Colt Country | Home of The Almighty Colt
Black Powder Pistols => Conversions => Topic started by: ssb73q on August 01, 2015, 04:42:01 AM
-
Hi, I just received an email from Old South Firearms that they now have full length barrel Howell .22 conversion cylinders for Colts, see:
http://www.oldsouthfirearms.com/HowellConversions-1860ArmyPietta.44to.22caliberconversion.aspx
They have the conversions for the .38 1851 and .44 1860. The photo of the full length barrel installed in the 1851 suggests that they use the same barrel insert for both models. The picture of the 1851 with barrel liner sticking out the muzzle is ugly IMO.
However, adding the full length barrel liner should do wonders for accuracy and velocity compared to the 2" barrel inserts.
Regards,
Richard
-
I just got OSFs e-mail ad too. L@.
-
Hi Sam, I ordered the 1860 .44 model. I will give it a testing and report back.
Regards,
Richard
-
Way to go Richard! L@.
I would like to get me one for my 51/44 but...I'm trying like Heck to save money because I want the 1847 Colt Walker and the 1860 Colt .44 by this X-mas. ;)
-
We're hoping to get the second run of these pretty soon. The new batch will be even more refined.
We tested what I guess you'd call the Mark 1 at the beginning of the summer and got a thumb sized group at what I thought (after pacing it out) was a bit over 25 feet, supported and using S&B bulk ammo. The group was low, but didn't have any horizontal drift. Basically a sight adjustment would be in order if you wanted to turn it into a tack driver. Offhand the groups opened up to "coke can" at that range and using Kentucky Latitude to account for the sights.
We did get a couple of flyers in later groups but since this was loose ammo out of a bucket and we were sweating like pigs in the Alabama sun I'm inclined to think that either the ammo or sweaty handed fumbling played their parts in that.
What we sold over the weekend could pretty much be called the Mark 2 cylinder with the Mark 3 barrel.
The commercial version will feature a simplified version of the fittings and barrel (what the Brits would call a MK 3*).
For best results the .44 to .22 of this batch fits the 1860 .44 perfectly and the .36 to .22 fits the 1851 .36 perfectly.
-
The new batch will be even more refined.
Hi Lee, what will be the refinements?
Regards,
Richard
-
The cost of 22 ammunition makes this a costly way to shoot. I'll stick with caps, lead and loose powder.
Kevin
-
The cost of 22 ammunition makes this a costly way to shoot. I'll stick with caps, lead and loose powder.
Kevin
Hi Kevin, it wasn't that long ago where one could get good .22s for $16/1000. I stocked up back then. Shooting .22 with BP revolvers provides another option for the BP revolver. Ladies like using the .22 conversions to shoot compared to the recoil and muzzle flash from full bore BP revolvers.
Regards,
Richard
-
The new batch will be even more refined.
Hi Lee, what will be the refinements?
Regards,
Richard
In the current version the nut and the muzzle-end brass are a single machined part. The nut will be eliminated to take some of the weight off the muzzle. It is also unnecessary since the whole thing should only be made hand-tight. The final version will also have a different brand barrel liner that should be even more accurate, but since it comes in lengths that would leave less waste it will cost exactly the same on our end.
-
Dad and I used to clean out Academy Sports, Wal-Mart, and further back in time, K-Mart after Christmas every year. Those companies would stock up on "collectible" tins, banks, crates, decorative trunks and the like to sell for Christmas. Right after Christmas that stuff would be marked down ridiculously cheap - usually a lot cheaper than the ammo by itself.
I have a NASCAR Remington collectible car filled with .22s right now that, if the tag is to be believed, cost me a penny a round. PLUS I got a racecar tin that eBay tells me is worth almost as much as what I paid for the whole shebang.
I still have a good bit of ammo saved up this way, but back when I could practically get ammo for free and still sell the package it came in I went through it fast. It wasn't anything then to go through 500 rounds on a Saturday.
Luckily I misplaced my backstock during the worst of the panic or I would have sold it all, and wouldn't have had any left.
-
The new batch will be even more refined.
Hi Lee, what will be the refinements?
Regards,
Richard
In the current version the nut and the muzzle-end brass are a single machined part. The nut will be eliminated to take some of the weight off the muzzle. It is also unnecessary since the whole thing should only be made hand-tight. The final version will also have a different brand barrel liner that should be even more accurate, but since it comes in lengths that would leave less waste it will cost exactly the same on our end.
Hi Lee, thanks for the info. The front bushing of my .22 full length barrels was drilled eccentric so that it can be adjusted for poi. Even with a 0.020" offset, the poi was low. However, it was useful for windage adjustment. See:
(http://i1283.photobucket.com/albums/a549/ssb73q/Nut9_zps6012b3df.jpg) (http://s1283.photobucket.com/user/ssb73q/media/Nut9_zps6012b3df.jpg.html)
(http://i1283.photobucket.com/albums/a549/ssb73q/Nut8_zps3571dda5.jpg) (http://s1283.photobucket.com/user/ssb73q/media/Nut8_zps3571dda5.jpg.html)
If windage is an issue for the Howell in my 1860 or .44 1851 I will machine an eccentric bushing to bring the windage on. The .22 shooting low is the worst case in that the front sight needs to be filed down since the sight covers the target. Doing so will make the high shooting BP even worst. A Catch 22 (a pun?). Now if it was high shooting, Kentucky windage would work since one can see the poa. Low shooting with .22s may destroy any market for the .22 conversion cylinders.
Regards,
Richard
-
Hi, I received my Howell .22 conversion cylinder with full length barrel today. This will be my initial impressions on this conversion:
First off, I am a bit disappointed in Old South Firearms in shipping. I ordered this conversion on Saturday 8/1/15 8:22 AM and it wasn't shipped until 8/3/15 4:26 PM. The conversion arrived today at 8/7/15 2:00 PM. This long shipping time with Priority mail isn't what I had expected from Old South.
The conversions cylinder proper is very high quality, typical what to expect from Howell. However, the barrel is questionable IMO. The barrel is ~8-7/8" in length and fit very well in my Pietta 1860 revolver with tight tolerances. The bushings are nice and tight, but I question the narrow OD of the barrel, 0.310". The barrels I used for my Pietta 1858 have an OD of 0.3675". The thin walls of the Howell barrel gives me some concern. Kind of reminds me of the car aerial .22 zip-guns I made in my youth. The conversion cylinder cycled well with out any problems, but the barrel gap is a huge 0.010". That's much too large for .22s IMO. Interesting that only the right side of the hammer hits the firing pins. Howell appears to have either used epoxy or locktite to attach the rear barrel bushing to the barrel. If the rear bushing wasn't glued to the barrel, it would have been possible to set a more optimal barrel/cylinder gap. Since the front bushing is threaded central to the 1868 barrel, there isn't any method to adjust the poi.
Unless you are very lucky, the poi will not equal the poa. A eccentric front bushing is required to do that adjustment. Only accurate firearms are interesting IMO. I suspect that I will fit one of my 1858 barrels to the 1860 in the future where I can adjust poi.
I have been drinking so not able to test accuracy with this conversion cylinder/barrel combination today. That testing will follow at a future date.
IMO if Howell doesn't provide a method to adjust poi, this conversion cylinder/barrel combination isn't recommended. I also question the suitability of such an unsupported thin walled barrel for use with .22 high velocity ammo.
Regards,
Richard
-
...Only accurate firearms are interesting IMO ...
Regards,
Richard...
Richard, If what you say is true, you are starting with the wrong revolver to make an accurate 22. Start with a S&W M17 or a Ruger Autoloader. This idea of using a C&B revolver to satisfy all of one's needs in a revolver is wrought with problems. They really were built for only one purpose. Use them as they were designed and enjoy them.
If you want to compete with a 22, get the proper tool.
Kevin
-
Hi, a followup to my initial impressions of the Howell .22 1860 conversion cylinder:
I took a Pietta 1860 revolver with the conversion cylinder and .22 barrel installed out back to do some accuracy testing. I loaded up 6 and moved to 25yds from my steel targets . After cocking and aiming, I pulled the trigger, click. I tried 3 more times, click, click, click. After the first attempt I assumed it was just a bad .22 primer, but after more failures, there's a problem here with this conversion. A little study shows that the bottom of the hammer area just below the sight cutout was hitting on the rim of the conversion cylinder and not allowing the hammer to drive the firing pins home. To test if this was just a fluke on the one Pietta 1860, I tested another Pietta 1860 and Pietta .44 1851. All these Pietta revolvers where purchased new in the last 3 years. They all failed to fire. It appears that a solution is to grind down each of my hammer ends, that's something I will not do. The rear of the conversion cylinder can't be narrowed any more since the firing pin bushings are already at the cylinder edge.
Needless to say, this new Howell .22 conversion cylinder with full length barrel is a bust, it's going back for a refund. It amazes me that this prototype ever got out of Howells door. I'm disappointed.
Regards,
Richard
-
Hi StrawHat, who said anything about competing with a .22 conversion 1860? Having said that, every firearm I own is expected to shoot to the potential of the firearm. If it doesn't get there it gets kicked to the curb. I have lots of reasons to equip my replica BP handguns with conversion cylinders, too many to articulate here at this time. How about giving me the benefit of the doubt when it comes to my selection of handguns and parts that enrichs my shooting hobby. How about a deal, I won't criticize your choices, and you won't criticize mine?
Regards,
Richard
-
Did not realize I was being critical. If so, my apologies. I tend to speak frankly. Some folks are not fond of this. That is okay. I must have misread what you posted and will be more careful in the future.
Kevin
-
Hi, the Howell .22 conversion cylinder with barrel insert was returned to Old South Firearms. I decided to upgrade to the Kirst .22 conversion cylinder and short barrel, see:
http://www.oldsouthfirearms.com/kirstkonverter-converts1851-1860coltto22lr.aspx
What is super slick about the Kirst is that .22s can be loaded without removing the conversion cylinder from the 1860 revolver. IMO it is one of the slickest firearm mechanisms I have ever seen!! The cylinder mounted in my 1860 without any issue. I loaded 5 rounds of .22LR and went out on my deck to shoot the 5 from 45yds. The first shot failed to hit my steel targets or steel backstop so I walked down in the yard to ~50ft from the steel targets. The remaining 4 rounds hit the small 4" steel target, but IMO the group was poor. It may be that the short barrel is settling in the 1860 barrel, more testing will be required before I can reliably comment on accuracy. As easy as it was to load, it was just as easy to remove the spent brass with a toothpick. Cylinder to barrel gap is a large 0.010". This Kirst conversion cylinder is crying out for a full length barrel. There is little doubt that it will be easily to modify one of the full length barrels that were made for the 1858 .22 Kirst conversion.
BTW, the shipping from Old South Firearms was faster than a speeding bullet, thank you Old South.
I'm a happy camper.
Regards,
Richard
-
Hi, an interim report on the progress with the Kirst .22 conversion cylinder for the Pietta 1860 Army:
Today I did a little machining to adapt a full length .22 barrel to the Pietta 1860 Army. The only fussy part that needed to be machined was the rear barrel nut/fitting. I copied the rear dimensions of the little 2" barrel with the exception of producing a cylinder/barrel gap smaller than the original 2" barrel that is 0.010". I decided on a gap of 0.004". After producing that part, I used one of my full length 1858 .22 barrels to produce a temporary working 1860 .22 barrel. The 1858 barrels can be seen here:
(http://i1283.photobucket.com/albums/a549/ssb73q/Nut9_zps6012b3df.jpg) (http://s1283.photobucket.com/user/ssb73q/media/Nut9_zps6012b3df.jpg.html)
This is a photo of the barrel kludge:
(http://i1283.photobucket.com/albums/a549/ssb73q/Kirst_zps7zf8vrff.jpg) (http://s1283.photobucket.com/user/ssb73q/media/Kirst_zps7zf8vrff.jpg.html)
The silver part is is the new rear bushing. That silver part will be blued. The original short Kirst barrel can be seen above the revolver.
I took the revolver with conversion cylinder and full length barrel out on my deck and shot 10rds at steel targets 45yds away using high velocity .22s. All but one round hit the 6" steel target which is a huge improvement over the stubby Kirst barrel. I suspect that bullet velocity is also better with the full length barrel.
To complete this project I will improve the looks of the front bushing/locking nut assembly.
This Kirst cylinder allows loading .22s without removing the barrel and cylinder is super slick in function. It loads just like an SAA, load one, skip one, and then load the rest. The hammer then sets on the empty chamber.
More to come.
Regards,
Richard
-
Hi, I blued the steel rear barrel bushing and turned down the poi adjustment to be the same diameter as the 1860 barrel. A 1/8" hole was drilled into that adjustment bushing so it can be turned (make poi adjustment) after removing the hex flats on that brass bushing.
That brass on the muzzle looks like crap. I may be able to blacken it (sulfur), or shorten the barrel to minimize the brass overhang. The only issue for shortening the barrel is then it wouldn't fit the 1858 Remington .22 conversion. I have to do some more thinking on this.
The result so far:
(http://i1283.photobucket.com/albums/a549/ssb73q/Kirst1_zpsix6sf0jm.jpg) (http://s1283.photobucket.com/user/ssb73q/media/Kirst1_zpsix6sf0jm.jpg.html)
Regards,
Richard
-
...That brass on the muzzle looks like crap. I may be able to blacken it (sulfur) ...
Regards,
Richard ...
Never used sulfur but have used Birchwood Casey's Brass Black with good repeatable results. Not extremely durable but easily reapplied.
https://www.birchwoodcasey.com/Refinishing/Metal-Finishing/Brass-Black-Touch-Up.aspx
I get mine from the Log Cabin other ML dealers should stock it.
Kevin
-
Hi StrawHat, thank you for the info, I ordered some.
Regards,
Richard
-
Richard,
I have used it to blacken the backstrap on a spaghetti SAA. It worked well and gave it a bluish hue. The coloring does wear off with use. Mine lasted a couple of years and now it shows brass through the blue. Not unlike the wear one would get with bluing on steel. It is a bit more durable than cold bluing but not as durable as tank bluing.
Kevin
-
Hi, well I bit the bullet and cut the 1858 .22 barrel down 0.42" to minimize the brass muzzle overhang. It's no great loss since I still have two 1858 .22 full length barrels. I ordered brass blacking chemicals to turn that yellow brass to blue/black. This is the 1860 with the correctly sized full length .22 barrel:
(http://i1283.photobucket.com/albums/a549/ssb73q/Kirst2_zpssrgvdyui.jpg) (http://s1283.photobucket.com/user/ssb73q/media/Kirst2_zpssrgvdyui.jpg.html)
I'll post a new photo when that brass is blackened.
Regards,
Richard
-
Hi, I received the Birchwood Casey Brass Black today and blackened the barrel poi adjust nosepiece and nut. This is the original non blackened barrel end:
(http://i1283.photobucket.com/albums/a549/ssb73q/Kirst2_zpssrgvdyui.jpg) (http://s1283.photobucket.com/user/ssb73q/media/Kirst2_zpssrgvdyui.jpg.html)
This is the blackened brass nosepiece:
(http://i1283.photobucket.com/albums/a549/ssb73q/Kirst3_zps2oufulxo.jpg) (http://s1283.photobucket.com/user/ssb73q/media/Kirst3_zps2oufulxo.jpg.html)
I kind of like the blackened brass best, but what do you prefer?
Regards,
Richard
-
The black looks best Richard. The bright colored brass looks like some thing is stuck in the barrel end.
-
It looks good now! L@.
-
Hi, just for grins I cut down one more of my extra .22 1858 Remington full length barrels to fit in a Pietta 1851 .44 Colt to be used with the Kirst .22 conversion cylinder. This is the 1851 with full length barrel and Kirst .22 conversion:
(http://i1283.photobucket.com/albums/a549/ssb73q/1851Kirst_zpsk1ljtg96.jpg) (http://s1283.photobucket.com/user/ssb73q/media/1851Kirst_zpsk1ljtg96.jpg.html)
This is the 1860 with full length barrel and Kirst .22 conversion:
(http://i1283.photobucket.com/albums/a549/ssb73q/Kirst3_zps2oufulxo.jpg) (http://s1283.photobucket.com/user/ssb73q/media/Kirst3_zps2oufulxo.jpg.html)
I think I will like the .22 conversion cylinder in the 1851 compared to the 1860. The smaller 1851 is more conducive to a .22.
A few weeks ago I was talking to Lee at Old South Firearms where he thought that putting the .22 in a brass framed revolver would be the cat's meow. I agree and again just for grins ordered the Cabelas brass framed Pietta 1851 .44 Confederate (never was such a revolver in history) to use with the Kirst .22 conversion, see:
http://www.cabelas.com/catalog/product.jsp?productId=740536&categoryId=0&parentCategoryId=0&subCategoryId=0&indexId=0&itemGUID=adb2285fac10705954e2c66cc6da4fb8
Regards,
Richard
-
I think you and Lee are on to something there. A brass framed '51 in .22 cal would be a fun little gun. I would do it with a 5 inch barrel.
-
I think you and Lee are on to something there. A brass framed '51 in .22 cal would be a fun little gun. I would do it with a 5 inch barrel.
Hi Mike, that's an interesting idea on using a 5" barrel. It so happens that I have an extra .44 1851 5" barrel and a spare 5.5" .22 barrel that was fitted to the 1858 that I can shorten. One of these days when I am bored, I will set up the Kirst .22 conversion cylinder with the 5" barrel. Of course I could simply use the 2" Kirst .22 barrel, but think that my full length barrel would be more accurate.
BTW, I shot the 1851 with its new .22 barrel in my basement range today @ 7yds, all the bullets went in the same hole dead center.
Regards,
Richard
-
I think you and Lee are on to something there. A brass framed '51 in .22 cal would be a fun little gun. I would do it with a 5 inch barrel.
Hi Mike, that's an interesting idea on using a 5" barrel. It so happens that I have an extra .44 1851 5" barrel and a spare 5.5" .22 barrel that was fitted to the 1858 that I can shorten. One of these days when I am bored, I will set up the Kirst .22 conversion cylinder with the 5" barrel. Of course I could simply use the 2" Kirst .22 barrel, but think that my full length barrel would be more accurate.
BTW, I shot the 1851 with its new .22 barrel in my basement range today @ 7yds, all the bullets went in the same hole dead center.
Regards,
Richard
Don't forget to show us when it's done. I think the brass end fixture might look good on the brass framed revolver without blackening it to match the barrel.
-
Hi, my new Pietta .44 brass framed 1851 Navy Confederate revolver that never existed in history was received yesterday. It is a beauty, the fit and finish perfect as is the timing. Now to transfer the Kirst .22 Conversion to this new revolver:
(http://i1283.photobucket.com/albums/a549/ssb73q/Brass1851_zpspfo77nla.jpg) (http://s1283.photobucket.com/user/ssb73q/media/Brass1851_zpspfo77nla.jpg.html)
Regards,
Richard
-
I think that is going to be a Nice .22lr Brasser! L@.
-
Hi, The brass framed Pietta .44 1851 revolver with the installed Kirst .22 conversion cylinder, Wolff reduced power spring, and my manufacture full length barrel is now complete. See:
(http://i1283.photobucket.com/albums/a549/ssb73q/1851Kirst_zpspsoirwd3.jpg) (http://s1283.photobucket.com/user/ssb73q/media/1851Kirst_zpspsoirwd3.jpg.html)
Regards,
Richard
-
Looks good! I like it! L@.
-
Looks like another nice set up Richard. Are you going to leave the muzzle polished or blacken it?
-
Looks like another nice set up Richard. Are you going to leave the muzzle polished or blacken it?
Hi Mike, per your suggestion, I removed the brass blackening and polished the brass nosepiece, and used a polished brass nut. I think that the brass framed revolver looks best with the polished brass nosepiece, steel framed revolvers with a blackened nosepiece.
BTW, the brass framed Pietta .44 1851 action is much slicker than the equivalent steel framed 1851. The brass to steel contact areas creates a nice bearing surface. IMO there's a good place for brass framed revolvers, they look great, work great, cost little, and at the end of their useful life can become great wall hangers.
Regards,
Richard
-
I agree that there is a place the brass revolvers. I have a couple of them. My 5 inch barreled '51 brasser is one of the best shooters I have. They make for a good low cost entry into the BP revolver world and are a great starting point for many new shooters.
The 22 conversion looks great and will provide lots of fun I'm sure.
-
Hi Mike, I shot the Pietta brass framed .44 1851 with the Kirst .22 conversion cylinder and full length barrel from 25yds this morning. The revolver was shot two hands at my steel targets where the group size was 2", 1" high. The brass framed revolver with the Kirst shot perfectly. We were discussing that a short length barrel .44 would make for a nice .22 kit gun. To that end I put the short Kirst .22 barrel in a Pietta .44 Yank. Here is a photo of that Kirst .22 conversion:
(http://i1283.photobucket.com/albums/a549/ssb73q/YankKirst_zpshmbekulz.jpg) (http://s1283.photobucket.com/user/ssb73q/media/YankKirst_zpshmbekulz.jpg.html)
How is that for a .22 kit gun?
Since the short barrel is supported mostly at the forcing cone area of the .44 barrel, I am thinking of machining a short brass bushing to mount on the reduced diameter portion of the Kirst barrel that will perfectly fit the .44 barrel ID.
Regards,
Richard
-
That Bird Heads Grip looks GREAT! L@.
-
Richard, that is a sweet looking little revolver there. I think you now must have more options for .22 cal revolvers than you can shoot in a week. I like that better than the 5 inch barrel. Can you hit anything with it?
-
Hi Mike, you have no idea on how many .22 conversion cylinders I have been screwing around with lately. (7+" (7+" (7+"
No, other than testing the timing and function I have not fired the 1851 Yank with the conversion cylinder. I once thought I had enough .22s to last 3 generations of heavy .22 shooters, but have been reducing my stash significantly. Some ammo companies have suspended production of .22s to concentrate on the larger calibers to supply the government. The .22 is already scarce and I suspect that trend will continue for some time. It won't be long before it is cheaper to shoot .45 Colt reloads than .22s.
Regards,
Richard
-
Yep, not cheap plinking anymore with .22's. I think you are right about the cost eventually equaling 45 Colt reloads, but then the cost of reloading has been increasing too. Very few things get cheaper as time goes by.
-
...To that end I put the short Kirst .22 barrel in a Pietta .44 Yank. Here is a photo of that Kirst .22 conversion ... Since the short barrel is supported mostly at the forcing cone area of the .44 barrel, I am thinking of machining a short brass bushing to mount on the reduced diameter portion of the Kirst barrel that will perfectly fit the .44 barrel ID.
Regards,
Richard...
Richard,
An easier option could be to machine the bushing a bit smaller and fit an "O" ring to support it in the barrel.
Kevin
-
I like that Idea Kevin. Good thinking.
-
Hi StrawHat, that's not a bad idea, but I would be concerned about an elastomer changing with time. I think I will go with a tight fitting solid brass bushing first. I ordered a reamer to make the bushing ID perfectly press fit the front end of the Kirst barrel and machine the bushing OD with my minilathe.
Regards,
Richard
-
Hi, I machined a perfect brass bushing for the Kirst short barrel. My machining was so perfect that pushing the barrel assembly into the bore of the 1851 Yank required some good finger pressure, the barrel rotated following the rifling twist. The barrel assembly:
(http://i1283.photobucket.com/albums/a549/ssb73q/Kbarrel_zpsdsrln9vv.jpg) (http://s1283.photobucket.com/user/ssb73q/media/Kbarrel_zpsdsrln9vv.jpg.html)
I couldn't have been happier until I test fired the Kirst .22 conversion cylinder with the brass bushing barrel. I was using .22 Thunderbolts. The first shot was just below the bulls eye, but the remaining four shots showed that the bullets tumbled and hit the paper target on their side. Maybe there's a reason that Kirst doesn't extend the full length of the barrel with a diameter of the bore , see:
(http://i1283.photobucket.com/albums/a549/ssb73q/Kirst_zps7zf8vrff.jpg) (http://s1283.photobucket.com/user/ssb73q/media/Kirst_zps7zf8vrff.jpg.html)
(small Kirst barrel above 1860)
Maybe the reduced barrel diameter in the .44 bore allows rapid release of the pressure that doesn't disturb bullet stability?
Any thoughts?
Guess I'm going to stick with my full length barrels for use with the Kirst .22 conversion.
Regards,
Richard
-
Hi, I took one of my 3/8" .22 barrel liners and built a full length barrel insert for the 3" barrel Pietta 1851 Yank. A 7/16" brass tube was epoxy to the barrel. This Kirst .22 conversion cylinder and barrel assembly was shot from 12yds and produced a 1" group 1" low. All the holes in the target were perfectly round showing no bullet instability as experienced with my previous attempt to brass bush the Kirst barrel. The barrel:
(http://i1283.photobucket.com/albums/a549/ssb73q/3inch_zpsm9wsir78.jpg) (http://s1283.photobucket.com/user/ssb73q/media/3inch_zpsm9wsir78.jpg.html)
Regards,
Richard
-
Hi, The brass framed Pietta .44 1851 revolver with the installed Kirst .22 conversion cylinder, Wolff reduced power spring, and my manufacture full length barrel is now complete. See:
(http://i1283.photobucket.com/albums/a549/ssb73q/1851Kirst_zpspsoirwd3.jpg) (http://s1283.photobucket.com/user/ssb73q/media/1851Kirst_zpspsoirwd3.jpg.html)
Regards,
Richard
Hi, there has been an issue for this revolver using certain brands of .22 ammunition. CCIs and Blazers wouldn't chamber in the cylinder, Wolf Match, Thunderbolts, and Wildcats would chamber without issue. Some time ago I noticed that the Kirst chamber exit diameters were 0.220". Most .22 bullet diameters are ~0.225". That means that the lead bullet squeezes down inside the cylinder chamber before entering the forcing cone of the barrel. This doesn't make a lot of sense to me since the barrel liner I use has a 0.223" bore. If there's any bullet squeezing to be done, I want the barrel forcing cone to do it. I measured the chamber exit diameter of my S&W K22 Masterpiece and it measures 0.2235". If 0.2235 is good enough for S&W, 0.2235 is good enough for me. To that end I purchased a 6-fluted 0.2235 reamer from eBay and hand reamed each of the Kirst cylinder chambers.
Opening up the exit end of the Kirst .22 conversion cylinder has worked well. Accuracy of the revolver is excellent and the Kirst now gobbles up any brand .22 without issue. Why Kirst uses a 0.220" exit diameter for their chambers is a mystery to me.
Regards,
Richard
-
Hi, on another message board it was suggested that reaming the throats of the cylinder chambers would hurt accuracy. While not a Colt, opening up the Remington Kirst .22 conversion cylinder chamber throats to 0.2235" didn't hurt accuracy one bit. This is 6 shots from 15yds using a towel rest:
(http://i1283.photobucket.com/albums/a549/ssb73q/15yds_zpshg4r8k7j.jpg) (http://s1283.photobucket.com/user/ssb73q/media/15yds_zpshg4r8k7j.jpg.html)
Imagine the accuracy if I used a solid rest?
I saw an internet reference were .22s can be inserted from both the back and front of a Ruger .22 cylinder, that's a huge throat, ~0.225+"!
Since most all brands of .22s will now chamber I'm convinced that opening up the Kirst .22 throat to 0.2235" is a very good thing to do.
Regards,
Richard
-
Looks like you have the right idea there Richard. You're going to have a lot of fun shooting this winter in your basement range while the rest of us either shiver and miss or don't shoot at all.
-
Hi Mike, thanks for the reply. I own modern .22s, but find shooting the 150yr old revolvers a hoot. Kind of like what Alan Rickman said in Quigley Down under, "Some men are born in the wrong century. I think I was born on the wrong continent." When shooting the Remmys and Colts I sometimes feel like I was born in the wrong century. Few things compare with the joy of pulling back the hammer of a single action revolver! L@. L@. L@.
Regards,
Richard
-
I agree Richard. I could have been born 150 years ago and might have been happier with the slower lifestyle. Recently I am disenchanted with the pace and noise of the life we live today. Life was physically harder then but a lot simpler.
For now we just have to be happy we have these reproductions of the old weapons that keep us busy and divert our attention away from the demands of modern day living.
-
I would be happy with that group from a bench rest, Richard!
-
Hi Captain, the only issue with the Pietta Remmy and Kirst .22 conversion is that the revolver shoots low as can be seen on the target. My front barrel bushing is already eccentric as much as can be done, 0.020". Of course the solution is to file down the front sight, but I would like to keep the Remmy stock. The standard Pietta Remmy always shoots .44 ball or .45 Colt high, filing the sight would make shooting high worst. A handgun shooting low is worst than high for precision shooting since the front sight obscures the poi.
There's no free lunch?
Regards,
Richard
-
Hi Captain, the only issue with the Pietta Remmy and Kirst .22 conversion is that the revolver shoots low as can be seen on the target. My front barrel bushing is already eccentric as much as can be done, 0.020". Of course the solution is to file down the front sight, but I would like to keep the Remmy stock. The standard Pietta Remmy always shoots .44 ball or .45 Colt high, filing the sight would make shooting high worst. A handgun shooting low is worst than high for precision shooting since the front sight obscures the poi.
There's no free lunch?
Regards,
Richard
How about something like the wondersight? It was used on the older fixed sighted S&W revolvers that had the screw at the top of the sideplate. You would need to drill and tap a screw hole and then make your own sight but you seem fairly handy with tools. Just some bent sheet metals for a proof of concept before you commence to carve a good rear sight. Or a dovetailed sight in front of the existing rear sight? When not using the conversion, the sight could be drifted out and a blank tapped in to fill the dovetail.
Kevin
-
Hi Keven, interesting ideas, thank you. I would like to find a solution that doesn't permanently modify the existing revolver. Even a tapped hole not original would mess with my head. While the accuracy is good, I don't need to turn the .22 conversion into a target revolver. Simply being a fun gun to shoot in my basement during the winter where poi <> poa where my holding limitations is my interest. Being a .22 with almost zero recoil, maybe even a magnetic rear sight would work? Thanks for the reply.
Regards,
Richard
-
Hi, last year I beta tested two new Howell .22 conversion cylinders for Old South Firearms that had full length barrels. There were problems with those conversion cylinders and had to send them back to Old South. I see that Midway is now selling that Howell .22 conversion with full length barrel. Old South also has them in stock. In recognition and payment for my work, last week Old South sent me free the Kirst .22 conversion cylinder for the .36 Pietta 1851:
http://www.oldsouthfirearms.com/kirstkonverter-converts1851-1861coltto22lr.aspx
I won't use the short barrel that came with the Kirst .22 cylinder, but have my own manufacture full length barrels that will be used with this cylinder. The cylinder had a 0.220" exit diameter that I reamed to 0.2235". That allows the use of any manufactured .22 ammo. Using the cylinder with 0.220 exits wouldn't allow the loading of Blazer and some other .22s. S&W uses 0.2235" chamber exits in their target revolvers so I'm in good company doing the modification. Accuracy is excellent with 0.2235" chamber exit diameters.
I will probably use this cylinder with my Pietta .44 1851 short barrel Yank:
http://blackpowdersmoke.com/colt/index.php?topic=1233.msg10794#msg10794
Regards,
Richard
-
Hi, I found a better host for that new Kirst .22 Conversion cylinder, a engraved brass framed 1860 revolver, see:
https://www.oldsouthfirearms.com/traditions1860coltarmyrevolversteelframeblackpowder-2.aspx
Why get a brass framed 1860? Because I already have steel frame 1860s, but think that the brass framed revolvers have slicker actions and look terrific. I already have an 1851 and 1858 brass framed revolver with .22 conversion cylinders that can put modern .22 target handguns to shame. This will compete that collection.
Regards,
Richard
-
Hi, the new Pietta engraved brass framed 1860 just came in the door. This revolver is beautiful, the timing is perfect as is the fit and finish. This is typical of current production Pietta's, see:
(http://i1283.photobucket.com/albums/a549/ssb73q/Brass%201860_zpsyav1n6el.jpg) (http://s1283.photobucket.com/user/ssb73q/media/Brass%201860_zpsyav1n6el.jpg.html)
Also in the photo is the Kirst .22 conversion cylinder. The barrel at the top is the short barrel supplied with the conversion cylinder. The barrel below is my manufacture full length barrel. As soon as I get the full length barrel and conversion cylinder installed I will post a photo of the assembled Pietta 1860 with the .22 conversion cylinder installed.
Regards,
Richard
-
Hi, the Kirst .22 conversion cylinder with full length barrel was installed in the new Pietta engraved 1860 revolver. The barrel/cylinder gap is 0.003". This is the revolver:
(http://i1283.photobucket.com/albums/a549/ssb73q/Brass%201860_1_zpscksmfixa.jpg) (http://s1283.photobucket.com/user/ssb73q/media/Brass%201860_1_zpscksmfixa.jpg.html)
The hand is a little too long for reliable operation, the hand will be slightly shortened. I will also install a Wolff reduced power spring in this revolver.
Can't wait to shoot it.
Regards,
Richard
-
Hi, a Wolff reduced power spring was installed and the hand length properly set, the new Pietta brass framed engraved 1860 with .22 conversion cylinder is now ready for shooting. This is the .22 conversion brass framed family together:
(http://i1283.photobucket.com/albums/a549/ssb73q/Brass%20family_zpsteneh7kw.jpg) (http://s1283.photobucket.com/user/ssb73q/media/Brass%20family_zpsteneh7kw.jpg.html)
While most of these brass framed Pietta's are an Italian invention, notice that the grip on the 1851 and 1860 are the same? Also, there are no stock mounting screws on the 1860 frame. My guess is that Pietta uses the same brass frame for both its 1851 and 1860, just the barrel is different. It's Pietta's concoction so I guess they can do whatever they choose? ^j) ^j) ^j)
Regards,
Richard
-
All three looks good!
-
Hi, I went out to my steel range and shot the new Pietta engraved brass framed 1860 with Kirst .22 conversion cylinder. I fired 50rds two handed from 25yds. All the groups were less than 2" and were ~1" high with no sight adjustment. I need to point out that the front bushing of my full length barrel is offset from the barrel axis 0.020" and was positioned for the highest poi. I'm very happy with the accuracy of this .22 1860. While not expecting it, the accuracy is better than with my target .22 handguns. These brass framed .22s will mostly be used in my basement during the winter on my 50' indoor range. I will also use them when teaching newbies and women to shoot the BP style revolver. With almost zero recoil they are great introductory revolvers. When shooting CCI Quiet .22s no hearing protection is required.
I want to point out that the very good accuracy is due to my full length barrels, the short barrels supplied with the .22 Kirst is problematic when it comes to accuracy. Howell is now selling their conversion cylinders with full length barrels, but the barrel of a Colt style revolver requires barrel removal, not a big deal when the revolver is properly set up. I shoot my steel framed 1851s and 1860s with conversion cylinders and can load a cylinder as fast as loading an 1858 cylinder.
Of course, the economics of doing a .22 or larger caliber BP revolver conversion stinks compared to modern handguns, but it does allow the pleasure of shooting 150yr old designed firearms with cartridges. Also, cleanup takes only minutes.
Regards,
Richard
-
Hi, looking at the photo of all my brass framed .22 conversions together shows some additional work to do. The three .22 conversions:
(http://i1283.photobucket.com/albums/a549/ssb73q/Brass%20family_zpsteneh7kw.jpg) (http://s1283.photobucket.com/user/ssb73q/media/Brass%20family_zpsteneh7kw.jpg.html)
The arbor of both the 1851 and 1860 need to be blued. The brass nut and bushing of the 1851 should be blackened. The front and rear bushing of the 1858 needs to be blackened.
The poi=poa for the 1860, but both the 1851 and 1858 shoot low. The 1851 and 1858 front sights will be filed down so that poi=poa @25yds.
While these items are minor refinements, cleaning up those deficiencies will enhance the appearance of the .22 brass framed revolvers. Getting poi=poa will enhance accuracy.
Edit: the cosmetic items have been completed, just sight adjustment is left.
Regards,
Richard
-
Hi, the brass is blackened, the arbors blued:
(http://i1283.photobucket.com/albums/a549/ssb73q/Pretty%20brass_zpsypjtc4xf.jpg) (http://s1283.photobucket.com/user/ssb73q/media/Pretty%20brass_zpsypjtc4xf.jpg.html)
It's too bad that there isn't any interest in these .22 conversions by other forum members. I feel like I'm just talking to myself, what a waste of time sharing my work. However, I have hope that someday at least one other member will find useful information in these posts. As StrawHat says: "Knowledge carried to the grave unshared, is wasted."
Disappointed,
Richard
-
It's too bad that there isn't any interest in these .22 conversions by other forum members. I feel like I'm just talking to myself, what a waste of time sharing my work. However, I have hope that someday at least one other member will find useful information in these posts. As StrawHat says: "Knowledge carried to the grave unshared, is wasted."
Disappointed,
Richard
Be Ye Not Dissappointed, My good Richard!!!
I have been following your efforts with EXTREME interest!!!
And I am gratified that your thrice BLESSED Colt conversion efforts have born such sweet fduit!
Blast this cell phone it is like a tiny little baby doll computer I will have to glue matchstick to my fingertips and turn off ajtospell. Blast it. More from laptop later.
Yah
Crap
Prof lol
CrP
Prof marvel
-
Well, I gotta say, I've never had much use for a .22. I don't eat squirrel, I don't think it's a good defense round either. I liked the .22 mag version of the revolver I had (my first revolver was an H&R .22/.22 mag . mod. 886? (Not sure)).
Anyway, I know lots of folks like them and if that floats your boat, that's OK with me.
Me, if I'm going to convert one of my open tops, it would be for the caliber that fits the bore. .45 Colt has always been a favorite of mine and when I found gated conversions for my Dragoons well, I'd never go for a .22 Dragoon!!! (What for?!)
I reload and always have and that makes it much easier to shoot rather than $45/$50 dollar a box ammo . (I load for .38s, .44s, and .45acp as well (Hopefully .45 Ruger onlys soon!!).
The Dragoons, Armys, and the El Patron all eat .45C and therefore, can bring home the bacon, venison, and can all defend the home/family. That's what my revolvers are for.
Mike
www.goonsgunworks.com
Follow me on Instagram @ goonsgunworks
-
I Myself have been collecting
vast piles of crap errr numerous "project guns" , parts, and bits with the plan to immerse myself in the insanity of retirement have plenty of projects now that I am retired.
I acquired several open top project pistols, several brass frames, barrels, bits and pieces for 1851's that I intend for strange and amusing conversions and things. And I picked up an orphaned unloved brass 1849 in .31 - which I plan to convert to a dedicated .22 .
Rather than mess with the .31 cylinder, The 1849 will be my first attempt to build a cylinder from bar stock.
Richard's work with the larger frames offers great ecouragement, especially the fact that CCI .22 "Quiet" make for effective indoor gallery loads! Now I know what to do with the long crawlspace!
So, My Good Richard, you have at least one devoted admirere and follower....
and probably a few lurkers too shy to admit it. :-)
yhs
prof retired
-
Hi Guys, thanks for your replies. It's nice to know that there is some interest. I was about to swear off doing any more message postings thinking they were just a waste of time.
Hi prof, I will be very interested in seeing what you can do to convert a .31 to .22. I often thought about it, but had the commercial 32 S&W conversion cylinders for those revolvers, the 1849 & 1863. Since the energy is about the same for a .22LR and a 32 S&W there is little motivation for me to try a .22 conversion on those .31s. Even getting a .22 barrel liner for a .31 would be problematic unless the .31 barrel bore was enlarged. I wish you success for your .22 conversion effort.
Even getting reliable full length barrel .22 conversion for the 1851/1860 from Howell that works is an issue. I see that Midwayusa is no longer selling the Howell .22 conversion with full length barrel. I wonder if it was recalled?
Regards,
Richard
-
Hi, I just found another fool after my own heart:
http://www.theoriginal22caliberconverters.com/
Looks like this guy is just selling patents?
Regards,
Richard
-
I think you're right Richard, Maybe you should lease or buy a patent and start up a retirement business in your basement. Lord knows you have the experience with 22 conversions and you can test fire all your work right there at home.
-
Hi, while I was lucky having the poi=poa for my new .22 converted Pietta engraved brass framed 1860, I wasn't so lucky with the brass framed 1858 revolver with Kirst .22 conversion cylinder. This is a target shot in my basement @12yds:
(http://i1283.photobucket.com/albums/a549/ssb73q/Brass1858_3_zpso9w3hsl9.jpg) (http://s1283.photobucket.com/user/ssb73q/media/Brass1858_3_zpso9w3hsl9.jpg.html)
You can see that the revolver is shooting left and low. A special feature of my full length barrel design is the front bushing that is bored off axis from the revolver barrel. Rotating the front bushing will produce a poi that is a circle. These are the barrels with the front bushing shown:
(http://i1283.photobucket.com/albums/a549/ssb73q/Nut9_zps6012b3df.jpg) (http://s1283.photobucket.com/user/ssb73q/media/Nut9_zps6012b3df.jpg.html)
(http://i1283.photobucket.com/albums/a549/ssb73q/Nut8_zps3571dda5.jpg) (http://s1283.photobucket.com/user/ssb73q/media/Nut8_zps3571dda5.jpg.html)
Even with the front bushing set for maximum elevation, as seen is the first photo the revolver is shooting .22s too low. It's clear that the front sight will require shortening, but before filing the sight, the windage must be set first with the front barrel bushing. The bushing was rotated shooting from 25yds at steel targets until the windage was correct. Then the front sight was filed to have the poi=poa @25yds.
Test firing this brass framed .22 converted revolver shows it is a tack driver. I was getting ~1" groups using a rest @25yds. My S&W K22 Target Masterpiece .22 can't do that. To paraphrase Townsend Whelen, "only accurate handguns are interesting". This 1858 would make Townsend happy, I sure am.
Regards,
Richard
-
Hi, yesterday I took the brass framed engraved 1860 with Kirst .22 conversion cylinder revolver out on my deck to shoot a 5" steel target from 50yds, see target (top one):
(http://i1283.photobucket.com/albums/a549/ssb73q/Byard_zps33cbc553.jpg) (http://s1283.photobucket.com/user/ssb73q/media/Byard_zps33cbc553.jpg.html)
Fired 50rds and every one hit the 5" target at the center, poi~=poa. What a sweet shooting revolver, the one at top:
(http://i1283.photobucket.com/albums/a549/ssb73q/Pretty%20brass_zpsypjtc4xf.jpg) (http://s1283.photobucket.com/user/ssb73q/media/Pretty%20brass_zpsypjtc4xf.jpg.html)
Regards,
Richard
-
I Myself have been collecting vast piles of crap errr numerous "project guns" , parts, and bits with the plan to immerse myself in the insanity of retirement have plenty of projects now that I am retired.
I acquired several open top project pistols, several brass frames, barrels, bits and pieces for 1851's that I intend for strange and amusing conversions and things. And I picked up an orphaned unloved brass 1849 in .31 - which I plan to convert to a dedicated .22 .
Rather than mess with the .31 cylinder, The 1849 will be my first attempt to build a cylinder from bar stock.
Richard's work with the larger frames offers great ecouragement, especially the fact that CCI .22 "Quiet" make for effective indoor gallery loads! Now I know what to do with the long crawlspace!
So, My Good Richard, you have at least one devoted admirere and follower....
and probably a few lurkers too shy to admit it. :-)
yhs
prof retired
Hi prof, just released by Kirst, .22 converter for the Uberti 1849 (& 1862):
http://www.kirstkonverter.com/shopdisplayproducts.asp?id=1&cat=1848%2C+1849%2C+1862+Colt+Konverter
Regards,
Richard
-
Thanks Richard!
I wil have to pester the principles and see if they will sell "just the cylinder"
yhs
prof marvel
-
Hi prof, let us know if a "just the cylinder" purchase is an option.
Regards,
Richard
-
Hi prof, just released by Kirst, .22 converter for the Uberti 1849 (& 1862):
http://www.kirstkonverter.com/shopdisplayproducts.asp?id=1&cat=1848%2C+1849%2C+1862+Colt+Konverter
Regards,
Richard
Look mighty interesting. Like to have one for my 2nd Gen Colt 1862 Police, but I wonder if they can be loaded without removing the cylinder like ssb73q's or if they require porting the recoil shield.
-
Hi Bishop, it looks like you need to have the recoil shield modified if loading without cylinder removal is desired. If one does modify their recoil shield for that cylinder they turn the revolver into a handgun regulated by the ATF, you will need an FFL licensed person involved to sell and/or buy it.
A properly set up Colt can do a cylinder change out as fast if not faster than an 1858 Remington.
Regards,
Richard
-
Thanks for the info Richard. I do believe you are correct. The cylinder gate looks like one for porting and not loading like your .22 models. I really don't want to cut into the recoil shield and modify it, so maybe cylinder removal would be in order to reload.
-
Hi Bishop, I'm looking forward to getting one of these new .22 conversion cylinders for the 1849 and 1862. Having painfully seen the unintended issues for a new conversion cylinder entry to the market, I'm going to wait some to make sure all the bugs are worked out. While waiting I may make a full length .22 barrel for my 1862 in anticipation of getting the conversion cylinder. Accuracy with those slip in short barrels is problematic, while a full length barrel can turn a revolver into a tack driver. The .22 barrel inserts I have been using:
http://www.gunpartscorp.com/ad/527760.htm
Regards,
Richard
-
I may do the same and wait awhile too. I have been following this thread for quite some time and find your work and thoughts on these .22 conversion cylinders very interesting. I really like the looks of your Pietta snubbie with the .22 cylinder.
-
Hi Bishop, there is one potential issue for putting a full length .22 barrel liner in an 1862, there isn't any way to change the poi. The .44 caliber barrels allow using an eccentric front bushing that can be rotated to change the poi. Using full length barrel liners in a .36 is a crap shoot. Only if the revolver barrel is accurately aligned with the sights will the full length .22 barrel work properly. While this may be a gamble it is still worth a try?
Regards,
Richard
-
Good question, and something to think about before investing in a conversion cylinder.
-
Hi Bishop, well I done did it. Ordered one of the Kirst .22 conversion cylinders for the 1849/1862 Uberti. It took a few scotch before pushing the buy button. Kirst sold out their first batch pretty quickly and their second batch is selling. This will be my 18th conversion cylinder. Only hope that adding a full length barrel insert will shoot poi=poa.
This a warning to my safe queen Uberti 1862, you may be soon put to work!
BTW, I already have a collectable Kirst 32 S&W short conversion cylinder that Kirst discontinued. Hope this won't be the second collectable.
I have a number of .22 barrel liners ready for machining.
I wonder if the Prof was successful buying only the cylinder. My only issue with these .22 conversion cylinders is that the cylinder chamber diameter is too tight for some .22 brands. Also, the .22 conversion cylinders kits don't have a reasonable sized forcing cone in their barrel. I ream these cylinders to 0.2235 to accept all .22 ammo and provide a generous forcing cone in my full length barrels. Accuracy has been excellent with these modifications.
I will post to this thread what I learn.
Regards,
Richard
-
Hi Bishop, well I done did it. Ordered one of the Kirst .22 conversion cylinders for the 1849/1862 Uberti. It took a few scotch before pushing the buy button. Kirst sold out their first batch pretty quickly and their second batch is selling. This will be my 18th conversion cylinder. Only hope that adding a full length barrel insert will shoot poi=poa.
This a warning to my safe queen Uberti 1862, you may be soon put to work!
BTW, I already have a collectable Kirst 32 S&W short conversion cylinder that Kirst discontinued. Hope this won't be the second collectable.
I have a number of .22 barrel liners ready for machining.
I wonder if the Prof was successful buying only the cylinder. My only issue with these .22 conversion cylinders is that the cylinder chamber diameter is too tight for some .22 brands. Also, the .22 conversion cylinders kits don't have a reasonable sized forcing cone in their barrel. I ream these cylinders to 0.2235 to accept all .22 ammo and provide a generous forcing cone in my full length barrels. Accuracy has been excellent with these modifications.
I will post to this thread what I learn.
Regards,
Richard
Great! I'm really looking forward to your review. I'm curious as to how it will fit in your 1862 Police as I have a 2nd Gen Colt 1862 Police (same as Uberti) that I'd like to use with one of those .22 cylinders. Just don't think I want to cut a port in it though to load.
-
Hi, the Kirst .22 conversion for the Uberti 1849/1862 just came in the door. The barrel with barrel bushing would not install in the 1862, the bushing is too large in diameter by a couple of thousands. The bushing diameter is 0.360". The 2.25" barrel did install in the 1849 Wells Fargo. The barrel fit is tight, nice. Barrel to cylinder gap is 0.026". That's much much too large and will need to shimmed. While the cylinder will chamber Blazer .22 (a problem for other .22 conversion cylinders), the exit chambers on the cylinder is 0.220". I will ream these to 0.2235". The operation of the 1849 with the Kirst conversion cylinder installed is a little rough, but may improve with use.
I have machined a 3/8-24 thread on the end of a new full length .22 barrel insert for use with the 1862. The current diameter of the barrel is 0.375" and will need to be reduced to somewhat less than 0.360".
The instructions that came with the conversion cylinder are weak and only addresses cutting out a loading opening in the recoil shield.
I will report more as I learn more.
Regards,
Richard
-
Good info. Thanks Richard.
-
Hi, it's already clear to me that there are some setup issues that need to be resolved before using the Kirst .22 Uberti 1849/1862 conversion cylinder. My 1849 Wells Fargo operation is rough and it's obvious that I need to do some refinement of the Fargo's hand. The Kirst installed in my conventional 1849 (has loading lever) went much smoother, there are no issues with that revolver. However, getting my 1862 to cycle properly was a royal pita. The bolt needed to be narrowed a couple thousands and the hand needed to be significantly shortened. This was a balancing act having the hand long enough for the percussion cylinder and short enough for the Kirst. The hand was blended to achieve both goals. I just don't understand on why Kirst didn't simply copy the cylinder ratchet of the C&B cylinder and decided to do their own design.
IMO unless you are very lucky, don't expect the .22 Kirst for the 1849/1862 to simply drop in. You may need to do some work. While a second grader with good mechanical aptitude can easily do mods on a Walker, these small frame 1849/1862s require the skill of a watchmaker.
BTW, I see that the Kirst .22 conversion cylinder 2.25" barrel has a generous forcing cone. That wasn't the case for the other Kirst .22 conversion cylinder barrels.
The next thing I will do is to do more machining on the 1862 .22 full length barrel. I had been toying with only putting a nut on the forcing cone end of the barrel, but the more I think about it, having the barrel liner under tension with nuts on each end may be a better accuracy configuration. That's what I do with my other .22 conversion with full length barrels. Kind of like the Dan Wesson system.
Regards,
Richard
-
Hmmm. More good info. Thanks Richard.
-
Hi, the Kirst .22 conversion cylinder chamber exit holes were reamed to 0.2235". The original exit diameters were 0.220". The full length 0.375" OD barrel has been turned to an OD of 0.358", threaded on each end 3/8-24. The rear of the barrel was reamed with an 11 deg reamer to create a generous forcing cone. The barrel liner fits perfectly in the 1862 barrel and requires a little pressure to slide it in, IMO a better fit than expected. I have brass nuts that could be used, but ordered black oxide steel nuts for the forcing cone end of the barrel. A steel nut makes sense since it will receive the greatest mechanical loading on firing. I may use a brass nut for the muzzle end of the barrel so as to not mar the bluing on the end of the 36 caliber barrel. The steel nuts should arrive early next week. A round file will be used to narrow one edge of the steel nut so that the barrel clears and fits the arbor.
More to come.
Regards,
Richard
-
Hi, finding a small front nut for the full length barrel has been difficult. The standard brass or steel 3/8-24 nut is too large for the 1862 barrel muzzle. Standard 3/8-24 nuts have a 9/16" flat to flat, the muzzle across flats is 0.569", the standard nut would obscure the sight. I turned round a brass 3/8-24 nut round to 0.569", but it would need some method of torquing it down. I found a flange nut that I will try, see:
http://www.mcmaster.com/#90759a350/=140bi4c
The flange is too wide, but the flange can be turned down. If I use a steel front nut, I will also use a brass washer to prevent marring the 1862 barrel muzzle.
BTW, I measured the required thickness of the rear nut to produce a zero barrel to cylinder clearance of my Kirst 1862 .22 conversion, 0.297". To create a 0.0015" cylinder to barrel clearance, the rear nut thickness will be turned to 0.2955".
More to come.
Regards,
Richard
-
Hi, the full length barrel liner for the 1862 in the white:
(http://i1283.photobucket.com/albums/a549/ssb73q/steel%201862_zpsqw0dw4td.jpg) (http://s1283.photobucket.com/user/ssb73q/media/steel%201862_zpsqw0dw4td.jpg.html)
When the barrel is cut to the exact length it will be blued.
IMO making full legth .22 conversion cylinder barre;s would be a nice cottage industry for an enterprising gunsmith, like GoonsWorks? They are sure easy to make, the raw barrel liner stock costs ~$11.
Regards,
Richard
-
Hi, the rear nut has been fabricated that creates a barrel/cylinder gap of 0.002":
(http://i1283.photobucket.com/albums/a549/ssb73q/nut1_zps6auxusj7.jpg) (http://s1283.photobucket.com/user/ssb73q/media/nut1_zps6auxusj7.jpg.html)
(http://i1283.photobucket.com/albums/a549/ssb73q/nut2_zps2ppe7ktc.jpg) (http://s1283.photobucket.com/user/ssb73q/media/nut2_zps2ppe7ktc.jpg.html)
(http://i1283.photobucket.com/albums/a549/ssb73q/nut3_zpslo7be7hi.jpg) (http://s1283.photobucket.com/user/ssb73q/media/nut3_zpslo7be7hi.jpg.html)
The new steel front nuts should arrive today. After setting the exact barrel length the steel barrel parts will be blued.
Regards,
Richard
-
Hi, one thing I notice on my Uberti 1862 is that one of the brass arbor length adjusting washers broke off during the fitting of the .22 insert barrel. This has me thinking of drilling and tapping a 10-32 hole in the end of the arbor. Then insert a steel 10-32 set screw and adjust for the correct barrel/cylinder gap. Then put some Loctite blue on the threads to hold in position. If ever needed the blue Loctite can be easily broken to reset the screw.
The downside on this is that the revolver is permanently modified decreasing resale value. The brass washers used to mod the arbor are completely 100% reversible.
Still thinking about this.
Regards,
Richard
-
You do incredible work Richard! Though I am a published graphic artist, illustrator, and radio announcer, I wish I had those machining skills. I can't wait to see the end result.
-
Hi Bishop, thank you for the very kind words. While I have a reasonable mechanical aptitude, my tools are limited to a minilathe, drill press, and lots of files. If one takes their time they can do wonders with a file. The finished blued full length barrel:
(http://i1283.photobucket.com/albums/a549/ssb73q/nut4_zpskmybfp0e.jpg) (http://s1283.photobucket.com/user/ssb73q/media/nut4_zpskmybfp0e.jpg.html)
The .22 barrel mounted in the Uberti 1862:
(http://i1283.photobucket.com/albums/a549/ssb73q/nut5_zpsv3xxczb1.jpg) (http://s1283.photobucket.com/user/ssb73q/media/nut5_zpsv3xxczb1.jpg.html)
Shooting comes next.
Regards,
Richard
-
Another good looking full barrel conversion Richard. You are getting skilled at this process. I bet you have it shooting well by the end of the first range session.
-
Hi Mike, thank you. I went out back and fired 100rds @25yds of .22 Thunderbolt with the Kirst Conversion and full length barrel. Shooting the revolver with the first few rounds were a little rough. The action smoothed up with a little use. Initial groups were ~3.5", but decreased to 2.5" with continued shooting. The revolver windage is good thank goodness, but it shoots ~4.5" high. Getting a good grip and hand hold for accurate shooting is tough with this small framed revolver.
There were a couple of issues I experienced. The first was that after loading the cylinder the cylinder wouldn't rotate. I discovered that the .22 in the open portion of the recoil shield would back out preventing cylinder rotation. IMO there should be some kind of gate. Once I learned what was happening, pointing the revolver down when cocking the first round allowed reliable cylinder rotation. The other issue is that one chamber must have a larger center area where the empty shell takes some force to push out of the cylinder. Shells from the other chambers mostly fall out. Since there is no safety in this conversion, keeping that cylinder empty would be good range practice, you know, load one, skip one, and then load the rest.
Since accuracy isn't up to par with my other .22 conversions that are tack drivers, this Kirst/1862 will only get casually shooting use. The small frame of the Uberti 1862 is more of a curiosity handgun compared to the larger framed revolvers. The Uberti 1862 with the Kirst .22 conversion goes back to its royal position in the safe.
Bottom line is that the Kirst .22 conversion in the 1862 works well, but if one is looking for a tack driver, get a larger frame revolver to do a .22 conversion.
Regards,
Richard
-
Hi, you can see the problem opening in the Kirst .22 conversion cylinder ring here:
http://www.kirstkonverter.com/22-caliber-colt-pocket-model.html
Those that don't want to file a loading port into the frame that would make the revolver an FFL regulated firearm, that recoil shield ring could be filled up. A small piece of brass fitted to the opening and JB Weld in would cure the .22 backing out problem. The next time I get the 1862 out of the safe that opening will be fixed.
BTW, I didn't put a set screw into the arbor end, but JB Weld a new brass washer onto the arbor end and filed the washer to produce a 0.002" cylinder to barrel gap. That solution is 100% reversible as would JB Welding a brass piece into the conversion cylinder recoil shield opening.
Regards,
Richard
-
Hi, I shot the Kirst .22 conversion with the short Kirst barrel in my Uberti 1849 revolver. I was pleasantly surprised on how accurate the short barrel is, ~3-3.5" @25yds. Windage right on, but shoots ~4" high. Of course the velocity would be lower than a full length barrel, but the accuracy for a drop-in barrel is very good. The .22 barrel insert is very tight in the main barrel, maybe the reason for such good accuracy. Maybe I should have tried it in the Uberti 1862?
Regards,
Richard
-
Hi, you can see the problem opening in the Kirst .22 conversion cylinder ring here:
http://www.kirstkonverter.com/22-caliber-colt-pocket-model.html
Those that don't want to file a loading port into the frame that would make the revolver an FFL regulated firearm, that recoil shield ring could be filled up. A small piece of brass fitted to the opening and JB Weld in would cure the .22 backing out problem. The next time I get the 1862 out of the safe that opening will be fixed.
Regards,
Richard
Hi, the Kirst conversion cylinder now has had a brass filler piece added to the recoil ring to prevent .22 cartridges backing out when using the cylinder. The brass part was JB Weld to the ring, see:
(http://i1283.photobucket.com/albums/a549/ssb73q/ring_zpsm5tia2fu.jpg) (http://s1283.photobucket.com/user/ssb73q/media/ring_zpsm5tia2fu.jpg.html)
The Kirst .22 conversion cylinder for the 1849/1862 lacks a gate, IMO a big mistake.
Regards,
Richard
-
Hi, I have been having a few fail to fire occurrences using the Kirst 1849/1862 conversion cylinder. Some investigation shows that the rear ring of the cylinder can rotate slightly where the hammer hits the left end of the ring instead of full hammer contact on the firing pin. This can be solved by adding a little JB Weld to the right bottom portion of the ring. Another approach is to dremel a little steel off the left side of the ring next to the firing pin. You can see how close the firing pin is next to the left edge of the ring:
(http://i1283.photobucket.com/albums/a549/ssb73q/ring_zpsm5tia2fu.jpg) (http://s1283.photobucket.com/user/ssb73q/media/ring_zpsm5tia2fu.jpg.html)
BTW, that brass insert worked perfectly to prevent .22s from backing out blocking rotation of the cylinder.
Regards,
Richard
-
Hi, I very slightly rounded the edges of the cylinder ring near the top where the hammer first enters the ring opening before the firing pin. The outside edges of the Uberti 1862 hammer were also slightly rounded to prevent the hammer edges hitting and hanging up on the entrance of the conversion cylinder ring. This now allows a little rotational play of the ring, but still have the hammer fully impact the firing pin. IMO this is an appropriate fix for the occasional misfires that were experienced before. IMO Kirst should have done this modification in the first place.
Regards,
Richard
-
Hi, I have been having a few fail to fire occurrences using the Kirst 1849/1862 conversion cylinder. Some investigation shows that the rear ring of the cylinder can rotate slightly where the hammer hits the left end of the ring instead of full hammer contact on the firing pin. This can be solved by adding a little JB Weld to the right bottom portion of the ring. Another approach is to dremel a little steel off the left side of the ring next to the firing pin. You can see how close the firing pin is next to the left edge of the ring:
(http://i1283.photobucket.com/albums/a549/ssb73q/ring_zpsm5tia2fu.jpg) (http://s1283.photobucket.com/user/ssb73q/media/ring_zpsm5tia2fu.jpg.html)
BTW, that brass insert worked perfectly to prevent .22s from backing out blocking rotation of the cylinder.
Regards,
Richard
Hi, well, well, guess what? That brass insert broke away from the cylinder back plate. So much for JB Weld. I recently experience a JB Weld failure of a Uberti 1860 front sight. I used Loctite 380 to reattach the brass piece to the .22 conversion cylinder back plate. Time will tell if it is a better solution than JB Weld.
Regards,
Richard
-
Hi, when I first tested a full length .22 barrel with the Uberti 1862 and Kirst .22 conversion cylinder, I was not happy since the revolver shot high. Unlike the .44 caliber .22 full length barrels there isn't any poi adjustment with the .22 barrel that fits snugly inside the Uberti .36 barrel. Since I now have a taller front sight on my Uberti 1862 it will be interesting if the 1862 .22 conversion cylinders shoots more to poa. The Uberti 1862 with full length .22 barrel and Kirst .22 conversion cylinder:
(http://farm1.staticflickr.com/894/27406011687_b341f2bcf6_b.jpg)
I am still very angry at PhotoBucket for losing all my previously posted photos. So much information was lost. Hope the decision makers of PhotoBucket fry in hell.
Regards,
Richard
-
You and me both, Richard.
Corporate greed, pure and simple.
I just received an email from Flickr stating that Yahoo! has sold Flickr to Smug Mug..."nothing will change at the present time"...yeah, let's hope not.
-
Hi Kirk, since the PhotoBucket issue I have been keeping all my photos on a computer, just in case Flickr goes nuts.
Yesterday I fired the 1862 with tall dovetail sight using the .22 barrel liner and Kirst .22 conversion cylinder. While the taller front sight is perfect to have poi=poa @25yds using C&B, the .22 conversion shoots ~4" low @25yds. The groups are good, but the sight is too tall for .22. I have new Uberti 1862 with original sights available that I may try with the .22 conversion. This is the Kirst .22 conversion cylinder and my home made .22 barrel liner assembly:
Regards,
Richard
-
Hi, sometimes it takes me a while to finish projects. The Uberti I have with taller front sights had poi 4" lower that poa @25yd using the Kirst .22 conversion cylinder with full length .22 barrel liner. That revolver was sighted in for C&B @25yds. I did try the .22 conversion cylinder in a new 1862 last year, but there was a timing issue with that revolver. So I put this project away until yesterday. The problem was that the hand was too long where the hammer wouldn't go to full cock. A little filing of the hand fixed this issue. The revolver is nowl properly timed for both C&B and conversion cylinder. This is a photo of the revolver waiting to be shot with the Kirst .22 conversion and full length barrel:
Regards,
Richard
-
Looks great Richard.
I keep thinking I need one of these to use in one of my Navy revolvers.
-
Hi Dave, this is my brass frame collection with .22 conversion cylinders and full length barrels:
Regards,
Richard
-
Nice collection Richard. That Remington conversion is very interesting. I was unaware there was a .22 conversion for them.
-
Hi Dave, a brass frame used for the .22 conversion makes a lot of sense. Every low cost brass framed revolver has had a slicker action than steel frame. Brass frames shouldn't be used for larger calibers than .22, but .22 is safe in brass framed revolvers. I use these revolvers for shooting in the basement in winter when the weather is too bad for shooting outdoors.
Regards,
Richard
-
Every low cost brass framed revolver has had a slicker action than steel frame.
I thought I was the only one that noticed! )lI