Colt Country | Home of The Almighty Colt
Black Powder Pistols => Conversions => Topic started by: Zulch on December 21, 2023, 05:59:35 AM
-
Howdy all, I hope everyone is doing well and enjoying the holiday season with their families.
Okay, I do not have any conversion cylinders for my BP guns. I've been looking on Midway at the available conversion cylinders for the calibers that I have. I was thinking of maybe buying one for a Dragoon and or the Walker? I see a lot of Howells brand. I have also heard of the Kirst cylinders. I would like some opinions from anyone willing to share their experience. From what I remember, it seems that there are different opinions about shooting a smokeless cartridge in these black powder guns? I've heard the metal used in these guns are not designed for that? Also, if I were to buy one for a specific gun is it best practice to have a gunsmith do the fitting? Anyway, at the risk of sounding redundant on this topic I am starting this post. I would love to know the pros and cons on this topic. Thanks Z
-
Well, (7+"
I would highly recommend a conversion cylinder . . . otherwise, you're missing out on a really important step in the "evolution" of our SA revolvers. To me it's an excellent blend of Victorian era Beauty and modern convenience!
As far as which conversion to get, it may depend more on the revolver you're going to use it in. The Remington platform makes " drop cyls" ( remove to load/ unload) easy to use and somewhat "pc". Howell and Kirst both make drop cylinders for that platform.
Now, to answer your question , the open-top platform is best "converted" with a "gated conversion" ( I prefer Kirst cyls) instead of using a drop cyl ( not to mention it's "pc" ). The best thing about converting the Dragoon/Walker is that they stay 6 shooters rather than dropping a round for the Army "belt pistol". Personally, I'm partial to the Dragoon rather than the Walker, mainly because of the additional chamber length the Walker cyl has . . . the Dragoon cyl has a "generous enough " chamber length that will allow about any bullet weight you want to load.
As far as "what" to shoot in your Dragoon, you can shoot anything you want in 45C at least up to +p 45C rounds (again with Kirst cyls). These revolvers (across the board) are an excellent support system for the cyls as I've been shooting them for many years and ( with new found knowledge) have been shooting the "muscular" rounds ( that tend to bend "run of the mill" top strap revolvers) in mine for the last year and a half. If you think you'd like to shoot that type ammo, I would suggest a close tolerance ( arbor out and reinstalled) build. All mine have shown absolutely NO signs of accelerated wear of any kind including the wedges which are perfect. The ot design is far more robust than most will ever understand. The caveat is, they must be set up as designed. If you're going to stick with "off the shelf" or tier 1 ammo you still need to correct the arbor length as a minimum and hold "endshake " to .003" maximum.
Use only tier 1 loads in a Howell cylinder.
Mike
-
Well, (7+"
I would highly recommend a conversion cylinder . . . otherwise, you're missing out on a really important step in the "evolution" of our SA revolvers. To me it's an excellent blend of Victorian era Beauty and modern convenience!
As far as which conversion to get, it may depend more on the revolver you're going to use it in. The Remington platform makes " drop cyls" ( remove to load/ unload) easy to use and somewhat "pc". Howell and Kirst both make drop cylinders for that platform.
Now, to answer your question , the open-top platform is best "converted" with a "gated conversion" ( I prefer Kirst cyls) instead of using a drop cyl ( not to mention it's "pc" ). The best thing about converting the Dragoon/Walker is that they stay 6 shooters rather than dropping a round for the Army "belt pistol". Personally, I'm partial to the Dragoon rather than the Walker, mainly because of the additional chamber length the Walker cyl has . . . the Dragoon cyl has a "generous enough " chamber length that will allow about any bullet weight you want to load.
As far as "what" to shoot in your Dragoon, you can shoot anything you want in 45C at least up to +p 45C rounds (again with Kirst cyls). These revolvers (across the board) are an excellent support system for the cyls as I've been shooting them for many years and ( with new found knowledge) have been shooting the "muscular" rounds ( that tend to bend "run of the mill" top strap revolvers) in mine for the last year and a half. If you think you'd like to shoot that type ammo, I would suggest a close tolerance ( arbor out and reinstalled) build. All mine have shown absolutely NO signs of accelerated wear of any kind including the wedges which are perfect. The ot design is far more robust than most will ever understand. The caveat is, they must be set up as designed. If you're going to stick with "off the shelf" or tier 1 ammo you still need to correct the arbor length as a minimum and hold "endshake " to .003" maximum.
Use only tier 1 loads in a Howell cylinder.
Mike
Hi. Mike. Thank you for chiming in! That is interesting about the +P. While perusing the Kirst website they have a disclaimer regarding the +P. Stating it should not be used. It sounds like you have had no issues. I suppose they say that about the +P as litigation thing?, like they don't really want to go there. I also noticed that in the videos about cutting the gate he just clamped the frame in a vice and used a couple of files and a dremmel tool. (7+" The way he clamped it in the vice looked as if the arbor was under some stress? Correction here, I'm sorry, I just re-read your post Mike. You said "anything up to +P". Understood. It sounds like you are also partial the the Dragoon as a good candidate for the conversion cylinder. Both my Dragoons are ASM. Does that throw a wrench into the conversion?
-
Zulch, FWIW I bought a couple of Howell cylinders a few years ago for a pair of Uberti 2nd model Dragoons. My experiences:
*Both guns actually shot very close to point of aim with blackpowder 45 Colts. Using percussion cylinders both guns usually shot about 4" low and 2" left.
*With the percussion cylinders timing was pretty good with bolt drop/full cock at almost same time. Howell cylinders both over travelled--hand was still pushing when bolt drop/full cock was achieved. Looking at the back of cylinders revealed ratchet cuts were quite different. It was enough that I found it irritating and didn't see how, in this case I could time the hand to work equally well for each cylinder.
* This is not to imply the Howell cylinders were anything but well made, but I ended up with the percussion cylinders back in the guns.
-
Tim, I have a Taylor's 6 shot in .45LC on my Remmy Sheriff. Complete drop in with no tinkering. Shoots my .45LC BP handloads very well.
I also have a SS Howell conversion for my Walker, set up by Mike. Very functional but a PITA to reload due to having to pull the barrel. Plus my handloads are wimpy as hell in that gun compared to a 50-60gr load of BP. I wouldn't recommend trying to set up a Colt unless you are well-versed on the open tops. Mike did a terrific job on mine.
-
Hi. Mike. Thank you for chiming in! That is interesting about the +P. While perusing the Kirst website they have a disclaimer regarding the +P. Stating it should not be used. It sounds like you have had no issues. I suppose they say that about the +P as litigation thing?, like they don't really want to go there. I also noticed that in the videos about cutting the gate he just clamped the frame in a vice and used a couple of files and a dremmel tool. (7+" The way he clamped it in the vice looked as if the arbor was under some stress? Correction here, I'm sorry, I just re-read your post Mike. You said "anything up to +P". Understood. It sounds like you are also partial the the Dragoon as a good candidate for the conversion cylinder. Both my Dragoons are ASM. Does that throw a wrench into the conversion?
Hey Z!! Yes, the "+p" disclaimer is probably because of me. That said, we have a real good relationship . . .
My personal use of that ammo is purely for testing the platform as I know what the parameters of the cyls are. That allows me to SAFELY do that and give "real" results. Not sure I'll ever find out the MAX platform load but it would tickle me to be able to use mentioned loads above as "normal diet" for these revolvers ( actually I already do, that's what testing is all about!!).
When opening the recoil shield, I hold the frame in my hand :smiley-dance013: !! I start with cutoff wheels and cut out sections . . . that makes things quicker and uses fewer sanding drums ( then again, I've done a couple . . . ).
Mike
-
Zulch, FWIW I bought a couple of Howell cylinders a few years ago for a pair of Uberti 2nd model Dragoons. My experiences:
*Both guns actually shot very close to point of aim with blackpowder 45 Colts. Using percussion cylinders both guns usually shot about 4" low and 2" left.
*With the percussion cylinders timing was pretty good with bolt drop/full cock at almost same time. Howell cylinders both over travelled--hand was still pushing when bolt drop/full cock was achieved. Looking at the back of cylinders revealed ratchet cuts were quite different. It was enough that I found it irritating and didn't see how, in this case I could time the hand to work equally well for each cylinder.
* This is not to imply the Howell cylinders were anything but well made, but I ended up with the percussion cylinders back in the guns.
Navy Six, thanks for your input. Most appreciated. I noticed that Kirst has a hand available that I suppose is to compensate for over travel of their cylinders? When you were using the Howell cylinders did you shoot BP only or did you ever shoot smokeless in your BP guns? Also, did you find it annoying to have to take the barrel off to reload the cylinder? Did you keep the Howell cylinders or sell them? Thanks again. Z
-
Tim, I have a Taylor's 6 shot in .45LC on my Remmy Sheriff. Complete drop in with no tinkering. Shoots my .45LC BP handloads very well.
I also have a SS Howell conversion for my Walker, set up by Mike. Very functional but a PITA to reload due to having to pull the barrel. Plus my handloads are wimpy as hell in that gun compared to a 50-60gr load of BP. I wouldn't recommend trying to set up a Colt unless you are well-versed on the open tops. Mike did a terrific job on mine.
Cap, thank you sir. I guess you found the Howell cylinder to be a PITA. (7+" Did you have to use a modified hand to compensate for over travel or was Mike able to mod the original hand? What about fouling on the back of the cylinder. Dave had mentioned outside of this post that you have to keep that area clean often after running several rounds through it.
-
Hi. Mike. Thank you for chiming in! That is interesting about the +P. While perusing the Kirst website they have a disclaimer regarding the +P. Stating it should not be used. It sounds like you have had no issues. I suppose they say that about the +P as litigation thing?, like they don't really want to go there. I also noticed that in the videos about cutting the gate he just clamped the frame in a vice and used a couple of files and a dremmel tool. (7+" The way he clamped it in the vice looked as if the arbor was under some stress? Correction here, I'm sorry, I just re-read your post Mike. You said "anything up to +P". Understood. It sounds like you are also partial the the Dragoon as a good candidate for the conversion cylinder. Both my Dragoons are ASM. Does that throw a wrench into the conversion?
Hey Z!! Yes, the "+p" disclaimer is probably because of me. That said, we have a real good relationship . . .
My personal use of that ammo is purely for testing the platform as I know what the parameters of the cyls are. That allows me to SAFELY do that and give "real" results. Not sure I'll ever find out the MAX platform load but it would tickle me to be able to use mentioned loads above as "normal diet" for these revolvers ( actually I already do, that's what testing is all about!!).
When opening the recoil shield, I hold the frame in my hand :smiley-dance013: !! I start with cutoff wheels and cut out sections . . . that makes things quicker and uses fewer sanding drums ( then again, I've done a couple . . . ).
Mike
I guess after having done several guns like this you have found the quickest method to get 'er up n running. HAHAHA Maybe you should do some videos for Walt Kirst?
-
Tim, I have a Taylor's 6 shot in .45LC on my Remmy Sheriff. Complete drop in with no tinkering. Shoots my .45LC BP handloads very well.
I also have a SS Howell conversion for my Walker, set up by Mike. Very functional but a PITA to reload due to having to pull the barrel. Plus my handloads are wimpy as hell in that gun compared to a 50-60gr load of BP. I wouldn't recommend trying to set up a Colt unless you are well-versed on the open tops. Mike did a terrific job on mine.
Cap, thank you sir. I guess you found the Howell cylinder to be a PITA. (7+" Did you have to use a modified hand to compensate for over travel or was Mike able to mod the original hand? What about fouling on the back of the cylinder. Dave had mentioned outside of this post that you have to keep that area clean often after running several rounds through it.
-
Mike was able to mod the hand to work perfectly with both cylinders Don't ask me how; you'll have to ask him!
I noticed no cylinder fouling at all, as Mike left me with a squeaky-tight .002-.003 cylinder gap that doesn't leave much room for powder deposits to squeeze out!
-
Zulch, yes I found it tedious to remove the cylinder each time in a Colt type. Any other conversion I've done on a Colt I used the Kirst and cut the loading port.
As for the question about smokeless, I almost fainted thinking about using it. :no_no:
-
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.
-
A note to all. I modified every post. I apparently started the post misspelling Conversion initially. Sorry about my fumble fingers. Thanks
-
Tim, I have a Taylor's 6 shot in .45LC on my Remmy Sheriff. Complete drop in with no tinkering. Shoots my .45LC BP handloads very well.
I also have a SS Howell conversion for my Walker, set up by Mike. Very functional but a PITA to reload due to having to pull the barrel. Plus my handloads are wimpy as hell in that gun compared to a 50-60gr load of BP. I wouldn't recommend trying to set up a Colt unless you are well-versed on the open tops. Mike did a terrific job on mine.
Cap, thank you sir. I guess you found the Howell cylinder to be a PITA. (7+" Did you have to use a modified hand to compensate for over travel or was Mike able to mod the original hand? What about fouling on the back of the cylinder. Dave had mentioned outside of this post that you have to keep that area clean often after running several rounds through it.
-
Mike was able to mod the hand to work perfectly with both cylinders Don't ask me how; you'll have to ask him!
I noticed no cylinder fouling at all, as Mike left me with a squeaky-tight .002-.003 cylinder gap that doesn't leave much room for powder deposits to squeeze out!
Thanks Capt' K. Nice to know that fouling is virtually non existent when setup properly. Did you hear that Mike?? 👍👍
-
Zulch, yes I found it tedious to remove the cylinder each time in a Colt type. Any other conversion I've done I've on a Colt I used the Kirst and cut the loading port.
As for the question about smokeless, I almost fainted thinking about using it. :no_no:
Navy Six. Roger that on the smokeless. So do you still have one of your Colts fitted with the Kirst? Of the two types, do you prefer the Kirst to the Howell? By the way, if one was to keep the loads light woukd you consider smokeless or just a big no no?
-
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
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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, well said sir !!!
Mike
-
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.
-
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
-
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? :icon_scratch:
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.
-
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? :icon_scratch:
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
-
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.
-
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 👍
-
I have a pair of Remington conversions that I have been shooting for 22 years now. Both are drop in cylinders. The top one is one of the first Kirst .45 cylinders on the market and the one below is an early Howell R & D .38 cylinder with the barrel lined to .357. I have fired hundreds of rounds out of both of them over the years, both smokeless "Cowboy" loads and my own black powder reloads with absolutely no problems.
-
Those are very nice Bishop Creek! Thanks for the picture. When approximately, did you get those early conversion cylinders? Just curious as to when they came on the market. Thanks again Z
-
I bought the Kirst .45 cylinder in early 2001 and the R&D .38 in 2003. I emailed a picture of the .45 cylinder to Walt Kirst a couple of years ago, and he told me that it was among the first batch of cylinders that he made circa 1999 or 2000. My .44 Pietta Remington was made in 1999 and the Kirst cylinder works perfectly in it, but the timing is way off when I try inserting it into my newer 1858 Remington's.
-
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.
Agreed; kudos to Mike for his expertise and input! I have a pair of Pietta NMAs, either of which would make a great candidate for a gated Kirst and in fact, have discussed this with Mike. But I've also come to the realization that by the time you install the Kirst and ejector, not only have I way exceeded the cost of the gun in the first place, but also are nearing the cost of a factory conversion gun from Taylor's or Cimarron, etc.
Of course, this doesn't take into effect the 'flying under the radar' aspect previously mentioned. Actually, I think I would prefer a gated Kirst on a Colt, but don't have the guts to tear into one of mine in that fashion...yet.😳
-
I also have an 1851 Colt Navy gated Richard's conversion that I bought in 1999. It was made by American Frontier Firearms, I believe on an ASM frame. It takes longer to unload than my Remington conversions with the drop in cylinders. Of course, it doesn't have an ejector, I pop out the spent cartridges with a small ejector tool. For a Colt open top, I think a gated conversion is almost a necessity, but with the Remington models, a drop in cylinder works great.
-
I have two drop-in conversions on Colt 1860 frames. Both are the Thuer conversions that Gary Barnes offers. I won't do any more drop-in conversions on open tops. I had a drop-in for my Remington but sold it a long time ago.
Now I want to do a gated conversion and already have the revolver so the cost concerning converting or buying a factory conversion is not important to me now. Either way the cash outlay is the same at the present time. There is also the "under the radar" factor along with the "I did it myself" element that appeals to me.
-
I have two drop-in conversions on Colt 1860 frames. Both are the Thuer conversions that Gary Barnes offers. I won't do any more drop-in conversions on open tops. I had a drop-in for my Remington but sold it a long time ago.
Now I want to do a gated conversion and already have the revolver so the cost concerning converting or buying a factory conversion is not important to me now. Either way the cash outlay is the same at the present time. There is also the "under the radar" factor along with the "I did it myself" element that appeals to me.
I almost bought one of Gary's Thuer conversion cylinders a few years ago. I wish I had now, as his website doesn't have much on it anymore. Mike did you have any timing issues with the Thuer cylinders on your 1860s?
-
Bishop Creek, I had Gary time the first one for me. He said it was a nightmare. He blamed it on the revolver I sent him. Said it was "out of spec for a Pietta" whatever that means. It works good but I wouldn't call it perfect. He says the original BP cylinder works good too but I can't cock it more than three times without it locking up. I just shoot it only with the
Thuer cylinder.
The second one I bought from a member here or on the Remington forum, can't remember which. The owner had buggered up the entire unit. I cleaned it up, put all new screws, and new firing pin assembly in it. Gary sent me the parts free of charge. I installed it in a Pietta 1860 I had bought and it worked perfectly but does not work in any of the other three 1860's I have. BP cylinder works fine too. I guess you could say it's 50/50 whether they will work well or not. I wouldn't say "drop-in" is necessarily a good way to describe them.
-
Thanks for the info Mike!
-
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.
I agree and I also think there are quite a few other guys on CC that know a WHOLE LOT about these percussion revolvers including Mike116. Thanks to all for the input on this post. Love to hear more comments. I kind of mull over things before I jump into something like this. One of my concerns and possibly an unfounded concern is that I sure hate to see a good frame get wallowed out for the gate? I know a lot of you have done this. Does it compromise the integrity/strength of the frame?
-
Just hog it out Tim. You won't regret it. I'd venture to say that most guys that convert their revolvers, never put the BP cylinder in it again. I'm sure there are exceptions of course. But most guys don't.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50954530233_83de6c522d_z.jpg)
-
WOW! There it is again! It's a mighty fine looking gun Dave. Thanks for the picture.
-
Not gonna hurt the frame, Tim. Except maybe if you butcher it. There is some controversy as to whether modifying the frame for a gated conversion 'alters' the gun into a cartridge revolver requiring an FFL for resale...but one could always plug the original cap cylinder back in and say you have big fingers and needed the clearance. If it's a 'radar-free' gun who cares? No controversy until you go to sell anyway.
-
Not gonna hurt the frame, Tim. Except maybe if you butcher it. There is some controversy as to whether modifying the frame for a gated conversion 'alters' the gun into a cartridge revolver requiring an FFL for resale...but one could always plug the original cap cylinder back in and say you have big fingers and needed the clearance. If it's a 'radar-free' gun who cares? No controversy until you go to sell anyway.
Thank you Capt. Kirk. I would most likely have someone like 45 Dragoon do the mod if I go down that trail.
-
Shotgun, did you do that Kirst yourself?
-
Shotgun, did you do that Kirst yourself?
Yessir. Indeed I did.
-
Interesting that this conversation carried over off-line today...question came up about a Kirst-type cartridge-eating Dragoon.
First, I don't believe Uberti (or anyone else) makes a cartridge Dragoon. If I'm wrong, please correct me!
Second, a Dragoon with a full charge of 45-50gr of 3F would likely pack quite a bit more wallop than a 30-35gr 3F cartridge. At least, that's my impression, having a Howell's conversion cylinder for my Walker. There is no comparison between my 35gr BP .45LC handloads and 60gr of loose 3F behind a .454 round ball. While the Dragoon holds less BP than the Walker, I would think the results would likely be the same on a conversion...IF sticking to the standard case size of the .45LC. At this point it would be fair to interject the possibility of using a longer .45 case, but that's a discussion for another day.
Lastly, from my own perspective, I find the Dragoon to be somewhat of a handful. Not as much as the Walker, mind you, but heavy enough that I prefer a two handed Weaver-style grip when shooting...which boils down to (IMHO) finding the Army Colt to be the 'right' revolver platform for the Kirst conversion.
I know Mike has done a bunch of experimentation in this arena, and would like his or anyone else's input on the practicality of such a conversion.
-
I agree with you Cap. Love to hear more information and experience with mods to a Dragoon
-
I agree with you Cap. Love to hear more information and experience with mods to a Dragoon
Thanks, Zulch. So many guns, so little time...
-
Oh, btw, i have 2 dragoons both of which are ASM's. So if that makes it more of a challenge let me know someone?
-
BC, love the look of those early cyls.!!
Captain, you are correct, nobody offers a converted Dragoon or Walker. As far as loads, I can't say anything about bp loads but smokeless 21K psi 45C ammo is rather impressive, +p's are amazing and I don't think you can get there with bp. I'm gonna be sneaking up on 25 /27K psi in the Dragoons (45C +p +) which opens up a whole new world for the handgun hunter.
The Army 1860 shooting 45acp +p's is almost a perfect marriage between revolver and ammo!!
Z, no experience with converting ASM's but I have an 1860 ASM in the shop that is waiting on a new trigger with an extended sear ( new part just for conversions!)! That should allow the revolver to be correctly timed.
As for weakening the frame, the loading port for the gate shouldn't be of concern. But, the original conversions should be bp only. Modern "factory conversions" should only be fired with tier 1 loads since they are built like the originals. The originals had a BIG cut in the floor of the frame to accommodate the circular conversion ring (That is a big strength compromise for the frame!!)!! That right there is the genius of the Kirst cyl. It leaves the frame structure intact and adds a full support ring to the recoil shield for firing
support.
I'll give some suggestions for installation of the Kirst cyls.
Mike
-
Z, no experience with converting ASM's but I have an 1860 ASM in the shop that is waiting on a new trigger with an extended sear ( new part just for conversions!)! That should allow the revolver to be correctly timed.
As for weakening the frame, the loading port for the gate shouldn't be of concern. But, the original conversions should be bp only. Modern "factory conversions" should only be fired with tier 1 loads since they are built like the originals. The originals had a BIG cut in the floor of the frame to accommodate the circular conversion ring (That is a big strength compromise for the frame!!)!! That right there is the genius of the Kirst cyl. It leaves the frame structure intact and adds a full support ring to the recoil shield for firing
support.
I'll give some suggestions for installation of the Kirst cyls.
Mike
[/quote]
Howdy Mike. I noticed on the Kirst site that you can order a conversion for an 1860 and you get a hand for free. Is that a good practice? To replace the existing hand?
-
If I'm not mistaken, I think that's the new duplex hand?
-
Hi, a few comment on conversion cylinders from an idiot amateur gunsmith. If you are doing a gated conversion for the 1851 use the Howell conversion cylinder that has the backplate screwed in. The Kirst 1860 gated conversion cylinder for the 1860 is a box of worms. That backplate floats where getting a good barrel gap is difficult. All manufactured drop in conversion cylinders work well. IMO start with drop in conversion cylinders and avoid creating a regulated firearm. This idiot will now go back to sleep.
Regards,
Richard
-
Hi, a few comment on conversion cylinders from an idiot amateur gunsmith. If you are doing a gated conversion for the 1851 use the Howell conversion cylinder that has the backplate screwed in. The Kirst 1860 gated conversion cylinder for the 1860 is a box of worms. That backplate floats where getting a good barrel gap is difficult.
Richard, good afternoon. Thank you for your comments. That is very interesting, your comment on the Kirst for the 1860. You obviously speak from experience on the Kirst/1860. The backplate floats meaning the backplate is not mounted? I have never used Kirst nor a Howell conversion. Thanks again, Z
-
Please don't go back to sleep! Help us clear these crickets out of the room!
-
I agree with Richard, a cap and ball revolver is classified as a non-firearm, but the moment you place a conversion cylinder in it, it becomes a firearm under Federal law, take it out, and it is a non-firearm again. Which is why I prefer drop in cylinders plus I enjoy shooting it as a cap and ball more than using cartridges.
-
Thank you Bishop Creek. Appreciate your thoughts. The more information I can get the better so I can weigh all the pros and cons before I dive into a conversion. Thanks again.
-
So far as the statement goes, it
is true that percussion non-fixed ammo
revolvers are not considered firearms.
But that’s true only for very limited and narrow purposes. The categories are so narrow that it’s misleading and inaccurate to to call them ‘not firearms’. Shipping, background checks and
waiting periods are about the only delimiters.
Convicted felons, minors, those adjudicated insane, druggies, some prescription holders, brandishing, carrying (concealed or open, loaded or otherwise), enhancements for use in committing
a crime, negligent entrustment, state storage requirements, domestic violence, red flag laws and on and on.
They are ‘firearms’ for a lot more purposes than they are considered not to be. Calling them ‘not firearms’ doesn’t begin to describe the whole reality.
-
I am well aware of those definitions G Dog. It’s true that if I were to fire off my black powder cap and ball revolver in my backyard, I could be arrested for for firing a firearm in a residential area, city limits, etc. Plus in many states, felons are not allowed to possess a muzzle loading gun. All I was stating was the basic Federal laws regarding muzzle loaders. And that even pertains to California with some of the strictest guns laws in the country. If one alters the frame of a cap and ball revolver by cutting a loading port, it becomes a firearm even without a conversion cylinder in place.
-
I am well aware of those definitions G Dog. It’s true that if I were to fire off my black powder cap and ball revolver in my backyard, I could be arrested for for firing a firearm in a residential area, city limits, etc. Plus in many states, felons are not allowed to possess a muzzle loading gun. All I was stating was the basic Federal laws regarding muzzle loaders. And that even pertains to California with some of the strictest guns laws in the country. If one alters the frame of a cap and ball revolver by cutting a loading port, it becomes a firearm even without a conversion cylinder in place.
I agree with you BC.
Hi, a few comment on conversion cylinders from an idiot amateur gunsmith. If you are doing a gated conversion for the 1851 use the Howell conversion cylinder that has the backplate screwed in. The Kirst 1860 gated conversion cylinder for the 1860 is a box of worms. That backplate floats where getting a good barrel gap is difficult. All manufactured drop in conversion cylinders work well. IMO start with drop in conversion cylinders and avoid creating a regulated firearm. This idiot will now go back to sleep.
Regards,
Richard
Sorry Richard, I'll have to say . . . . nope!! Lol !! Whether the conversion ring/plate is "mounted" or not has absolutely no bearing on the "barrel/cyl gap" ( endshake) of the setup. The ratchet teeth limit the rearward movement of the cylinder and the forcing cone limits the forward movement. That means, the endshake can be set without the conversion plate even installed!! So, the "setting" of anything is the "headspace".
I do that by reducing ( if /as needed) the recoil shield that the conversion ring backs up against. That gives you more headspace while leaving the cylinder in exactly the same place. If you need less headspace, reducing the ratchet teeth will close it down.
The biggest "detractor" for the "drop in" with removable backplate is the lack of support for the cartridge backing up against it. A separate ring or plate is a better support structure for the cartridge to back up against. I doubt the "drop in " would be able to handle +p ammo.
Mike
-
So far as the statement goes, it
is true that percussion non-fixed ammo
revolvers are not considered firearms.
Unfortunately, not true in the left-libtard blue state I live in.
Any BP weapon is considered a 'firearm' and requires the same 3 day waiting period that your Glock would, including shipping to/from a valid FFL for sale or purchase and the owner must possess a valid FOID card to own, handle or transport.
-
Any BP weapon is considered a 'firearm' and requires the same 3 day waiting period that your Glock would, including shipping to/from a valid FFL for sale or purchase and the owner must possess a valid FOID card to own, handle or transport.
It's not that bad here. You don't have to go through an FFL to buy one but the state does see them as much a weapon as any modern firearm and all other firearm rules apply. Fortunately it's a pretty lax state where firearms are concerned. As long as you're 18 you can have a loaded gun in your car. You can open or concealed carry without a license but the places you can concealed carry without one are limited. A felon can't own one or hunt with one.
-
Hi, a few comment on conversion cylinders from an idiot amateur gunsmith. If you are doing a gated conversion for the 1851 use the Howell conversion cylinder that has the backplate screwed in. The Kirst 1860 gated conversion cylinder for the 1860 is a box of worms. That backplate floats where getting a good barrel gap is difficult.
Richard, good afternoon. Thank you for your comments. That is very interesting, your comment on the Kirst for the 1860. You obviously speak from experience on the Kirst/1860. The backplate floats meaning the backplate is not mounted? I have never used Kirst nor a Howell conversion. Thanks again, Z
Hi Zulch, I do have some experience converting BP revolvers to gated conversions. The main issue for the floating Kirst backplate is that with a small barrel/cylinger gap the floating backplate catches the edge of the cartridge rim. 45 Colt cartridge specs give a wide case dimension range that also hurts a set-up. I also have drop in conversion cylinders for my over 50 BP revolvers with the exception of the Paterson's. Photo of some of my gated conversions, including some .22s:
Regards,
Richard
-
So far as the statement goes, it
is true that percussion non-fixed ammo
revolvers are not considered firearms.
But that’s true only for very limited and narrow purposes. The categories are so narrow that it’s misleading and inaccurate to to call them ‘not firearms’. Shipping, background checks and
waiting periods are about the only delimiters.
Convicted felons, minors, those adjudicated insane, druggies, some prescription holders, brandishing, carrying (concealed or open, loaded or otherwise), enhancements for use in committing
a crime, negligent entrustment, state storage requirements, domestic violence, red flag laws and on and on.
They are ‘firearms’ for a lot more purposes than they are considered not to be. Calling them ‘not firearms’ doesn’t begin to describe the whole reality.
Hi G Dog, IMO the issue is if a firearm is ATF regulated. BP C&B revolvers aren't ATF regulated. However, modify a C&B revolver to accept cartridges and it now become ATF regulated. Cutting a loading gate opening into the revolver constitutes a conversion. Here in New York State anyone can own a BP revolver as long as they don't have the ability to shoot it. If one has projectiles, powder, and caps, that revolver owner must have a pistol permit with that revolver listed. My pistol permit looks like the Manhattan phone directory. vbg
Regards,
Richard
-
Hi Zulch, I do have some experience converting BP revolvers to gated conversions. The main issue for the floating Kirst backplate is that with a small barrel/cylinger gap the floating backplate catches the edge of the cartridge rim. 45 Colt cartridge specs give a wide case dimension range that also hurts a set-up. I also have drop in conversion cylinders for my over 50 BP revolvers with the exception of the Paterson's. Photo of some of my gated conversions, including some .22s:
Regards,
Richard
[/quote]
Come on Richard, a rim catching on an edge is hardly a can of worms lol!! It goes without saying that all leading edges that COULD snag a rim should be broken . . . that's true even on Mod. P '73 copies. There's loading gate edges, recoil shield edges ( just past the gate) and often times the "rise to battery" step on the recoil shield at about 10 o'clock. That's hardly a "box of worms". The given headspace for 45C is .062" which is what I set it to. The main trick that I've learned is starting with a square (trued) surface on the recoil shield. That in turn gives you a good measure for headspace with no "tight spots". Almost all recoil shields are "proud" on the left side ( non - gate side) which will obviously transfer to the conversion ring/plate when installed. Of course I remove and reinstall the arbor (heavily torqued ) before I clean up the recoil shield surface. I also prefer 2 fingered hands rather than the original single finger hand. Walt sells them or typically i make my own.
Colt o.t. revolvers such as "factory conversions" and the '72 Open Top come with a bushing/gas ring which allows you to set up a "no perceived" endshake along with a definite b/c gap tailored to smokeless or BP loads . . . you can get as far into the weeds as you want!!!
So, a "problem" that would be found in any SA can be found in a conversion and therefore be addressed.
Mike
-
Hi Mike, as I already said I am an idiot amateur gunsmith, but do have some experience in doing the Kirst 1860 conversion. Since I experienced difficulty, I recommend that anyone wanting a gated Kirst 1860 conversion that they have you do that conversion. Over the years I wondered that if I had just removed all the sharp edges from the Kirst floating back plate that my issues would not have occurred.
BTW, part of the enjoyments of doing gunsmith oneself is the knowledge gained. Also, many times the drop in conversion cylinders require some work, either conversion cylinder has length issues, or hand modification requirements. However, once set up, a conversion is as reliable as the original C&B.
Regards,
Richard
-
Richard, I know you're pulling all the new folks leg !!! (7+"
You and I posted about all thus stuff years ago and we all know you're no "idiot amateur gunsmith " ( nice try!! (7& )
The thing is, this stuff is a full-time learning process (nobody knows it all) especially when the manufacturers make "insignificant changes" that are anything but !!! So, we gotta change with um and that means we need to lean on everyone that has some insight. You definitely have that and that's beneficial to all!!
Thanks Richard, I appreciate ya but I ain't doin all them conversions!!! (7+" But I do like testing the boundaries!! :cowboypistol:
Mike
-
Oh Mike, please let other's enjoy my humility as an idiot amateur gunsmith. To be serious here, I encourage anyone that isn't a total fool to use your gunsmithing services. There is nothing worst than destroying a beautiful BP firearm with incompetent work. You and I go round and round, but I have never discounted your professional competence working on BP firearms. You will always have my respect.
Fond Regards,
Richard
-
Right back atcha Richard!!
Thank you !!
-
Well, Richard might be an ameteur, but he has sure made some beautiful conversions.
As for Mike, he is definitely a master and has earned my respect.
And I am very proud to be able to call both of these guys my friend.
AntiqueSledMan.
-
Reading all the comments here, there seem to be exceptions and or caveats (of sorts?) from state to state concerning classification of Black Powder guns? For example, I read the Georgia laws concerning how much black powder one is legally allowed to have in their possession in the state of GA. As best as I could decipher the rhetoric enclosed in the document, I am still skeptical if not cynical about it's content. Bottom line for me is it seems it is better to err on the side of caution.
-
Hi Zulch, I do have some experience converting BP revolvers to gated conversions. The main issue for the floating Kirst backplate is that with a small barrel/cylinger gap the floating backplate catches the edge of the cartridge rim. 45 Colt cartridge specs give a wide case dimension range that also hurts a set-up. I also have drop in conversion cylinders for my over 50 BP revolvers with the exception of the Paterson's. Photo of some of my gated conversions, including some .22s:
Regards,
Richard
[/quote]
Richard,
Thank you for posting the pictures. You have quite a collection to say the least. IIRC, you had actually attached a document on another thread listing all your BP guns a long while back which I believe most likely did resemble a Manhattan phone book? Very impressive indeed. Do you actually shoot all of them at some point during a given year? I only have about 12 myself and I have a hard time shooting what I have. Z
-
Has anybody ever suggested getting us a "like " button ?!!
(7+"
Thanks ASM !
Mike
-
Has anybody ever suggested getting us a "like " button ?!!
Mike
Yes. Tom has tried. Apparently a more expensive software package is needed. We can bring back the karma button but with 'good karma' comes 'bad karma' as well. We don't need that nonsense.
-
If someone likes or dislikes a post or agrees/disagrees with a statement they should be put to the effort of stating why. Clapping seals are everywhere, including here sometimes, but making an actual assertion puts that view on the table and gives the rest of us something to work with.
-
Has anybody ever suggested getting us a "like " button ?!!
(7+"
Thanks ASM !
Mike
Well if you really like something you could do one of these.
-
Has anybody ever suggested getting us a "like " button ?!!
Mike
Yes. Tom has tried. Apparently a more expensive software package is needed. We can bring back the karma button but with 'good karma' comes 'bad karma' as well. We don't need that nonsense.
Hi Kirk, IMO all comments good or bad are welcome. What is not welcome or appreciated are the lurkers that don't contribute to this forum.
Regards,
Richard
-
Ouch.
On this and another forum I lurk a heckuva lot more than I post. I'm far from an expert, so I'm often reluctant to pollute threads that are full of useful information.
Such as this one, for example.
(Btw, those are some gorgeous revolvers. Now I feel compelled to step up my game.)
-
Actually guys, I've seen folks suggest a "like button" before so . . . it was really a bit of humor . . .
Mike
-
Actually guys, I've seen folks suggest a "like button" before so . . . it was really a bit of humor . . .
Mike
That's right Mike. More than once IIRC.
-
Actually guys, I've seen folks suggest a "like button" before so . . . it was really a bit of humor . . .
Mike
That's right Mike. More than once IIRC.
As said, we looked into it. More than once. In fact, IIRC Smokey investigated the possibilities as well.
-
Ouch.
On this and another forum I lurk a heckuva lot more than I post. I'm far from an expert, so I'm often reluctant to pollute threads that are full of useful information.
Such as this one, for example.
(Btw, those are some gorgeous revolvers. Now I feel compelled to step up my game.)
Don't lurk...it just sounds 'wrong'. Sounds like some weirdo in the park with a trench coat!LOL!
Don't worry about polluting threads, either. Conversation is what we need here, Tinhorn. Everyone has varying opinions, right or wrong, good or bad. People are also afraid of asking 'dumb questions'. There are none. We all started out not having a clue and have learned along the way. Please feel free to add your two cents and ask questions you don't know answers to.
One thing I've learned from other forums is how NOT to treat other members, and we expect everyone to feel comfortable and at home here, not under attack by the reigning forum gurus as on other sites.
We now return you to our regularly scheduled program.
-
Yeah we need fresh blood. Answering questions is what we do best. Most of us have been around for so long we have nothing to talk about unless one of us gets something new. I haven't posted any more on my Kibler build because I haven't done much. I ordered some stuff to help smooth and polish the brass. It took several days to get here and did not meet my expectations.
-
Yeah we need fresh blood. Answering questions is what we do best. Most of us have been around for so long we have nothing to talk about unless one of us gets something new. I haven't posted any more on my Kibler build because I haven't done much. I ordered some stuff to help smooth and polish the brass. It took several days to get here and did not meet my expectations.
If we had a LIKE button I would like this!
-
One thing I've learned from other forums is how NOT to treat other members, and we expect everyone to feel comfortable and at home here, not under attack by the reigning forum gurus as on other sites.
On one forum I got on, the admins were the worst trolls. This forum is among the best. There is as much support here as you'll find anywhere, and more than most..
-
So, I have only been on forums for approximately 2.5 years. Before I joined any forum i poked around to see what was going on in a few different forums so I could learn more about my new found hobby. Was that lurking? If so, then I'm guilty of lurking. I dunno. Just another way of looking at it?
-
So, I have only been on forums for approximately 2.5 years. Before I joined any forum i poked around to see what was going on in a few different forums so I could learn more about my new found hobby. Was that lurking? If so, then I'm guilty of lurking. I dunno. Just another way of looking at it?
What I consider a lurker is somebody that just comes in and soaks up knowledge and never gives anything back.
-
So, I have only been on forums for approximately 2.5 years. Before I joined any forum i poked around to see what was going on in a few different forums so I could learn more about my new found hobby. Was that lurking? If so, then I'm guilty of lurking. I dunno. Just another way of looking at it?
What I consider a lurker is somebody that just comes in and soaks up knowledge and never gives anything back.
Hawg, thanks. That makes sense. I was initially just testing the waters before i joined any of them. I knew zilch about bp then and I still have much to learn. Thanks to all for their willingness to share their knowledge on this forum.
-
Hawg, thanks. That makes sense. I was initially just testing the waters before i joined any of them. I knew zilch about bp then and I still have much to learn. Thanks to all for their willingness to share their knowledge on this forum.
You came and watched until you got familiar with it and now you're a mod.
-
Don't lurk...it just sounds 'wrong'. Sounds like some weirdo in the park with a trench coat!LOL!
Don't worry about polluting threads, either. Conversation is what we need here, Tinhorn. Everyone has varying opinions, right or wrong, good or bad. People are also afraid of asking 'dumb questions'. There are none. We all started out not having a clue and have learned along the way. Please feel free to add your two cents and ask questions you don't know answers to.
One thing I've learned from other forums is how NOT to treat other members, and we expect everyone to feel comfortable and at home here, not under attack by the reigning forum gurus as on other sites.
We now return you to our regularly scheduled program.