Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

a brain teaser

Discussion in 'Blackpowder' started by Nicodemus38, Jan 23, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Nicodemus38

    Nicodemus38 Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2009
    Messages:
    583
    heres a good one for you people here to wake you up to reason and logic.

    the common saying is not to get a cartridge conversion for a 1851 colt in 44 as the frame "couldnt stand" the pressure as it was originally intended for .36.

    however the wise sages say the 1860 colt army revolver is ideal for a cartridge conversion to use 45 long or 45 sw.


    but the issue and teaser i have is,


    the 1860 IS an 1851 navy frame. so how can the parent gun be insufficient for the cartridge conversion when it still has more steel in it?
     
  2. mykeal

    mykeal Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    5,147
    Location:
    Michigan
    I must be missing something. I'm not aware of this common saying. The only 'issue' I'm aware of is the admonition against using a conversion on the brass frame version of either gun.
     
  3. pohill

    pohill Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2006
    Messages:
    1,853
    You couldn't get a .44 cylinder to fit in the 1851 frame - the frame of the 1860 .44 is "stepped down."
    Or did I miss something?
    OK, I see - you're talking about a modern Italian repro 1851 in .44, right?
     
  4. madcratebuilder

    madcratebuilder Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2007
    Messages:
    5,020
    Location:
    Northern Orygun
    IMHO any open top Colt is unsuitable for a cartridge conversion. These revolvers were designed to fire cap and ball loads with the stress centered around the arbor. When you shoot a conversion cylinder all the stress is moved to the top of the recoil shield. This can cause cracks between the bottom corner of the frame and bolt pivot screw.
     
  5. mykeal

    mykeal Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    5,147
    Location:
    Michigan
    Wow. I don't see that at all. How does changing from a percussion cylinder to a cartridge cylinder change the load paths? The mechanical connections and force vectors are identical.
     
  6. junkman_01

    junkman_01 member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2009
    Messages:
    1,728
    Location:
    Florida
    I'm with Mykeal. madcratebuilder's theory of 'force displacement' is all wet.
     
  7. Shoot The Moon

    Shoot The Moon Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2010
    Messages:
    161
    Location:
    England at the moment
    I think I can see what madcratebuilder means - the C&B cylinder only touches the recoil shield around the arbor - the nipple would never contact the gun other than when the hammer falls on it. In the conversion, the cartridge case is in direct contact with the top of the shield and therefore as that round is fired, the case pushes back onto that area of the gun.

    (it's all academic to me, we British subjects aren't allowed cartridges!)
     
  8. rdstrain49

    rdstrain49 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2010
    Messages:
    343
    Location:
    South Dakota / Black Hills
    +1 for the mad crate guy
     
  9. junkman_01

    junkman_01 member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2009
    Messages:
    1,728
    Location:
    Florida
    I won't buy it unless I can see an example of these cracks.

    +1 for mykeal
     
  10. LightningMan

    LightningMan Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    1,029
    I thought the parent gun to the 51' Navy was the 61' Navy, not the 60' Army. As to cracks between the bottom corner of the frame and bolt pivot screw, I have an original 60' Army Conversion and just don't see it in mine, even though it looks well used. I myself have even shot it a few time with black powder cartridges. LM
     
  11. junkman_01

    junkman_01 member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2009
    Messages:
    1,728
    Location:
    Florida
    The gun the OP is referring to is a .44 cal. 1851 Navy. The frame on such a revolver is from the 1860 Army .44 caliber.
     
  12. ontarget

    ontarget Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2009
    Messages:
    674
    Location:
    Michigan (Gods country)
    MCB makes sense to me in theory. But would they make these conversions if they weren't safe ? Liability being what it is and all?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page