Cartridge conversion questions

[9245]

I would like to get a cartridge conversion revolver but I also value historical authenticity so I have some questions.

 

First the basics, I want to start with a .44

Remington 1858 and do a gated conversion, or possibly buy one factory, I’m undecided, it really comes down to the caliber.

 

My question is, historically what calibers were conversions typically available in?  I am not limiting it to factory conversions either, period gunsmith conversions are fine too.  Have conversions in .44-40 ever been encountered?  Ideally that is what I would like (although that would necessitate buying a factory conversion, which is not ideal).  The reason I would like .44-40 is simply because I would ideally like the rifle to be in the same caliber, and historically I know that was possible with .44-40 and .44-40 is still commercially available and reloading components are also commonly available.

 

My other option would be .45 Colt, I wouldn’t need a factory conversion in that case, I could do it myself with a conversion cylinder and a Dremel and still retain the ability to use a cap and ball cylinder too, but historically rifles were NOT available in .45 Colt due to balloon head cases, so if I did that I would have to either carry two different calibers or get farby with my impression.  .45 Colt may be common in modern lever actions and be competition legal but it just is not historically correct.  I can’t ignore the convenience and cost savings though.  But then were .45 Colt conversions to the 1858 a thing back then?

 

I also had the thought of using shortened .45 Colt cases and just using them as a center fire visual stand in for .44 Henry.

 

What do you think?

[Sedalia Dave]

You will find no 44-40 conversions. There are a few shooters that had them made but they are not cheap.

 

Take a look at the Richard Masons conversions. They can be had in 44 Special.

[slow poke gear]

If you are looking for a 1858 i think taylor makes a factory converted 44-40. If you are looking for a DIY I think your only option is 45 colt or 38 special.

 

[slow poke gear]

[watab kid]

i have a 58 with the taylor conversion , it works great but for match revolver i feel it would be a bit of a pain at the loading table , JMHO , others may feel different 

[9245]

I should clarify, I was not asking about modern conversions but period ones.  I am aware that in terms of modern conversions my choices are pretty much .45 Colt or .45 Colt, or if I want to buy a factory made repro conversion I can get .44-40, or possibly some others.

 

I am trying to find a way to historically “justify” one of those conversions.  In other words did any .44-40 cartridge conversions exist before 1899?  What about .45 Colt, .45 Schofield, and .44 Henry?

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619]

58 Remingtons were historically converted to .38 Long Colt, I have one, .38 rimfire and .46 rimfire.

[Colorado Coffinmaker]

9245

 

Based on your criteria, you are in search of something that didn't exist.  Original conversions were never made in 45 Colt nor 44-40.  The cylinders were simply too small in diameter to be bored for those cartridges.  Most original conversions were wither in some form of .38 (.375 Bore) or .44  44 being either 44 Henry Flat or 44 Colt.  I would suggest a visit to your local Library and some quality time in research.  Or, sharpen up your Google Foo.

[9245]

16 minutes ago, Colorado Coffinmaker said:

9245

 

Based on your criteria, you are in search of something that didn't exist.  Original conversions were never made in 45 Colt nor 44-40.  The cylinders were simply too small in diameter to be bored for those cartridges.  Most original conversions were wither in some form of .38 (.375 Bore) or .44  44 being either 44 Henry Flat or 44 Colt.  I would suggest a visit to your local Library and some quality time in research.  Or, sharpen up your Google Foo.

That’s the thing.  That’s what I meant by trying to find a way to historically justify it, if I can find even a SINGLE historical example I can do it.

 

If not, I have to do the best I can, I actually thought of .44 Colt and I am not opposed to hand loading them, but I cannot find any conversion cylinders or factory conversions available for that caliber.  Likewise I thought of .44 Henry, but neither reproductions nor cartridges exist for it (realistically speaking), which is why I was thinking .45 Colt.  .45 Colt can be shortened to be visually (and ballistically I’d bet) very similar to .44 Henry, just centerfire, not historically correct, but would at least pass the 10 foot test.

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619]

This is a real Remington '58, factory conversion.    It is a .38 Long Colt.

 

 

It left the factory in this configuration as a cartridge firing gun.   Replicas of this config can be purchased.

This is a modern made Uberti that I converted myself.

 

This started as a cap & ball revolver, and I got the conversion cylinder, ejector and frame cut to convert it.  This is more or less one of the ways a period conversion would have been done.  It is also a .38 Long Colt.

Hope this helps

[9245]

4 minutes ago, H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619 said:

This is a real Remington '58, factory conversion.    It is a .38 Long Colt.

 

 

It left the factory in this configuration as a cartridge firing gun.   Replicas of this config can be purchased.

This is a modern made Uberti that I converted myself.

 

This started as a cap & ball revolver, and I got the conversion cylinder, ejector and frame cut to convert it.  This is more or less one of the ways a period conversion would have been done.  It is also a .38 Long Colt.

Hope this helps

How would .38 long colt work in a .44?

[Blackwater 53393]

17 minutes ago, 9245 said:

How would .38 long colt work in a .44?

It won’t.  You’d have to sleeve the barrel or go to a larger caliber bullet. The  .44 cap ‘n’ ball guns were .45 bore.  That’s why most of the conversions are for .45 Colt.

 

The diameter of the cylinder in the .44 Colt is the reason that so few were converted and then only to five shot cylinders.

 

Me ‘n’ ol’ Coffinmaker don’t agree much on polytics, but his advice on some library time is as good as it gets!!

 

 

 

Edited October 18 by Blackwater 53393

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

56 minutes ago, 9245 said:

That’s the thing.  That’s what I meant by trying to find a way to historically justify it, if I can find even a SINGLE historical example I can do it.

 

If not, I have to do the best I can, I actually thought of .44 Colt and I am not opposed to hand loading them, but I cannot find any conversion cylinders or factory conversions available for that caliber. ......

 

Some of the very early Kirst conversion cylinders for Remington NMA revolvers were chambered in .44 Colt to allow 6 chambers vs the five-round .45 Colt cylinders he was making at the time..
I bought one of them at a long ago EoT.
Many years later, Walt Kirst mentioned to a friend of mine (a distributor of his products) that he had ceased production of the .44 Colt cylinders due to limited interest and had one left.

My friend told him about me having one of first in that chambering...Walt handed him that last one and told him to give it to me. 

 

You might consider posting a WTB in the Classifieds to see if anyone has one (or more) .44 Colt versions for sale (mine are NOT!) 

 

 

 

 

[Lead Monger]

If you can find a pair of Richard Masons or Open Tops in 44 Special they will work great with 44 Russian cartridges. Match them with a 66 chambered in 44 Special and add a carrier modified to run the shorter 44 Russian and you have a rifle and revolvers all using the same round. Run black powder and it’s close to the 44 Henry.

[The Rainmaker, SASS #11631]

Why the strong interest in being period correct? .45 Colt cartridges were period, although maybe no conversions were made in them... but maybe there were...

I'll bet at least one local gunsmith did it at one time or another. There are many "period" cartridges we just don't use anymore because they are obsolete. Yes, you can have stuff specially made and load for that, but why? I have a pair of '58 Rems with Kirst conversion cylinders and no loading gates! I have to pull the cylinders to load and unload, but its really no big deal any doesn't take much time at all. (not slowing down anyone). I also shoot an '85 Winchester (Uberti) in .45-90. Were they really used for hunting buffalo? Maybe not... but they were for me. Its your fantasy game, make it how you want it. If really period correct is your thing, then go for it. It just may cost you a bit more than off the shelf.

[Savvy Jack]

 

10 hours ago, 9245 said:

I should clarify, I was not asking about modern conversions but period ones.  I am aware that in terms of modern conversions my choices are pretty much .45 Colt or .45 Colt, or if I want to buy a factory made repro conversion I can get .44-40, or possibly some others.

 

I am trying to find a way to historically “justify” one of those conversions.  In other words did any .44-40 cartridge conversions exist before 1899?  What about .45 Colt, .45 Schofield, and .44 Henry?

 

The 44 Special is very close to the size of the 44 Henry. If I recall correctly, some 44 Henrys were converted to centerfire.

 

[Brimstone Bill Willson]

https://www.uberti-usa.com/cartridge-revolvers/new-army-conversion-army-navy-conversion-open-tops

You could buy the Uberti 1851 conversion chambered in 38 special, then you could load 38 short Colt and it would be close to correct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.38_Short_Colt

[Abilene, SASS # 27489]

But 9245 wants rifle and pistol to use the same ammo, and he wants it to be a 44 (or 45).  Lead Monger suggested 44 Russian, which requires a special carrier for the '66 or '73 in 44 Special.  My suggestion is 44 Colt, which you can also shoot in the same .44 Spcl guns and does not need the special carrier.   As you admitted to being willing to fudge the caliber a bit if you can achieve the same ballistics, that opens things up quite a bit.  45 Schofield can also do that and shoot in these rifle and pistol with no modifications.  Look up Cowboy Chronicle articles and postings on CasCity.com by @Tuolumne Lawman 6127 - he has attempted to load some of the cartridges to 44 Henry ballistics (as best as can be done with smokeless).

 

Also, I have read of two instances of old-westians having Colt conversions in 44-40, so apparently it could be done.  A few CAS shooters have reamed 44 Spcl cylinders to 44-40 and while not perfect, they worked.

[Colorado Coffinmaker]

Savvy Jack,

Nope.  Winchester did not convert Henry rifles to Central Fire.  Winchester did not convert 1866 Rifles to Central Fire.  From Winchester there was only the very last run of 1866 Rifles, manufactured for 44 Henry Central Fire for an export contract to South America.  There may have been some Gunsmith Central Fire conversions done on a "one off" basis, however I have never seen one done during the period and just ONE done a couple of years ago.

 

It has become really apparent, our Michigan Guest "9245" has diddly and squat for firearms knowledge and is expecting the Wire to do his research and schooling for him.  I reiterate my suggestion for some quality time in the local library and some serious Google Foo.  Rather than asking the wire to do your thinking for you. 

[9245]

2 hours ago, Colorado Coffinmaker said:

Savvy Jack,

Nope.  Winchester did not convert Henry rifles to Central Fire.  Winchester did not convert 1866 Rifles to Central Fire.  From Winchester there was only the very last run of 1866 Rifles, manufactured for 44 Henry Central Fire for an export contract to South America.  There may have been some Gunsmith Central Fire conversions done on a "one off" basis, however I have never seen one done during the period and just ONE done a couple of years ago.

 

It has become really apparent, our Michigan Guest "9245" has diddly and squat for firearms knowledge and is expecting the Wire to do his research and schooling for him.  I reiterate my suggestion for some quality time in the local library and some serious Google Foo.  Rather than asking the wire to do your thinking for you. 

Was the hostility really necessary?

 

I have plenty of firearms knowledge, what I lack is detailed knowledge of the minutia of late 19th century weapons and what did or did not technically exist and what is just a modern adaptation in the repro market.  So I ask questions to learn what I don’t know, sorry that somehow offends you.

 

History is actually important to me, and for me this is as much about living history and reenacting than a shooting sport, shooting is actually secondary to me to getting an accurate impression.  Close enough just doesn’t work for me unless it’s legitimately the only thing possible given budget restraints, I’m willing to compromise in some areas, but not much, hence my talk of “visual stand ins” for cartridges that effectively no longer exist.  It’s like going to a World War 1 reenactment and seeing someone running around with an M1 Garand and wearing Vietnam era webbing, sure, he’s having fun, but it’s immersion breaking.  Yes, I’m a thread counter.

[9245]

2 hours ago, Abilene, SASS # 27489 said:

But 9245 wants rifle and pistol to use the same ammo, and he wants it to be a 44 (or 45).  Lead Monger suggested 44 Russian, which requires a special carrier for the '66 or '73 in 44 Special.  My suggestion is 44 Colt, which you can also shoot in the same .44 Spcl guns and does not need the special carrier.   As you admitted to being willing to fudge the caliber a bit if you can achieve the same ballistics, that opens things up quite a bit.  45 Schofield can also do that and shoot in these rifle and pistol with no modifications.  Look up Cowboy Chronicle articles and postings on CasCity.com by @Tuolumne Lawman 6127 - he has attempted to load some of the cartridges to 44 Henry ballistics (as best as can be done with smokeless).

 

Also, I have read of two instances of old-westians having Colt conversions in 44-40, so apparently it could be done.  A few CAS shooters have reamed 44 Spcl cylinders to 44-40 and while not perfect, they worked.

Thankyou, that was helpful.  Do you happen to know where I can get an 1858 in .44 special?
 

Also, do you have a cite for the .44-40s being used?

[Sedalia Dave]

If you want a close to historically accurate revolver chambered in 44 WCF then the Remington 1875 is about as close as you're going to get.

 

Here is a good video about the 1858 Remington conversions.

 

 

 

BTW there were no pre 1899 rifles chambered in 45 Colt. 

 

 

Edited October 18 by Sedalia Dave

[Sedalia Dave]

According to this, Colt did not sell cartridge conversions for the 1851 or 1860 C&B revolvers. What Colt did was modify the design of the 1860 and sold it as the 1871 / 1872 revolver.

 

 

[Abilene, SASS # 27489]

19 minutes ago, 9245 said:

Thankyou, that was helpful.  Do you happen to know where I can get an 1858 in .44 special?
 

Also, do you have a cite for the .44-40s being used?

I don't think the '58 conversions come in .44 Spcl, only .38, 44-40, and .45.  For 44 Spcl you will need the Colt-style conversions or OT's. 

 

As for the 44-40 Colt conversion, I can't point you to a source.  I've read several times over the years about an outlaw (Blue Duck maybe?) having one.  More recently I saw a reference to another one but I don't recall where, sorry.  Possibly one of R.L. Wilson's books.

 

But heck, if you just want to be totally period correct with matching calibers, get a '92 or '73 and either an SAA, or Remington '75, all in 44wcf.

[Savvy Jack]

58 minutes ago, 9245 said:

Was the hostility really necessary?

 

I have plenty of firearms knowledge, what I lack is detailed knowledge of the minutia of late 19th century weapons and what did or did not technically exist and what is just a modern adaptation in the repro market.  So I ask questions to learn what I don’t know, sorry that somehow offends you.

 

History is actually important to me, and for me this is as much about living history and reenacting than a shooting sport, shooting is actually secondary to me to getting an accurate impression.  Close enough just doesn’t work for me unless it’s legitimately the only thing possible given budget restraints, I’m willing to compromise in some areas, but not much, hence my talk of “visual stand ins” for cartridges that effectively no longer exist.  It’s like going to a World War 1 reenactment and seeing someone running around with an M1 Garand and wearing Vietnam era webbing, sure, he’s having fun, but it’s immersion breaking.  Yes, I’m a thread counter.

 

It is expected by a few here.

The cartridge modifications (regardless of firearm factory or gunsmith) may have taken place about 1891, so this may be outside or your "period"  timeframe.

Edited October 18 by Savvy Jack

[Sedalia Dave]

There are a select few modern 1860 open tops that have been converted to 44 WCF.

 

On the surface it would seem obvious to convert an open top in 44 special to 44 WCF. and it can be done but there are a few negatives that you should be aware of.  FIrst is this conversion is very hard on the brass. This is because the neck area of the case is not properly supported because the 44 special is longer than the distance from the rim to the shoulder of the 44- WCF.

 

44 special COAL is 1.160".  444 WCF Rim to shoulder is 0.9275".  This leaves .2325" of the case unsupported which will cause the case to fire form to the oversized chamber. Unless you source a custom set of dies, which is cost prohibitive to say the least, case life will be drastically shortened.

 

The remedy for this is to buy a 38 special cylinder and pay a gunsmith to bore it out to 44 WCF. This works but comes at the expense of buying either extra cylinders or extra barrels. In either case not all reproduction open tops use the same frame dimensions between 38 special and 44 special so that has to be taken into consideration as well. One issue with this is that the 38 special cylinder has to be large enough so that when converted to 44 WCF there is enough space between the chambers for the larger rim size of the 44 WCF.

 

I researched this heavily a few years ago as I wanted a pair.  I got over the want once I discovered how costly the conversion would be.

 

Keep in mind that the open top design is inherently weak. Shooting full house 45 Colt or 44 WCF loads of either smokeless or Black Powder will definitely shorten it's useful life due to accelerated wear. 

[Colorado Coffinmaker]

OK.  I'd like to correct a little miss-information from above.  it is true, Colt did not sell conversion "parts."  Colt did complete conversion of Customers's Percussion Revolvers and Military Revolvers.  Colt also built thousands of "converted" revolvers from the ground up.

 

Initially, Colt converted the 1860 Army to .44 Colt.  At the same time Colt converted the 1851 Navy to .38 Colt.  these guns were converted for both the Military and Civilian markets.  Colt also converted a number of 1861 Navy guns to .38 Colt for the navy.  Somewhere around 11 or 1200 guns were converted for the Navy.

 

Next up in the progression was the 1871/72 Open Top.  This gun was built from the ground up as a Cartridge gun and was chambered in 44 Henry Flat or Colt's proprietary 44 Stetson, both Rim Fire cartridges.  The Open Top was produce for several years until the initial military contracts for the 1873 .45 Single Action Army were filled and civilian market guns could be made and different calibers/cartridges could be included.

 

Prior to the 1873 Single Action Army, there were NO conversions of Colt guns to 45 Colt nor 44 WCF.  The Cylinders of the older guns were not large enough to accommodate the larger cartridges.  Uberti increased the size of the modern built Open Top and Uberti factory replica conversions to allow inclusion of the .45 Colt cartridge.

 

As far as Remington conversions go, I'm a dry hole.  I don't like Remingtons and have never bothered to study them.  No help here.

 

Were I to actually suggest the simplistic approach, I would suggest the 1871/72 Ope Top chambered in 44 special, the Uberti Richards/Mason in 44 Special and the 1866 Rifle, also in 44 Special.  None of these guns are dimensionally correct and if one is a true "Thread Counter" your basically out of luck without some extensive modifications to the Rifle (special Carrier Block) to enable the 44 Russian cartridge.  The 44 Russian can be used in the Open Top and the R/M 44 as OEM.  And Black Powder or a Substitute for the appropriate propellant will be necessary for authenticity. 

[El Sobrante Kid]

The whole "thread counter" moniker reminds me of a hilarious (to many) story about a "rivet counter" in the model train world, and how different people view the same exact thing, in completely different ways. A gentleman who had spent many years building an outdoor model train layout held an open house for people from his club. The layout was quite impressive in its scope and features. During the open house, one of the clubs most notorious rivet counters, and his wife who was a rather short person, came to see the layout. The visiting rivet counter spent quite some time looking over the layout and measuring (literally) many of the features and the rolling stock (trains).

When the guest rivet counter was all done "inspecting", he started to politely tell the layout owner about all of the things that were the wrong size, historically mismatched, incorrectly reproduced, had never existed, etc. The layout owner, whose approach to model railroading was for the sheer enjoyment of the hobby, became angered in quick order. He explained that he loved everything about his layout and that he had been gracious enough to share it with anyone in the club who wanted to come and see it, that not everyone was concerned about exactness of detail, and that the layout should be viewed and enjoyed for what it was. In a final fit of frustration, he told the rivet counter that if he could not appreciate and enjoy the layout as it was, then he, and his short "out of scale, wife", could leave.

 

Do what makes you happy, but do not expect that others will do the same. My apologies for taking the subject off-track.

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619]

El Sobrante speaks truth.  The most important thing in CAS is to have fun.  If being as close to "historically accurate" makes it more fun for you, then go for it, but don't obsess over it.  That'll suck the fun right out of it.  

Now, I am a fellow who has several guns over 100 years old, and even a few antiques, and I enjoy shooting them.   But I also have some modern replicas.  Some have inaccurate features.  But there are some that I tolerate, there are others that I don't.  Modern added safeties make me take a hard pass, for example.  A hooded ramp font sight I don't like, but I'll live with it.   And so on and so forth.  Heck, I love the Mare's Leg type pistol, which is not historically accurate at all, but is as fun as all get out to shoot.  (Note:  Not SASS Legal)

So when all is said and done, just have fun.   Have it the way you want to do it, but enjoy it.

You can't go wrong with that.

Edited October 19 by H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

A few examples of modern reproductions in .44 Colt (NFS)

 

 

1. American Frontier Firearms (AFF) 1851 Richards-Mason

2. Armi San Marco (ASM/Traditions) 1851 Richards-Mason

3. Uberti/Cimarron 1872 Open Top Navy

 

 

 

Edited October 19 by PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L
add photo

[Driftwood Johnson, SASS #38283]

Howdy

 

In February of 1868 Remington signed a contract with Smith and Wesson to convert a stock of their 44 caliber 1858 Remington Cap & Ball revolvers to fire cartridges. At this time Smith and Wesson controlled the Rollin White patent for revolvers with cylinders bored through to accept cartridges, so Remington had to pay S&W a royalty in order to get the work done. The revolvers were converted to fire a 46 caliber Rimfire cartridge. The work was done at the Remington Ilion, New York factory, between September 1868 and April 1869. New five shot cylinders were made for the revolvers and the lockwork had to be altered for the five shot cylinders. I assume the barrels were bored out for the new 46 caliber cartridges. The revolvers were all shipped to Smith and Wesson for inspection, a total of 4,574 revolvers were converted this way. B. Kitteredge, Smith and Wesson's chief distributor, paid Smith and Wesson $3.3625 for each revolver. S&W kept $1.00 of this as their royalty on the patent, and paid Remington $2.3625 for each revolver that had been converted. This information comes from Smith and Wesson 1857-1954 by Neal and Jinks.

 

 

 

The best book on the subject of conversions is a Study of Colt Conversions and other Percussion Revolvers by R. Bruce McDowell.

 

 

 

 

Most modern cartridges have a bullet with the outside diameter the same size as the inside diameter of the cartridge case. Earlier cartridges had bullets the same diameter as the outside diameter of the cartridge case. In order to keep both diameters the same, the bullet had to have a narrower 'heel' at its rear that could fit inside the brass case. Look at modern 22 Rimfire ammunition, the only modern ammo made with a heeled bullet  An early example of this is the Colt Richards Conversion. This was a conversion using the 1860 Colt Army as its base. This is a close up of the Colt Richards Conversion in my collection, with four original 44 Colt (not 45 Colt) cartridges. These cartridges have a heeled bullet. Notice the bullets are the same diameter as the cartridge cases. The 44 Colt cartridge was developed to fit the original chamber size of the Colt 1860 Army Cap & Ball revolver cylinders, as well as the rifling of the barrel.

 

 

 

 

 

In Cap & Ball days, a revolver was referred to as '44' not because that was the diameter of the rifling grooves, but because that was the diameter of the hole bored in the barrel before the rifling had been cut. In other words, the 'lands' diameter. This is why most of the conversion cylinders available for modern reproductions of the 1858 Remington are chambered for 45 Colt. The actual groove diameter of modern made replicas of the 1858 Remington is about .451 or so, perfect for the 45 Colt cartridge. Not a 44 caliber cartridge.

 

 

 

Here is my old EuroArms 1858 that I bought brand-spanky new in 1975. About 20 years ago I bought a R&D 45 Colt conversion cylinder for it.

 

 

 

 

 

Here is it's 45 Colt conversion cylinder. The other fact of life with the 1858 Remington, either original of modern reproduction, is the cylinder is too small in diameter to chamber 6 45 Colt cartridges without their rims over lapping. So a long time ago Ken Howell patented a 45 Colt conversion cylinder with the chambers angled out ever so slightly at the rear to accommodate six 45 Colt rims.

 

 

 

 

 

Or the slightly larger diameter 45 Schofield rims.

 

 

 

 

 

So, to back up, the so called 'conversion' revolvers being made today specifically for cartridges, can be chambered for 44-40, because their barrel grooves are the correct size for 44-40 cartridges, around .427 or .429 if memory serves. But with an original or a replica Cap & Ball Remington with a .451 groove diameter barrel, firing a 44-40 down the barrel the bullet would not engage the rifling. By the way, many years ago I fired a cylinder full of 44-40 cartridges from one of my 45 Colt Colts. Nothing terrible happened, and they all hit CAS targets nearby, but on paper accuracy would not have been very good.

 

 

 

There were many conversions of the Remington 1858 Cap & Ball revolver done by private gunsmiths who did not bother about the restrictions of the White patent. 

 

I am taking the liberty of posting a few photos here from McDowell's book.

 

This conversion fired a 44 caliber Centerfire cartridge.

 

 

 

 

 

Here is another photo of a Remington conversion, notice the backing plate, complete with loading gate, installed behind the cylinder.

 

 

 

 

 

This conversion has a very thin plate screwed to the frame behind the cylinder. There is no loading gate per se, there is a slot cut in the plate to allow loading and unloading cartridges. If the revolver was pointed up while cocking the hammer a round might fall out of the cylinder.

 

 

 

 

 

Here is a very interesting design. As the text says, this was an experimental design done by the Springfield Armory. Similar to Ken Howell's design, this one used a separate cap on the rear of the cylinder with six firing pins.  The text says it was chambered for a 44 Centerfire cartridge, I suspect it would have needed to be a cartridge with a heeled bullet in order to fit six rounds into the cylinder.

 

Edited October 19 by Driftwood Johnson, SASS #38283

[Griff]

20 hours ago, 9245 said:

Was the hostility really necessary?

 

I have plenty of firearms knowledge, what I lack is detailed knowledge of the minutia of late 19th century weapons and what did or did not technically exist and what is just a modern adaptation in the repro market.  So I ask questions to learn what I don’t know, sorry that somehow offends you.

 

History is actually important to me, and for me this is as much about living history and reenacting than a shooting sport, shooting is actually secondary to me to getting an accurate impression.  Close enough just doesn’t work for me unless it’s legitimately the only thing possible given budget restraints, I’m willing to compromise in some areas, but not much, hence my talk of “visual stand ins” for cartridges that effectively no longer exist.  It’s like going to a World War 1 reenactment and seeing someone running around with an M1 Garand and wearing Vietnam era webbing, sure, he’s having fun, but it’s immersion breaking.  Yes, I’m a thread counter.

Probably, yes... Many folks think it is intellectually immature asking questions, and expecting answers when so many have spent years of their life researching and digging about in old tomes to be asked to then share that hard earned knowledge with others.  It's one thing when it's two individuals, discussing a subject, where they both make contributions to their now shared knowledge.  The same query can come across quite differently when asked:   "...does anyone have an idea where I can find information about... (enter topic here)?  And that can often yield the exact information one seeks.... and yet, it doesn't come across like straight up asking for the term final cheat sheet.

 

To the topic, tho'...  I actually question the sanity & orientation of anyone that would prefer to take a perfectly good percussion revolver and turn it into some sort of sexually confused suppository receptacle.  

 

I actually shoot 45 Colt leverguns.   I specifically chose the 45 Colt over the .44-40 because I bought into the notion the 44WCF was hard to load for.  I have since found out for myself that it is easier to load 45 Colt than the .44-40,  And with my 1860  Henry converted to C45S it holds 18 200 grain C45S in the magazine... & 19 of the 160 grain RFN, turning it into more of "...that damn Yankee gun you load on Sunday & shoot all week!"

 

If history is more important than shooting... there's another another organization that can suck all the fun and imagination out of one's western fantasy that shall remain nameless hereabouts...

[9245]

On 10/19/2024 at 10:34 AM, Griff said:

Probably, yes... Many folks think it is intellectually immature asking questions, and expecting answers when so many have spent years of their life researching and digging about in old tomes to be asked to then share that hard earned knowledge with others.  It's one thing when it's two individuals, discussing a subject, where they both make contributions to their now shared knowledge.  The same query can come across quite differently when asked:   "...does anyone have an idea where I can find information about... (enter topic here)?  And that can often yield the exact information one seeks.... and yet, it doesn't come across like straight up asking for the term final cheat sheet.

 

To the topic, tho'...  I actually question the sanity & orientation of anyone that would prefer to take a perfectly good percussion revolver and turn it into some sort of sexually confused suppository receptacle.  

 

I actually shoot 45 Colt leverguns.   I specifically chose the 45 Colt over the .44-40 because I bought into the notion the 44WCF was hard to load for.  I have since found out for myself that it is easier to load 45 Colt than the .44-40,  And with my 1860  Henry converted to C45S it holds 18 200 grain C45S in the magazine... & 19 of the 160 grain RFN, turning it into more of "...that damn Yankee gun you load on Sunday & shoot all week!"

 

If history is more important than shooting... there's another another organization that can suck all the fun and imagination out of one's western fantasy that shall remain nameless hereabouts...

So you’re saying to never ask questions?  That sounds like a rather stupid statement to me, asking questions is the primary way that we learn.

 

So tell me, oh wise one, which $150+ out of print books should I buy that may or may not have the answers that I seek?  How many hundreds of dollars should I spend to answer a simple question?  Or perhaps should I just, you know, ask?

 

I believe that you are referring to NCOWS, yes, I am aware of them and am very interested, I am attracted by the historical authenticity and realism, but unfortunately their nearest group is in Northern Indiana, many hours and hundreds of miles away from me so that sadly is not a really practical solution.  I’m also interested in Western 3 gun.

[Abilene, SASS # 27489]

Howdy 9245, fortunately for you, the out-of-print and very expensive McDowell book, the "bible" of conversions, has been floating around in PDF form for a while now.  Here ya go:

 

A Study of Colt Conversions and Other Percussion Revolvers - R. McDowell.pdf

[9245]

58 minutes ago, Abilene, SASS # 27489 said:

Howdy 9245, fortunately for you, the out-of-print and very expensive McDowell book, the "bible" of conversions, has been floating around in PDF form for a while now.  Here ya go:

 

A Study of Colt Conversions and Other Percussion Revolvers - R. McDowell.pdf 63.1 MB · 4 downloads

Thankyou, I will read through that.  It looks to primarily cover Colts, which I have minimal interest in, but I do see a Remington section as well which I will read, and I suppose I can look at the rest as information about cartridge conversions in general.

 

I know the Colt thing is heresy here, but I’ve just always viewed them as an inherently inferior design when compared to the Remington and then the breaktops from Smith and Wesson, Webley, etc.  Remember, in the actual Old West you might actually have to reload!  Also, why use the same thing that 99% of everybody else uses?  It’s boring.