.36 Navy/ .44 Navy cylinder comparison

[catfish33]

Thinking about converting my .44 Navy to a .38 conversion like is avavilable for the .36 Navy. Does anyone out there have both revolvers? If you do can you please compare the cylinders. Maybe by putting the .36 cyl. on the .44 frame and barrel and see if everything works properly. Would greatly appreciate any help on this. If the same I am thinking of having my barrel lined for the .38 and getting a gated conversion from R&D. Also sent this e-mail to R&D and am awaiting their reply. "Is it true that you will soon be offering such a thing (http://www.midwayusa.com/eproductpage.exe/showproduct?saleitemid=967945)?
I would love to have one but fail to see how this is possible. Please tell me this is true. And can you tell me how you are getting it to work with out wiping out the ratchet on the cylinder. Thanks in advance. Eagerly awaiting your reply." Also sent them this e-mail to answer another question I had a while back. "1851 Pietta .44 Navy and 1860 Pietta .44 Army Cylinders. I have been told by a few people that these cylinders are indeed the same. I am just wondering why (if not) the .44 Army conversion would not work on the .44 Navy? Thanks in advance. Eagerly awaiting your reply.

 

[LEE3370]

Conversions

Catfish,
Is your "44 Navy" a brass frame? If so, you don't use the conversion on a brass frame. I am waiting for R&D to get the 1858 gated conversion on the market.
Lee

 

[catfish33]

No mine is the steel frame. Wouldn't dream of doing a conversion on a brass frame. Where abouts in southern Indiana are you located?

 

[catfish33]

Here is the reply I recieved from R&D.
"We make our cylinders specifically for the particular revolver they fit. We do not promote cylinders being interchanged in other models. If you want to buy one and try it that is your decision and we are not liable and the cylinders are not returnable.
The 1860 gated conversion kit should be available for purchase is approximately 60 days. The process of the gated conversion kit is a patented process they we will not divulge.
Thank you for your interest.
Jennifer
R & D Gun Shop"

About what I figured from them. They have to cover their asses. I am surprised there is no return on their cylinder conversions. I sent a similar question directly to Pietta. We will see what they say.

 

[Old Fuff]

When Colt originally designed what became the 1860 Army they used a slightly modified 1851 Navy frame. The .44 cylinder was rebated, bigger at the front and smaller at the back. The rear part is the same as the 1851 Navy, the front part is larger, and the chambers are slightly tapered, and come out the same at the back end.

The various clones are made the same way. Therefore a cylinder made for an 1851 Navy should fit the same maker's 1860 Army frame, although there will be a step in the bottom of the frame toward the front. Barrels might be another matter. I suspect you are correct in thinking a .44 barrel would have to be fitted and then lined to the smaller bore.

I would think that in the long run you might be better off buying an 1851 or 1861 Navy replica, and doing a conversion on it. After buying a second barrel and having the required work done the cost factor may not be that much different, and you'd have the option of shooting the .36 revolver as a cap & ball.

 

[catfish33]

Well Old Fuff if they come back and verify the cylinders are the same between the .44 Navy and the .44 Army are the same I will stick with the .45 LC Conversion. I am just nervous about ordering one without now for SURE since I can not return it. Especially interested in the gated conversion. That is the reason I though of going with the .38 instead until I saw they will be offering the gated for the .44. Alot nicer than having to take the barrel off to load it.

 

[Old Fuff]

That is the reason I though of going with the .38 instead until I saw they will be offering the gated for the .44. Alot nicer than having to take the barrel off to load it.

I think that this is one reason the Remington 1858 pattern is more popular for making cap & ball-to-cartridge conversions ...

Again, watch your bore diameter vs. bullet diameter depending on what cartridge you end up picking.

Interestingly enough, my original 1862 Pocket Navy doesn't have a gate, and the cartridges don't fall out, but that's because it's a 5-shot/.38 RF. Others had a gate, built into the conversion ring.

 

[catfish33]

The .45 conversion will also be a 5 shot. Always wondered if the gate was necessary. The shells should fit snug enough.

 

[Old Fuff]

When the cylinder is locked the round in line with the loading groove in the recoil shield has to be offset just enough so that the cartridge can't fall out. Apparently in the case of this conversion that isn't the way it is, or maybe they (and most buyers) prefer the gate although it makes the conversion more expensive.

I can see why it would have to be a 5-shot because the size of the cylinder is reduced at the back (on the C&B cylinder). The conversion cylinder can't be bigger then that. Colt originally solved this by modifying the frame to take a straight large-diameter cylinder in their 1872 model. The basic open-top design wasn't strong enough however, and a year later they followed with the 1873 Siingle Action Army, and the rest is history.

In the Colt open-top platform I much prefer the .38 Colt or .38 Special cartridge.

 

[catfish33]

Thansk for the replies Old Fuff. I would say the .38's would allow the open tops to survive for a longer period. But I won't be shooting this revolver all that much (yeah right). If I do I will probably pick up a Colt SAA.

 

[Old Fuff]

Part of the problem is that because of the way the barrel is held against the frame the barrel gap between the cylinder and barrel can change, depending on how far the wedge is driven in. Thus, each time you remove the barrel the gap will, or can, change. If it is excessive, the cylinder will pound the barrel face during recoil, and in time a crack may develop in the base pin where it is slotted for the wedge. The fact that this slot usually has sharp corners at the front doesn't help. It is highly recommended that these conversions be used with black-powder handloads as the pressure develops slower then with smokeless powder. The "black powder only" warning on the barrel doesn't change when you go from C&B to cartridge.

Given all of this, the .38 Colt or .38 Special cartridge makes more sense to me.

Most of the original revolvers were not conversions, but new guns made with left-over parts from the Civil War era. Colt simply wanted to get a financial return on this inventory, and the guns sold for discounted prices reflecting this. Many of them were sold to Mexico and/or other Central American countries.

 

[catfish33]

Here is the Reply I got from Pietta. "Yes correct
the best regards,
F.lli Pietta " WOO HOO