1858 conversion cylinder worth it?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think they're fun, but they aren't cheap; especially the ones with loading gates.
 
DD4lifeusmc said:
just guessing here. But I would guess one or more chambers are not in correct alignment with the forcing cone. the bullet is hitting the cone off centered, and if the projectile is also hardened just add to the problem
Click to expand...

You may be right- I went straight to the source and asked Kirst- this was their response: "Hi Michael, We have not had any problems with split forcing cones. Our caveat on jacketed bullets has more to do with accelerated wear of the bore. We have not found jacketed bullets to be a safety issue as long as the load is under 100FPS."

Pretty sure he meant 1000 fps. but there you go.
 
I find the history cartridge conversions fascinating. It covered an almost 20 year period from 1869-1888. There are so many variations, even in factory made conversions. In addition you have ones that were sent back to the factory for conversion, factory made conversion kits similar to today's and installed by both owners and gunsmiths, conversions done by individual gunsmiths and even blacksmiths and ones done by owners. Throw in the number of gun manufacturers, different models made by them and the number of different conversion styles and you have many thousand of different conversions.
 
I have another thread about a Taurus 66 that I'm considering getting rid for maybe a k frame 38. But the more I handle the 1858 the more I like it compared to a double action. It feels better in my hand and seems to point more naturally.

I'm thinking now to go with a 45 colt cylinder and a Rossi 92 to go with it.
 
The Walker in Drobs' post is a kit Walker assembled by Hovey Smith. He dubed it "The Super Walker"!! It wasn't quite " super" so, he sent it to me! (First red dot sight I'd ever seen!!! Ever!!)

Now, . . . . it's Super!! Lol!!

Mike
 
Colombo38 said:
I have another thread about a Taurus 66 that I'm considering getting rid for maybe a k frame 38. But the more I handle the 1858 the more I like it compared to a double action. It feels better in my hand and seems to point more naturally.

I'm thinking now to go with a 45 colt cylinder and a Rossi 92 to go with it.
Click to expand...


You're not the only one who has said that after handling a Remington.

Remingtons are beasts.
 
Well I bought .45 Colt conversion cylinder for my old steel framed, Armi San Marco 1858 Remington. I bought it from Taylor's, and the nice thing about the ASM 1858 Remington is that the front sight is dovetailed into the barrel instead of being a post that is staked or soldered into a hole in the barrel. So I could adjust the slightly left impact to dead center, and now this is a very accurate revolver.

As for "Cowboy" loads, it said to only use the conversion cylinder with black powder or "factory loaded cowboy ammunition". I simply looked at the pressures in the Hodgdon CAS reloading manual for black powder, and used a smokeless loading in the same manual that was below those pressures, and no worries. So it's very accurate, cleaner than BP, and yes it's pricey, but it's fun to shoot.

LD
 
Any conversions in open tops Dave?
I agree, the proper setup can be extremely accurate.

Mike
 
DD4lifeusmc said:
just guessing here. But I would guess one or more chambers are not in correct alignment with the forcing cone. the bullet is hitting the cone off centered, and if the projectile is also hardened just add to the problem
Click to expand...

I cannot speak for Kirst, but my 1858 Remingtons with their R&D cylinders are the most accurate 45 Colt revolvers I own. More accurate than my Uberti Cattleman, more accurate than my Rugers, even more accurate than my Colts. This is because the cylinders are made to tighter tolerances than the cylinders of any of those other revolvers. In fact, when I load 45 Colt, I use one of my R&D cylinders as a cartridge gauge. If a completed round drops into the R&D chambers, it will always drop into the looser toleranced chambers of the other revolvers. I can tell you that with R&D cylinders there is no way any of the chambers would not be in correct alignment with the bore.

I suspect it is the same with Kirst.
 
Driftwood Johnson said:
I cannot speak for Kirst, but my 1858 Remingtons with their R&D cylinders are the most accurate 45 Colt revolvers I own. More accurate than my Uberti Cattleman, more accurate than my Rugers, even more accurate than my Colts. This is because the cylinders are made to tighter tolerances than the cylinders of any of those other revolvers. In fact, when I load 45 Colt, I use one of my R&D cylinders as a cartridge gauge. If a completed round drops into the R&D chambers, it will always drop into the looser toleranced chambers of the other revolvers. I can tell you that with R&D cylinders there is no way any of the chambers would not be in correct alignment with the bore.

I suspect it is the same with Kirst.
Click to expand...

I do remember reading however that in order to get 6 rounds of the rimmed 45C into the diameter of the cylinder Howell designed the conversion cylinder with its chambers angled back to front two degrees off center, the bullet does enter the cone at a corresponding angle. The Kirst is a five shot.
 
whughett said:
I do remember reading however that in order to get 6 rounds of the rimmed 45C into the diameter of the cylinder Howell designed the conversion cylinder with its chambers angled back to front two degrees off center, the bullet does enter the cone at a corresponding angle. The Kirst is a five shot.
Click to expand...

That is incorrect. The chambers in the 6 shot 45 Colt conversion cylinders for the 1858 Remington are angled out less than 1/2 of one degree towards the rear so the rims will not overlap.

The angle of the cross section in this pamphlet that came with my cylinders is exaggerated to illustrate the idea.

RDConversionCylinder01.jpg




As I said earlier, my conversion cylinder equipped Remmies are the most accurate 45 Colt revolvers I own, more accurate than my Uberti, Rugers, or Colts. It is the close tolerancing of the chambers that makes them so accurate. The bullet impacting the forcing cone with less than 1/2 of one degree has no measurable effect on accuracy.

As a matter of fact, when Ken Howell first came up with the idea of angling the chambers he obtained a patent on the idea. At the time he was the exclusive manufacturer of six shot Remington conversion cylinders, and Taylors was his only customer. All other dealers and distributors selling these cylinders were obtaining them from Taylors. When Howell decided to start his own conversion cylinder company, Howell Old West Conversions, he sold the patent to Taylors. Taylors now has a new manufacturer making their cylinders, but they own the patent rights to the angled chambers. That is why Howell cannot offer a six shot 45 Colt conversion cylinder for the Remington 1858 in his new company.

Kirst went a different direction. His cylinders were five shot because he knew he could not fit six 45 Colt rims onto a Remington 1858 sized cylinder. To satisfy CAS requirements of leaving one chamber under the hammer empty, he came up with the idea of a 'dummy' chamber, of smaller diameter, that did not go all the way through. That way CAS shooters could legally load five chambers, and leave the 'dummy' chamber empty.
 
Last edited:
Driftwood Johnson said:
That is incorrect. The chambers in the 6 shot 45 Colt conversion cylinders for the 1858 Remington are angled out less than 1/2 of one degree towards the rear so the rims will not overlap.

The angle of the cross section in this pamphlet that came with my cylinders is exaggerated to illustrate the idea.

View attachment 758939




As I said earlier, my conversion cylinder equipped Remmies are the most accurate 45 Colt revolvers I own, more accurate than my Uberti, Rugers, or Colts. It is the close tolerancing of the chambers that makes them so accurate. The bullet impacting the forcing cone with less than 1/2 of one degree has no measurable effect on accuracy.

As a matter of fact, when Ken Howell first came up with the idea of angling the chambers he obtained a patent on the idea. At the time he was the exclusive manufacturer of six shot Remington conversion cylinders, and Taylors was his only customer. All other dealers and distributors selling these cylinders were obtaining them from Taylors. When Howell decided to start his own conversion cylinder company, Howell Old West Conversions, he sold the patent to Taylors. Taylors now has a new manufacturer making their cylinders, but they own the patent rights to the angled chambers. That is why Howell cannot offer a six shot 45 Colt conversion cylinder for the Remington 1858 in his new company.

Kirst went a different direction. His cylinders were five shot because he knew he could not fit six 45 Colt rims onto a Remington 1858 sized cylinder. To satisfy CAS requirements of leaving one chamber under the hammer empty, he came up with the idea of a 'dummy' chamber, of smaller diameter, that did not go all the way through. That way CAS shooters could legally load five chambers, and leave the 'dummy' chamber empty.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected, the bullet still enters the forcing cone at an angle however. I've read all the information you present from other sources some twenty years ago when I obtained the ROA cylinder, just didn't recall the specific angle.
I now have both a ROA and a Rogers and Spencer with Howell cylinders and while I cant say they are more accurate in one mode or the other they are both as accurate as this shooter can point them.
We understand however that some shooters on this forum are more accurate than the guns they shoot.
 
whughett said:
We understand however that some shooters on this forum are more accurate than the guns they shoot.
Click to expand...

I really don't appreciate that snide comment.

As I understand it, the six shot cylinder for the ROA, at least the one marketed by Taylors, does not have the chambers angled. The ROA cylinder is large enough that the rims of a 45 Colt will not overlap.

The 1858 Remington has a smaller cylinder, and like all revolvers, the diameter the chambers are set at is dictated by the distance between the center of the cylinder and the center of the bore. On the 1858, this distance is too small to allow six 45 Colt rounds to not overlap without the chambers being angled.

I know nothing about Rogers and Spencer.

Regarding accuracy. I am not talking about shooting freehand. When shot from a rest, which removes the human element as much as possible without using a Ransom Rest, my 1858 will shoot a smaller group than any of my other 45 Colt revolvers, which includes one Uberti Cimarron, several Ruger Vaqueros, my old Ruger Blackhawk, and two 2nd Gen Colts. That seems pretty conclusive to me. I attribute this accuracy to what I mentioned earlier, the chambers on the 1858 cylinders are more precisely cut than the chambers of any of my other 45 Colt revolvers. That is why I use the 1858 cylinder as a cartridge gauge when loading 45 Colt. Any round that will drop into the 1858 cylinder is guaranteed to drop into the sloppier chambers of any of the other revolvers.

Using that criteria, less than 1/2 of one degree of angle for the chambers is insignificant.


.
 
I haven't been able to post due to iOS issues and I don't have a pc here but I've been meaning to ask:

For those that have the Howells 5-shot cylinder, how secure are the in-between bolt positions?
 
Nobody has posted anything about the other Remington, the .36. I have one of the older Euroarms .36 Remington's which is built on the correct smaller frame as the originals were. Put it side by side with either the .45 &.36 Remingtons built today and it is noticeably smaller, between 3\4 to 2\3rd size of the .45. I have a 6 shot R&D conversion cylinder that came with it. The first thing I noticed when purchasing this gun is how when in your hand it feels more like a Colt 1851-1873 than a .45 Remington. It just kind of falls naturally in my hand much like a Colt 1851-1873 or clones of them. Needless to say it is my favorite Remington(also have 2 .45 versions)and is very accurate with the conversion cylinder using hollow based .38 bullets. All the other .36 Remingtons are built on the same larger frame .45's and actually weigh more than the .45's.
 
Gaucho Gringo said:
Nobody has posted anything about the other Remington, the .36. I have one of the older Euroarms .36 Remington's which is built on the correct smaller frame as the originals were. Put it side by side with either the .45 &.36 Remingtons built today and it is noticeably smaller, between 3\4 to 2\3rd size of the .45. I have a 6 shot R&D conversion cylinder that came with it. The first thing I noticed when purchasing this gun is how when in your hand it feels more like a Colt 1851-1873 than a .45 Remington. It just kind of falls naturally in my hand much like a Colt 1851-1873 or clones of them. Needless to say it is my favorite Remington(also have 2 .45 versions)and is very accurate with the conversion cylinder using hollow based .38 bullets. All the other .36 Remingtons are built on the same larger frame .45's and actually weigh more than the .45's.
Click to expand...

The hollow base bullets must improve on the accuracy. What's the bore diameter of the Euroarms 36. Smokeless or black powder loads. With most 36s taking .375 or .380 RB and bullets running around .375 the .38s are a loose fit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Howell conversions for repro Colt Dragoon or 1858 REMINGTON.36 caliber?
Replies
3
Views
895
Crawdad1
Crawdad1
T
  • Locked
Conversion Cylinders???
2 3
Replies
53
Views
8K
Old Fuff
O
BSA1
  • Locked
1858 Conversion Cylinder
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
18K
rcflint
R
C
  • Locked
Yet another conversion question
Replies
14
Views
2K
CarbineWilliams
C
3
  • Locked
Pietta 1858 Twist Rate?
Replies
4
Views
6K
arcticap
arcticap
Back
Top