1858 conversion cylinders

[Malckom]

Can any one tell me what the differences are in 6 shot and 5 shot conversion cylinders and which one in your opinions are better.

 

[arcticap]

The chambers of the 5 shot conversion cylinders line up more perfectly with the barrel while the chambers of the 6 shot cylinders are offset by approximately 2 degrees.
However the difference in accuracy between them generally isn't noticeable at all.
I guess that which is better depends on your point of view and what you want to use it for.
Would you like to reload a little more often or a little less often?
Does having a 2 degree offset bother you?
Do you want your chambers to have thicker steel walls or does that not matter to you?
Do you think that you might ever want or need to load an extra round?
And then there's the Kirst 5 shot with the single firing pin which requires grooving out a permanent opening in your frame's recoil shield to serve as a loading port.

 

[jeeperjohn]

So for a 1858 new army which converter is best in your opinion. Thanks

 

[the Black Spot]

saw a review on a six shot cylinder from kirst. review was by john taffin. he used the 45 acp cylinder. if i remember correctly he got inch to inch and a half groups at 50 feet(16yards).

 

[Palehorseman]

saw a review on a six shot cylinder from kirst. review was by john taffin. he used the 45 acp cylinder. if i remember correctly he got inch to inch and a half groups at 50 feet(16yards).

I am still surprised that conversion cylinders are chambered for the .45 acp, pressures for factory run up to 21,000 psi. Would take a leap of faith for me to fire .45 acp in a soft steel frame and barrel replica.

 

[the Black Spot]

found the article by john taffin: shoot magazine vol. 12 sept/oct 2001 pages 38 and 39. the articel was called "kirst cartridge konverter".
the 45 acp loads were both with bull-x bullets one of 200(swc) grains the other 230(roundnose). i assume they were lead. they were backed by 3.6 grains of bullseye. groups werer 3/4 to 1" at 50 feet(16.5 yards).

 

[1911Tuner]

I am still surprised that conversion cylinders are chambered for the .45 acp, pressures for factory run up to 21,000 psi. Would take a leap of faith for me to fire .45 acp in a soft steel frame and barrel replica.

Why? The 1917 Colt and Smith & Wesson revolvers that were chambered for the cartridge were dead soft, as were the 1911s of the era.

 

[Jim Watson]

That load is way short of full power and pressure. .455 Webley or .45 Schofield, maybe.

 

[1911Tuner]

That load is way short of full power and pressure.

Yup. Besides...The cylinder has to be proofed for whatever it's chambered for.

 

[Palehorseman]

Why? The 1917 Colt and Smith & Wesson revolvers that were chambered for the cartridge were dead soft, as were the 1911s of the era.

I would like to see some provenance for that statement.

Kirst cylinders are 4140 steel, but matters not a whit how high the cylinder strength is, it is the frame that comes into play with the 1858 Remmy and other replicas.

One can download pressures enough to just get the bullet to exit the barrel, but buying factory ammo down at the local gun shop is another matter altogether.

The factory .45 LC is deliberately low powered to accommodate older revolvers. Factory .45 LC ammo is kept to a SAAMI maximum pressure limit of 14000 psi.

The factory .45 acp is kept to a SAAMI maximum pressure limit of 21,000, IMO much too powerful to be sticking into C&B frames.

R&D still carries the .45 acp CC, but seems Kirst has now dropped them, as no longer listed.

 

[1911Tuner]

I would like to see some provenance for that statement.

It's generally well-known among folks who know guns of that era. There was no heat treating done on the 1911s until the 40s...and that was only in certain places on the slides. In 1936, Colt added a hardened steel insert in the breechface to eliminate recoil peening and deformation around the firing pin port...and the breechface itself. This is all documented in Charles Clawson's books. Full heat treating/hardening of the slides didn't begin until 1946. Since the ordnance steels of that era were all pretty much the same, so it went for the revolvers. One of our members...I think it was HisSoldier...was skeptical about it, and did a Rockwell test on an old 1911 slide. He came back and reported that it was soft...around 24-25 on the C scale...but I knew that it would be.

In any event...even the lower grades of steel available was head and shoulders above the wrought iron that the originals were made of.

but matters not a whit how high the cylinder strength is, it is the frame that comes into play with the 1858 Remmy and other replicas.

I'm aware of that. I understand how frames can stretch...and what stretches them... and how the recoil impulse plays into it. The above statement applies. Any steel has far more tensile and shear strength than wrought iron.

But the first line of defense is the cylinder itself. It has to withstand the pressures, or the gun comes unwrapped pretty quickly.

 

[Jim Watson]

Yup. Besides...The cylinder has to be proofed for whatever it's chambered for.

The USA has no proof law as found in the civilized nations of Europe. I wonder if Kirst assembles each cylinder into a gun and shoots it with a 30% overload like the Italians did the percussion cylinder or does for the factory "conversions."

The Kirst website does not list a .45 ACP cylinder. Do you think they might have learned something since that no doubt glowing report nine years ago?

 

[1911Tuner]

Dunno, Jim. If they don't proof the cylinders, maybe it's because they figure that 4140 is adequate for the pressures involved. 4140 is superior to the old "3" series ordnance steels of the 20s.

The factory .45 acp is kept to a SAAMI maximum pressure limit of 21,000, IMO much too powerful to be sticking into C&B frames.

As you mentioned, the frames becoming stretched are the real issue with any revolver.
If the cylinders are adequately strong to withstand the pressures, half the problem is solved. The frames are another matter...but stretching from recoil impulse pulling the back half of the gun away from the barrel whild the bullet is pulling forward on the barrel...with the topstrap caught in a tug of war would suggest that the recoil impulse is the frame killer...not pressure. Even firing a SAAMI spec loading with a 255 grain bullet would stress the frame more than a 21,000psi load driving a 230 grain bullet. So, a black powder .45 Colt round could actually prove more damaging to the frame than SAAMI standard .45 ACP ammunition over the long haul...but probably not for just occasional use.

Of course, bullet material also must be factored in.

Jacketed=more friction=more intense forward drag=more tensile stress on the topstrap than a lead bullet at the same velocity and loaded to the same pressure.

Lastly, I'd also have to think that the companies who make the conversion cylinders have at least tested them in actual guns to see what the long-term effect is...or they risk personal damage and punitive lawsuits from people who get hurt using them. And...If it had been a real problem, we'd have heard about it.

Now, for the FWIW/My2% of a Cuck segment.

I don't think that it's a good idea to put the converted Cap'n'Ball revolvers to a lot of hard use with modern ammunition above .38 Special caliber. I believe it's a novelty thing with some utility that will allow limited use without issue, but could turn into one if the owner/shooter goes overboard. Other than the Rugers, they don't really hold up all that well, even with black powder and round balls. The Remington solid frame fares much better than the open-topped Colts, of course, but the conversion cylinders with backing plates and individual firing pins are...just a little sketchy for my tastes. I suppose it would be worth having one on hand just to be able to fire metallic cartridges from the gun in the event of a meltdown...if you ascribe to that line of thought...but not much else. Again...That's my feeling, and may not reflect the popular vote.

The other thing about conversions is that it's a fast'n'dirty way to beat the system for people who are legally prohibited from buying guns through legal channels...unless the laws have changed, requiring the same restrictions and paperwork for the cylinders.

 

[the Black Spot]

maybe we could get a volunteer to do some testing, safely of course. get the cheap 45 acp hardnose copper stuff from walmart, fire it all(100 rounds?) through the remington and then check for frame stretch(after measurements were taken before the firing). i do not have the time, money, place, or ransom rest to do it; other wise i would LOVE to do it. i like doing these kinds of tests!

 

[Joe Demko]

I suppose it would be worth having one on hand just to be able to fire metallic cartridges from the gun in the event of a meltdown...if you ascribe to that line of thought...but not much else.

Agree.

 

[Palehorseman]

I have a Peitta 58 Remmy and use a Kirst .45 LC CC in it. But I use a 185 grn SWC over 6 grns of Trail Boss at about 800fps, which keeps the pressure to under 10,000 psi.

Why the 185 grn SWC? The Pietta RB rifling twist is quite slow, the heavier boolits I find inaccurate, but the 185 SWC cast boolit is the best I have found.

 

[Hoof Hearted]

The USA has no proof law as found in the civilized nations of Europe. I wonder if Kirst assembles each cylinder into a gun and shoots it with a 30% overload like the Italians did the percussion cylinder or does for the factory "conversions."

The Kirst website does not list a .45 ACP cylinder. Do you think they might have learned something since that no doubt glowing report nine years ago?

Walt Kirst actually did a lot of "over pressure" proofing of the 45acp cylinders......
Supply and demand is the reason that they are not currently offered, nothing less.

 

[alchemist11]

What a great discussion in a great thread. THR members pull through yet again as the most informative crowd on gun forums! I have researched this topic for several days now and it is well discussed on mostly SASS forums by cowboy shooters. Nothing against them, but they have certain prejudices which influences their opinions. Primarily they like to shoot cowboy loads which are way under even SAAMI .45 Colt loads and the conversion cylinders are popularly used by SASS shooters. The majority opinion by SASS shooters is it is too dangerous to shoot even SAAMI loads in the conversion cylinders. No discussion of frame stretching, just cylinder strength. Thank God the members of this forum understand metallurgy and the physics of firing a revolver. I like old guns and carried a Colt .45 new service for years. However, i did not like the soft steel so that I had to carry low power loads in it and pray I did not have to tangle with a black bear. I was reluctant to shoot anywhere near SAAMI max spec loads with it. I really do not care for the feel of the Colt SAA, but the remington is something else together! It is one sweet gun to shoot! Kirst says not to go over 1000 ft/sec with their cylinders but does not say the bullet weight. Any .45 Colt that shoots a 250 gr bullet at approx 1000 will terminate most anything living in the lower 48 states, especially the eastern US. And I would have to venture that any animal couldn't tell the difference between that same bullet at 890, 950, or 1000 ft/sec. So the kirst converter in an 1858 Rem is a very capable packing gun. It will handle max SAAMI loads, but I would not want to shoot such loads on a reg basis in the Rem. The cylinder would hold no prob but frame stretching, as has been mentioned here, could very well be a problem eventually. I'd hate to tear up my beloved Rem, so I'll keep my loads to around 850 ft/sec, above the cowboy 700 ft/sec loads too many ppl on other forums recommend and carry 950 - 1000 ft/sec loads at times, in complete confidence the gun will handle them.

 

[Dave Markowitz]

The Kirst .45 ACP cylinders are listed on the Kirst website if you click the link to purchase their products. E.g., here.

 

[rcflint]

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.

 

[Smokin_Gun]

Rcflint I have Two R&D cylinder Conversions .45Colt 6 shot Drop ins ... one in and ROA and one in a Rogers&Spencer both are tackdrivers...Kenny Howell does a great job with these ...and yur right 1/2 degree not 2 degrees of angle.
I also had one in a Colt Signature 1st variation Dragoon and shot 3" groups at 25 yards with 35gr of fffg Black Powder and a 255gr flat point cast Boolit which were pretty stout loads.