Kaeto
Member
So you're stuck with a very short barrel and the possibility of damaging the existing barrel.
22 Kirst/Strite pictures
- Thread starter Hoof Hearted
- Start date
- Status
kBob
Member
Not sure how much risk there is in damaging the existing barrel. That is about the length of the actual barrel in many suppressed .22 rifles that have dedicated suppressors. THere are seldom baffle strikes with even a .33 inchor so baffle perferation and you will be using the Kirst in a much shorter .44 barrel.
As to a seem in the middle of a barrel, that would look an awful lot like the way a .22RF adaptor to an AR15 or Mini-14 works. Perhaps a second lead on the screw on portion of te barrel to allow for any missalignment or bullet tip might do it?
If adaptors that used screw in barrels where used before 50 years ago how can such a patent be in force at present? Am I missing something? Perhaps I missunderstand how the earlier ones worked or their age.
Speaking of short barrels..... couldn't an adaptror of sorts be made using the Kirst back plate and a full length cylinder with the front of individual chambers rifled for a barrel length like the NAA mini derringer stuff? I am thinking somethin like six individual rifled barrel sleeves inserted into a full length Kirst cylinder and then individually chambered. SHould be more accurate than those adaptor cartridges available to .45 Colt caliber gun owners.
-kBob
As to a seem in the middle of a barrel, that would look an awful lot like the way a .22RF adaptor to an AR15 or Mini-14 works. Perhaps a second lead on the screw on portion of te barrel to allow for any missalignment or bullet tip might do it?
If adaptors that used screw in barrels where used before 50 years ago how can such a patent be in force at present? Am I missing something? Perhaps I missunderstand how the earlier ones worked or their age.
Speaking of short barrels..... couldn't an adaptror of sorts be made using the Kirst back plate and a full length cylinder with the front of individual chambers rifled for a barrel length like the NAA mini derringer stuff? I am thinking somethin like six individual rifled barrel sleeves inserted into a full length Kirst cylinder and then individually chambered. SHould be more accurate than those adaptor cartridges available to .45 Colt caliber gun owners.
-kBob
OP
OP
Hoof Hearted
Member
Kaeto
I'm not sure where you are going with this...............
The Kirst works fine and there is no possibilty of barrel damage.
OP
OP
Hoof Hearted
Member
My feelings exactly but the patent office saw fit to allow it and the owner of the patent wants way too much for it..........
Kaeto
Member
I'll admit that there is not going to be any barrel damage, but the accuracy is still going to be like you were shooting a snubby.
OP
OP
Hoof Hearted
Member
So your supposition is that short barrels are not accurate?
Accuracy is determined, more often, by sight radius, trigger control, experience and eyesight/lighting than by barrel length.........this is akin to thinking that big black dogs are vicious.
As the installer for Kirst Konvertors and a gunsmith for over 30 years (as well as a competitive shooter in multiple disciplines) let me assure you that the 22 Kirst conversion works well for it's intended application, which is as a reasonably priced way to allow the cowboy competitor to shoot 22 ammunition in his chosen 44 caliber competition pistol. i.e; practicing.
If you are looking for a bullseye pistol this conversion is not for you.
Before your involvement in this thread the conversation had taken a twist as to how to lengthen the barrel. Most people are not capable of doing this type of work themselves and surely would not want to spend a whole lot more than the price of this conversion. For those that can or would there are always alternatives.
I, for one, am thankful that Walt has had the foresight to bring these designs to market. This is not an easy path with liability, machining, marketing, and all the other costs involved (like the guy with the patent threatening to sue). This kind of a small start up business is fueled by passion not income.
Accuracy is determined, more often, by sight radius, trigger control, experience and eyesight/lighting than by barrel length.........this is akin to thinking that big black dogs are vicious.
As the installer for Kirst Konvertors and a gunsmith for over 30 years (as well as a competitive shooter in multiple disciplines) let me assure you that the 22 Kirst conversion works well for it's intended application, which is as a reasonably priced way to allow the cowboy competitor to shoot 22 ammunition in his chosen 44 caliber competition pistol. i.e; practicing.
If you are looking for a bullseye pistol this conversion is not for you.
Before your involvement in this thread the conversation had taken a twist as to how to lengthen the barrel. Most people are not capable of doing this type of work themselves and surely would not want to spend a whole lot more than the price of this conversion. For those that can or would there are always alternatives.
I, for one, am thankful that Walt has had the foresight to bring these designs to market. This is not an easy path with liability, machining, marketing, and all the other costs involved (like the guy with the patent threatening to sue). This kind of a small start up business is fueled by passion not income.
Kaeto
Member
I was looking for nothing more than a plinker. So bullseye accuracy was not a concern for me. I was simply voicing what I felt were legitimate concerns. If I have offended I apologize. Since my concerns are apparently meaningless I shall bow out.
OP
OP
Hoof Hearted
Member
No offense taken and none meant!
Just trying to keep things on track and the miss-information to a minimum.
Hope the rest of your holidays are good!
scrat
Member
kateo maybe if you have something dumb to write you can pm each other. As for the product i am a fan. its a heck of a way to turn your 58 into an inexpensive fun plinker.As for shooting .22 anyone shooting a 22 pretty much uses it as a plinker anyhow. if you think you can buy a conversion cylinder and be the worlds greatest shooter well you need to go back to bed and start your day over again.
Last edited:
SMPARKINSON
Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2011
- Messages
- 19
Patent infringement? Huh? What?!?
When I talked about making a longer barrel to use with my Kirst .22 conversion for the Remington Revolving Carbine, I was talking about shade tree gunsmithing for myself.
First, although I am no patent attorney, I think that if I am making an alteration to my own rifle with no intention of using that alteration for commercial purposes, there would not be any patent infringement. Second, although I am sure Kirst has any patent protections they may have been able to secure for their own business protection, I would doubt that barrel length would be something that could be patented. There is nothing unique or patentable about variations of barrel length. Third, I talked to Jay Strite, the Gunsmith at Kirst about this very subject.
That was when he told me about their ability to provide custom length barrels for this conversion unit. I asked him about my doing this very thing to my unit, and he expressed no problem with me doing that on my own unit, other than explaining to me that their barrel wasn't simply screwed into the breechblock. He advised that I would have to remove the barrel and drill out and tap the block to accept a longer barrel. He explained the reason they kept the barrel short was to allow the unit to be installed from the breech end of the revolver without having to worry about screwing in a seperate barrel from the front of the barrel. He explained that while that could be done, as was done on an original .22 conversion unit that they based their unit on, they didn't want their users to be concerned with headspace adjustments which some users might find confusing. When I explained that I understood that and that I was thinking about altering the unit I bought from them to be more like the original with a longer barrel, he basically said, "yeah, you could do that. It would void the warantee though." He said the same thing when I brought up the posibility about me cutting a gate area in the back plate of the .22 unit so I didn't have to remove the unit to reload.
The bottom line is that in my conversations with Jay, he understood that I was a very happy and loyal customer that wanted his opinion about customizing a product he manufactured to make it more usable for myself. I never got the impression that he was concerned that I had some motive involving a potential patent infringement with his product.
He designed his product in such a way that he felt would serve the majority of his customers best, and I got the feeling that he had already considered everything that I spoke with him about. If I wanted to paint his product pink because I liked it that way, he had no problem with me making it more to my own liking for myself. I think he is also quite secure in his own manufacturing capabilities, and isn't worried that if a few of his customers make some alterations to products they buy from him they will try to compete with him on that basis. The man knows his stuff, and the man knows his market, and if one of his customers wants to extend the barrel on one of his units, I bet his main concern is that the customer is happy with the changes they make.
One last thing. Short as the barrel is, it is perfectly centered and shows no chance of causing the bullet to hit the side of the .44 barrel before it exits. That might happen if the .44 barrel was about 10 feet long, but it comes no where near the sides of the 18" barrel on this carbine. I know because I put a piece of masking take on the muzzle and fired a CB cap. The exit .22 hole was dead centered to the .44 barrel. Like I said, the man knows his stuff.
When I talked about making a longer barrel to use with my Kirst .22 conversion for the Remington Revolving Carbine, I was talking about shade tree gunsmithing for myself.
First, although I am no patent attorney, I think that if I am making an alteration to my own rifle with no intention of using that alteration for commercial purposes, there would not be any patent infringement. Second, although I am sure Kirst has any patent protections they may have been able to secure for their own business protection, I would doubt that barrel length would be something that could be patented. There is nothing unique or patentable about variations of barrel length. Third, I talked to Jay Strite, the Gunsmith at Kirst about this very subject.
That was when he told me about their ability to provide custom length barrels for this conversion unit. I asked him about my doing this very thing to my unit, and he expressed no problem with me doing that on my own unit, other than explaining to me that their barrel wasn't simply screwed into the breechblock. He advised that I would have to remove the barrel and drill out and tap the block to accept a longer barrel. He explained the reason they kept the barrel short was to allow the unit to be installed from the breech end of the revolver without having to worry about screwing in a seperate barrel from the front of the barrel. He explained that while that could be done, as was done on an original .22 conversion unit that they based their unit on, they didn't want their users to be concerned with headspace adjustments which some users might find confusing. When I explained that I understood that and that I was thinking about altering the unit I bought from them to be more like the original with a longer barrel, he basically said, "yeah, you could do that. It would void the warantee though." He said the same thing when I brought up the posibility about me cutting a gate area in the back plate of the .22 unit so I didn't have to remove the unit to reload.
The bottom line is that in my conversations with Jay, he understood that I was a very happy and loyal customer that wanted his opinion about customizing a product he manufactured to make it more usable for myself. I never got the impression that he was concerned that I had some motive involving a potential patent infringement with his product.
He designed his product in such a way that he felt would serve the majority of his customers best, and I got the feeling that he had already considered everything that I spoke with him about. If I wanted to paint his product pink because I liked it that way, he had no problem with me making it more to my own liking for myself. I think he is also quite secure in his own manufacturing capabilities, and isn't worried that if a few of his customers make some alterations to products they buy from him they will try to compete with him on that basis. The man knows his stuff, and the man knows his market, and if one of his customers wants to extend the barrel on one of his units, I bet his main concern is that the customer is happy with the changes they make.
One last thing. Short as the barrel is, it is perfectly centered and shows no chance of causing the bullet to hit the side of the .44 barrel before it exits. That might happen if the .44 barrel was about 10 feet long, but it comes no where near the sides of the 18" barrel on this carbine. I know because I put a piece of masking take on the muzzle and fired a CB cap. The exit .22 hole was dead centered to the .44 barrel. Like I said, the man knows his stuff.
OP
OP
Hoof Hearted
Member
I'm sorry that you miss-read what I typed into all of this ........ it appears that I have gotten you "ruffled up" and I apologize that I gave you the wrong impression.
When I talked about making a longer barrel to use with my Kirst .22 conversion for the Remington Revolving Carbine, I was talking about shade tree gunsmithing for myself.
First, although I am no patent attorney, I think that if I am making an alteration to my own rifle with no intention of using that alteration for commercial purposes, there would not be any patent infringement. Second, although I am sure Kirst has any patent protections they may have been able to secure for their own business protection, I would doubt that barrel length would be something that could be patented. There is nothing unique or patentable about variations of barrel length. Third, I talked to Jay Strite, the Gunsmith at Kirst about this very subject.
That was when he told me about their ability to provide custom length barrels for this conversion unit. I asked him about my doing this very thing to my unit, and he expressed no problem with me doing that on my own unit, other than explaining to me that their barrel wasn't simply screwed into the breechblock. He advised that I would have to remove the barrel and drill out and tap the block to accept a longer barrel. He explained the reason they kept the barrel short was to allow the unit to be installed from the breech end of the revolver without having to worry about screwing in a seperate barrel from the front of the barrel. He explained that while that could be done, as was done on an original .22 conversion unit that they based their unit on, they didn't want their users to be concerned with headspace adjustments which some users might find confusing. When I explained that I understood that and that I was thinking about altering the unit I bought from them to be more like the original with a longer barrel, he basically said, "yeah, you could do that. It would void the warantee though." He said the same thing when I brought up the posibility about me cutting a gate area in the back plate of the .22 unit so I didn't have to remove the unit to reload.
The bottom line is that in my conversations with Jay, he understood that I was a very happy and loyal customer that wanted his opinion about customizing a product he manufactured to make it more usable for myself. I never got the impression that he was concerned that I had some motive involving a potential patent infringement with his product.
He designed his product in such a way that he felt would serve the majority of his customers best, and I got the feeling that he had already considered everything that I spoke with him about. If I wanted to paint his product pink because I liked it that way, he had no problem with me making it more to my own liking for myself. I think he is also quite secure in his own manufacturing capabilities, and isn't worried that if a few of his customers make some alterations to products they buy from him they will try to compete with him on that basis. The man knows his stuff, and the man knows his market, and if one of his customers wants to extend the barrel on one of his units, I bet his main concern is that the customer is happy with the changes they make.
One last thing. Short as the barrel is, it is perfectly centered and shows no chance of causing the bullet to hit the side of the .44 barrel before it exits. That might happen if the .44 barrel was about 10 feet long, but it comes no where near the sides of the 18" barrel on this carbine. I know because I put a piece of masking take on the muzzle and fired a CB cap. The exit .22 hole was dead centered to the .44 barrel. Like I said, the man knows his stuff.
I am VERY familiar with both sides of your conversations with Jay Strite having done T&D work for Walt Kirst for a number of years now and I am the installer for many of the Kirst products. Jay and I discussed this thread and the ones you have posted on other forums Saturday as I was confused because you had posted that you had a "gated ring" (there is NO gated ring for the 22 and you meant to say PORTED).
I spoke of patent infringement in general terms so that OTHERS who may be following this thread would understand WHY the barrel liner isn't longer and why Kirst does not provide a screw in (from the front) arrangement like you want to do to your carbine, that is all..........
I am VERY proud of what you have done and for a second time, compliment you on a handsome looking carbine!
Majes
Member
On a positive note, the miscommunication brought out some valuable information for the rest of us 
I can think of quit a few customizations I'd like to try with this set up myself.
Thanks for sharing!
I can think of quit a few customizations I'd like to try with this set up myself.
Thanks for sharing!
OP
OP
Hoof Hearted
Member
That was my intention (not the miss-communication part).........On a positive note, the miscommunication brought out some valuable information for the rest of us
I can think of quit a few customizations I'd like to try with this set up myself.
Thanks for sharing!
If I can help you in any way shoot me a PM!
Regards, Gary
tom e gun
Member
are there any plans being thrown about for a .22 kirst konverter for colt clones? or just sticking with the remmies? i have seen chamber inserts for revolvers chambered in .45 colt but i think a kirst setup like there is for the remmingtons would be much better.
OP
OP
Hoof Hearted
Member
Yes, they are in the develpoment phase!
SMPARKINSON
Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2011
- Messages
- 19
.22 Revolving Carbine with extended barrel liner
Hi Hoof Hearted,
Don't worry, I didn't take your comments in any sort of negative way. It probably seemed like I was getting defensive because I get so long winded. If you see som of my posts on CASCITY you will see that I never use 10 words to express my opinion if I can figure out a way to use 100 words to say the same thing. On CASCITY I have been accused of giving people headaches from my long posts! It's 'cause I'm gettin' old and am alone except for my cat. He don't mind me talkin' a lot, but he doesn't know much about guns, so I gotta' get long winded here!
Anyway, first of all I very much appreciate your kind words about my little revolving carbine. I took it to the range this weekend to give it it's first workout. At 50 yards it did surprisingly well considering the stubby barrel, but as has been noted by others, the sight radius probably makes as much difference as the barrel length when it comes to hittin' your target. One more thing I did was to use an extra lock ring I got with my Malcolm scope to lock the front of the scope tube to the spring at the front mount. This actually does a pretty good job of preventing scope rotation, kind of similar to a Pope style rail found on the old sliding scopes that kept them from rotating. Even though the lock ring keeps it from rotating, it still allows the slight amount of movement at the front to accomodate the Unertle style adjusters on the rear mount.
That little carbine got a lot of attention at the range! Most people have seen ads for the cap & ball revolving carbine, but they never saw anything like this type of setup with a gate cut into the backplate and SA style ejector installed on the barrel, and especially the little scope mounted on the topstrap. It's really satisfying to have fellow shooters admire some customizing you have done yourself. Anyway, once I got it sighted in I was able to get about 4" to 5" groups at 50 yards. Not great, but if I can do that with that little barrel..........
My plan for the longer barrel was to have the little barrel removed, and drill and tap the block to accept the long barrel from the front. Slide it in from the muzzle end, screw it into the block, and have a threaded nut at the muzzle end to secure the barrel in place. The barrel liner would have a few small pieces of disposable ear plugs along the length to keep it centered in the rifle barrel, kind of like the way Lee Shaver has them on his .22 liner for .45 caliber rifles. If it works for him, I guess it will work for me. Anyway, thats my plan to get a longer barrel working in the .22 conversion. For the average user who is just converting his 1858 revolver for plinking, I think that Jay Strite and Kirst have the best setup. I'm just one of those guys who likes to get something and make some changes so that it suits my needs exactly, and I am raairly happy until I've done that. When I get an older gun, I like to make it look newer as long as I'm not destroying any collector value. And when I get something new, I generally like to make it look like something that was carried back in the 1880's. My first Winchester 94 was made in the begining of 1965, but the one really good thing about it was that it looked like they maybe grabbed a 1964 stock for it, so the wood was pretty good. But the metal just didn't have any charactor to it at all. I took it apart and subjected all the exposed surfaces to as much abuse as I could with a mixture of mustard, vinagar, ketsup, salt, a little cold blue and a little sugar to make it all sticky. I spent about 2 weeks on that, and probably gave it a total of 10 treatments of rust and cleanings. I even took it into the bathroom with me when I would have a steamy long shower. When I was done it looked like a rifle that would have been carried by a cowboy in 1896. Started out as about the least desirable model 94 you would see, except for the wood, and ended up with an Old West Lever Gun. I enjoyed it for a while than I used it in trade. I paid $225. for it and got about $350. in trade for it, mainly because the person trading for it liked it's vintage look. And that's why I love guns.
Hi Hoof Hearted,
Don't worry, I didn't take your comments in any sort of negative way. It probably seemed like I was getting defensive because I get so long winded. If you see som of my posts on CASCITY you will see that I never use 10 words to express my opinion if I can figure out a way to use 100 words to say the same thing. On CASCITY I have been accused of giving people headaches from my long posts! It's 'cause I'm gettin' old and am alone except for my cat. He don't mind me talkin' a lot, but he doesn't know much about guns, so I gotta' get long winded here!
Anyway, first of all I very much appreciate your kind words about my little revolving carbine. I took it to the range this weekend to give it it's first workout. At 50 yards it did surprisingly well considering the stubby barrel, but as has been noted by others, the sight radius probably makes as much difference as the barrel length when it comes to hittin' your target. One more thing I did was to use an extra lock ring I got with my Malcolm scope to lock the front of the scope tube to the spring at the front mount. This actually does a pretty good job of preventing scope rotation, kind of similar to a Pope style rail found on the old sliding scopes that kept them from rotating. Even though the lock ring keeps it from rotating, it still allows the slight amount of movement at the front to accomodate the Unertle style adjusters on the rear mount.
That little carbine got a lot of attention at the range! Most people have seen ads for the cap & ball revolving carbine, but they never saw anything like this type of setup with a gate cut into the backplate and SA style ejector installed on the barrel, and especially the little scope mounted on the topstrap. It's really satisfying to have fellow shooters admire some customizing you have done yourself. Anyway, once I got it sighted in I was able to get about 4" to 5" groups at 50 yards. Not great, but if I can do that with that little barrel..........
My plan for the longer barrel was to have the little barrel removed, and drill and tap the block to accept the long barrel from the front. Slide it in from the muzzle end, screw it into the block, and have a threaded nut at the muzzle end to secure the barrel in place. The barrel liner would have a few small pieces of disposable ear plugs along the length to keep it centered in the rifle barrel, kind of like the way Lee Shaver has them on his .22 liner for .45 caliber rifles. If it works for him, I guess it will work for me. Anyway, thats my plan to get a longer barrel working in the .22 conversion. For the average user who is just converting his 1858 revolver for plinking, I think that Jay Strite and Kirst have the best setup. I'm just one of those guys who likes to get something and make some changes so that it suits my needs exactly, and I am raairly happy until I've done that. When I get an older gun, I like to make it look newer as long as I'm not destroying any collector value. And when I get something new, I generally like to make it look like something that was carried back in the 1880's. My first Winchester 94 was made in the begining of 1965, but the one really good thing about it was that it looked like they maybe grabbed a 1964 stock for it, so the wood was pretty good. But the metal just didn't have any charactor to it at all. I took it apart and subjected all the exposed surfaces to as much abuse as I could with a mixture of mustard, vinagar, ketsup, salt, a little cold blue and a little sugar to make it all sticky. I spent about 2 weeks on that, and probably gave it a total of 10 treatments of rust and cleanings. I even took it into the bathroom with me when I would have a steamy long shower. When I was done it looked like a rifle that would have been carried by a cowboy in 1896. Started out as about the least desirable model 94 you would see, except for the wood, and ended up with an Old West Lever Gun. I enjoyed it for a while than I used it in trade. I paid $225. for it and got about $350. in trade for it, mainly because the person trading for it liked it's vintage look. And that's why I love guns.
Busyhands94
Member
I have been toying around with that idea lately, I might do that. I figure as long as I time the cylinder and chamber it I should be fine. I don't think accuracy will be much of a problem, as long as I use a barrel with a fast twist it should stabilize the rounds just fine. My NAA revolver is accurate, you just need to hold it still for it to work. If you put it in a vice and shoot all five rounds onto paper in a bullet trap you will have all the rounds in one ragged hole. I figure with the sight radius of the Remmy I could get decent accuracy. And if the accuracy isn't good enough and the bullets keyhole then I could probably just make a barrel that has a rim on it and a separate forcing cone that will go into the barrel and catch on the forcing cone of the Remington.
The cool part is I could probably shoot CB caps or Aguilla CB caps in the shop when I can't get out to the range. That would be sweet!
OP
OP
Hoof Hearted
Member
I think the single barrel idea has the potential to be more accurate and I would work on ways to keep it stable in the host revolver......like bushing with brass.
You could easily ream the chambers and turn 22 barrel or liner to fit then rechamer each one BUT concentricity would be paramount. I would advise reaming on the mill. You could conceivably end up with 6 different points of aim. This is why the revolver with forcing cone design surpassed the pepperbox.
A Colt .22 conversion cylinder would be sweet. That would allow the use of a full 7.5" .22 barrel that wouldn't infringe on any patents.
I'd like to have a longer barrel insert than the Remington version uses, because I'd like to use mine for plinking and small game hunting.
I'd like to have a longer barrel insert than the Remington version uses, because I'd like to use mine for plinking and small game hunting.
OP
OP
Hoof Hearted
Member
In the pipeline...........I'll keep you posted when the first batch is ready for sale!
Busyhands94
Member
Alright then, I guess making a barrel that slides in the existing barrel would be fine. I imagine if I made the barrel with a rim kinda like a giant .22 that it would stop in the forcing cone it would be fine. What about turning a section down a little further, that way I could fit a longer barrel, so it would have kind of a neck to it.
I just like this idea so much, either way I am not going to fork over my money on a conversion cylinder just so I can shoot .22s, for the price of a converter I could buy a decent .22 rifle or two. I'd rather just make it myself. That would be just pretty cool! The good thing being when I run out of percussion caps I can buy bulk .22 at Wally World and still be able to shoot.
I just like this idea so much, either way I am not going to fork over my money on a conversion cylinder just so I can shoot .22s, for the price of a converter I could buy a decent .22 rifle or two. I'd rather just make it myself. That would be just pretty cool! The good thing being when I run out of percussion caps I can buy bulk .22 at Wally World and still be able to shoot.
SMPARKINSON
Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2011
- Messages
- 19
Jamo, for what it's worth Jay Strite from Kirst told me that they are working on an 1851 conversion in .22 rimfire. I think he said they actually had already made prototypes, but production wouldn't be for a while yet. He did say that the 1851 would be the next rimfire conversion offered, and I think on down the line they plan on doing several model in .22, and they can already do a lot on a custom basis.
He said they can do a Remington Pocket .31 to .22, but I think he said it would be about $400. plus you supply the revolver. But that pocket .31 in .22 rimfire would be really nice. If it was gated and had an ejector it would be like a Ruger Bearcat, only with about a thousand times more personality. I had a Bearcat once, and that is just a great size for a .22 carry for the woods and plinking. By the way, I've had a few H&R's too. I've always liked the break open revolvers, and as long as the hinge is tight, they are great. The main problem is when people snap the action closed instead of retracting the lockpiece and closing it gently.
He said they can do a Remington Pocket .31 to .22, but I think he said it would be about $400. plus you supply the revolver. But that pocket .31 in .22 rimfire would be really nice. If it was gated and had an ejector it would be like a Ruger Bearcat, only with about a thousand times more personality. I had a Bearcat once, and that is just a great size for a .22 carry for the woods and plinking. By the way, I've had a few H&R's too. I've always liked the break open revolvers, and as long as the hinge is tight, they are great. The main problem is when people snap the action closed instead of retracting the lockpiece and closing it gently.
OP
OP
Hoof Hearted
Member
Actually it appears that a 22 conversion for the SAA might be next, there seems to be a lot of interest amongst the SASS shooters!
Here are pics of what the 22 1863 Pocket Remington looks like (compared to an original Pocket Conversion).
- Status
