Kirst 45acp for 1860 Army!!

[45 Dragoon]

I have 2 questions -

Kirst says to only use lead projectiles and I interpret "off the shelf" ACP ammo to mean jacketed bullets is that what you're using and feel comfortable with?

Kirst says to only use low velocity ammunition and I interpret "off the shelf" ACP ammo to mean full power loads is that what you're using and feel comfortable with?

Well, I haven't seen any lead 45acp in a while and all that's available to me is FMJ or JHP. My tests have been with FMJ , JHP and some lead (230gr.) RN that I had loaded a couple of yrs ago.

I asked Walt about the bore "wear" and he's pretty confident I wouldn't shoot it out in my lifetime. As far as "velocity " most factory loads are in the 800's . . .

Mike

 

[hawg]

I wouldn't shoot +P out of one but standard .45 ACP should be good to go. Cowboy .45 Schofield velocity with a 250 grain bullet is only 710 FPS.

 

[dickydalton]

I have some factory 45 Schofields and have loaded a bunch of my own with Trail Boss and 200 grain coated Missouri Bullets. They are fun in the conversion cylinders.

 

[AlexanderA]

I would not invest in a conversion cylinder for any open-top revolver. Yes, it was done in the 1870's (out of economic necessity), but that calculation doesn't apply today. On the other hand, solid-frame guns, like the Remington, are perfect candidates for the conversions.

 

[45 Dragoon]

I would not invest in a conversion cylinder for any open-top revolver. Yes, it was done in the 1870's (out of economic necessity), but that calculation doesn't apply today. On the other hand, solid-frame guns, like the Remington, are perfect candidates for the conversions.

Most ignorant thing I've ever read in this forum.
Maybe AlexanderA can put into words why he/ she would post such a post? Maybe he/she could explain for us why the Remington is is the "perfect" candidate??

I've already got my popcorn!!

Mike

Edit: I think your " opinion " is just like the "other " thing everybody else has. That's MY opinion . . .

In fact, of the 3 platforms I work on, ( Ruger, open tops and Remingtons) the Remington is the only one that got BENT just loading it!!!

 

[Jackrabbit1957]

There's an awful lot of open top cartridge guns floating around out today, if they were such a terrible platform why would the manufacturer take a chance on the liability?

 

[Blackpowderwarrior]

gentlemen, start your engines!

 

[shootemup58]

oh boy this should get real interesting!

 

[Ugly Sauce]

Most ignorant thing I've ever read in this forum.

Oh good. I'm off the hook!

 

[AlexanderA]

Conversion cylinders cost almost as much as the base gun itself. That being the case, it makes sense to choose carefully what base gun to use. You want to use the strongest available design.

Any open-top design concentrates the stresses on one part, the arbor. It's obvious that a solid frame is stronger.

Cartridge conversions are likely to be used with smokeless loads. They may still be within the strength limitations of modern open-top reproductions, but why take the chance?

 

[Blackpowderwarrior]

Conversion cylinders cost almost as much as the base gun itself. That being the case, it makes sense to choose carefully what base gun to use. You want to use the strongest available design.

Any open-top design concentrates the stresses on one part, the arbor. It's obvious that a solid frame is stronger.

Cartridge conversions are likely to be used with smokeless loads. They may still be within the strength limitations of modern open-top reproductions, but why take the chance?

i wish i had a dollar for everytime ive heard someone say the remington is the stronger design.

Id wager that it isnt.

 

[45 Dragoon]

Conversion cylinders cost almost as much as the base gun itself. That being the case, it makes sense to choose carefully what base gun to use. You want to use the strongest available design.

Any open-top design concentrates the stresses on one part, the arbor. It's obvious that a solid frame is stronger.

Cartridge conversions are likely to be used with smokeless loads. They may still be within the strength limitations of modern open-top reproductions, but why take the chance?

First of all, I'll spend my money like I want to.
Second of all, the Remington is the "weak link" !!
Third of all, you don't understand the open-top design ( so you don't know what your talking about)
Fourth of all, " cartridge conversions are EXACTLY designed to use smokeless powder!!! What rock have you been under?!!!

and "why take the chance"? Are you serious?!!!!

Mike

 

[Captain*kirk]

i wish i had a dollar for everytime ive heard someone say the remington is the stronger design.

Id wager that it isnt.

I think that river has already been crossed.
If the open top platform was 'unsuitable' for cartridge conversions, would the Colt factory REALLY have produced a dedicated OT platform for over two years? I think not.

 

[hawg]

I would not invest in a conversion cylinder for any open-top revolver. Yes, it was done in the 1870's (out of economic necessity), but that calculation doesn't apply today. On the other hand, solid-frame guns, like the Remington, are perfect candidates for the conversions.

That's funny right there. I don't care who ya are.

 

[hawg]

i wish i had a dollar for everytime ive heard someone say the remington is the stronger design.

Id wager that it isnt.

It isn't. It's been proven time and again.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

I will say it, if you give me ten dollars.

 

[dickydalton]

I will say it, if you give me ten dollars.

You just like to talk all the time!

 

[Ugly Sauce]

I let my fingers do the talking! Which gets me in trouble. !!!!!

 

[Ugly Sauce]

 

[Jackrabbit1957]

Interesting how this goes, both designs have strong points and weak ones, my money would go on the open top after it's been fixed. Once the arbor is corrected with a good fitting wedge you have a real solid piece. The Remington has a few thin areas in that "solid frame" such as the area around the loading ram and under the top strap where the sight groove is milled, if it has a target sight dove tail it's even thinner. The only part in this argument I fully agree with is the cost of the cartridge cylinder. However despite the cost it seems like a cool thing to have.

 

[Captain*kirk]

Interesting how this goes, both designs have strong points and weak ones, my money would go on the open top after it's been fixed. Once the arbor is corrected with a good fitting wedge you have a real solid piece. The Remington has a few thin areas in that "solid frame" such as the area around the loading ram and under the top strap where the sight groove is milled, if it has a target sight dove tail it's even thinner. The only part in this argument I fully agree with is the cost of the cartridge cylinder. However despite the cost it seems like a cool thing to have.

I agree with that...the cost has always been a deterrent. Which is why I bought a RM cartridge gun. It was cheaper in the long run.

 

[AlexanderA]

The Remington has a few thin areas in that "solid frame" such as the area around the loading ram and under the top strap where the sight groove is milled

There's a considerable variation among manufacturers. I have two Remington NMA reproductions, one by Euroarms (Armi San Paolo) and the other by Uberti. The Uberti is noticeably heftier than the Euroarms. (I don't know how the Pietta compares.) But even the Euroarms looks strong enough for the conversion cylinder.

 

[Jackrabbit1957]

The Colts are more than strong enough as well.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

The R&S looks pretty strong...only one side of the frame is cut for loading.

 

[CraigC]

I would not invest in a conversion cylinder for any open-top revolver.

Good, more for me. Around here they're breeding like flies. You either get it or you don't.