Safety of Conversion Cylinders

[likesblackpowder]

I've read the recent thread on conversion cylinders, and most reviews were positive for both brands. I have a question about the safety mechanisms of the various conversions. I've decided against the gated ones, I have a remington and they're fast to remove the cylinder anyway. Both Kirst and R&D have ungated versions. One I was looking at, the R&D:

http://www.midwayusa.com/eproductpage.exe/showproduct?saleitemid=292272

appears to be a six-shot, but I don't see what kind of safety mechanism it has. The Kirst converter appears to be a five shot, with a safety cylinder so that you can always travel with the hammer over an empty chamber. Does the R&D have some kind of safety not mentioned in the product or shown in the picture? Oddly, it seems to be missing the between nipple notches on the remington BP cylinder.

Anyone have any experience with either of these converters that can explain it?

 

[gmatov]

I think that Sam'l Colt devised the post Pattersons to be 6 shooters. I don't think that Old Westerners loaded 5 rounds. I think if you are a CAS or SASS shooter, all you have to do is load 5 rounds, you are legal.

I also don't think you are riding horses and roping calves all day, where the pistol might fall out of the holster and nail you.

No one suggests that you carry a DA revolver, a 6 shooter, today, with an empty chamber to let the hammer down on. Transfer bar or no. Well, yeah the real safety freaks who devise the ways something COULD happen, do demand this crap. You could have your CF rifle upright on your right hip where your pistol is holstered and inadvertently fire the rifle and id could hit the hammer of the pistol and it could fire the pistol. So make the pistol unfireable by either making mandatory a chamber that cannot be fired, or a pistol that cannot be fired by a hammer impact. I will give Ruger much credit for the transfer bar system, and for the free retrofit for pre '73 pistols, I think.

Innyhoo, I don't think you have to worry about having 6 chambers charged.

Cheers,

George

This really hasn't much to do with conversion cylinders, does it? Still, you are the arbiter of safety. You are safe or you are not.

 

[Jim Watson]

The R&Ds I have seen for Ruger and Remington C&B revolvers have safety notches between the firing pins like the original Remington. Look at the picture at
http://www.taylorsfirearms.com/prod...bcategory=R & D Conversion Cylinder&startat=1

Note that one of the firing pin bushings is bright. This is to mark the empty chamber for 5+0 CAS loading. I think at least some of them have punch marks on each side of that chamber so you can put one on each side of the top strap and know you are safe.

R&D makes 5-shot cylinders for 1860 Colt repros with extra stop notches so you can lower the hammer between chambers, which meets SASS requirements.

As far as history goes, Colt C&B revolvers had safety pins between nipples and a notch in the hammer so they could be carried fully loaded with the hammer down between chambers. A few had double stop notches to improve security. The pins wore off pretty fast, though. The Remington's notches between nipples was a better system.

Colt SAA had the quarter-cock "safety notch" on the hammer, but that is not very strong and there are reliable reports of ADs from notch breakage or false half cock positions. I have read of them being carried with the hammer down between chambers, depending on the firing pin between rims to prevent rotation into firing position. Not real secure.

The reason Ruger went to transfer bar design to allow safely loading six was because they had been sued many times by people injured by loading six in Blackhawks with traditional lockwork. One such case was the Alaskan guide who knocked the hammer of his Old Model SBH against something on his bush plane, chipped out the notch and blew a big hole in his leg; so it is not just a horseback risk.

 

[Old Dragoon]

SASS and CAS require you to load only Five.
I carry (mostly) only 5, hammer parked on an empty cylinder. If I can't do it in 5 the 6th one isn't going to help much.
If I were ever to carry all six full(in the woods) I'd have to park the hammer between cylinders, not too worried about looseing mine out of the holster as I have a hammer loop on all my holsters to keep it parked in the holster. One holster and loop are worked in so that the loop moves out of the way if I pull the gun out a bit and shove it back in the holster. Not what I intended, but it works great, the other two holters are not worked in that much so they don't do the same thing yet. My C & B cylinders are carried full six (in the woods) and the hammer is in the saftey notch.
Kirst makes a full six shot cylinder for 44 Rem. ('58 Rem.'s) and a six shot cylinder for Ruger Old Army. I haven't read about any other six shots they make.

I do not need a safety cylinder. I will choose which one I choose to leave empty, or not. Thank You!

That's the main reason I chose the Kirst 44 Rem. conversion. That and the fact that 44 Rem. was the original load for Rem. conversion 44 CF pistols.

 

[Yankee John]

Just a note: The latest R&D Remington cylinders do not have the knotches between the firing pins. I bought mine in late-2004 and it doesn't have them.

John

 

[likesblackpowder]

gmatov, I understand that a safety doesn't make a person safe, but I do rest easier when my hammer is down between two nipples in the "safety notch". I don't ride a lot of horses, but I do enjoy hiking or x-country skiing to go out for some shooting. The safety notches give me piece of mind to load all six. If they weren't there I'd only load five for safety reasons.

Seems the R&D cylinder from Taylor that Jim Watson pointed out does have some kind of between nipple notches in the photo, but in the better photo from Midway on R&D they do not appear to. As Yankee John reported his late 2004 R&D has no safety notches.

Seems a bit odd to me that they would remove such a dumb simple safety, if for any reason just because Remington shooters are in the habit of seeing and using them. Oh well, I'm still going to go for the R&D, and possibly consult a qualified gunsmith to get custom cut notches if I feel that inclinded.

 

[unspellable]

R&D cylinders

The first two R&D cylinders I acquired have hammer notches half way between chambers. The third one I recently acquired has no half way notches. Instead it has notches in the rear of the outside chamber wall so that you can see if there is brass in the chamber. I had a machinist friend cut the half way notches for me.

 

[Smokin_Gun]

likesblackpowder as far as I know the R&D safety notches on 1858 Rems never worked hammer wouldn't sit in them unless hammer was modified. That's why they were removed...were mostly cosmetic. As far as I know.

 

[unspellable]

notches

If what Smokin_Gun says is true, then R&D has made a boo boo. The safety notches worked just fine on my Roger Old Army, so why remove them in cases where they worked?