Conversions-the scoop

[Captainkirk]

OK, fellers...let's open up a can of worms here and discuss conversions (both Howell and Kirst type) and some of the mystery/myth around them. I'm sure this will ruffle some feathers, but that's my intent...
Back when I first began exploring the potential of converting one of my Remington NMAs, I did a lot of research. At the time, the rules of engagement were as such; black powder ONLY loads were the only acceptable loads you could shoot; reason being that while the conversion cylinders were made of modern gun steel and capable of handling pressures equivalent of modern .45LC and .44WCF (smokeless) cartridges, the frames and barrels were made of mild steel, able to withstand the pressures of as much black powder as you could ram down the craw of your case. These loads produced somewhere in the neighborhood of (less than) 850 fps velocities. And then came Trail Boss. Being a large grained powder with a hole in the middle (picture black Cheerios), it took up a lot of case space but would not allow you to overcharge to the point of injury or damage, keeping the velocities below 900 fps and preventing double charges (impossible to do with black powder unless you are using 4F, possibly). Handloaders still needed to use published load data, though, and weigh their charges to remain in the 'safe zone'. Then came Black Hills 'Cowboy' ammunition for the CAS/SASS crowd. I don't know what powders or loads they used, but the velocities were consistent with Trail Boss loads previously mentioned.
But somewhere down that long and dusty trail we got lost. I see more and more postings and videos on forums and social media saying how it's OK to use low charges of various smokeless powders "as long as you keep the pressures down below 1000fps" because the cylinders are strong enough to handle these loads.
Now, I'll be the first to admit I handload .45LC, .44-40 (WCF) and .45-70 Gov't in both BP and smokeless forms...HOWEVER, the smokeless ones are fired in my 1872 Uberti Open Top (made from modern gun steel) and my Pedersoli Sharps, Browning 1885 High Wall, and Navy Arms Winchester '66, which are all designed using modern gun steel barrels and safe to use off the shelf factory ammunition. Not so your garden variety Pietta, Uberti, ASM, ASP, FIE...etc. The steels used in those weapons are not modern weapons-grade gun steel, and just because your new conversion cylinder can handle 40,000 psi does not mean the rest of the gun can. You may get away perfectly fine for one shot, a dozen, several hundred or even thousands, but if there is going to be a weak link, it's not going to be the cylinder. Think about that a second.
When I did finally buy a (Howell) conversion cylinder for my 1858 'Sheriff' Remington, I made sure that only black powder handloads got fed in that one. The smokeless loads go in the Open Top only, for shooting at indoor ranges.
While on the subject, I might also add that "BLACK POWDER ONLY" barrels were designed for cast lead bullets and not jacketed ammunition.
OK, let the hating and mud flinging begin... 

[Miguel Loco]

I'm with you Cap. Pressures "may" be ok, but not worth the chance. I just keep BP were it belongs. Besides, for me it's more fun to burn the black anyway, so it's a no-brainer.

[WECSOG]

Just a few comments. I'll probably ruffle a few feathers too. First, I don't think the use of smokeless loads will have any effect on the host revolver. The cylinder is what contains the pressure. As long as the pressure is within rated spec, most of it drops off by the time the bullet enters the barrel. The conversion cylinder has its own breech, so only recoil force is passed to the revolver frame. Of course, as mentioned, only lead bullets should be used.

Second, I am not and have never been a fan of Trail Boss. It was always too expensive. A 9 oz can of Trail Boss cost about the same or more than a 1 lb can of Red Dot. Worse, I saw newbie reloaders out there on the forums telling other newbies that if they just got a can of Trail Boss they didn't have to worry about all that stuff they had to do with other powders, because it was just like black powder and you could not overload a cartridge with it. That is incorrect. A .45 Colt case will hold at least 10 grains of Trail Boss under a 255 grain bullet. Looking at the published burn speed, Trail Boss is a few steps faster than W231 and not much slower than Bullseye.
10 grains of W231 under a 255 grain bullet is a maximum Ruger-only load in .45 Colt. To put it another way, if you put as much Trail Boss as you can fit in a .45 Colt case, you had better be shooting it in a .454 Casull. Or better yet, not at all.

Another thing to consider: some people think TB is fine for loading old black powder only revolvers such as an early SAA. Bad idea. TB acts just like smokeless powder because it is smokeless powder. So if you wouldn't load that old revolver with Bullseye, you shouldn't load it with TB either.

[Captainkirk]

Just a few comments. I'll probably ruffle a few feathers too. First, I don't think the use of smokeless loads will have any effect on the host revolver. The cylinder is what contains the pressure. As long as the pressure is within rated spec, most of it drops off by the time the bullet enters the barrel. The conversion cylinder has its own breech, so only recoil force is passed to the revolver frame. Of course, as mentioned, only lead bullets should be used.

While it's true that a major portion of the pressure drops off as the bullet transitions to the barrel, (most of it through 'blow-by' from the cylinder to forcing cone gap) enough pressure exists to 'ring' the barrel (or blow it up!) in the case of a partial or complete restriction of the bore. We've all seen what happens when Bugs Bunny stuffs a carrot in Elmer Fudd's shotgun. 
Bear in mind that we are dealing with two different grades of steel between a modern handgun and a black powder replica.
A while back, I had read a very interesting post on a BP forum, maybe even this one? from a member who, IIRC, either he or a friend shortened the barrel on his revolver to make it a "sheriff" model and after completing the mod, out of curiosity sent the sawed off scrap to a metallurgist for analysis. The results? "Mild steel".
We've all seen the star and shield on our import BP revolvers "PN", which is the Gardone proof house mark for "Black Powder"...which means the parts stamped as such (barrel and frame) have been proofed for BLACK POWDER. Shooting anything but translates to rolling the dice in my book. Your mileage may vary, but I am not a gambler. I'm not fond of nicknames like Lefty, Three Finger Pete or Patch, myself.

Second, I am not and have never been a fan of Trail Boss. It was always too expensive. A 9 oz can of Trail Boss cost about the same or more than a 1 lb can of Red Dot. Worse, I saw newbie reloaders out there on the forums telling other newbies that if they just got a can of Trail Boss they didn't have to worry about all that stuff they had to do with other powders, because it was just like black powder and you could not overload a cartridge with it. That is incorrect. A .45 Colt case will hold at least 10 grains of Trail Boss under a 255 grain bullet. Looking at the published burn speed, Trail Boss is a few steps faster than W231 and not much slower than Bullseye.
10 grains of W231 under a 255 grain bullet is a maximum Ruger-only load in .45 Colt. To put it another way, if you put as much Trail Boss as you can fit in a .45 Colt case, you had better be shooting it in a .454 Casull. Or better yet, not at all.

Another thing to consider: some people think TB is fine for loading old black powder only revolvers such as an early SAA. Bad idea. TB acts just like smokeless powder because it is smokeless powder. So if you wouldn't load that old revolver with Bullseye, you shouldn't load it with TB either.

I've never owned nor shot Trail Boss. Which is a moot point, as it's been unobtanium for a very long time and if rumors are true, is out of production completely. I have zero contention against your statements about TB, especially the last sentence. Only thing I might add is that one probably should follow the same advice with their Italian replicas. The only BP revolver I have that might have some wiggle room there is my Santa Barbara, which is made of modern day weapons grade steel, but that's also a moot point as mine is not a conversion and won't be as long as I own it.

[AntiqueSledMan]

Gentlemen,

I wasn't going to comment on this, but here goes.

When it comes to reloading, the individual is responsible for their own actions.
That doesn't change when it comes to putting a cartridge into a firearm.

I have loaded Trail Boss for my son's Ruger Vaquero, it does like to hang up when measuring .

In my Cartridge Conversion Revolver's I use Black MZ exclusively,
I also weigh each charge on my powder scale before loading.
A lot of people say I'm wasting time doing so, but that's the way I do it.
It doesn't matter if I'm loading handgun or rifle cartridges, I weigh each charge.
This is a hobby of mine and I refuse to take any shortcuts, my cartridges are safe to shoot.

It seams a lot of re-loader's are trying to get the maximum or hot loads, not me.

AntiqueSledMan.

[mike116]

I'm with ASM & others who use caution when hand loading for conversions or anything else.   I've had several conversion cylinders and sold all but two.   
Just like everything else happening lately Personal Responsibility is becoming more and more scarce.   I load my cartridges, load the cartridges in the gun, point it in a safe direction and pull the trigger.   All that makes me responsible for the outcome.    Even if some clown on Facebook, MeWe or some other forum says it's OK,  I am still responsible.   Do the research and make your own decisions because it's your responsibility.

[WECSOG]

My comments about conversion cylinders are speculative, since I've never owned one and am not what you would call a fan of them. To each his own though, and I can understand the draw.

The only thing I really dislike about them is that on most forums you cannot have a simple discussion about c&b revolvers without someone coming along and turning it into a discussion about conversion cylinders. This, even during the times when metallic ammo is difficult to find and triple the normal price!
That's one of the things I like about this forum. While some members are fans of conversions, the forum as a whole actually appreciates c&b revolvers for what they are.

[45 Dragoon]

Yep, I think most are rather "speculative"  .  .  .   which is exactly why I shoot what I shoot in them. It's different when you know what the "other" side of the equation is (what the cylinder is capable of). Then you're free to test the "support system".  What the manufacturers say is what they CAN say and still afford to stay in business (liability is expensive).  Ruger still suggests "No reloads" in their revolvers  .  .  .
  So, since I  build my revolvers to MY  specs and with Kirst Konversions,  I report what these revolvers are capable of If they are treated similarly. Therefore,  it's not speculation on my side, I'm actually shooting them. This does only extend to Ubertis though as I've not done the same with any other makes.
  With that said, I'm perfectly confident shooting +p  ammo with my revolvers.  They show absolutely no accelerated wear.  I would obviously NOT repeat any of my tests with any original with a modern cyl.  Most of my shooting with 45acp in my '60's has been with jacketed bullets.  The barrels are perfectly fine.  My older Dragoons (that started me down this road) will be treated with mostly jacketed as well for testing purposes.  I'll update as things move along and will answer any questions that I can.
That is the scoop.

Mike

[45 Dragoon]

Another aspect from the business end of conversion cylinders is,  the manufacturer doesn't know WHAT type of "rattle trap" some customers may be installing their products  in .  .  .  which gets you back to Ruger recommending "no handloads".
  As far as barrels go, I asked Walt if jacketed bullets would wear them out, his response was "not in your lifetime"!  So, unless he knows something I don't ( heck, I'm only 66 y.o!!),  I'd say it's not a worry. Set up correctly, these revolvers are perfectly fine and can be treated just as any other modern SA revolver.

  As far as Howell cylinders (and "Taylor’s"), they don't have 100%  support for the cartridge case to back up against (the other end of the pressure column) like the Kirst plate/ring does. Therefore,  I'd say tier1 loads should be considered maximum loads.

This information is also for the open-top platform which is superior to like top-strap designs  ( Remingtons etc.). Of course the ROA is a modern design with a thicker top strap and can definitely handle tier2 loads.

Mike

[Len]

Citing 45 Dragoon:
I would obviously NOT repeat any of my tests with any original with a modern cyl.

I read the conversion cyl discussions with interest. But, I only shoot originals and I'm maybe a bit too caring not to over load, feeding just 15 grains. Conversion cylinder is no option for me, as that would legaly make an antique a licensed gun, which would take all the fun out of the addiction.

[Captainkirk]

IIRC, the ROA is basically a Blackhawk in terms of steels and such, thus making it far stronger than your typical Uberti. And as I mentioned previously, Uberti makes replica firearms perfectly suited to modern jacketed smokeless store-bought rounds. So if a guy is determined to shoot that stuff, buy the right gun for it IMHO. You would probably break even on pricing between a new gun and the cost of converting a C&B to a cartridge gun, and have the confidence of knowing your firearm can handle what you throw at it today, tomorrow, and 10 years from now. I love my Howell and feel very comfortable shooting BP 45LC loads through my Remmy.
Mike, you're in a little different situation as you actually assemble and tune the guns you shoot. My main reason for starting this conversation is due to all the really bad advice out there on forums and social media being heeded as gospel by newbies and other that have no concept of what they are playing with. (Dynamite)
If these people would simply stick with the limitations the manufacturers spell out very clearly, there wouldn't be any problems to begin with.
That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

[WECSOG]

Another aspect from the business end of conversion cylinders is,  the manufacturer doesn't know WHAT type of "rattle trap" some customers may be installing their products  in .  .  .  which gets you back to Ruger recommending "no handloads".
  As far as barrels go, I asked Walt if jacketed bullets would wear them out, his response was "not in your lifetime"!  So, unless he knows something I don't ( heck, I'm only 66 y.o!!),  I'd say it's not a worry. Set up correctly, these revolvers are perfectly fine and can be treated just as any other modern SA revolver.

  As far as Howell cylinders (and "Taylor’s"), they don't have 100%  support for the cartridge case to back up against (the other end of the pressure column) like the Kirst plate/ring does. Therefore,  I'd say tier1 loads should be considered maximum loads.

This information is also for the open-top platform which is superior to like top-strap designs  ( Remingtons etc.). Of course the ROA is a modern design with a thicker top strap and can definitely handle tier2 loads.

Mike

Good comments, Mike. If I build a conversion revolver, I will probably use a Kirst cylinder. But I will also probably use a Pietta '58 Remington. If it turns out that the barrel doesn't last long, it would be pretty easy for me to make a new barrel from a modern blank. Although, I suppose it wouldn't be too difficult to put a liner in an 1860 Army barrel.

[45 Dragoon]

IIRC, the ROA is basically a Blackhawk in terms of steels and such, thus making it far stronger than your typical Uberti. And as I mentioned previously, Uberti makes replica firearms perfectly suited to modern jacketed smokeless store-bought rounds. So if a guy is determined to shoot that stuff, buy the right gun for it IMHO. You would probably break even on pricing between a new gun and the cost of converting a C&B to a cartridge gun, and have the confidence of knowing your firearm can handle what you throw at it today, tomorrow, and 10 years from now. I love my Howell and feel very comfortable shooting BP 45LC loads through my Remmy.
Mike, you're in a little different situation as you actually assemble and tune the guns you shoot. My main reason for starting this conversation is due to all the really bad advice out there on forums and social media being heeded as gospel by newbies and other that have no concept of what they are playing with. (Dynamite)
If these people would simply stick with the limitations the manufacturers spell out very clearly, there wouldn't be any problems to begin with.
That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

   Cap, I agree with you and I'm definitely not trying to put myself on a pedestal.  For the great "unwashed" that would be the best practice.  But for the shooter "steeped" in the setup of these revolvers there's a whole  "nuther" world to "practice" or "experiment" in !!! So, as long as the gated cylinder fits in a revolver that I set up and has .003" endshake or less, it is fine to shoot the loads I'm shooting .  .  .  otherwise,  send it to me and I'll "make it work".

Another aspect from the business end of conversion cylinders is,  the manufacturer doesn't know WHAT type of "rattle trap" some customers may be installing their products  in .  .  .  which gets you back to Ruger recommending "no handloads".
  As far as barrels go, I asked Walt if jacketed bullets would wear them out, his response was "not in your lifetime"!  So, unless he knows something I don't ( heck, I'm only 66 y.o!!),  I'd say it's not a worry. Set up correctly, these revolvers are perfectly fine and can be treated just as any other modern SA revolver.

  As far as Howell cylinders (and "Taylor’s"), they don't have 100%  support for the cartridge case to back up against (the other end of the pressure column) like the Kirst plate/ring does. Therefore,  I'd say tier1 loads should be considered maximum loads.

This information is also for the open-top platform which is superior to like top-strap designs  ( Remingtons etc.). Of course the ROA is a modern design with a thicker top strap and can definitely handle tier2 loads.

Mike

Good comments, Mike. If I build a conversion revolver, I will probably use a Kirst cylinder. But I will also probably use a Pietta '58 Remington. If it turns out that the barrel doesn't last long, it would be pretty easy for me to make a new barrel from a modern blank. Although, I suppose it wouldn't be too difficult to put a liner in an 1860 Army barrel.

  I hear ya, and thanks !  The Pietta Remington is what I'll be testing soon as well because I have a 5 1/2"er  45C  as well. My problem with Pietta is the Remingtons have a 1 : 16 twist  but their open-top platforms are 1:30 or 32" .  .  .   maybe not the best for "elongated" bullets.  Uberti's on the other hand are 1 :16" across the board .  .  . basically begging for a conversion cylinder. Changing open-top barrels would be easiest with Pietta  as Uberti barrels would need to be fitted for sure along with a new arbor correction spacer.

Mike

[Zulch]

It seems to me that investing in a conversion cylinder can be just as expensive or more than just purchasing an Open Top or Richards Mason revolver? Considering that one has already purchased a black powder revolver and just for grins lets say the gun is a baseline 1860 by Uberti $389 at Midway today. Let's just say you bought the 1860 10 years ago for $250 instead. Then add about roughly $450 on top of that for a Kirst and then having a gunsmith do the fitting? Doing the math that's roughly $700. I looked on Dixie gun works at an Open Top chambered in .44spl and it's base price today is $625. What do you guys think about that?

[Captainkirk]

I think that is spot-on, Zulch.