.38 conversion cylinder...worth the money?

[Guvnor]

Im debating purchasing a Kirst converter for a remington .36 new army police. They say you can fire .38 special hollow-based wadcutters with these cylinders. I like this idea because .38 HBWC are easy to find...unlike .38 long colt.

I understand the .36 has a bigger bore than a .38 special, but supposedly the hollow base of the wadcutter expands and catches the rifling, providing respectable accuracy despite the oversized bore.

Is this true?

I am also concerned about velocity loss from the oversized bore. Does the HBWC help prevent this? Anyone chrono-ed one of these conversions?

Thanks!

 

[Old Fuff]

I understand the .36 has a bigger bore than a .38 special, but supposedly the hollow base of the wadcutter expands and catches the rifling, providing respectable accuracy despite the oversized bore.

It depends on what you call "respectable"....

The groove diameter in some cap & ball revolvers run between .375" to .380" while .38 Special bullets are usually .358". That's a lot of expanding for the bullet's base to do. The cartridge-converted style revolvers that are made to shoot metallic cartridges in the first place have barrels with bores that are correct for the cartridge's bullet.

If the accuracy in your revolver turns out to not be what you expected you can have the barrel drilled out and a liner of the correct size installed. But the cost of the cylinder and barrel work would go a long way toward buying a cartridge revolver of the same kind in the first place.

 

[Guvnor]

Thanks for the reply.

I was thinking of doing it so I could bring the gun to a local indoor range with the conversion cylinder in. I love shooting black powder too but the outdoor range is a much further drive.

But it seems like alot of money to spend on something that might not shoot well. I may just stick with the old cap and ball and leave well enough alone.

 

[Old Fuff]

Personally I wouldn't give up the idea entirely. Set aside the money you were planing to spend on the cylinder and then add to it when you can until you can buy a similar revolver that's made to shoot metallic cartridges. In their own way, both guns are fun.

 

[Coyote3855]

I have a .45 Colt conversion cylinder for a Pietta Remington New Army .44. It dropped right in and is a hoot to shoot. But that combination doesn't have the .36/.38 dimentions issues that Old Fuff points out. His suggestion to consider a replica revolver that's already converted is excellent, and probably not much more than twice the cost of the conversion cylinder. Cimarron, EMF, Buffalo Arms, and other importers carry them.

 

[Curator]

If you have facilities to cast your own bullets you can get the proper "heeled" bullet mould to shoot the .38 conversion with good accuracy. The original conversions did not shoot the kind of bullets currently in vogue. They had a short "heel" that fit inside the case and the rest of the bullet was the same diameter as the case (about .382 for the .38 special) This worked out great with the Cap & Ball .375-.382 groove diameter barrels. These cartridges were often refered to as "outside lubricated" as the lube grooves were not inside the case. They were just like modern .22 rim fire bullets. Gun and ammo manufactures switched to undersize bullets inside the case to prevent dirt and grit from embedding in the bullet lube.

 

[rcflint]

I shoot several Kirst and R&D converted Uberti Navies, both Colt and Remington. I have no accuracy problem, and the skirt of the HBWC does open up enough to seal the bore. The accuracy will fall off at long range, 50 yards or so and the slow twist will catch up with the arrohwad effect of the hollowbased bullet. At CAS range, and at the distances available in an indoor range, there is little problem and the guns are quite accurate.

The other advantage the Kirst or R&D cylinder will give you is the ability to safely shoot smokeless powder, which, I am sure, an indoor range will demand.

As far as "worth the money" is concerned, either Kirst or R&D cylinders are far better made and of better steel than the gun you put them in, and when or if the gun wears out, the host gun is the throw-away part, the cylinder should last into the next century.

 

[Old Fuff]

The Old Fuff does not consider 50 yards to be "long range."

Anyway, as I noted in post #2:

It depends on what you call "respectable"....

in reference to accuracy.

While the accuracy obtainable from a cap & ball revolver shooting bullets through an oversized bore may be acceptable to some, it will seldom or never equal that obtainable from a similar revolver that has a barrel that has the correct sized bore for the bullet being shot through it. This observation would be true at any distance, but more so at longer ranges.

I haven't thrown away any revolvers yet, cap & ball or otherwise, but I would note that while the R&D cylinder is of unquestionably high quality, it is probable that the next revolver you put it in would also have an oversized bore.

Therefore I stand by my previous advice...

 

[DrLaw]

I wouldn't

I tend to be more like Hickock in my black powder pistols, clinging to the muzzleloading concept even though there are cat-ridge guns out there.

If I want to shoot .38, I haul out my Smith & Wesson Model 15, 12, 36, 66, 27 or 586 and shoot away.

Since I also would want a timed piece, being a simpleton and not able to figure out timing issues on a gun, I would rather pick up a ready-made conversion such as the ones sold by Uberti.

But who am I to say. Whatever floats your boat.

The Doc is out now.

 

[Old Fuff]

Seeing that I said:

Personally I wouldn't give up the idea entirely. Set aside the money you were planing to spend on the cylinder and then add to it when you can, until you can buy a similar revolver that's made to shoot metallic cartridges. In their own way, both guns are fun.

Why do you say:

Since I also would want a timed piece, being a simpleton and not able to figure out timing issues on a gun, I would rather pick up a ready-made conversion such as the ones sold by Uberti.

And imply that we're in disagreement?