SMPARKINSON
Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2011
- Messages
- 19
There's no reason I can think of that you couldn't do a "full honest conversion". I have a Kirst .22 Konverter for my 1858 Remington, and as it came to me the ring wasn't ported. I also didn't want to take out the cylinder to reload, so after talking to Jay Strite I just cut a rounded chunk out of the ring. I had already converted that 1858 to a full conversion with a gated .45 ACP Kirst unit, so the recoil shield had alresdy been cut and the spring loader ejector installed. The only thing missing on the .22 conversion was an actual gate, but lots of conversions as well as factory guns from back in the day didn't have gates. When the hammer is down the cylinder is indexed so the shells can't fall out, so unless you have the barrel pointed to the sky when you cock your piece, the shells stay put in the cylinder. As far as the ejector goes, the one I used for the .45 conversion only needed the actual ejector rod thinned out a little to accomodate the .22 cylinder. Didn't have to thin it by much, certainly not enough to weaken the rod.
So my point is that If I can make the change to a .22 Kirst back ring to allow reloading without removing the cylinder, I don't see why you couldn't give the Ruger back ring the same treatment. As far as an ejector goes, I bet if you got a replacement Ruger Blackhawk ejector assembly, you could figure a way to mount it solidly and in the correct position. Probably have to build up some sort of mount block to get it the right height, but I don't think it would be hard for somebody with some tools and a little creativity and skill to do a real nice job. I've thought about it myself, and will probably make up just such a conversion one of these days. And to the people who say just buy a Blackhawk, well you could do that. But doing it this way you end up with a one of a kind piece that you customized with your own hands, and you could finish it anyway you wanted. Some guys make spectacular pieces that look like they just came back from a factory after being converted in 1865, and some people age them so that it looks like a well used but well cared for piece thats 140 years old. I'm in the second group. I like to take old things and make them look newer (as long as I'm not hurting any historical value), and I really like to take new things and make them look vintage. Salt, vinagar, ketsup, and mustard along with a little cold blue and brass black are just a few of my secrets. And if I don't like it, I strip it down and start over until I have something I decide to keep.
Both my 1858 5.5" revolver and my 1858 revolving carbine look like I found them under a bed in an old farmhouse. And depending how I set them up, either one can shoot .44 caliber balls, .45 ACP cartridges, or any kind of .22 rimfire aside from magnum. Shorts, longs, long rifles, and cb, bb, and Kolibri Caps. And I could buy just a Kirst cylinder in .45 Colt and add another choice. Don't even have to get another back plate. Did I mention .45 Schofield?
So my point is that If I can make the change to a .22 Kirst back ring to allow reloading without removing the cylinder, I don't see why you couldn't give the Ruger back ring the same treatment. As far as an ejector goes, I bet if you got a replacement Ruger Blackhawk ejector assembly, you could figure a way to mount it solidly and in the correct position. Probably have to build up some sort of mount block to get it the right height, but I don't think it would be hard for somebody with some tools and a little creativity and skill to do a real nice job. I've thought about it myself, and will probably make up just such a conversion one of these days. And to the people who say just buy a Blackhawk, well you could do that. But doing it this way you end up with a one of a kind piece that you customized with your own hands, and you could finish it anyway you wanted. Some guys make spectacular pieces that look like they just came back from a factory after being converted in 1865, and some people age them so that it looks like a well used but well cared for piece thats 140 years old. I'm in the second group. I like to take old things and make them look newer (as long as I'm not hurting any historical value), and I really like to take new things and make them look vintage. Salt, vinagar, ketsup, and mustard along with a little cold blue and brass black are just a few of my secrets. And if I don't like it, I strip it down and start over until I have something I decide to keep.
Both my 1858 5.5" revolver and my 1858 revolving carbine look like I found them under a bed in an old farmhouse. And depending how I set them up, either one can shoot .44 caliber balls, .45 ACP cartridges, or any kind of .22 rimfire aside from magnum. Shorts, longs, long rifles, and cb, bb, and Kolibri Caps. And I could buy just a Kirst cylinder in .45 Colt and add another choice. Don't even have to get another back plate. Did I mention .45 Schofield?
