keeterh
Member
Hi, I hope you'll forgive me if I'm asking you to cover too-well-travelled ground. I've searched for similar threads and posts in this forum and found much good advice, but I still have a couple questions.
Here goes: in searching suppliers for the Howell's Old West Conversion/R&D Conversion cylinders in .45LC for the Uberti Remington 1858, the market seems to have two versions available. Some sellers offer a six-chamber cylinder (Taylor's, Midway), while some offer a five-shot version (Buffalo Arms, Fall Creek Sutler, as well as the Howell's Old West Conversions own website).
Even after reading through the information already here on the subject, I'm still not clear why there are two versions, as it seems like under any conditions six would be more efficient than five shots. Does anyone have the last word on this? For example, are there black powder max. loading limits for cartridges in the six shot cylinder that don't apply to the five chamber model (given the thickness of the steel in the chamber walls)? I'm not interested in using smokeless powder, so I'm only referring to the max. pressure from black powder that these cylinders can take.
I ask this because the 19th century sources I have come across (U.S. Army small arms test reports, etc.), and 20th c. sources (authors like Elmer Keith and John Taffin) emphasize the versatility of the .45LC cartridge with max. black powder loads of 40(forty!) grains of powder under a 255 grain conoidal bullet. What a whopper that would be! Not having fired the Walker, I can only imagine how big that load's bark would be in the Colt or Remington army-model .44s.
But, backing off that maximum for practical shooting, a couple of my sources write that the army came up with combat loads of 30-ish grains of powder (maybe a little less?) with ball ammo prob. the same weight as the max. tested load, or near it (<250gr.). Apparently, that load yielded muzzle velocities comparable to standard military ball 1911 .45 ACP cartridge. Satisfied with its performance, army troopers carried that .45LC round for many of the early metallic-cartridge sidearms, including the 1873 Peacemaker, through the Indian Wars of the 1870s. Taffin writes that his modern day tests using RCBS bullet mould 45-255 and 38.6 grains of FFFg resulted in a muzzle velocity of 949fps and were "most accurate."
The bottom line is that I want to be able safely to shoot the 1867-1870s-spec. army round, and up to Taffin's .45LC tested black powder load in my Uberti 1858 Remington using a conversion cylinder.
My other question concerns the engineering of the R&D cylinders. At the great research site, Svartkrutt.net, Mr Flatnes' article on this technology (http://www.svartkrutt.net/articles/vis.php?id=24) shows clearly that his version of the R&D 45LC cylinder has the Remington safety notches milled into the backplate between each chamber. In my view, this is hugely important, as it allows the weapon to be carried safely with all six chambers loaded, just as can the cap-and-ball cylinder for this gun. It is one of the Remington revolver's best features, IMHO.
However, the R&D conversion cylinders I've seen on the market don't seem have this feature. Why is that? Taylor's tells me that I would have to carry the pistol with the hammer down on an empty chamber for safety. Not the best option, surely? So, where do I find one of these cylinders that can take the army/Taffin loads, and has the Remington 1858 safety notches?
Thanks for any advice you have.
Respectfully,
-H.
Here goes: in searching suppliers for the Howell's Old West Conversion/R&D Conversion cylinders in .45LC for the Uberti Remington 1858, the market seems to have two versions available. Some sellers offer a six-chamber cylinder (Taylor's, Midway), while some offer a five-shot version (Buffalo Arms, Fall Creek Sutler, as well as the Howell's Old West Conversions own website).
Even after reading through the information already here on the subject, I'm still not clear why there are two versions, as it seems like under any conditions six would be more efficient than five shots. Does anyone have the last word on this? For example, are there black powder max. loading limits for cartridges in the six shot cylinder that don't apply to the five chamber model (given the thickness of the steel in the chamber walls)? I'm not interested in using smokeless powder, so I'm only referring to the max. pressure from black powder that these cylinders can take.
I ask this because the 19th century sources I have come across (U.S. Army small arms test reports, etc.), and 20th c. sources (authors like Elmer Keith and John Taffin) emphasize the versatility of the .45LC cartridge with max. black powder loads of 40(forty!) grains of powder under a 255 grain conoidal bullet. What a whopper that would be! Not having fired the Walker, I can only imagine how big that load's bark would be in the Colt or Remington army-model .44s.
But, backing off that maximum for practical shooting, a couple of my sources write that the army came up with combat loads of 30-ish grains of powder (maybe a little less?) with ball ammo prob. the same weight as the max. tested load, or near it (<250gr.). Apparently, that load yielded muzzle velocities comparable to standard military ball 1911 .45 ACP cartridge. Satisfied with its performance, army troopers carried that .45LC round for many of the early metallic-cartridge sidearms, including the 1873 Peacemaker, through the Indian Wars of the 1870s. Taffin writes that his modern day tests using RCBS bullet mould 45-255 and 38.6 grains of FFFg resulted in a muzzle velocity of 949fps and were "most accurate."
The bottom line is that I want to be able safely to shoot the 1867-1870s-spec. army round, and up to Taffin's .45LC tested black powder load in my Uberti 1858 Remington using a conversion cylinder.
My other question concerns the engineering of the R&D cylinders. At the great research site, Svartkrutt.net, Mr Flatnes' article on this technology (http://www.svartkrutt.net/articles/vis.php?id=24) shows clearly that his version of the R&D 45LC cylinder has the Remington safety notches milled into the backplate between each chamber. In my view, this is hugely important, as it allows the weapon to be carried safely with all six chambers loaded, just as can the cap-and-ball cylinder for this gun. It is one of the Remington revolver's best features, IMHO.
However, the R&D conversion cylinders I've seen on the market don't seem have this feature. Why is that? Taylor's tells me that I would have to carry the pistol with the hammer down on an empty chamber for safety. Not the best option, surely? So, where do I find one of these cylinders that can take the army/Taffin loads, and has the Remington 1858 safety notches?
Thanks for any advice you have.
Respectfully,
-H.