Cartridge Conversion in a Brasser?

[Oohrah!]

OK, off the top I know you're not supposed to this (and I haven't). But the thought occurs ...

I have a Pietta 1851 .44 cal Confederate Sheriff brass frame. My normal load is 25 gr of powder with a .454 round ball (about 140 gr lead). Since I load my own 45LC with 25 gr powder and a 200 gr LRNFP for other pistols, I don't see much difference between these loads. It seems using a cartridge conversion cylinder with these 45LC loads in the brasser would be OK. What about reducing the powder load for the heavier bullet?

Reasons why this not a good idea?

 

[Crawdad1]

Because the manufacturer says not to do it. Buy a steel framed gun.

 

[Armored farmer]

I see your point....but, I'm with Crawdad1.

It's all good, until it goes bad. It always goes bad fast.

 

[Patocazador]

It will work ..... until it doesn't.

 

[Crawdad1]

Their warnings are always, "Do not use in a brass framed revolver" "Never use in a brass frame revolver" I've never seen a warning where its said "Under certain circumstances"

They did all the testing for product liability prior to offering these conversion cylinders to the public, so they should know.

 

[Malachi Leviticus Blue]

"They" also say only use cowboy loads even in a Ruger Old Army. That advice is often ignored as well.

 

[Curator]

The ONLY thing holding your 1851 together when it is fired is the threads of the cylinder arbor in the brass frame. They are barely adequate in a .44 caliber steel frame gun. The threads cut into the soft brass frame will eventually give out even with your "reduced" 25 grain and round ball load. They will give out much faster shooting 200 grain bullets. The 1851 "Navy" pistol was originally designed as a .36 caliber gun shooting a bullet half as heavy as the .44. Even so, .36 caliber brass frame guns eventually have their arbor threads fail, just at a slower rate.

 

[AlexanderA]

Look at the economics. These days, steel-framed replicas are so reasonably priced (sometimes less than the price of a conversion cylinder) that it makes no sense to mess around with the brass-framed ones.

 

[Ephraim Kibbey]

Let's see on one side of the scale we have retrofitting the brasser for fun, economy and convenience on the other side we have the chance of losing body parts that are very useful to you or even your life with no recourse for your bereaved to even sue. Stay Safe!!!

 

[Carl N. Brown]

The brass frame Civil War revolvers were primarily a stop-gap measure by the Confederacy because iron and steel frames were harder to fabricate quickly. (As a side note, many Confederate brass frames were cast from donated church bells. Bellmetal is more a bronze alloy than a brass and is close to the bronze alloy called gunmetal which is what was used in most 19th century "brass" gun frames.)

The makers of conversion cylinders specify steel frame only for a reason. Brass is not as strong as steel.

The cap'n'ball steel cylinder will pound into the brass breech face and leave an impression of the cylinder in the breech face. The gap between cylinder chamber and barrel will grow over time as the frame stretches. Eventually, the cylinder will be so loose the only economic choice is to retire the brass frame revolver to a wall hanger display-only piece.

If I wanted a cartridge conversion revolver, I would go with a steel frame cap'n'ball revolver. Not a brass frame revolver.

 

[whughett]

Well seems the verdict is in , bad idea all around. Love my G&G and Spiller and Burr, but they are pop guns, fun to shoot, pretty to look at.

 

[Cowhide Cliff]

I would say the cartridge would still produce more velocity and pressure with the same charge. You have to lose some through blowback in the nipple and the seal of a round ball is probably not quite as good during the transition from the cylinder to the barrel. It just seems like to me I get a whole lot more filth on the cap and ball guns action compared to cartridges.

 

[whughett]

I would say the cartridge would still produce more velocity and pressure with the same charge. You have to lose some through blowback in the nipple and the seal of a round ball is probably not quite as good during the transition from the cylinder to the barrel. It just seems like to me I get a whole lot more filth on the cap and ball guns action compared to cartridges.

Wonder if the difference of the length of the bearing surface between chamber and barrel as the bullet, opposed to round ball, transits the gap has something to do with that. Black power cartridges definitely shoot cleaner.

 

[Oohrah!]

There appears to be a consensus

I didn't mention that I do have several steel frame revolvers which is why I have the CCs, but just wondering if my idea had any merit - apparently not.

Thank you for taking the time to respond.

 

[WestKentucky]

Their warnings are always, "Do not use in a brass framed revolver" "Never use in a brass frame revolver" I've never seen a warning where its said "Under certain circumstances"

They did all the testing for product liability prior to offering these conversion cylinders to the public, so they should know.

Every gun on the market comes with a pamphlet that says not to use reloaded ammo too. I’m not sure I would do it because I don’t personally know much about the brassers BUT if I did I would certainly be using my own knowledge and research to make a decision. The biggest problem I can see is that a conversion cylinder would not be hand fitted and timed to the gun it is going on. You could have an out of time issue easily and soft brass wouldn’t hold together as well as steel.

 

[AlexanderA]

If I wanted a cartridge conversion revolver, I would go with a steel frame cap'n'ball revolver.

I would actually go farther and say that a frame with a top strap, such as the Remington design, is better for a cartridge conversion than an open-frame Colt design.

 

[Cowhide Cliff]

Wonder if the difference of the length of the bearing surface between chamber and barrel as the bullet, opposed to round ball, transits the gap has something to do with that. Black power cartridges definitely shoot cleaner.

That was always my theory, I don't know of anything else that would make the difference. A friend of mine shoots some conical bullets in his cap and balls but never paid much attention if they were any cleaner after shooting.

 

[Cowhide Cliff]

Every gun on the market comes with a pamphlet that says not to use reloaded ammo too. I’m not sure I would do it because I don’t personally know much about the brassers BUT if I did I would certainly be using my own knowledge and research to make a decision. The biggest problem I can see is that a conversion cylinder would not be hand fitted and timed to the gun it is going on. You could have an out of time issue easily and soft brass wouldn’t hold together as well as steel.

Not sure I go for the timing issue, however better than they used to be most of these italian made cap guns are nothing more than an already assembled kit. They all need some action work to be made right, some more than others.

 

[Crawdad1]

Every gun on the market comes with a pamphlet that says not to use reloaded ammo too. I’m not sure I would do it because I don’t personally know much about the brassers BUT if I did I would certainly be using my own knowledge and research to make a decision. The biggest problem I can see is that a conversion cylinder would not be hand fitted and timed to the gun it is going on. You could have an out of time issue easily and soft brass wouldn’t hold together as well as steel.

Your research or knowledge wouldn't come close to what a person who is making a product and offering it to the public would have prior to offering it to the public and all the product liability lawyers present.

 

[Armored farmer]

We all know how easy it would be for a heavy or 'Ruger only' .45colt load to find its way into that brass framed gun..

 

[45 Dragoon]

The ONLY thing holding your 1851 together when it is fired is the threads of the cylinder arbor in the brass frame. They are barely adequate in a .44 caliber steel frame gun.

Ok, not sure what this even means. A barrel is screwed into the frame of a 454 Casull. The "barely adequate" in a steel frame is preposterous!! My '60 Army and Dragoons shoot "robust" (SMOKLESS no less!) 45C rounds with absolutely no sign of "inadequacy"!

I would actually go farther and say that a frame with a top strap, such as the Remington design, is better for a cartridge conversion than an open-frame Colt design.

How so?!! The Colt arbor design is much stronger than the top strap frame of the Remington. Since the cylinder is what contains the pressure, and the support system from an open top is stronger, what in the world is the reason for wanting a cartridge cylinder in a weaker design?!

Let's just take a "for instance". If a cylinder fails during firing, it breaks at the locking notch (thinest part of the cylinder/chamber). The cylinder is thicker as you go forward and as such, the rupture will go from back to front (away from the shooter). So, the support system isn't the problem as far as cylinder failure. But, in fact, a peripheral square (the frame structure of the top strap revolver) is a rather weak design in comparison to the heavy central arbor of the Colts design. Both designs are a parallelogram but the Remington is a " containment " frame with the force concentrated at a corner (the weakest area of a square) whereas the Colt's peripheral design is more compact (stronger) and the force is closer to a structure (the arbor) supported by the frame and barrel assy.

I've stated many times that the only revolver I've ever bent while loading is a Remington. I've never heard of anyone "pulling an arbor" loading an open top revolver!

Mike

 

[45 Dragoon]

Oh, almost forgot . . . . don't use a cartridge cyl in a brass frame revolver (specifically a two piece drop cylinder). The greater efficiency of the cartridge (even with the same bp charge) will hammer the recoil ring and you'll see imprinting almost immediately (Colts or Remies). Steel is the only way to go and is safe with smokless as well.

Mike

 

[MCgunner]

I see little risk in loading a round ball over the same 25 grain charge of fffg in .45 Colt brass. What's the difference if it's loaded loose in a chamber or loaded in a .45 colt case? I'd use a filler like cornmeal under the ball.

But, what are you gaining with this? So, you can reload faster? I have three cylinders for my brass "navy", 40 bucks a piece for the cylinders. I bought a Howell conversion for my steel frame Remington, cost me 240 bucks. I could have 6 cylinders for the price of that conversion. That would allow me to fire 36 rounds without reloading a cylinder, actually 42 rounds counting the cylinder that came with the gun.

I got my Howell conversion for the steel framed Remmy so I could shoot smokeless loads in it. This is something I would NOT do in a brasser. I also have multiple cap and ball cylinders with THIS gun. So, cut to the chase, I see no advantage in a conversion cylinder for a brasser.

 

[Gaucho Gringo]

The only cartridge conversion I have ever seen being advertised as suitable for a brass frame is the Kirst .22 conversion. All the rest say steel frames only and .Steel is the only way to go and be safe.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Did they add a power factor to CAS?

Granted it's been a long time for me, but I shot .44 "Confederate" brass framed cap-n-ball revolvers in CAS and I was using a 18 grain load of 3Fg, with two felt wads over that and then a .451 ball. I had to ring the steel, not meet a power requirement PLUS ring the steel, and they shot very well with that load. I don't know why replacing a steel cap-n-ball cylinder with a steel cylinder that took cartridges, and copying that load in those cartridges would stress the brass frame in a different manner. In fact the lack of the pressure from the non-use of the loading leaver from not jamming and compressing the ball onto the powder would equal less pressure on the brass frame over time, not more.

My guess is that the conversion cylinder folks are worried (and rightly so) that somebody won't shoot light target loads, but will intentionally (or accidentally) launch some very stout .45 Colt BP loads, which very well might in a short time batter the frame into an unsafe condition. They can't control the buyer, and have to figure on human failure so...., they tell you "don't", and if you do and have a mishap, they hope they will be held harmless and blameless.

Of course these are my opinions, and now that I'm slightly more than a half-century in age...., I marvel and thank God that I have all of my fingers and both eyes working...., so maybe I'm not the best guy to ask on this subject?

LD