Unusual Conversion Cylinder

[jamesbeat]

I found this picture on some website or other ages ago and just rediscovered it on my computer.
It shows a conversion cylinder that I don't recognize, it doesn't look like any of the current offerings from R&D or Kirst, maybe it's an older design I'm not familiar with or a custom job?
I guess the firing pin would be frame mounted or attached to the hammer.
It seems like a very logical and straightforward approach, and I'm wondering why R&D or Kirst don't use a design like this instead of having a separate back piece to the cylinder. Am I missing something?
Anyone able to identify it?

 

[BHP FAN]

the long cylinder conversions were mostly one off gunsmith's conversions.I've seen Colt's and Remington's done this way.

 

[Smokin_Gun]

Maybe the cylinder is off a Remington 1875 .45Colt... and the shield plate added.

 

[mykeal]

I guess the firing pin would be frame mounted or attached to the hammer.
It seems like a very logical and straightforward approach, and I'm wondering why R&D or Kirst don't use a design like this instead of having a separate back piece to the cylinder.

Perhaps because mounting a firing pin on the hammer would mean that converting to/from the cartridge version involves disassembling the action to replace the hammer, a bit more inconvenient than just changing cylinders. Mounting it on the frame would mean the frame was a cartridge frame and the percussion exemption to the GCA of 68 would no longer apply.

 

[Old Fuff]

I've seen a number of "blacksmith" cap & ball > cartridge conversions on original revolvers that came out of Mexico, including an 1851 Navy Colt that was change to fire .22 rimfire. The practice of making these seems to been quite common south of the border.

In addition something along the lines of the one you showed were made up to be used as props in Hollywood movies.

Remington generally used a plate on the back of the cylinder. To load it you had to remove the cylinder, take off the plate, insert the cartridges (or remove fired cases) and then do everything in reverse order. This was slow, but faster then loading a cap & ball. It was also prefered by those on the far reaches of the frontier because it could be quickly converted backwards if metallic cartridges weren't available.

Check out www.amazon.com and www.dixiegunworks.com for books on the original Remington and Colt conversions. Sometimes used copies can be purchased at considerable savings.

 

[madcratebuilder]

I've seen a number of "blacksmith" cap & ball > cartridge conversions on original revolvers that came out of Mexico, including an 1851 Navy Colt that was change to fire .22 rimfire. The practice of making these seems to been quite common south of the border.

I have seen a few C&B conversion to .22lr on GB and wondered about that. I assume they sleeve the barrel?

 

[Old Fuff]

I think the change from c & b to .22 was based on availability of ammunition, and yes - they sleeved both the barrel and chambers. Otherwise it was a pretty straight forward conversion. There was a hand-made breech ring, but I can't remember if it had a gate or not. The barrel was left at 7 1/2 inches, and overall the piece was in pretty good condition.

 

[NobleSniper]

Kenny Howell of R&D has done the full cylinder conversions ons everal revolvers I have seen. One being the Walker COlt used by Robert Duvall in Lonesome Dove matter of fact

 

[shunka]

That is a "thin plate" conversion, basically replicating the original Remington conversion. The thin back plate is dovetailed into the frame and usually cut for a port, but no loading gate is provided - the port is cut such that the cartridges are not in line with it when the hammer is down. Modern conversions either have new cylinders constructed full length or the old cylinder is turned to remove the nipple cutouts and a steel ring high temp silver soldered onto the back of the old cylinder and drilled through and chambered. In these conversions the firing pin is usually afixed to the hammer, and a hole drilled in the plate - at times the oldtimers did not even worry about a firing pin hole or bushing, just leaving a large gap for the hammer/pin assembly to pass through. This example appears to have an ejector tube (without ejector) added to the frame.

yhs
shunka

 

[jamesbeat]

Is turning down the cylinder and silver soldering a ring to the back of it safe?
I was under the impression that the cylinders on these revolvers were pretty weak to begin with?

 

[shunka]

Howdy Jamesbeat -
If one uses good steel, and high-temp silver-bearing solder it is quite safe. This is one of the ways in which original conversions were carried out. The high temp silver-bearing solder is very strong, even only 4% silver alloy solder is good for 28,000 psi; certainly strong enough for BP cartridge. In addition, the joint is holding the cylinder pieces together, shall we say "lengthwise", and the pressure from the cartridge is shall we say "sideways" from the inside of a chamber to the outside.

One other reason is due to the nature of the pressure of BP, which is somewhat more "progressive and gradual" than the smokeless powder which is more "instantaneous and spikey" .

If you take a look at the thickness (thinness?) of the modern .45 Colt cylinder wall in a Model P you will be amazed. The cylinder explosions of early C&B revolvers were mainly (to my recollection) involving heavily loaded Walkers (perhaps 50 gr of BP or more) with iron (not steel) cylinders that had metallurgical "issues".

New made conversions replicating the "old conversion methods" are using reasonably strong new-made steel cylinders from Italy. The modern conversions by Kirst and R&D however are even stronger, entirely lathe-cut and CNC milled from modern gun steels. I was blessed with the opportunity to converse with the manufacturor of the Kirst cylinders - it was fascinating. The biggest issue seems to be getting those large modern rims into the space that the C&B revolver provides.

yhs
shunka