cap and ball revolver in .357 magnum?

[DPris]

Had some CAS friends a while back. She was a great shooter, he was a decent gunsmith.
She liked the opentop conversions to .38 Special as her two main match handguns.
Lasted about a year. He, as a gunsmith, could not keep them running.

Granted, CAS involves heavy usage, but those guns ARE limited in what they can handle.
Just because a maker offers a ready-made conversion doesn't mean it's designed for either hot modern loads or extended use of even mild loads.

And, no conversion cylinder maker I'm aware of recommends doing a cartridge conversion on a brass-framed revolver, so that's another thing to keep in mind.
Denis

 

[BCRider]

The Italian copies need to be proofed before they can be sold, so they will withstand "standard"loadings. I have a Richards conversion of the 1860, chambered for the 44 Colt, and reload for it. I use blackpowder and lead, nothing fancy but it works.

Proofed means that the guns will handle the pressure of the rounds without blowing up in our hands. But as I suspected and as DPris' story would seem to bear out is that nothing says that they are proofed against shooting themselves loose in any number of ways.

Something to consider if you really want to do this is to do the conversion but leave the stamp on the barrel that says "Black Powder Only". Then load your .357Mag casings with Pyrodex or honest black powder. You'll get recoil that is roughly consistent with a decently strong .38Spl but it'll do it with a pressure curve which is far more friendly to the frame and action of these guns.

 

[jason41987]

theres enough metal in the right placeson the 1858s to do such a conversion, thats not the issue, it would be metalurgy... mechanically these old revolvers are not that much different from later single action cartridge revolvers that do in fact fire 357 magnum now, so it would depend on the metal used... if the proper alloy is used, and nearly any high carbon steel would be suitable if hardened properly, an 1858 would have the structural integrity to handle quite powerful loads, moreso than an 1858 colt which is a bit slimmer and narrower on the top and in other places

i think an 1860 or an 1851 would be out of the question, unfortunately... where the pressure would be on the revolver is high enough of an axis that it would put a lot of stress where the barrel assembly meets the frame, which is not that strong of a joint, and even if the front barrel assembly and frame was all one piece, the lack of a top strap would still be an issue... in fact, im suprised the colt handles some of the black powder loads i see people use in them

so from an engineering standpoint, the 1858 has the right build and enough material where it needs to be to be structurally sound for even more than 357 mag... its actually very close to the frame used in the 1875, of course, the 1875 redesigned the front end to engineer-out the lever... again, so long as its made of a suitable alloy, and properly hardened

does anyone know which metals are used on the various manufacturers of '58 clones?

 

[AJumbo]

Jason, I beg to differ... re-read my previous post about the '75 Remington clones chambered for .357. While mild loads (think .38 Special, non-+P) weren't a problem, shooters could and did run full-power .357s from these revolvers, and discovered that the basic design wasn't up to handling a steady diet of that kind of pressure. (My information here comes from a gunsmith who did a lot of work on CAS guns.) In .44 WCF of .45 Colt, you can load your ammo with bullets in the 220-260 gr. range and push them with all the black powder you can fit in the case and hand those pistols will still be functional when you hand them down to your grandkids.

The reproduction arms we're getting these days are well made, constructed of modern steels and put together by folks who know their jobs, but they were designed for 19th century ammunition. Want an old-timey lookin' .357 that won't gradually disassemble itself? Colt made SAAs in .357, and Ruger is chambering Blackhawks for .357 even as we speak.

Fun fact; until the advent of the .357, the most powerful production revolver to be had was the Colt Walker.

 

[barnbwt]

If the original low-strength alloy guns were designed to shoot 19th century ammo, and a reproduction is made with better materials, the parts will be even stronger. Whether or not that is enough, is what is unknown, until someone runs a stress analysis on every load-bearing part and interface.

I've looked into this subject a lot recently as I move to rechamber my Steyr M95; lot's of people are convinced that a 45/70 would pop the action, even though bolt thrust and chamber pressure are both lower--they just don't feel like a 100yo gun (designed originally for BP) could hold up to modern hot smokeless loads. I have no clue what the stress allowables on the gun's metals are, but by staying below the current load levels, I can only increase the safety margin.

Similarly, unless you run the numbers yourself and prove that modern powerful ammunition is safe for every component in that gun (including fatigue failures), the only rational choice is to accept the stronger modern alloys add to the gun's unknown safety factor. Yes, they're stronger, but we don't know how much, so we cannot rely on it.

TCB

 

[CraigC]

If there's a problem with the 1875 replicas in .357Mag (and I know of no such issues), it's not the design, it's the materials used. The design was proven plenty strong when Hartford Armory started, or planned to, producing 1875 and 1890 replicas in .44Mag with zero design changes.

 

[AJumbo]

OK; if there's enough cylinder length in an 1861 Colt to chamber it for .357, then do it. I expect you'll soon find out why Kirst and all the other conversion cylinder makers don't produce that particular item.

Insofar as Hartford Armory..... yeah, I lusted after their vaporware '75s, but was told by the booth guy at Winter Range that they were to be offered in .45 Colt and .44 WCF; the brochure didn't mention .44 Mag, either. Perhaps those plans changed before they decided to pull the plug.

If memory serves, Guns Of The Old West (or maybe American Handgunner?) once ran a short piece about a 'smith who was making open-top Rugers. Apparently, he was cutting top strap out of Blackhawks and Bisleys, thereby producing something along the line of what the OP is looking for- a brutally strong open top revolver. The was even talk of a slide-action revolver carbine based on his pistols. The 'smith was hoping the idea would catch fire with the CAS crowd. It did not, mostly because it was prohibitively spendy.

 

[Lawdawg45]

you dont think the stainless, which is significantly harder than the steel they use in a lot of the replicas, wouldnt be a good start... i could probably machine the cylinder and lathe the barrel myself, but trying to determine what the end result woud be

Jason, the issue is not so much the metal used, but the open top design of the gun. Even a .38+p in one of these is said to be dangerous.

LD

 

[CraigC]

OK; if there's enough cylinder length in an 1861 Colt to chamber it for .357, then do it. I expect you'll soon find out why Kirst and all the other conversion cylinder makers don't produce that particular item.

Who said anything about doing that?

Like I said, there is nothing wrong with the Remington designs. They are arguably stronger than the Colt SAA. Which we all know holds up just fine to the .357 and more. If there is an issue with the 1875/1890, it is the metallurgy, not the design. Like I also said, the Hartford Armory guns were going to be offered in .44Mag and .45Colt +P and the website still reflects this.

http://www.hartfordarmory.com/remmies.htm

 

[RaceM]

Jason- If I was gonna go about this I'd do the following:

Barrel replacement- Hog out the original and reline to .357, or cut it off and truly replace it with a section of 9mm/.357 barrel.

Cylinder- The originals are pretty thin between chambers so I'd make a new one.

As many have pointed out the frame is the weak portion of the design, especially on open tops. You could reinforce that by adding a top strap.

Since you're talking about doing your own machining there's no reason why the project couldn't be done, just lots of time and engineering involved.

 

[jason41987]

why are people trying to tell me what a colt replica can or cannot do? i already said the colts are pretty much out of the question due to their open top design... i think colts could probably handle a little bit more than they think since the pin holding the cylinder is a fixed part of the frame and will help some, but with no top strap and a thin joint in the front its still unlikely

my idea was to use the 1858 remington which does have a top strap, and enough material where its needed... i can actually run a stress analysis simulation on the frame and from a rough simulation, it can with the right materials used... but to be sure if a pre-existing revolver could handle these stresses, id need to build a model using the exact blueprints, and know the alloy used to make the frame... if the same metals used are the same as the better '75 and 1873 clones, then yeah, i think it would... but i still need to find more information about what materials are used

 

[jason41987]

as for the barrel... i think a .357 barrel replacement would be best.. firing cartridges out of a barrel typically designed for round balls just doesnt seem like it would be the most efficient... so fitting a new barrel would be best no matter which cartridge you decided to fire from it

if anyone knows where i can find blueprints of the 1858, or one of the colts, let me know, id like to model one of these on my computer and run a more accurate stress analysis on the frame