Conversion cylinder/1860 Army

[whughett]

Just received a Taylors and Co. conversion cylinder for the Uberti 1860 Army , a drop in fit. The Army has a Goons full treatment so wonder if that had an impact on the drop in fit. Dry function is fine, 50 rounds at the range should proof it in. At this point I'll say the Taylors doesn't have the heft,, overall finish and good looks of the Howells.(All of this may be down to engineering as the thinner back plate allows for an inline cylinder bore, hence only five shots, as opposed to Howells slight off kilter approach, which allows for six in the same diameter cylinder). It does however have an extra bolt notch, for hammer down and locked, between the timed notches, hence full load carry capability, and with cartridges I only shoot five at a time anyway.
Thursday I'll give it a go at the range. Have a box of fifty 45C, 200FP over 6.2 Trail Boss loaded up. Both the R&S and ROA like this load. Three cap guns outfitted with both cylinders now. Still shoot more round ball over 3f loose than cartridges but Its nice having the choice as weather or mood dictates. Mood being, should I reload when I get home or clean a fouled gun.
Up side to this, An Uberti 1860 Army with conversion can still be had for less than $500 total. Unless its been thru Goons, as this one has.
Um, wonder how that Walker would look sporting a conversion cylinder.
Too bad the Navies aren't true 38s'​

 

[whughett]

Thursday morning range time. 90degrees plus and humid, no breeze. Uberti 1860 Army and the Taylor’s 45 Colt cylinder a sweet shooting combo. Given my middling ability, they still put the shots on targets. 50 feet, left, 14 rounds, 200 grain cast flat point, 6.5 grains Trail Boss. Right 15 rounds, 250 grain cast flat point, 5.2 grains Trail Boss. The Uberti favors the heavy slower round ? Aim point for both was the lower center red round bull.
Not a hunter but think I’ll try a full original 45Colt load, 40 grains of 3f compressed under that 250 grain bullet.

 

[Navy Six 2]

Whughett, glad your Uberti 1860 conversion is working for you. I did a similar pair last year and I'm surprised at how well they shoot. However, you might want to rethink that last load of compressed 3F under a 250 grain bullet. The 1860 will not stand up to that type of load even if the conversion cylinder might.

 

[whughett]

Whughett, glad your Uberti 1860 conversion is working for you. I did a similar pair last year and I'm surprised at how well they shoot. However, you might want to rethink that last load of compressed 3F under a 250 grain bullet. The 1860 will not stand up to that type of load even if the conversion cylinder might.

Well that’s good to know. That load with a Howell in the ROA shoots quite nice. Not something I do routinely however.
Thanks for the reminder.

 

[45 Dragoon]

Well that’s good to know. That load with a Howell in the ROA shoots quite nice. Not something I do routinely however.
Thanks for the reminder.

Uhmmmmmm . . . . .exsqueeze me?! Its been setup correctly so you can fire whatever you'd fire in a Colt S.A.A. All my '60 (Pietta) has seen is 250gr. 900+ fps. smokless loads (same diet the Dragoons get! (No favoritism, no mercy!! Lol!!!)).

Mike

Thanks for the mention whughett !!!

 

[whughett]

Thanks Mike, kind of thought that was the case. The ROA and the R&S shoot the standard 45C cartridges just fine. I'm not a "mouse fart" fan of any caliber. The Walker has had the full treatment but a conversion cylinder on that seems a waste, awful lot of chamber space ahead of the bullet.

 

[45 Dragoon]

You're welcome and thanks again! Just remember, the chamber is correct for the 45C cartridge and all that's ahead of it is bore size. A bullet of correct size will stay straight in the cylinder and engage the rifling as normal when it enters the barrel. Try it! The accuracy may surprise you!!

Mike

 

[Navy Six 2]

Not passing judgment on anyone's set-up. However, a few years ago a friend insisted on a compressed charge(39grs of 2F Goex, 250 gr bullet) as his 45 Colt Cowboy match load. Gun was an Uberti Cattleman. Don't know how many rounds he shot, but at some point in the season during cleaning he discovered the frame split right through the firing pin hole. Another friend shoots that same load in a pair of Ruger Blackhawks with no apparent issues--other than backing everyone away from the firing line!

 

[45 Dragoon]

No problem Navy Six 2. The recoil ring or plate for the Kirst is quite substantial for the round and since it is a "stand alone" part, it may be a better surface than the frame in your friend's Cattleman. That said, it doesn't mean that a Cattleman isn't a good design. They've been around for a long time and I like them very much. The frame in your friend's revolver was obviously defective. Therefore, the Kirst ring isn't dependent on the makeup of the frame which is why it is probably a better (as far as safety is concerned) setup in this particular situation.
The difference in the forces generated between Blackpowder and smokless is fairly dramatic (smokless being the "mean" one) and I've not experienced any problems with any of Kirst products as far as durability/failures. I only shoot smokless in my revolvers (all conversions or Uberti cartridge guns).
Have fun and be safe.

Mike

 

[45 Dragoon]

Sorry folks!! I haven't lost it!! (Hope not anyway!!! Lol!)
Somehow, the Taylor's conv. cyl got turned into the Kirst gated conversion! I guess since the subject rev. is a Colt pattern, I automatically plug in "gated". The above statement is still correct for the Kirst, I don't have any shooting experience with " drop cylinders " in open top revolvers but concede that the back plate is thinner than the plate for the gated conversion. So, stay within the limits of the design (I would still think B.P. loads would be safe) as far as smokless rounds. The particular revolver in question though is still capable of whatever you can safely run in the cylinder.

Now, we can return to our normal programing . . . .

Mike

 

[Springfeld]

Gun looks great! I thinking of doing a similar conversion myself. I'm thinking of the Kirst gate version. Is the removal of the barrel and cylinder... to load... feel easy to you.

 

[whughett]

General question. If one goes the "Kirst Gated" version of a conversion is the return to the percussion cap cylinder still possible. I see for the right amount of money one can actually replace the loading ram assembly with a case extraction rod assembly.

For my self its the novel idea of occasionally shooting cartridges thru my cap and ball revolver.

As noted in my op, the Howells appear more robust in design, that being in the thickness of the back plate. The Taylor's is noticeable thinner, it is a back plate however and would only add to the strength of the recoil shield.

 

[drobs]

General question. If one goes the "Kirst Gated" version of a conversion is the return to the percussion cap cylinder still possible. I see for the right amount of money one can actually replace the loading ram assembly with a case extraction rod assembly.

For my self its the novel idea of occasionally shooting cartridges thru my cap and ball revolver.

As noted in my op, the Howells appear more robust in design, that being in the thickness of the back plate. The Taylor's is noticeable thinner, it is a back plate however and would only add to the strength of the recoil shield.

With the Kirst Conversion you can still swap out the conversion for a percussion cylinder and shoot cap & ball.
To take full advantage of the Kirst Gated conversion, you need to dremel a loading port into the recoil shield. However, you can still swap cylinders.

Howell's sell a gated conversion that requires adding a plate to the recoil shield that is held on by 2 screws (edit: open top Colts). That conversion is more permanent (anything can be undone) and simply swapping cylinders is not possible.

I have an older Kirst Conversion Cylinder for my pair of Pietta 1858 Remington that I was shooting with 45 Colt yesterday. I'm not overly impressed with it. It swaps out easily enough with the hammer at 1/2 cock. When locked in place with the cylinder pin and in 1/2 cock again, the cylinder doesn't freely rotate to the dummy chamber like it should. Not sure what the issue but it stops 2 chambers before the dummy chamber requiring me to manually cock and lower the hammer twice to get to the dummy safety chamber. Something is "hanky janky" with it. Maybe it just needs a good cleaning but I don't think that's it.

Note the Kirst is a 5 shot cylinder with a dummy solid safety chamber.

 

[whughett]

Thanks for that. Been tempted on more than one occasion to go the full route, New 1860 Army, Kirst Cylinder and Ejection rod, but then I add up the cost of the three new, plus installation and I may as well buy a new Uberti Richards/Mason. Then I realize its the looks of the rig that's attracting me.

 

[drobs]

Thanks for that. Been tempted on more than one occasion to go the full route, New 1860 Army, Kirst Cylinder and Ejection rod, but then I add up the cost of the three new, plus installation and I may as well buy a new Uberti Richards/Mason. Then I realize its the looks of the rig that's attracting me.

I know what you mean. The Uberti RM is less expensive than setting up a Pietta.

 

[Springfeld]

I can't tell from the photos that the Kirst has a dummy chamber. It looks like just 5 chambers. At least from what I can tell from the website but I can find a photo for a 1858 with a dummy chamber. Does anyone have a better photo showing just the 1860 by itself.