. I also use non-jacketed cast bullets, so again...I know what I'm feeding my guns, and they don't exceed recommended MVs as approved by the manufacturers (and their lawyers).
Not saying you can't 'get lucky', either for 6 rounds or 6,000. But I've become quite attached to all ten of my fingers and both eyeballs and intend to keep up that relationship.
Just thought I'd share that side of the coin, since we're discussing it.

[45 Dragoon]

Well, not to chuck a hand grenade into the community outhouse, but...
What about the barrel?
I've read multiple sources that quote both Pietta and Uberti as stating the steel used in their barrels is "mild steel", not heat treated (and possibly a different alloy?) compared to the steel used in replica cartridge revolvers...chiefly because it's cheaper to use the milder steel in guns that should not expect to see pressures and velocities over 850fps or copper jacketed bullets. Naturally, the conversion cylinders can handle pressures way above that, as Mike attests, but once you vent a little gas at the cylinder gap and are pushing through the forcing cone you still are pushing muzzle velocities well above 850 with factory .45LC ammo, and imparting that stress to the barrel. Let that sink in. A decade ago you would have been shunned from any gun range for shooting factory smokeless rounds in a BP gun. Nowadays, it seems everybody has decided that's candy-ass thinking, and damn the torpedoes! But what, if anything, has changed?
Now, this doesn't bother me a smidge, as I hand load...and both my BP and smokeless loads produce 850 or under psi MV. I also use non-jacketed cast bullets, so again...I know what I'm feeding my guns, and they don't exceed recommended MVs as approved by the manufacturers (and their lawyers).
Not saying you can't 'get lucky', either for 6 rounds or 6,000. But I've become quite attached to all ten of my fingers and both eyeballs and intend to keep up that relationship.
Just thought I'd share that side of the coin, since we're discussing it.

  No problem Cap. The barrel is perfectly fine as a pressure relief  .  .  .   in fact, a  .45cal bullet  traveling down a barrel sheds pressure rather quickly,  much more so than a .38cal. Funny, I just had this conversation with Ron Wells. He explains that the increasing  size of the void being created as the large bullet travels down the barrel actually is like a built in safety.
 The main thing to look for would be any cracking of the forcing cone.  I've not had any problems with any of mine over the years. I've seen Mike Beliveau's (sp)  vid where he claims to have seen one crack. As far as I know, the one he saw is the only one that did so.  Just because one does doesn't mean they all will. If it was a real problem,  it'd be a weekly topic on the forums.   

 Personally,  if an 1860 ( U) barrel  can stand up to 21K  pressures with a fair amount of 23K's thrown in,  they're pretty good at being what they are. Did I mention the bore in my 45acp's is perfect? One of the reasons I am testing just the Uberti's at this point is because of the fast twist rifling is the same as modern 45C rifling. 
  So, there's no real reason to go through the "what if's" since there's over 20 years of a track record. If you're going to shoot tier 1 ammo only, there's absolutely no problem.

Mike

[mike116]

Finally a great thread on an interesting topic!   I've been wanting to do a conversion on an 1860 or an 1858 Remington.   I have a couple candidates already.   After reading this thread and looking over the Kirst website I think I'll go with an 1860 Pietta I have.   I need to check the manufacture date but I think it was made before 2017. 
Anyway...  there is good info here from everyone but I have to say we are lucky to have experienced guys contributing here and an expert like Mike that is willing to share his knowledge with us.

[Zulch]

Hello again Zulch,

The first one I did was the Remington with the 44 Colt Original.
I load my own ammo, the first batch was with about 27 gr of 2F Goex.
Then I switched to Black MZ, where I used the same bulk measurement with a 200 gr bullet.
When I loaded my 45 Colts, I used 20 gr Black MX (by weight) with a Lee 200 gr flat nosed bullet.
I did put a piece of biodegradable packaging peanut over the powder, people say it's not necessary.
I don't try to make max loads, rather shoot lighter bullets and powder charges to stretch components.
My second one was the 1851 Pietta with the Howell cylinder, that's the one I messed with parts to make it cycle the 5 shot cylinder, not as smooth as the last one was the Kirst gated which Mike set up for me.
I can put the 6 shot cylinder back into the gated conversion frame & it cycles just fine.
As far as cost, it would be cheaper to purchase a factory built revolver.
However by doing a conversion yourself, there is no paper trail.
Not that there is any legal reason why I couldn't do this,
I just don't think it's anyone's business whether or not that I have a revolver.

AntiqueSledMan.

ASM. Thank you, I agree with you and never even considered that aspect. No paper trail. I keep forgetting that you can buy components and build or modify what you want. A plus 👍