Yet another conversion question

[CarbineWilliams]

Hi y'all,

I've got an 1858 Pietta Remington BP and I'm waiting on my Taylor and Co 45 LC conversion cylinder, but I was wondering about something.

I've been thinking about also getting one of the pre-converted 1858's from Pietta or Uberti (that come with the loading gate and dovetailed frame). On the 1858's like that, can you still quick change the cylinders? If so, do you take out the cylinder only when you swap it out, or does the back plate come with it?

Also, the same question about the Kirst gated conversion cylinder. It looks like the whole thing gets taken out, back plate and all?

Last thing, it seems like I saw a conversion cylinder somewhere (maybe the Pale Rider) where the back plate only has one firing pin, and screws in permanently and then you can change out the cylinder quickly. That seems like the best idea. Anyone got one of those? They seem to be hard to find.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

The 'pre-converted' 1858 Remington is loaded and unloaded just like a Colt. You open the gate and pop out the empties using the ejector rod. There is no point in changing cylinders, even if you had an extra one, because there is nothing to keep ammo in the cylinder if you were to remove it from the gun. It is just a cylinder like any other cylinder. The back plate is mounted to the gun.

http://www.uberti.com/firearms/army-navy-conversion-and-open-top.php

There is really no point trying to change cylinders with the Taylors cylinder either. The backing plate for the cylinder is not secured to the cylinder, it is a slip fit on the cylinder and is only held in place when the cylinder is installed in the gun. If you were to turn an extra cylinder loaded with rounds over, the plate would fall off and the rounds would fall out.

The point of the gated cylinder that Kirst sells is, once again, to quickly reload with cartridges. You open the gate to load and unload.

Extra cylinders with these guns are not necessary. The reason extra cylinders were handy with Cap & Ball revolvers was because it took so long to charge them with powder, ball, and cap. Once cartridges came along loading was much simpler and quicker so there was no need for extra cylinders. Same with the modern conversions.

 

[CarbineWilliams]

Thanks for the info Driftwood. That clears up most of my questions.

But what's going on here?

"Remington 1858 "New Army" with a cartridge conversion using several pre-loaded cylinders like a modern speedloader."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=610YsqZCtHc

Now that I look at it, I'm guessing that the cylinder he is swapping out must already have the backplate w/firing pin(s) because otherwise, as you said, the rounds would fall out or at least become unseated.


Unfortunately I've moved up near the city and there aren't many nearby options for firing black powder, so I'm resorting to firing 45 Colt at one of the local indoor ranges when I can't get out to the country to fire BP (which is most of the time). I guess that what I really should look at doing is to just get another entire conversion cylinder assembly for going to the indoor range if I really want to be able to change out cylinders with cartridges.

 

[hang fire]

If you are using the Richard and Mason ejector with the gated cylinder and opened up recoil shield, in a word, no, you cannot quickly change cylinders.

See here as to why not: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=642057

 

[CraigC]

deleted

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

ITS A MOVIE! It does not represent historical reality.

I seriously doubt that is a real Remington Conversion Clint is shooting, movie prop departments used to be very good at cobbling up guns that were needed for specific scenes. The Walker Colt that Gus used in Lonesome Dove was an Italian Replica that was modified to shoot 38 Special blanks. They even faked caps on nipples to make it look good, but it was converted for the movie to shoot blanks. I suspect Clint is shooting an Italian replica of the 1858 Army that the movie prop people modified to shoot blank cartridges.

If you watch carefully you will see the backs of the cartridges in one of the cylinders he is changing. You can also see the firing pin on the hammer. That much is exactly the way the original Remington conversions were done, the hammer nose was modified to be a firing pin which reached through the very thin backing plate that was screwed to the frame of the gun.

Here is a link showing an actual Remington conversion. You can see how thin the backing plate was. It was screwed to the frame, and the firing pin that was created from the hammer nose went right through it to fire the cartridges.

http://www.collectorsfirearms.com/admin/product_details.php?itemID=18319

The way it was set up, no loading gate was needed to keep the cartridges in the cylinder. When the cylinder was at battery, the two chambers near the gate were offset enough that the plate kept them in the chambers. Only when the hammer was at half cock for loading did the chambers line up with the deep groove that had been cut for loading and unloading.

****

As I said earlier, there was very little advantage to having preloaded cylinders once cartridges became practical. I have two Remmies that I shoot with R&D conversion cylinders. I pop out the cylinder, pull the backing plate off, knock out the empties and then pop in five fresh ones. Then put the backing plate back on the cylinder and pop it back into the gun. The whole point is doing this is very quick. Not quite as quick as what Clint is doing, but much, much quicker than loading up a cylinder with loose powder, cap, and ball.



When you had to load up loose powder, cap, and ball, it made sense to have multiple cylinders preloaded. Particularly with a Remington because it is much quicker and easier to pop the cylinder out of a Remmie than it is with a Colt. With a Colt you have to drive out the wedge. With the Remmie you just drop the loading lever and pull the cylinder pin forward and the cylinder drops right out. Reverse the process to put in another cylinder. Frankly, I have read more about Civil War mounted troops having multiple pistols than I have about having multiple cylinders for a single revolver. Don't really know which was more common.

But once cartridges became practical, there was no longer a need for multiple cylinders. You just kept reloading the same cylinder.

In fact, the R&D cylinder like I shoot is not typical of the actual conversion cylinders. The R&D cylinder was designed to be used in the C&B revolver without altering the gun at all. It was designed to be used without cutting a loading groove in the frame, it was designed to be reloaded by removing the cylinder. The actual Remington conversions were designed to be reloaded without removing the cylinder from the gun, because a reloading groove was cut in the frame.

Here is a good video that illustrates the differences between the historical conversions and the pistol that Uberti is making today that we have been talking about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iunnvoDCPD0

 

[CarbineWilliams]

Wow, great info Driftwood! Thanks! I had read a few places that the idea of a multiple firing pin backplate for conversion is a relatively recent invention and knew that they used to use a sharpened hammer as opposed to a firing pin but I love learning new things about these old weapons.

Not to get too far on the Pale Rider topic, but I found a great old post here on THR: http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-234892.html. Apparently the interest in the bona fides of the realism of that revolver has probably been going on since Al Gore invented the Internet.

Also of interest is this great looking original conversion:

http://www.johnjhayeshistoricalcollectibles.com/proddetail.asp?prod=b44

Do you think they used to drill the chambers so that the cartidges fit pretty snugly? Looks to me like there's nothing preventing a round coming unseated when it's even with the cutout.

-----------

Say.. here's a nice looking original BP 1858 if anyone's got $4,750 to spare:

http://www.johnjhayeshistoricalcollectibles.com/proddetail.asp?prod=g15

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

The way it was set up, no loading gate was needed to keep the cartridges in the cylinder. When the cylinder was at battery, the two chambers near the gate were offset enough that the plate kept them in the chambers. Only when the hammer was at half cock for loading did the chambers line up with the deep groove that had been cut for loading and unloading.

In actual use, the only time a cartridge could slide out was as the hammer was being cocked, as the hammer passed the half cock position. As long as the gun was not pointing up, nothing was going to fall out. The cylinder revolves past that position pretty quickly.

 

[CraigC]

I had read a few places that the idea of a multiple firing pin backplate for conversion is a relatively recent invention

Historically, they were done both ways. With a single floating firing pin in the conversion ring or with a two piece cylinder and a firing pin for each chamber.

 

[CarbineWilliams]

All this has gotten me very curious to see some of these originals. I think I'll have to take a take a trip to the National Firearms Museum down the road. They have at least one of the original conversions I'd like to see in person.

 

[CraigC]

I would suggest "Metallic Cartridge Conversions" by Dennis Adler. Out of print but still available. Check Amazon.

 

[Hoof Hearted]

Here are a few pics of one of my Original Remington Conversions:



This is an Army and is a centerfire conversion. This means that it was converted at an armoury and not by Remington (after the Civil war). The Remington factory conversions were all in 46 rimfire.





This is commonly referred to as a "first type" "thin plate" conversion. Meaning no loading through and no ejector.




The only "thick plate" conversions were done on .36 Navy revolvers and they included a loading gate. Like this one of mine.....




Both styles had the firing pin mounted on the hammer (not rebounding in the plate ala Colt Mason style).

More info and pics are posted on my website (see signature line).

I hope this helps answer your questions, Regards,
HH

 

[CarbineWilliams]

I definitely want to check out "Metallic Cartridge Conversions" by Dennis Adler. Thanks Craig.

HoofHearted, I was born in Lubbock and then got stationed in El Paso back when the 3rd Armored Cav was stationed there so I have to express my love for the state of Texas. Where in hell did you find a checkered grip for an 1858? Did you buy them or have it made or do it yourself?

I've done quite a bit of woodworking and I was thinking about making some new grips or at least a screw-on extender to make my Pietta's grips a little bigger to fit my hands.

So, would I get kicked out of the 1858 club if I got mine cerakoted with half-mag/half-titanium or something and made myself some oversized tigerstripe-grain grips?

You know, I just don't see why someone isn't making an 1858-styled revolver for more modern rounds. If Remington had never designed this pistol, and someone introduced it now... everyone would be amazed by the sleek lines and obvious strength of the design. This is a pistol designed 150 years ago that just as easily could have been designed today.

Anyone know the book shown in the latter pics of that real Remington conversion I linked to http://www.johnjhayeshistoricalcollectibles.com/proddetail.asp?prod=g15 ? I'd like to read that one.

 

[Hoof Hearted]

I definitely want to check out "Metallic Cartridge Conversions" by Dennis Adler. Thanks Craig.

HoofHearted, I was born in Lubbock and then got stationed in El Paso back when the 3rd Armored Cav was stationed there so I have to express my love for the state of Texas. Where in hell did you find a checkered grip for an 1858? Did you buy them or have it made or do it yourself?

I've done quite a bit of woodworking and I was thinking about making some new grips or at least a screw-on extender to make my Pietta's grips a little bigger to fit my hands.

So, would I get kicked out of the 1858 club if I got mine cerakoted with half-mag/half-titanium or something and made myself some oversized tigerstripe-grain grips?

You know, I just don't see why someone isn't making an 1858-styled revolver for more modern rounds. If Remington had never designed this pistol, and someone introduced it now... everyone would be amazed by the sleek lines and obvious strength of the design. This is a pistol designed 150 years ago that just as easily could have been designed today.

Anyone know the book shown in the latter pics of that real Remington conversion I linked to http://www.johnjhayeshistoricalcollectibles.com/proddetail.asp?prod=g15 ? I'd like to read that one.

Well so many questions...........

Cerrakote? Uggh........

There are two Modern Remington type revolvers out there that I am aware of. The "Earl" 22 and the ROA Ruger.

I can build you anything that "blows yer skirt up" Pm me!

Regards, HH

 

[CarbineWilliams]

Well, give me a few paychecks in the bank and we can talk about a .510 bore Remington 1858 with cylinders for BP .50 and cylinders for .500 Nitro express.. that'd be something! Maybe just scale the original up like 20%.

Update:

My Taylor's and Co. conversion cylinder just arrived this afternoon. I'll take it to the range next week, but it looks perfect and cycles well. I tried it with snap caps and I'm seeing nice impressions nearly centered on the primers.