Strange question about .36 and .44 cal. 1851 Navy modding

[.75 Kal Kenny]

Looking at a Pietta .36 cal. steel framed, Pietta .44 cal. brasser, considering how those compare to any modern weapon. Then it hit me, what if I could take a brass .44 cal. frame and cylinder, neck the mouth of the cylinder down to .36 cal. with a sleeve and some metal-working, attach a .36 cal. barrel, would the reduced mouths of the chambers simply be inline with the mouth of the barrel if the sleeves were adequately centered and secured into the chamber mouths, or would I have to grind and off-set the sleeves in some way for that? Asking because I kinda like toying with the idea of a bottle-necked antique firearm but despite the safety measures I've in place for testing, I don't want to waste money if it turns out I need to do more than center, pin and weld 6 sleeves in there. I'm great at finding the center, just not offsetting precisely and keeping it like that as I work.To find out, please just temporarily put a Pietta .36 barrel on a Pietta .44 cal. brass '51 Navy weapon and see if there's any part of the chamber mouth that stands above, below or beside the barrel when unloaded and the hammer is cocked back fully on a well-timed weapon? What's the gap look like. I'd appreciate any help that's not like the generic "don't do it, the gun will blow up" replies

 

[Jackrabbit1957]

Is the idea to have increased powder capacity? If so it's not such a great idea on a brass frame. You might wanna change to a steel frame. I can also see some loading issues coming up. Who knows, it may work. I ain't gonna try it.

 

[.75 Kal Kenny]

Yes, thank you. However, it also has a lighter projectile and about the same amount of powder as the .44 brasser, so I'd say it'd break even. Less momentum and higher velocity would be the desired result. Besides, I'm not asking anybody to try shooting any load, just wondering if anybody has both .44 and .36 versions, and can simply tell if the cylinder mouth is centered or offset from the barrel once it's attached. If you can't or won't, I get it, though. There's just something about BP that draws some of the more traditional folks. Then some a55h0l3 like me comes along and ruins it with these new-fangled ideas LOL

 

[Arkansas Paul]

I'd appreciate any help that's not like the generic "don't do it, the gun will blow up" replies

You should search for advice that is good and sound. Sometimes generic is that for a reason.
If you just want people to tell you it's a great idea, and ignore facts, you're in the wrong place.
I'm not saying it's going to blow up, but it's certainly not going to last very long. Brass frames stretch and it is a waste of money to build a custom firearm on one.

 

[.75 Kal Kenny]

You should search for advice that is good and sound. Sometimes generic is that for a reason.
If you just want people to tell you it's a great idea, and ignore facts, you're in the wrong place.
I'm not saying it's going to blow up, but it's certainly not going to last very long. Brass frames stretch and it is a waste of money to build a custom firearm on one.

I've a fact or few. I'd a Pietta 1851 Navy with a brass frame in .44 caliber, kept it loaded with 50 grain 777 pellets and .454" lead balls. I shot it 60 times when I had it and now a friend has it and is still shooting, even hunting with it. He used up a whole box minus 6 777 pellets so far. I got that thing in 2015 and mainly kept it for personal defense. I don't need guns for fun. I don't need those to last long. I just need those to be darn effective if/when I need those. Beyond testing loads to see what works and to make sure I can use it well, I can get a BB gun or play a FPS game for my shooting fun. I like a brass frame because it's cheap and barely good enough for what I'd have it for. I'm really not trying to debate down to the nitty gritty with you guys or drag this out with thorough discussion of side-issues, so I'll just wait and see if anybody answers the question I actually asked. Not sure why I'm on a black powder forum except to learn and teach more about black powder and related weaponry. That's what I've been trying to do. So far, I've seen repeats (not word for word, though) of popular myths. I've seen warnings and risks I've already considered and accepted before I started this thread. Thank you for your concern.

 

[ShotgunDave]

If I'm correct, this is what you're looking to find out? I put the .36 caliber barrel on the .44 pistol. Both are Pietta's of recent manufacture and both are 51 Navies. The forcing cone of the .36 looks to center in the chamber of the .44 with none of the cylinder mouth showing around the edge of the forcing cone.

The problem is, the .36 barrel doesn't come close to seating on the .44 frame. The forcing cone is much longer, keeping the two from mating up.

Hope this helps you in your quest.

 

[Eyrie G. Dogg]

I wish the OP much joy of the whole thing and yes, I’m a traditionalist (without apologies) and that, sir, is the most darndest thing I ever heard tell of. I’ll neither aid nor abet.

It looks like Shotgun done cleared that one up. Good post, Dave.

 

[expat_alaska]

To find out, please just temporarily put a Pietta .36 barrel on a Pietta .44 cal. brass '51 Navy weapon and see if there's any part of the chamber mouth that stands above, below or beside the barrel when unloaded and the hammer is cocked back fully on a well-timed weapon? What's the gap look like. I'd appreciate any help that's not like the generic "don't do it, the gun will blow up" replies

Hi Kenny,

Welcome to the forum, sir! I like projects and I don't think yours is a strange question.

Most everyone on this forum knows that I am a huge fan of Pietta 1851 Navy .36 "type" pistols and I have enough guns/parts to create 8 different historically accurate guns from 4 base pistols and a spare cylinder, even though they all have Pietta billboards, proof marks, and date codes.

I will not dissuade you from trying your idea concerning sleeving a .44 caliber rebated cylinder to .36 caliber chamber mouth. I just hope you are a good enough machinist to do so.

In my mind, if your parts are manufactured after ~2000 when Pietta went to CNC machining, everything should align if you do your part with the concentricity of the cylinder .36 sleeves.

Until recently, there was a good guy on this forum that was banned here after the migration to the new server because he chose to let his thoughts be heard about the then new mods. Thankfully, a couple of those mods have not been around since then. His screen name was maint1517 and his project was to build a project Pietta 1851 Navy .36 pistol using parts. Another good guy on this forum sent him a free Pietta 1851 Navy .44 brass frame that he had no need for, and I sent him the balance of parts free, per the pics below. He now just has to procure about $100 more parts to make it whole.

Although the pics below show a .36 barrel and a .36 cylinder, they are on a .44 arbor and line up great. I would expect that a rebated .44 cylinder would work well, even though it might be just a bit larger in circumference than the .36 cylinder. If you look, the cut water table on the .44 brass frame has very little "air space" when fitted with the .36 cylinder. The timing of the bolt will all depend upon the hand and bolt size.






I still think a steel frame .36 will be better with heavier loads than the brass frame.

Your call, sir.

Jim

 

[expat_alaska]

If I'm correct, this is what you're looking to find out? I put the .36 caliber barrel on the .44 pistol. Both are Pietta's of recent manufacture and both are 51 Navies. The forcing cone of the .36 looks to center in the chamber of the .44 with none of the cylinder mouth showing around the edge of the forcing cone.

The problem is, the .36 barrel doesn't come close to seating on the .44 frame. The forcing cone is much longer, keeping the two from mating up.

Hope this helps you in your quest.

Wow!

I have no 1860 Armies and this is an eye-opener.

Thanks for posting this.

Jim

 

[ShotgunDave]

Wow!

I have no 1860 Armies and this is an eye-opener.

Thanks for posting this.

Jim

Jim,

The difference is due to the cylinder lengths. The .44 cylinder is about 1/4" longer than the .36 is. So the forcing cone on the .44 is cut down to compensate for the length. For what the OP is trying to accomplish, I think if the forcing cone on the .36 barrel were machined down, the barrel would fit on to his .44 brasser with the .44 cylinder installed.

Essentially what the OP is doing is, hotrodding or wildcatting a cap and ball gun. By using a .44 cylinder for the increased powder capacity and necking the chamber mouth down to .36 to hold the ball. I agree with everyone else, that he should probably use a steel framed gun, but it's his project and he can do as he see's fit.

 

[Jackrabbit1957]

About cylinder gap, .005 to .002 should work.

 

[Jackrabbit1957]

You could also face off the .44 cylinder to fit, it would reduce the powder capacity.

 

[AlexanderA]

neck the mouth of the cylinder down to .36 cal. with a sleeve and some metal-working,

I see this as a major problem. How do you sleeve the fronts of the chambers in such a way that the sleeves don't get blown out on firing? It would take more than a press fit or even silver soldering. These would have to be welded in place and then the front of the cylinder, and the chambers, would have to be re-machined.

How about, instead of sleeving the chambers, just using paper sabots around the .36 cal. bullets to center them in the .44 chambers? The sabots would be burned up on firing, and wouldn't damage anything.

 

[Eyrie G. Dogg]

I'd a Pietta 1851 Navy with a brass frame in .44 caliber, kept it loaded with 50 grain 777 pellets and .454" lead balls. I shot it 60 times when I had it and now a friend has it and is still shooting, even hunting with it. He used up a whole box minus 6 777 pellets so far.

Are we getting trolled? Is this even for real? Whatever is one supposed to make of this?

 

[ShotgunDave]

Are we getting trolled? Is this even for real? Whatever is one supposed to make of this?

Hmmmmm..........

 

[arcticap]

I've a fact or few. I'd a Pietta 1851 Navy with a brass frame in .44 caliber, kept it loaded with 50 grain 777 pellets and .454" lead balls. I shot it 60 times when I had it and now a friend has it and is still shooting, even hunting with it. He used up a whole box minus 6 777 pellets so far. I got that thing in 2015 and mainly kept it for personal defense. I don't need guns for fun. I don't need those to last long. I just need those to be darn effective if/when I need those. Beyond testing loads to see what works and to make sure I can use it well, I can get a BB gun or play a FPS game for my shooting fun. I like a brass frame because it's cheap and barely good enough for what I'd have it for. I'm really not trying to debate down to the nitty gritty with you guys or drag this out with thorough discussion of side-issues, so I'll just wait and see if anybody answers the question I actually asked. Not sure why I'm on a black powder forum except to learn and teach more about black powder and related weaponry. That's what I've been trying to do. So far, I've seen repeats (not word for word, though) of popular myths. I've seen warnings and risks I've already considered and accepted before I started this thread. Thank you for your concern.

Perhaps you're referring to 30 grain Pyrodex revolver pellets and not 50 grain pellets of 777.
An easy mistake to make if someone were not very familar with the products.
That's totally understandable.

 

[arcticap]

Swapping Pietta components to change calibers is not an entirely new topic.
A previous thread asked if a Pietta Dance frame could be fitted with a Pietta 1851 or G&G .36 barrel,cylinder and wedge.

Cowhide Cliff's answer stated:

"Ok I compared the Pietta Dance and G&G. The barrels will swap even though the 44 barrel is larger. The wedge is the same. The dance cylinder is larger diameter but the cylinders are the same length so the 36 cylinder will go on the Dance frame and does cycle however there is a much larger gap between it and the frame so I'm not sure the bolt is engaging the cylinder notches fully.

So yes the parts do swap but it doesn't really look right because the Dance frame is machined for the larger diameter cylinder."--->>> https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...nce-and-brothers-pistol.799762/#post-10202765

 

[LonesomePigeon]

Somebody on this forum or maybe another forum converted a Walker to .36 caliber. Not sure if he ever posted any results.

 

[drobs]

Problem I see, is there is the potential to accidentally ram a ball past the sleeve into the body of bottle neck. You'd have to use chamber full charges to prevent that.
I'm not sure that there would be a significant increase in the powder charge but would be curious to your results. Understand that more powder doesn't mean more accuracy. I think most would agree that smaller powder charges are more accurate.

As Alexander mentioned you can shoot cloth patched 36 ball out of a 44 cal revolver as ManyCA shows in this video:


You also can shoot 357mag JHP bullets using the same patched ball techniques.

A fellow on another board has been shooting saboted 40sw JHP out of his 1858 and ROA.
http://1858remington.com/discuss/index.php?topic=11941.0

Sabot / Cloth patching is cheaper and less labor intensive - than sleeving chambers.

 

[woodnbow]

Problem I see, is there is the potential to accidentally ram a ball past the sleeve into the body of bottle neck. You'd have to use chamber full charges to prevent that.
I'm not sure that there would be a significant increase in the powder charge but would be curious to your results. Understand that more powder doesn't mean more accuracy. I think most would agree that smaller powder charges are more accurate.

As Alexander mentioned you can shoot cloth patched 36 ball out of a 44 cal revolver as ManyCA shows in this video:


You also can shoot 357mag JHP bullets using the same patched ball techniques.

A fellow on another board has been shooting saboted 40sw JHP out of his 1858 and ROA.
http://1858remington.com/discuss/index.php?topic=11941.0

Sabot / Cloth patching is cheaper and less labor intensive - than sleeving chambers.

OP is not crazy for thinking of this... I have too... ok, not a ringing endorsement but still.
Elmer Keith designed a tube which was placed inside a .50 bag case and the purpose was to direct the flame from the primer up into the middle of the case igniting the charge in the middle for more complete burn among other theoretical advantages. Something like that could be made a part of the nipple so that the ball or bullet could not be seated past the sleeve.
If the tube were closed on the projectile end and ported along its length it might provide for a more complete burn of the larger than normal charge. I suspect that a heavy for caliber bullet would be most efficient as well. A lot of work, for who knows what kind of gains. I need to buy a lathe and fool around with some of these notions.

 

[AlexanderA]

Sabot / Cloth patching is cheaper and less labor intensive - than sleeving chambers.

I've been thinking about my own suggestion. OK, let's say that you assemble the revolver with a .36 barrel and a .44 cylinder. As long as you remember to use patched .36 bullets, you should be OK. But let's say you forget and use .44 bullets (or, more likely, some innocent buyer of the gun uses .44 bullets, not having noticed that the barrel is undersized). There's the potential for a major accident.

Sometimes "pushing the envelope" isn't worth it.

 

[arcticap]

Elmer Keith designed a tube which was placed inside a .50 bag case and the purpose was to direct the flame from the primer up into the middle of the case igniting the charge in the middle for more complete burn among other theoretical advantages. Something like that could be made a part of the nipple so that the ball or bullet could not be seated past the sleeve.
If the tube were closed on the projectile end and ported along its length it might provide for a more complete burn of the larger than normal charge. I suspect that a heavy for caliber bullet would be most efficient as well. A lot of work, for who knows what kind of gains. I need to buy a lathe and fool around with some of these notions.

Knight has made an optional "Power Stem 209 Breech Plug" for a long time and still does.
It comes with a warning to only use it with loose powder.
Knight claims:

• Power Stem accuracy enhancement increases velocity/energy, reduces felt recoil, and results in more efficient powder burn. --->>> https://www.muzzleloaders.com/product/knight-power-stem-muzzleloader-breech-plug/

Also similar is the TC Black Diamond 209 primer adapter that has vent holes. It replaces a #11 or musket nipple.--->>> https://gnarlygorilla.com/thompson-...MI_9HSh7HN3wIVAp7ACh06OAmDEAQYASABEgJw6PD_BwE

 

[drobs]

I've been thinking about my own suggestion. OK, let's say that you assemble the revolver with a .36 barrel and a .44 cylinder. As long as you remember to use patched .36 bullets, you should be OK. But let's say you forget and use .44 bullets (or, more likely, some innocent buyer of the gun uses .44 bullets, not having noticed that the barrel is undersized). There's the potential for a major accident.

Sometimes "pushing the envelope" isn't worth it.

I think the point of patching undersized projectiles is to use the guns and barrels as is in their original calibers. No need to have a 36 cal barrel on a 44 call frame / cylinder. The patch makes up for the difference in diameters.