Kirst or R&D?

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

wheelyfun66

Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2011
Messages
429
Location
vermont
Hey Folks,
I am selling off my Glock :what: to fund the purchase of a Pietta 5.5" from Cabellas......along with a conversion cylinder.

I am pretty familiar with the concept of the R&D conversion cylinder.
I am also kinda familiar with the Kirst with loading gate concept.

While looking around on the interwebz...(dangerous, huh?) I discovered a Kirst that seems kinda like the R&D...that is to say, it has a backplate that fits over, with 5 separate firing pins..

In looking at it, it seems like it might even provide a couple of notches in which to rest your hammer....which would be great, since it is a 5 shot to begin with (don't want to have to keep hammer on empty chamber)

Could you all take a look at this link, and see what you think?
Any ideas if this would drop right in to a Pietta 1858.....(seems like the R&D have good luck with actually dropping in)?
http://www.buffaloarms.com/Detail.aspx?PROD=160403&CAT=3782

Is Buffalo Arms good people to deal with? (as far as actually having an item in stock...when it is listed "in stock" on the website :fire:)

Any info regarding conversion cylinders in general would also be appreciated!
this forum has gotten me away from "Tactical" hardware and wanting me to sell off my guns to fund "old school" hardware!
Thanks!
 
9 out of 10 times the owner of one or the other, will praise what they own.

Me, I own a Kirst .45 LC for Remmy, nuff said.
 
the 1 you have the link to only has 1 firing pin. that one is built you look like the cap and ball cylinder with nipples for reenactors who wants to fire cartridges but keep the look of the cap and ball cylinder
 
There is only one firing pin on the highlighted Kirst Cylinder.

I own a R&D (Howell) conversion cylinder for my ROA and a Kirst conversion cylinder for my Walker. They are both high quality products. Depending on how you plan to use the conversion cylinder could give you a hint as to which one you want to go with.
 
Can anyone tell me more about the Kirst, and the fact that it only has one firing pin (a good feature...no?)?

That must mean that the cylinder turns while the backplate stays stationary...which seems like it could be susceptible to binding problems?

I guess Kirst probably knows what they are doing...;)

I don't care about the fact that it would "look" like I was using a cap & ball (made for re-enactors) but the single firing pin seems like a better design than the R&D, with it's backplate and six firing pins!

Anyone.....?
 
A single firing pin versus 6 is neither here nor there. On the one hand you could say that having 6 firing pins is better in that if one fails you still have 5 others. On the other hand you might argue that having 6 means more parts/costs if you have to replace them all one day.

Like I said, I own both. They are both solid products. I actually had a firing pin problem with my Kirst and had to mail it back for repairs. The pin wasn't properly set in the back plate. I don't consider this to be a common issue just bad luck. I've never had a problem with my R&D.
 
I spent a good bit of time studying before buying the Kirst for my ROAs.
The Howell (6 firing pin) converters are adamant about the possibility of fowling up the firing pins by dry-firing, and I also couldn't get over the fact that the more parts- the more possibility for breakage.
I am convinced by the Kirst now that I have an assembly & an additional caliber cylinder for my ROA.
When I have recovered from buying the Pietta 1858 & spare BP cylinder I will be ordering up a Kirst Konverter set & extra caliber cylinder for it also.
Look at my post #6 in this thread : http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=8229838#post8229838
to find info on a seller of the Kirst products, he treated me well on my ROA Konverter purchases, and hopefully he will be able to sell the 1858 parts for comparable savings.
 
I don't care about the fact that it would "look" like I was using a cap & ball (made for re-enactors) but the single firing pin seems like a better design than the R&D, with it's backplate and six firing pins!
Click to expand...

Kirst makes 3 different styles of conversion to 45 for the Remmie.

The "Pale Rider" which has a plain back plate with no loading gate.

The "Loading Gate" version which obviously has a loading gate.

and the "Civil War" version which looks cosmeticly like the cap & Ball cylinder.
 
I have 2 Kirst .45 Colt SS cylinders for my Ruger Old Armies. They were perfect drop-in fits and have operated flawlessly. The single firing pin in the backplate remains under the hammer because the backplate has a flat side that fits the inside of the frame and locks it into position, but this design still allows the whole shebang to slide out sideways when the base pin is removed. All gun parts should be this well engineered.
 
Converters

I have RDs for two ROAs. One fits one revolver and the other the other revolver, they are not interchangeable.

I've also played with extra cylinders for Ruger Blackhawks and N frame SWs.

The most common problem is with end shake, and cylinder gap. One wants to make adjustments to the cylinder so as not to end up with the frame not fitting the original cylinder.

I've encountered timing issues, but the end shake and cylinder gap are far and away more common problems.

It's said that if required, the maker will adjust the RD to fit if sent in with the revolver.
 
The Howell (6 firing pin) converters are adamant about the possibility of fowling up the firing pins by dry-firing, and I also couldn't get over the fact that the more parts- the more possibility for breakage.
Click to expand...

The problem with the R&D pins is not fouling. Dry firing can lead to the pins being peened over. Dry firing will also jam them into their holes, making them difficult to retract. The simple fix is to simply not dry fire a gun equipped with a conversion cylinder with multiple firing pins. I have two Remmies that sport the six shot R&D conversion cylinders chambered for 45 Colt. I have never had any problems with all those firing pins because I never drop the hammer unless there is a live cartridge under it. Pretty simple, really.

The Kirst style conversion cylinder is more in keeping with the traditional conversions that were done to C&B pistols, either by the factory or by a local gunsmith. The backing plate usually did not rotate with the cylinder, it was usually fixed in place by a screw. There was usually no separate firing pin on these guns, most were converted to shoot 44 rimfire ammo and the hammer nose was reshaped and fashioned into a firing pin for the rimfire ammo. The firing pin on the hammer reached completely across the backing plate to strike the rim of the cartridge, without a separate firing pin.
 
Buffalo Arms are good people to deal with. I ordered my 1862 pocket police, and it arrived in 2 days. Priority Mail from Idaho to Georgia in 2 days.
The guys I talked to on the phone at Buffalo were friendly and helpful.
 
+2 on buffalo arms
i have owned 1 R&D and 2 Kirst

both work great no regrets

Pro
both shoot 45colt accuracy is very good
con
R&D you have to remove the cylinder every time making it a tad longer on the range.
Pro
Kirst open the loading gate and shells slide out new ones slide in close gate good to go

on 45 Colt pietta 1858

pro
R&D is a 6 shot However the shells are not straight they are at an angle people who have used the R&D swear the accuracy does not suffer
Con
the Kirst is a 5 shot as they know there is not enough room to put 6 shells in unless you angle them like R&D. However for most like myself there is a dead spot which is greatly used for safety.
CON
the R&D has no safety
Pro
the kirst you can use the dead spot as a safety


pros both R&D shoot great work great. I found that one of the pins on my R&D was a little sticky had to work at getting it loose and working ok again. Never had any problems with the Kirst.

After all of this i sold my R&D to Gary this was for my WALKER. I bought another 1858 and cut another port and purchased another KIRST. In the future plan on doing it with my WALKER as well. Shooting them both i like them both the R&D is usually cheaper if your on a budget that should do you. However i love the loading gate. For both it is easy to remove the cylinder and go back to shooting regular cap and ball. My choice though goes to the KIRST
 
1. On the R&D is the .45 ACP 6 SHOT?
2. Do you need to modify the gun at all for the kirst pale rider?
3. On the kirst loading gate version, can you still shoot the cap and ball cylinder?
 
AFAIK,

1. On the R&D is the .45 ACP 6 SHOT?

R&D doesn't make a .45acp conversion, only Kirst does.
Kirst only makes 5 shot center fire cylinders.

2. Do you need to modify the gun at all for the kirst pale rider?

No

3. On the kirst loading gate version, can you still shoot the cap and ball cylinder?

Yes
 
R&D is a 6 shot However the shells are not straight they are at an angle people who have used the R&D swear the accuracy does not suffer
Click to expand...

Yup, I have two of them. The actual angle the chambers are tilted at is less than one half of one degree. It does not affect accuracy. In fact my R&D equipped Remmies are MORE accurate than any of my other 45 Colt single action revolvers, Colt, Ruger or Uberti. That is because the tolerances on the chambers of the R&D cylinder are tighter than any of the aforementioned guns. In fact, when I load 45 Colt ammo, I use the the cylinder from one of my R&D Remmies as a cartridge gauge. I know if a round slips nicely into the R&D chambers, it will fit in any of my other 45 Colt revolvers because their chambers are looser. Colt, Ruger and Uberti.

the R&D has no safety
Click to expand...

Of course it does. It has the exact same safety that almost every single action revolver has since Sam Colt made his first one in 1836. You never leave the hammer down on a live cartridge. Only load five, lower the hammer on an empty chamber. No different than a Colt, an Uberti, or an old 3 screw Ruger.

Here are a couple of scans of the little pamphlet that came with one of my R&D cylinders. You can see in the cutaway view that the cartridge is laying at an angle to the cylinder. That illustration is actually an exaggeration, as I said, the angle is less than one half of one degree and it does not affect accuracy.

cylinders


RDConversionCylinder01.jpg

RDConversionCylinder02.jpg

There is one more difference between the two brands that you might want to consider. If you cut a loading gate slot into the frame of a Percussion revolver, you have permanently modified it from a non-firearm to a cartridge firing handgun in the eyes of the BATF. If you do not alter the frame, which is not required with the R&D style cylinder, then all you have to do to modify it back and forth from a non-firearm to a cartridge firing firearm is pop out one cylinder and pop in the other. In the eyes of the BTAF, by altering the frame you have made it a cartridge firearm. Furthermore, if you alter the frame, you can NEVER legally sell the gun. It is yours forever. Not a problem with the non-altered frame of the R&D. If you want to sell it, or ship it, pop the percussion cylinder back in and sell it or ship it anywhere you want, no FFL required.
 
Last edited:
Great info, everyone!

My buyer backed out for a couple weeks (selling my G26 to fund a revolver), so it looks like I have even more time to ponder the possibilities...

So far, it looks like the Pietta 5.5" from Cabellas, with an R&D cylinder.....
 
Originally Posted by arcticap
R&D doesn't make a .45acp conversion, only Kirst does.
Click to expand...

1KPerDay said:
FYI looks like they do now

http://www.buffaloarms.com/Detail.aspx?PROD=162987&CAT=3787
Click to expand...

Thank you 1KPerDay. Now I know where to get one. :)

Driftwood Johnson said:
There is one more difference between the two brands that you might want to consider. If you cut a loading gate slot into the frame of a Percussion revolver, you have permanently modified it from a non-firearm to a cartridge firing handgun in the eyes of the BATF.
Click to expand...

Most of the opinions here have been the exact opposite of what's being stated above. Cutting a simple loading gate slot doesn't mean that the cap & ball cylinder can't be installed. Therefore it's not being permanently modified for centerfire. If there's a written opinion from the BATF supporting what you're asserting, then I certainly wouldn't argue about it.

Driftwood Johnson said:
In the eyes of the BTAF, by altering the frame you have made it a cartridge firearm. Furthermore, if you alter the frame, you can NEVER legally sell the gun. It is yours forever.
Click to expand...

I take issue with this too Driftwood. If the gun were considered to be a permanently modified centerfire (which I haven't seen proof of yet), then the gun may still be able to be transferred as a centerfire gun by an FFL.
Especially if it were modified by a gunsmith that had an FFL that was classified as a manufacturer's license.
People have indeed transferred their converted C&B guns through FFL's. Are you saying that the FFL's are breaking the law? Or that the individual who installed the conversion is breaking the law by selling it? What about the person buying it? Do you have a written BATF opinion stating that a permanently converted C&B can't ever be transferred? So when someone dies what's suppose to happen to it, does it get destroyed?
I cannot say that I agree with your assertions without some kind of proof. I'm sorry that I'm the one that's asking for it. But I would hate to see myself or any other folks become misinformed due to do uncorroborated information. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
I have a Howell's 5 shot .45 Colt conversion cylinder for my Pietta 1858 and it works great. This version has a safety notches between the cylinders, so you can carry it safely with 5 rounds loaded:

RD-1.jpg

RD-6.jpg

I also have a six shot R&D conversion cylinder in 45 Colt for my Uberti 3rd Model Dragoon. It also works great, but it is a little slower to reload as you have to take the pistol apart to get the cylinder out.

I am thinking on eventually having a gated Kirst cylinder installed in this beast:

Dragoon8.jpg
 
Thanks, mic214!

Nice to hear little details like the Howell's has safety notches...

Do you shoot smokeless cartridges?
I know the cylinder is rated for SAAMI specs.....but can these revolvers hold up to standard pressure smokeless cartridges?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
Unusual Conversion Cylinder
Replies
10
Views
1K
shunka
S
Smokepole14
  • Locked
R&D gun shop
Replies
6
Views
960
wittzo
W
L
  • Locked
Safety of Conversion Cylinders
Replies
8
Views
2K
unspellable
U
W
  • Locked
Looking for Conversion Cylinder Pix (1858)
Replies
0
Views
464
Wwalstrom
W
B
  • Locked
Which conversion cylinders for Remington 1858?
Replies
7
Views
827
TomADC
TomADC
Back
Top