a brain teaser

[Nicodemus38]

heres a good one for you people here to wake you up to reason and logic.

the common saying is not to get a cartridge conversion for a 1851 colt in 44 as the frame "couldnt stand" the pressure as it was originally intended for .36.

however the wise sages say the 1860 colt army revolver is ideal for a cartridge conversion to use 45 long or 45 sw.


but the issue and teaser i have is,


the 1860 IS an 1851 navy frame. so how can the parent gun be insufficient for the cartridge conversion when it still has more steel in it?

 

[mykeal]

I must be missing something. I'm not aware of this common saying. The only 'issue' I'm aware of is the admonition against using a conversion on the brass frame version of either gun.

 

[pohill]

You couldn't get a .44 cylinder to fit in the 1851 frame - the frame of the 1860 .44 is "stepped down."
Or did I miss something?
OK, I see - you're talking about a modern Italian repro 1851 in .44, right?

 

[madcratebuilder]

IMHO any open top Colt is unsuitable for a cartridge conversion. These revolvers were designed to fire cap and ball loads with the stress centered around the arbor. When you shoot a conversion cylinder all the stress is moved to the top of the recoil shield. This can cause cracks between the bottom corner of the frame and bolt pivot screw.

 

[mykeal]

Wow. I don't see that at all. How does changing from a percussion cylinder to a cartridge cylinder change the load paths? The mechanical connections and force vectors are identical.

 

[junkman_01]

I'm with Mykeal. madcratebuilder's theory of 'force displacement' is all wet.

 

[Shoot The Moon]

I think I can see what madcratebuilder means - the C&B cylinder only touches the recoil shield around the arbor - the nipple would never contact the gun other than when the hammer falls on it. In the conversion, the cartridge case is in direct contact with the top of the shield and therefore as that round is fired, the case pushes back onto that area of the gun.

(it's all academic to me, we British subjects aren't allowed cartridges!)

 

[rdstrain49]

+1 for the mad crate guy

 

[junkman_01]

I won't buy it unless I can see an example of these cracks.

+1 for mykeal

 

[LightningMan]

I thought the parent gun to the 51' Navy was the 61' Navy, not the 60' Army. As to cracks between the bottom corner of the frame and bolt pivot screw, I have an original 60' Army Conversion and just don't see it in mine, even though it looks well used. I myself have even shot it a few time with black powder cartridges. LM

 

[junkman_01]

The gun the OP is referring to is a .44 cal. 1851 Navy. The frame on such a revolver is from the 1860 Army .44 caliber.

 

[ontarget]

MCB makes sense to me in theory. But would they make these conversions if they weren't safe ? Liability being what it is and all?