The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - Hand fitting a Pietta 44 Rem Kirst Konvertor to a Euroarms'58 Remmy

Old Dragoon · March 7, 2006, 11:38 PM

I spent an enjoyable evening hand fitting my Pietta Kirst 44 Rem Konvertor to my Euroarms '58 Remington.A plus for this is that it fits the Uberti Carbine like it was born for it. I had been told that the only difference in the Pietta and the Uberti Kirst konvertor was the length of the pietta cylinder was longer by between .018-,020 inch. That appears to be a true statement. I took off approximately that much off my Pietta cylinder and it fits the Euro like a glove and when I tried the Konvertor in the Uberti Carbine it fit like it was made for it.

It was a scary thing to begin taking off metal from the face of the cylinder. Working on a potential $250.00 paperweight if it didn't work. But it did work and work s very well in both.

Probably now too much of a gap to be used in the in the Pietta's now. Any thoughts on the .018-,020 gap between the forcing cone and the cylinder face??

March 7, 2006, 11:38 PM	#1
Old Dragoon Senior Member Join Date: October 31, 2005 Location: The Republic of Californi Posts: 581	Hand fitting a Pietta 44 Rem Kirst Konvertor to a Euroarms'58 Remmy I spent an enjoyable evening hand fitting my Pietta Kirst 44 Rem Konvertor to my Euroarms '58 Remington.A plus for this is that it fits the Uberti Carbine like it was born for it. I had been told that the only difference in the Pietta and the Uberti Kirst konvertor was the length of the pietta cylinder was longer by between .018-,020 inch. That appears to be a true statement. I took off approximately that much off my Pietta cylinder and it fits the Euro like a glove and when I tried the Konvertor in the Uberti Carbine it fit like it was made for it. It was a scary thing to begin taking off metal from the face of the cylinder. Working on a potential $250.00 paperweight if it didn't work. But it did work and work s very well in both. Probably now too much of a gap to be used in the in the Pietta's now. Any thoughts on the .018-,020 gap between the forcing cone and the cylinder face??