Colt and Remington cap and ball conversion cylinders from Taylors and company

[Captain*kirk]

I have a mid-1980's vintage Euroarms (Armi San Paolo) Remmie. The Howell 5-shot conversion cylinder made for an Uberti fits it perfectly. I suppose the dimensions of the Euroarms changed over the years.

The choice, when I bought the cylinder, was between the Howell 5-shot and the R&D (invented by Howell) 6-shot. I figured the canted chambers of the 6-shot resulted in very thin chamber walls. Also, the 6-shot would have to be carried with one chamber empty, for safety. That would effectively make it a 5-shot. The Howell 5-shot had intermediate locking notches (which the 6-shot didn't have), so it could be carried with all chambers loaded.

Here's a picture of the Euroarms (top) and the Uberti (bottom), both with their 5-shot conversion cylinders. (The Uberti is noticeably beefier, especially around the top strap.)

View attachment 1048356

Yep, chamber walls are thinner on the Taylor's. But I only shoot BP in my handloads so I'm not worried. If I was shooting hot factory stuff I might be a little concerned.

 

[LaneP]

So the timing and everything else was fine? You didn’t have to do any fitting of the rear plate or anything? Just had to make a clearance for the cartridge in the recoil shield?

Yes exactly. Of two cylinders I've installed, I had no problem with lock up. The Kirst gate ring is not permanently affixed to the recoil shield, but in practice is stabilized by a flat at the base of the ring that rests on the base of the pistol frame. All I had to do was add the channel clearance in the recoil shield for cartridges to load and unload.

 

[1KPerDay]

Yes exactly. Of two cylinders I've installed, I had no problem with lock up. The Kirst gate ring is not permanently affixed to the recoil shield, but in practice is stabilized by a flat at the base of the ring that rests on the base of the pistol frame. All I had to do was add the channel clearance in the recoil shield for cartridges to load and unload.

Thank you

 

[1KPerDay]

You try it out and let me know, OK?

I’d love to… anyone want to send me one that I can drop repeatedly?

 

[whughett]

Two of my ROA’s sport conversion cylinders, one 45C and the other 45ACP. A Rogers and Spenser, an 1860 Army has one and a Uberti revolving Carbine and a Uberti NMA share one between them. The cool thing I like is in cold or bad weather I can still shoot my revolvers indoors on the clubs range, no BP allowed indoors. I’ve contemplated one for the Walker but that huge cylinder means a big bullet jump to the forcing cone.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

The concept of attempting to install a fully loaded conversion cylinder into a waiting frame gives me pause. It looks like the firing pin nubs are somewhat recessed, but drop one on gravel and all bets are off, and guess where it's pointed if it does land on a small rock.

Shheeesh.

I'm gonna come off sounding like a know it all, but I have been shooting my old EuroArms 1858 with Black Powder cartridges for close to 20 years now.

OK, just for fun, I put three Schofield cartridges into my R&D cylinder.






Yes, the firing pins in the loaded chambers are protruding a little bit more than the pins in the unloaded chambers.







Here is a side view. Now guess why I am holding the cap so tightly against the cylinder. Because there is nothing that keeps the cap attached to the cylinder. All there is is the alignment pin in its hole, and the center of the cap fits into the arbor hole in the cylinder. This keeps everything lined up, but there is nothing fastening them together. When installed in the revolver, the frame keeps everything together, but if one were to turn the cylinder upside down, the cap with the firing pins would fall right off. Would the cap stay in place on the trip to the ground if dropped? I have no idea.






Here is the best way I have found to either remove an empty cylinder from the revolver, or pop a freshly loaded one in. I always hold the revolver horizontally, just like this. One hand holding the revolver, the other hand, which is not normally holding a camera, handles the cylinder. Because of the position of the hand in the revolver, the cylinder can only be removed and replaced at the right side of the frame, not the left side. Also, I don't reload out in the field where I might drop the cylinder all the way to the ground. When shooting this revolver in CAS, all loading and unloading gets done at either the loading table or the unloading table. So at worst, if I fumble the cylinder, it will only fall a few inches to the table. Not enough time to build up enough velocity from gravity to set off any primer that might happen to be struck by a firing pin.






Yes, with the six shot R&D cylinder, the chamber walls are quite thin. About .038 at the thinnest spot.






Has anybody ever seen how thin the chamber walls are on a Colt? I don't recall exactly how thick the chamber walls are on this 2nd Gen Colt, which is fully proofed for modern Smokeless 45 Colt ammo, but I can tell you the chamber walls at their thinnest points are about the same thickness as with the six shot R&D conversion cylinder.






I never load more than five rounds into my 1858 with its R&D cylinder anyway, we are not allowed to load six at a CAS match, so I have never had a problem with loading five and keeping an empty chamber under the hammer.


Lastly, one of the main reasons I went with the R&D cylinder all those years ago is it required absolutely no modification to the revolver. Pop the C&B cylinder back in and it is a non-firearm again. Pop the cartridge cylinder in and for as long as that cylinder is in place it is a cartridge firing handgun, subject to all Federal and State regulations. It is so easy to pop out the cylinder to reload and pop a fresh cylinder in, just like Clint did.

And yes, if you permanently modify the frame, by cutting a loading gate, it is no longer a non-firearm, it is a cartridge firearm forever, subject to all federal and state regulations.

P.S. I remember how nervous I was the first time I fired a replica of the 1860 Henry rifle. I had heard all the stories about how if one dropped ammo directly down the magazine tube, it might fire, or if one lost their grip on the magazine follower it might slam on top of the rounds in the magazine and set them off. Yes, this has all happened. But when I bought my own 1860 Henry about ten years ago, I learned how to handle it safely so none of that stuff would happen. If one is brand new to any firearm, one may get nervous around it. But with time, good habits develop.

 

[.455_Hunter]

Shheeesh.

Driftwood- I usually agree and enjoy your posts greatly, but I am gonna call you out on this response.

I'm gonna come off sounding like a know it all, but I have been shooting my old EuroArms 1858 with Black Powder cartridges for close to 20 years now.

Just because you have not had an issue does not alter the fundamental nature of a system. Many individuals have driven their whole life without "needing" their seat belt or have spent 30 years carrying a striker gun without getting "Glock Leg".

OK, just for fun, I put three Schofield cartridges into my R&D cylinder. Yes, the firing pins in the loaded chambers are protruding a little bit more than the pins in the unloaded chambers.

From what I see, your picture does more to validate my concern than put it at ease. When compared to another known hazard, like dropping a fully loaded SAA style gun with the hammer forward or in quarter cock, this would definitely have less frequency of occurrence, but similar severity of outcome.

Here is a side view. Now guess why I am holding the cap so tightly against the cylinder. Because there is nothing that keeps the cap attached to the cylinder. All there is is the alignment pin in its hole, and the center of the cap fits into the arbor hole in the cylinder. This keeps everything lined up, but there is nothing fastening them together. When installed in the revolver, the frame keeps everything together, but if one were to turn the cylinder upside down, the cap with the firing pins would fall right off. Would the cap stay in place on the trip to the ground if dropped? I have no idea.

Have handled these conversion cylinders myself in the LGS, I haven no question that a mixture of sticky lube and fouling could keep the assembly together for a ground impact.

My background on this is being an over 30 year active shooter, plus over 20 years experience with energetics safety and risk management on Active Duty and in private industry RDT&E.

 

[45 Dragoon]

I would have to think that if there had ever been an accident of this type, thats all you would hear about. I've never ever heard of an incident and doubt we ever will. I've seen more out of the box light triggers with a negative engagement (very dangerous) and that's very rarely discussed! (Talk about an accident waiting to happen!!!)

It's a dangerous world!! I've seen videos of accidental shootings at shooting ranges!!! I think your chances of harm from that is far greater than a dropped Howell cylinder.

Mike

 

[.455_Hunter]

I would have to think that if there had ever been an accident of this type, thats all you would hear about. I've never ever heard of an incident and doubt we ever will. I've seen more out of the box light triggers with a negative engagement (very dangerous) and that's very rarely discussed! (Talk about an accident waiting to happen!!!)

It's a dangerous world!! I've seen videos of accidental shootings at shooting ranges!!! I think your chances of harm from that is far greater than a dropped Howell cylinder.

Mike

I have no doubt that it would be rare event- you need three or four things to happen: the loaded cylinder needs to be dropped, it needs to stay together, it needs to land in the correct orientation, and surface needs to have correct "texture" need to impinged on a firing pin with sufficient force. Kind of like some of the other "odd ball" incidents I have seen documented in the shooting community.

 

[45 Dragoon]

Yes well, my point being there are videos of a.d.'s at ranges but not one example of the "dropped Howell cyl" videoed or reported. I'm sure if it ever happens, that will be the end of Taylor's or Howells unless they figure a way to put a transfer bar on the cylinder . . . Ruger knows stupid people can wreak havoc . . .

Mike

 

[AlexanderA]

I'm with Driftwood on the safety aspect. I don't think dropping the cylinder is an overwhelming concern. I do think that a 5-shot Howell cylinder in an Uberti frame is a very rugged combination.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Have handled these conversion cylinders myself in the LGS, I haven no question that a mixture of sticky lube and fouling could keep the assembly together for a ground impact.

Handling one of these cylinders in a gun store is a far cry from having actual experience shooting one.

As I said earlier, I have been shooting these for years, with ammunition loaded with Black Powder.

The bullet lube does not accumulate near the cap, it gets blown out the front of the chambers and out the bore.

And it is not sticky. The heat of shooting Black Powder melts the lube and it becomes runny, it is not sticky.

I can assure you that after shooting a six (or more) stage match at a CAS match with one of these cylinders, the cap pops right off every time I empty it to reload with fresh ammo.

The cap does not get stuck to the cylinder, if I turn the cylinder over in my hand, the cap falls off into the palm of my hand.

Regarding dropping a single action revolver on it's hammer with a live round under the hammer, I have been shooting single action revolvers for close to 50 years now and nobody, NOBODY is more aware of the dangers of dropping a traditional single action revolver on its hammer with a live round under the hammer, I have posted many times on this forum about that, including posting lots of photos of the lockwork of these revolvers.

If somebody had dropped one of these cylinders on the ground, and it had discharged, I would have heard about it.

 

[.455_Hunter]

Handling one of these cylinders in a gun store is a far cry from having actual experience shooting one.

As I said earlier, I have been shooting these for years, with ammunition loaded with Black Powder.

The bullet lube does not accumulate near the cap, it gets blown out the front of the chambers and out the bore.

And it is not sticky. The heat of shooting Black Powder melts the lube and it becomes runny, it is not sticky.

I can assure you that after shooting a six (or more) stage match at a CAS match with one of these cylinders, the cap pops right off every time I empty it to reload with fresh ammo.

The cap does not get stuck to the cylinder, if I turn the cylinder over in my hand, the cap falls off into the palm of my hand.

Regarding dropping a single action revolver on it's hammer with a live round under the hammer, I have been shooting single action revolvers for close to 50 years now and nobody, NOBODY is more aware of the dangers of dropping a traditional single action revolver on its hammer with a live round under the hammer, I have posted many times on this forum about that, including posting lots of photos of the lockwork of these revolvers.

If somebody had dropped one of these cylinders on the ground, and it had discharged, I would have heard about it.

You utilize techniques that minimize such an event to probably near zero. Another, less experienced shooter could use different techniques in terms how they lube or what they use for lube/grease that could result in a sticky mess.

When I started taking an interest historical shooting as a young teen in the late 80's, a standard admonishment for Remington New Army (the "1858", if you will) shooter who used a belt pouch to carry an extra loaded cylinder was to keep it UNCAPPED for safety until installed in the gun, with danger from drop being specially called out. Of course, with these minimal conversion units that can only be loaded outside of the gun, that advice is not viable if you actually wasn't to use it. I wonder if this specific safety concern has been pushed out mind by the fact that it makes the unit unusable if you follow what is recommend practice.

An older discussion on the standard cap cylinder handling...

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/loading-and-capping-spare-cylinders.609426/

Arguing that slightly recessed firing pin nub is vastly different that a slightly recessed percussion cap body is going to be pretty challenging.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

You utilize techniques that minimize such an event to probably near zero. Another, less experienced shooter could use different techniques in terms how they lube or what they use for lube/grease that could result in a sticky mess.

Have you ever loaded cartridges with Black Powder?

I don't care what lube you use, it will get blown out of the front of the chamber with the bullet.

It will not accumulate at the rear of the chambers near the backing plate of one of these cylinders.

Dropping a capped 1858 Cap & Ball cylinder is one thing. I first shot Cap & Ball revolvers in 1968, so I know a little bit about it.

As you know, with a Cap & Ball cylinder, the nipples are screwed into the cylinder. So if one dropped a capped C&B cylinder there is a fair chance it could land directly on a nipple and fire a charge.

I repeat what I have said several times. With one of these conversion cylinders, the cap is not rigidly attached to the cylinder. The bullet lube, no matter what one uses, will be blown out of the front of the chamber mouths and down the bore. It will not accumulate back near the cap with the firing pins and keep the cap stuck to the cylinder.

 

[.455_Hunter]

Have you ever loaded cartridges with Black Powder?

Yup- .32 S&W on up to .50/70.

I don't care what lube you use, it will get blown out of the front of the chamber with the bullet. It will not accumulate at the rear of the chambers near the backing plate of one of these cylinders.

I repeat what I have said several times. With one of these conversion cylinders, the cap is not rigidly attached to the cylinder. The bullet lube, no matter what one uses, will be blown out of the front of the chamber mouths and down the bore. It will not accumulate back near the cap with the firing pins and keep the cap stuck to the cylinder.

I am using a more expansive definition of "lube", not just for the bullet, but what many shooters use to amply coat their firearms- oil, grease, etc. You know the type.

I first shot Cap & Ball revolvers in 1968, so I know a little bit about it.

OK. I am sure you do, but as my shooting resume also extends back 30+ years, the significance of who has been doing it longer starts losing some distinction.

Dropping a capped 1858 Cap & Ball cylinder is one thing.

As you know, with a Cap & Ball cylinder, the nipples are screwed into the cylinder. So if one dropped a capped C&B cylinder there is a fair chance it could land directly on a nipple and fire a charge.

I just went and pulled out my 2000 purchased .44 Pietta New Army extra cylinder that still has stock nipples. They, in fact, look to be MORE protected than the conversion example you showed previously. Adding a cap would decrease the recession a bit, but it would make sense the "impact" point be relatively the same spot in the hammer travel arc for both systems.

Also, I don't reload out in the field where I might drop the cylinder all the way to the ground. When shooting this revolver in CAS, all loading and unloading gets done at either the loading table or the unloading table. So at worst, if I fumble the cylinder, it will only fall a few inches to the table. Not enough time to build up enough velocity from gravity to set off any primer that might happen to be struck by a firing pin.

Your routine is probably best practice. What I envision is somebody attempting to insert one of these pre-loaded conversion cylinders standing in a open firing line on rough pea gravel. Their oily fingers are are matched only by the greasiness of the cylinder. When trying manipulate all the components involved with the process, the cylinder simply slips from their grasp and drops, giving 4+ feet of travel to impart KE to a unlucky firing pin upon impact.

 

[CraigC]

Please bear in mind that once you have installed a gated Kirst Konverter, your black powder replica has ceased to exist according to BATF. You now own a centerfire revolver and it's subject to all the laws of your residing state and federal BATF regs, including ownership, transport and sales thereof. Not so with the Howell or Taylor's, where a 5 second cylinder swap returns it to it's original state. Once you cut the loading port in the recoil shield, you have altered the firearm from it's original state permanently.

Not true at all. Mine was shipped back to me with the percussion cylinder installed and it is still fully functional with it. As an individual, you "manufacture" a cartridge gun when you install the cartridge cylinder.

 

[Captain*kirk]

Not true at all. Mine was shipped back to me with the percussion cylinder installed and it is still fully functional with it. As an individual, you "manufacture" a cartridge gun when you install the cartridge cylinder.

Was yours the Taylor's or the Kirst? From my understanding, once they have altered the recoil shield for the loading gate (Kirst), it is now a centerfire firearm. Of course, this is not true for the Taylor's/Howell setup, because they don't require and modification.

 

[Eyrie G. Dogg]

Captain is correct. According to the Feds, once the frame has been modified to accept fixed ammunition it becomes henceforth and forever a piece capable of accepting fixed ammunition. This will be the case even during those times that it's wearing a percussion cylinder.

Katty bar the door, too wet to plow, that's all she wrote - it's now a 'firearm' for all purposes.

 

[noelf2]

Captain is correct. According to the Feds, once the frame has been modified to accept fixed ammunition it becomes henceforth and forever a piece capable of accepting fixed ammunition. This will be the case even during those times that it's wearing a percussion cylinder.

What feds? They all say different things based on their individual levels of ignorance. Got something in writing that can't be refuted?

 

[Eyrie G. Dogg]

The internet is your friend. You look it up and maybe learn something. You can read, can't you? What Feds??

 

[noelf2]

The internet is your friend. You look it up and maybe learn something. You can read, can't you? What Feds??

I think it's you who is stating what feds say. You must already know where the proof is. Why make it difficult?

My point is that a lot of people say "according to the feds..." but can't show where the feds actually made a determination on this subject specifically. I know Kirst, Howell, and anyone else who sells Kirst and Howell conversions say the same thing regarding cutting the loading port without citing "the feds" actual accord. As far as anyone can tell, Kirst and Howell are speculating on the side of caution based on the feds regs regarding generic manufacture of firearms. BTW, I'm a retired fed so I can be equally flawed and ignorant.

 

[45 Dragoon]

Good lord!! All you have to do is look it up under BATF. It's in plain English. Same as it was 14 yrs ago when I started looking at the cylinders. Once the frame is modified to allow use of the gate, it is the same as an AR lower. It has the serial # and it is the firearm all by itself . . . no need for a barrel, cyl, grip frame . . . the frame is the firearm . . . period. If you feel differently and like your chances in court, then go for it!! My customers have to send them to my FFL or they can send them somewhere else. I won't touch um! Works well that way and it won't change.

Mike

 

[CraigC]

Sorry guys, I just spent an hour on the phone with a guy that builds these for a living, who has also spent countless hours on the phone with the ATF making sure his ducks are all in a row. Making the cut for the loading port does NOT constitute permanent alteration to fire fixed cartridges only. It certainly does not render the frame into a "modern firearm" regulated by federal law. This is because the conversion parts are not permanently installed and the guns are still fully functional with the percussion cylinder. If the guns were permanently modified the way Colt did it in the 1800's, then it would be different. Because those guns could no longer function as percussion guns. It's the act of installing the conversion ring and cylinder that constitutes "manufacturing a firearm" and that is perfectly legal for an individual to do without any FFL involvement. So as long as it does not change hands as a cartridge gun, no need for an FFL.

 

[noelf2]

Sorry guys, I just spent an hour on the phone with a guy that builds these for a living, who has also spent countless hours on the phone with the ATF making sure his ducks are all in a row. Making the cut for the loading port does NOT constitute permanent alteration to fire fixed cartridges only. It certainly does not render the frame into a "modern firearm" regulated by federal law. This is because the conversion parts are not permanently installed and the guns are still fully functional with the percussion cylinder. If the guns were permanently modified the way Colt did it in the 1800's, then it would be different. Because those guns could no longer function as percussion guns. It's the act of installing the conversion ring and cylinder that constitutes "manufacturing a firearm" and that is perfectly legal for an individual to do without any FFL involvement. So as long as it does not change hands as a cartridge gun, no need for an FFL.

We have probably been in contact with the same gunsmith. Kenny Howell was the first one to write the text about cutting the loading port and it becoming a firearm. It has nothing to do with the ATF and everything to do with local jurisdiction and liability.

 

[TBOATS]

For some reason I think these are extremely cool. Maybe it stems from the Remington in Pale Rider or maybe they’re just cool.

2 or three companies make centerfire conversion cylinders/systems for cap and ball revolvers. Per my understanding, The Howell/R&D style (the kind I have) were originally developed by Kenny Howell https://www.howellarms.com/
for use in Hollywood westerns to more easily allow the use of blanks. Kenny began selling them to the public and the rest is history.

the other major player in this market is Kirst.
https://kirstkonverter.com/

the Kirst design has some advantages over the Howell design in that Kirst uses a separate rear plate that can be temporarily or permanently installed in the frame and has the option of an included loading gate so you can load and unload similarly to dedicated centerfire revolvers. You can also get add-on ejection rod systems for an additional fee. The disadvantage of the Kirst is they are quite pricey, may require some gunsmithing for installation of some models, and only allow 5 shots.

The advantage of the Howell design is they easily drop in to cap and ball pistols (the Remington is easiest since you don’t have to remove the barrel to remove the cylinder as in the Colt open top style), and no permanent modifications have to be made to your cap and ball pistol. You can swap back and forth just by changing the cylinders. Plus the Howell style is roughly half the price of the Kirst at about $240-$270 depending on model and finish.

Due to the significant cost of either system, it may not make sense for some people, as the conversion cylinder is often more than the purchase price of the cap and ball revolvers. I got my Piettas for under $200 each during Cabela’s (now defunct) annual sales, so it was a little painful to pay $240ish for each conversion cylinder. But they are super fun, shoot well, and allow you to shoot your cap and ball revolvers without the need to clean them immediately afterward (unless you shoot blackpowder cartridges, which you can do if you want).

Depending on your jurisdiction you may have to purchase your cap and ball revolver via an FFL and the conversion cylinders may or may not be legal. So check your local laws. In most places you can just order the conversion cylinder from somewhere like Taylor’s and Company or the aforementioned websites and you’re off and running.

One advantage of ordering from Taylor’s and Company if you have a Remington NMA is that they licensed Howell’s original 6-shot cylinder design from him. If you order a NMA conversion cylinder from Howell’s old west conversions it will come with 5 chambers.

Anyhoo these things are a lot of fun so check them out if you like. Here’s a video I did going over the basics and includes some shooting of the Remington NMA and Colt .44 “Navy.”

I have 3 Taylor’s and company conversion cylinders and they all are a lot of fun, I love the ability to switch if I get lazy.

For some reason I think these are extremely cool. Maybe it stems from the Remington in Pale Rider or maybe they’re just cool.

2 or three companies make centerfire conversion cylinders/systems for cap and ball revolvers. Per my understanding, The Howell/R&D style (the kind I have) were originally developed by Kenny Howell https://www.howellarms.com/
for use in Hollywood westerns to more easily allow the use of blanks. Kenny began selling them to the public and the rest is history.

the other major player in this market is Kirst.
https://kirstkonverter.com/

the Kirst design has some advantages over the Howell design in that Kirst uses a separate rear plate that can be temporarily or permanently installed in the frame and has the option of an included loading gate so you can load and unload similarly to dedicated centerfire revolvers. You can also get add-on ejection rod systems for an additional fee. The disadvantage of the Kirst is they are quite pricey, may require some gunsmithing for installation of some models, and only allow 5 shots.

The advantage of the Howell design is they easily drop in to cap and ball pistols (the Remington is easiest since you don’t have to remove the barrel to remove the cylinder as in the Colt open top style), and no permanent modifications have to be made to your cap and ball pistol. You can swap back and forth just by changing the cylinders. Plus the Howell style is roughly half the price of the Kirst at about $240-$270 depending on model and finish.

Due to the significant cost of either system, it may not make sense for some people, as the conversion cylinder is often more than the purchase price of the cap and ball revolvers. I got my Piettas for under $200 each during Cabela’s (now defunct) annual sales, so it was a little painful to pay $240ish for each conversion cylinder. But they are super fun, shoot well, and allow you to shoot your cap and ball revolvers without the need to clean them immediately afterward (unless you shoot blackpowder cartridges, which you can do if you want).

Depending on your jurisdiction you may have to purchase your cap and ball revolver via an FFL and the conversion cylinders may or may not be legal. So check your local laws. In most places you can just order the conversion cylinder from somewhere like Taylor’s and Company or the aforementioned websites and you’re off and running.

One advantage of ordering from Taylor’s and Company if you have a Remington NMA is that they licensed Howell’s original 6-shot cylinder design from him. If you order a NMA conversion cylinder from Howell’s old west conversions it will come with 5 chambers.

Anyhoo these things are a lot of fun so check them out if you like. Here’s a video I did going over the basics and includes some shooting of the Remington NMA and Colt .44 “Navy.”