Your thoughts on conversion cylinders

Status
Not open for further replies.

Brutuskend

Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2020
Messages
371
Location
Oregon
I got a 6 shot .45lc for my 58 remmy clone and ordered a cylinder for my 51 colt clone in the same cal.
A yesterday when it showed up, it was a 5 shot .45lc

Any thoughts on which is better, or which you perfure?
 
The chambers of the 6 shot were offset by 2 degrees which allowed them to fit in the cylinder, but weren't as perfectly aligned as the 5 shot chambers.
Folks didn't complain about their accuracy and many more probably wish that they could still buy them.
The Ruger Old Army conversion cylinders are still made with 6 chambers.
 
I have 5-shot Howell conversion cylinders for my Remmie reproductions by Uberti and Euroarms (Armi San Paolo). I got these in preference to 6-shot cylinders because:
(a) the thicker chamber walls give a greater margin of safety, and
(b) the effective capacity is the same for both the 5-shot and the nominal 6-shot -- 5 shots in both cases.

That's because with the 6-shot, you have to keep an empty chamber under the hammer, for safety. The 5-shot cylinder has additional bolt locking slots, so that the hammer can safely rest between chambers, allowing the full 5 shots to be loaded.

I really think the Remmie design (solid frame) is better for use with a conversion cylinder than the open top Colt design. I personally wouldn't bother putting a conversion cylinder in a Colt. The issue is not only the frame strength, but also the fact that you have to remove the barrel (driving out the wedge) in order to remove the cylinder to reload. With the Remmie, you just drop the loading lever and pull out the base pin.
 
That's because with the 6-shot, you have to keep an empty chamber under the hammer, for safety. The 5-shot cylinder has additional bolt locking slots, so that the hammer can safely rest between chambers, allowing the full 5 shots to be loade
I do like that aspect of the 5 shot.
 
BD73952A-2DFC-4CD9-9E83-96444D0CA7C9.jpeg I have both versions, 45C and 45ACP for the ROA’s and Rogers and Spencer, all 6 shot. A five shot for the Colt 1860 Army. Looking at Taylor’s conversion for my Remington Revolving Carbine which is the same for the Uberti Remington NMA. Photo is a couple years back. Two ROA’s 45C and 45ACP and a Uberti 1860 Army.

IMO the Colt loads as fast, or as fast as Im going to go, as any. A sharp blow with a plastic mallet completely un seats the wedge. Course who carries a plastic mallet if hunting or on horseback.
But to the OP question, I only load five with center fire, don’t carry and only fire on a firing line as soon as loaded, so five or six is academic.
 
Thank you OP for posting this topic. I have a Pietta 1860 Army made in 1992, I';d like to get a conversion cylinder for it but am afraid it'll need some 'fitting'. As my gunsmithing skills are nil i'm probably not the guy to get in over my head. I don't have a gunsmith in my area and so am looking for some advice;
- what cylinder do I want given my gun ?
- do any of the conversion cylinders work with Colt 2nd Gen guns ?
- do they mostly work out of the box ? If not what's the fix and can a non-gunsmith like me do it ?
Thanks very much OP and gentlemen, I look forward to hearing all replies, aplogies OP for intruding onto your thread.
 
I would just like to add that any Pietta revolvers made prior to them going to CNC-machined revolvers (~2001/date code BP) that anything BN or prior have parts that were supplied by various small manufacturers in Northern Italy as subcontractors and much hand fitting was required by Pietta to make the parts fit. There is a very good video about this:



It is almost 50 minutes long but well worth the time to view it if you are interested in Pietta history.

Regards,

Jim
 
That's because with the 6-shot, you have to keep an empty chamber under the hammer, for safety.

I really think the Remmie design (solid frame) is better for use with a conversion cylinder than the open top Colt design. I personally wouldn't bother putting a conversion cylinder in a Colt. The issue is not only the frame strength, but also the fact that you have to remove the barrel (driving out the wedge) in order to remove the cylinder to reload. With the Remmie, you just drop the loading lever and pull out the base pin.

Not exactly true, I kept 6 in the R&D (Howell) cyl in my Pietta Remington. The hammer nose rested in a safety notch in the cyl just as it will in the 6 shot cap cyl version.

Also, I agree with not installing a "drop cylinder" in a Colt o.t. platform. I'm not big on taking down the revolver to load and unload each time (just a personal thing). I like very much the Kirst gated conversion for the open top design because it is a fairly correct historical conversion. It's a stronger conversion and you load it conventionally by opening a gate. Also, you can safely load and keep 5 in the 5 shot cyls and 6 in the 6 shot cyls.
The gated conversion (Howell makes some as well) in an open top is the stronger setup all the way around. The back plate on the drop cyls is the weak point.

Honestly? I never saw any point to them.

I'll give you 2 good points. It allows folks that can't shoot b.p. revolvers outdoors to shoot smokless indoors. The conversion cyls (both styles) are historically correct.

To the OP, the 6 shot cyl for your Remington is an excellent setup (I think it's the best for the Rem platform) and I'd rather have the gated setup for the OT. Either way, they're all fun!!
Mike
 
Last edited:
I have one on my 1858 and one on my 1860. They both work fine and all but... the only problem I have is i like shootin that holy black a whole hell of a lot better. I have the 5 shot 45LC howell on the 1860 and the 6 shot 38 spcl on the 1858
 
I guess i'm missing the point on these conversion cylinders. To me, it seems like what keeps these guys in business are people that are limited to black powder revolvers whether because of location or their background/record. Less regulations and all...

That's just my perspective. I only have one conversion cylinder, and as 1Kperday said they're pricey. A pricey paperweight in my case, I'd rather load the loose powder.
 
The chambers of the 6 shot were offset by 2 degrees which allowed them to fit in the cylinder, but weren't as perfectly aligned as the 5 shot chambers.
Folks didn't complain about their accuracy and many more probably wish that they could still buy them.

That is incorrect.

The chambers on the original R&D 45 Colt six shot cylinders for the 1858 Remington are angled at less than 1/2 of one degree.

Originally designed and manufactured by Ken Howell under the R&D brand. Howell patented the angled chamber design. Taylors was the exclusive distributor. At some point Howell sold his patent to Taylors, who contracted with another manufacturer to manufacture them. Thus, Howell was prevented from making a six shot 45 Colt cylinder for the 1858 Remington because he had sold the rights to his patent. A six shot 45 Colt cylinder with angled chambers is still available from Taylors.

I bought a R&D six shot 45 Colt cylinder for my EuroArms Remmie many years ago.

poqAyz6nj.jpg



plHhasuij.jpg




I actually prefer shooting 45 Schofield in my Remmie has opposed to 45 Colt. This is because I actually shoot mine with cartridges loaded with Black Powder. I don't think I have ever fired Smokeless cartridges in mine. Loaded with Black Powder, the Schofield case has less powder capacity than the 45 Colt case, and I use a 200 grain bullet, rather than the 250 grain bullet I use in my 45 Colt Black Powder loads. This makes for less recoil, because of the lighter bullet and lower powder charge.

pl7oaW1gj.jpg




The other reason I prefer the lighter loads is because the frame is very thin where the loading lever pierces it, and I always worried about what the pounding of recoil with the heavier loads might do to that section of the frame. Even a Black Powder 45 Schofield develops more recoil than the typical percussion load under a .451 round ball.

pmSwEzL4j.jpg




In fact, I designed the first 200 grain Big Lube bullet for 45 Colt when the only other bullet available was the 250 grain PRS Big Lube. I did this to have a 200 grain Big Lube bullet that could be loaded into my Schofield cases.

This photo shows five different 45 caliber cartridges. Left to right they are 45 Colt, 45 Schofield, 45 Cowboy Special, 45 Auto Rim, and 45 ACP. The 45 Colt is one of my Black Powder rounds with the 250 grain bullet, the Schofield round is one of my BP rounds with the 200 grain bullet.

pmNglbXFj.jpg




I actually have two Remmies with the R&D cylinders, a bunch of years ago I found a used Stainless Uberti Remmie at a gun show that included a Conversion cylinder.


The 1858 Remington is the only Cap & Ball revolver I ever considered buying conversion cylinders for. Unlike a Colt, where you have to pull the barrel off to reload, unless you carve a reloading groove or fit a loading gate, the Remington is simple to reload. You drop the loading lever, pull the cylinder pin forward, and pop out the cylinder. The cap is a loose fit and comes right off to reload. I pop out the empties, reload fresh cartridges, then pop the cylinder back in place.

pnfrtVp2j.jpg




It is as quick and simple as Clint Eastwood makes it look in Pale Rider. (note: commercial conversion cylinders were not available when that movie was made, the cylinders were made up by the prop guys. Bit it is as quick and simple as Clint makes it look.)

pnffnXGkj.jpg




Historically there were many different designs for conversion cylinders to convert percussion revolvers to shoot cartridges. I am not going to go into all of them here, but you can read my comments about the subject here:

https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=608787


Historical note: The six shot R&D cylinder with its separate cap is not a historically accurate replica of a conversion cylinder. None of the old designs used a removable cap with separate firing pins. I like the R&D version for the reasons I stated above. Quick and easy to reload. As I said, I only shoot mine with Black Powder. I began shooting Cap & Ball revolvers in 1968, and in my experience a cartridge conversion is quicker to reload and shoot, and no worries about pieces of broken caps falling into the mechanism. That's why they were developed during the Civil War.

About the cost: Yes, they are expensive. Just under $200 when I first bought them, about $240 these days. My rational was I bought my EuroArms Remmie back in 1975. I have no idea what I paid for it, but after over 20 years the actual value was next to nothing, so spending about $190 on the cylinder was like buying a new gun for $190. The used Stainless Uberti that came with the R&D cylinder was a bargain too, otherwise I would not have bought it.

One more comment: Those of you with experience with the Remington 1858 know they foul very quickly. That is because there is no collet on the front of the cylinder to divert BP fouling blasted out of the barrel/cylinder gap away from the cylinder pin. The pin is very narrow, only about 1/4" in diameter, and fouling blasted onto it builds up quickly, working its way between the pin and the cylinder, causing the cylinder to bind very quickly, after only a few cylinders full. Colt Cap & Ball revolvers had an arbor much wider than the Remington cylinder pin, and Colt cut a helical groove onto the arbor to provide clearance for fouling to build up without binding the cylinder. The Colt replica shown here is a Pietta replica of the 1860 Colt Army. You can see I cut some grooves into this Remmie's pin to hold some bore butter to help keep the cylinder rolling, but that never helped much. I find that with the Remington 1858, every time I pop the cylinder out to reload I wipe off the face of the cylinder with a damp towel to keep the fouling to a minimum. That way I am able to shoot a lot more than just a few cylinders full. By the way, the two bullets shown at the bottom of this photo are the Big Lube 250 grain PRS bullet, and below it my 200 grain J/P 45 200 grain Big Lube bullet. The huge lube grooves are what makes these bullets work so well in Black Powder cartridges. I receive no money for my design, I did it to fill a need. Molds for these bullets are available at the Big Lube website.

https://www.biglube.com/

pnftBuSMj.jpg
 
Last edited:
I guess i'm missing the point on these conversion cylinders. To me, it seems like what keeps these guys in business are people that are limited to black powder revolvers whether because of location or their background/record. Less regulations and all...

That's just my perspective. I only have one conversion cylinder, and as 1Kperday said they're pricey. A pricey paperweight in my case, I'd rather load the loose powder.
^^^^^
Agreed.
I was close to ordering a conversion cylinder, but for few dollars more.?...*ahem*....i bought a uberti el patron to shoot my .45 colt cartridges.
 
I guess i'm missing the point on these conversion cylinders. To me, it seems like what keeps these guys in business are people that are limited to black powder revolvers whether because of location or their background/record. Less regulations and all...

That's just my perspective. I only have one conversion cylinder, and as 1Kperday said they're pricey. A pricey paperweight in my case, I'd rather load the loose powder.

Well, you'd be wrong sir!! The cylinders are quite popular with CAS participants and, I can by any legal firearm I want. Your post sounds as though I don't have any business liking Dragoons if I don't adhear to loading and shooting bp and only bp! Very accusatory!! Maybe you don't get it but, if you can't own a firearm, you can't legally have a converted bp revolver either (NOT less regulations and all . . . ). Your thinking is backwards!! I CAN'T shoot bp (or any type firearm) outdoors in the county I live in. I also CAN'T shoot bp in an indoor range! I can ONLY shoot smokless powder, indoors where I live. See? You have to shoot a "firearm" to shoot in my county.

Maybe you folks that JUST shoot bp revolvers are limited to those type arms! Wouldn't that make more sense? Sounds different huh?

As far as price, your right! It's an expensive way to make the firearm you want. I've got $750.00 (at least) in each of my .45 Dragoons. Guess what? It was my money and I like um!!! Didn't have to ask what anybody thought about it or anyone's permission.

D.J., I'm sure you have Dennis Adler's book " Guns of the American West " . . . it's full of photos of Remingtons with two piece conversion cyls. Some with notches in the cap for rimfires and an excellent photo of a cap with six floating firing pins on page 45.

Mike
 
Last edited:
That is incorrect.

The chambers on the original R&D 45 Colt six shot cylinders for the 1858 Remington are angled at less than 1/2 of one degree.

DJ, you could be right.
I don't have any reference to fall back on besides other posters.
If you have any reference about the 1/2 degree chamber misalignment that would be helpful.
I don't know where some folks get their information, but it does end up getting repeated and accepted as fact without any solid reference.

An example is Oye's post where he stated:

"On the R and D cylinder the 2 degrees refers to the rear of the cartridge. On the cylinder
lined up with the barrel, the bullet will enter the barrel nose down 2 degrees. Side to side
should line up. The firing pins should be centered side to side. If they are not done this way, the cartridge rims will overlap on the 45 long colt. It's claimed not to affect accuracy ( of course it affects accuracy). Keep in mind you are a slamming a .451 - .452 bullet down a barrel that's designed
for a bullet that was sized in the cylinder about .445 to .447. Good lube is the key on the leading. 250 gr. bullets will be more prone to leading than 200 gr. I hope the explanation on the 2 degree offset is clear." --->>> [See Post #6] https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...n-1858-with-r-d-cylinder.512891/#post-6372032

rcflint stated that the offset was only 1/2 degree:

"Referring to an earlier reply, the angle of the chambers of the R&D cylinder is more correctly 1/2 degree, not 2 degrees. Its purpose is to clear the rims at the breech while the circle spacing at the throat matches the barrel. It has no affect on accuracy, and they are reported as the most accurate cowboy guns they own by many shooters." --->>> [See Post #20] https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/1858-conversion-cylinders.536268/#post-7338755
 
Last edited:
That is incorrect.

The chambers on the original R&D 45 Colt six shot cylinders for the 1858 Remington are angled at less than 1/2 of one degree.

Interestingly, to determine what percentage 2 degrees is of 360 degrees [which is the number of degrees in a full circle], two is divided by 360 which the product is .00555, or 0.55%.
I don't know if that's a coincidence or not.
A two degree offset would be 0.55% or 1/2 of a percent of a 360 degree full circle, less than 1% but still 2 degrees.
And even 2 degrees is still a very small amount.

If the offset were 1/2 of a degree the percentage would be 4 times smaller than if it were 2 degrees.
 
Last edited:
I have had my cylinders for so long I can't remember where I first read that the angle is less than 1/2 of one degree. But that is what I recall from a long time ago. Each chamber is angled less than 1/2 of one degree from the axis of the bore.

I can assure you that it makes no difference what so ever as far as how accurate a revolver with these cylinders is. A bullet does not even notice being redirected by 1/2 of one degree.

I have many revolvers chambered for 45 Colt. Colts, Rugers, Smith and Wessons, and Ubertis. My conversion cylinder equipped Remmies are the most accurate of all. That is probably at least partially due to the fact that the chambers are more precisely machined than the chambers in any of the aforementioned revolvers. When reloading 45 Colt I keep my R&D cylinder on the bench and use it as a cartridge gauge. At the end of every reloading session I drop all the completed cartridges into the chambers of the cylinder. If they drop right in, that assures that they will chamber in the more generous chambers of my other 45s. If they don't drop right in first time, I run them through the crimp die again to tighten up the crimps. Then they drop right into the chambers of the conversion cylinder. Here is a shot of a batch of 45 Colts being loaded with Black Powder. The Remmie conversion cylinder is there to act as a cartridge gauge.

popugCJej.jpg




Here is a scan of the pamphlet that came with one of my cylinders.

pnsmIO81j.jpg




In the illustration below, the angle of the cartridge in the chamber has been exaggerated to illustrate the angled chamber. It has not been mentioned here yet, but the reason the chambers are angled is because the Remington 1858 cylinder is too small to accommodate six 45 Colt cartridges without the rims overlapping. With the chambers angled out ever so slightly the rims do not overlap.

pnEUcrXUj.jpg




Here is a photo of both my old EuroArms Remmie at the bottom and the stainless Uberti at the top. Yes, the Uberti came with a blued conversion cylinder. That's the way it came when I bought it used, it does not matter to me that the gun is stainless and the cylinder is blued. I got it for a good price, including the extra cylinder. I have the C&B cylinder for the Uberti stored, I have never fired it, I have only ever fired that revolver with the conversion cylinder.

pmjivbCcj.jpg




45 Dragoon: Yes, I have a copy of Adler's book . A quick look through it did show one example of an experimental Remington Conversion with a separate back plate with separate firing pins. But the great majority of Remington Conversions had the hammer nose reshaped into a long firing pin that extended through the back plate to smack the primers.

The most authoritative book I know of regarding converting C&B revolvers to fire cartridges is A Study of Colt Conversions and Other Percussion Revolvers by R. Bruce McDowell.

His section on Remingtons is 53 pages long and I did not see any reference to firing pins mounted on the back plate. Again, firing pins extended through the back plate. I will look again in the morning, I need to go to bed now.

pmkQNVnzj.jpg
 
I guess i'm missing the point on these conversion cylinders. To me, it seems like what keeps these guys in business are people that are limited to black powder revolvers whether because of location or their background/record. Less regulations and all...

When the cylinders first came out, folks with a prohibitive conviction would have been in violation if apprehended while in possession of the revolver and the cylinder. Cowboy Action Shooting suddenly made .45 Colt black powder loads "readily available" and for a repro-revolver to be a lawfully classified "antique firearm" and so legal to possess by a person with that problem, it could not be converted to fire "ammunition that is readily available". Shortly after they came out, the Federal law changed, and convicted felons were also prohibited of possession of "components" as well as fixed ammunition. The Feds rarely if ever prosecute anybody for just that alone, but it's still a law. So possession of powder, even black powder, is technically a no no for such a person.

When Cowboy Action Shooting was really "taking off" in the 1990's, the matches in my area had six stages of fire, and often there wasn't much lag-time between stages for the shooter. Folks shooting a black powder revolver had three options. Reload the revolver at the "loading station" each time..., which bogged things down. Buy extra cylinders, and have a modified wedge when shooting Colt copies, and thus you could pre-load five of the six chambers in all six of the cylinders for two revolvers (twelve cylinders) sans the caps, putting in a fresh cylinder at the loading station at each stage of fire, OR..., you could buy a conversion cylinder and load like everybody else. Cleaning the one cylinder at the end of the match was better than cleaning a dozen..., and the cost for the replacement cylinders 10x (since one came with each of your two revolvers) = the cost of the conversion cylinder. The simplest option was the conversion cylinder.

I have an old Armi San Marco 1858 Remington repro, and the cylinder works rather well. Especially with low pressure loads of modern powder, it's a very easy cleanup.

LD
 
I love my Kirst gated conversion.
A gated conversion requires altering the recoil shield (part of the frame). This is a permanent change, and prevents going back to the percussion configuration. The drop-in type of cylinder lets you go back and forth between percussion and cartridge.
 
Altering the recoil shield will not prevent you from using the percussion configuration. I can pull the gate and cartridge cylinder off in a matter of seconds, and drop the percussion cylinder right back in and fire it. Does it look funny with the loading channel cut into the frame, with a percussion cylinder installed? Yes. Does it work just fine? Also yes.
 
I have conversion cylinders for both of my Pietta Remingtons, a New Model Navy and a New Model Army. Both cylinders were essentially drop-in ready and functioned perfectly. I got them when I bought the guns so I could shoot them at the indoor ranges I frequent. In the long term I think it was money well spent as I can enjoy shooting them with .38 Special and .45 Colt ammo I already have on hand. Now I do have a Pietta Colt Model 1860 that if I were going to have it converted I would get the Kirst Konverter with the loading gate. Only problem is that it's fairly expensive (around $450 installed), and does require alteration of the frame. Have to cogitate about that for awhile.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top