The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

ClemBert · May 18, 2010, 04:01 PM

I pondered the R&D vs Kirst conversion cylinder decision myself about a year ago. However, I was looking for a conversion cylinder for my ROA. I went with the R&D cylinder. My primary reason was because I didn't like the idea of having to align the Kirst backplate during installation. The R&D cylinder is very high quality. I've read enough about the Kirst cylinder to know it is a quality product too. For a 1858 I would definitely go with an R&D as it has 6 cylinders while the Kirst only has 5. I don't think the number of firing pins is an issue either way. From the reviews I've read from owners of the 1858 R&D cylinder the angled cylinders is also a non-issue.

I'm thinking about getting a Kirst cylinder for my Walker. The reason for that is I like Kirst's loading gate solution which means I wouldn't have to worry about backplate alignment every time I installed it.

May 18, 2010, 04:01 PM	#8
ClemBert Senior Member Join Date: March 2, 2009 Location: Orlando Posts: 936	I pondered the R&D vs Kirst conversion cylinder decision myself about a year ago. However, I was looking for a conversion cylinder for my ROA. I went with the R&D cylinder. My primary reason was because I didn't like the idea of having to align the Kirst backplate during installation. The R&D cylinder is very high quality. I've read enough about the Kirst cylinder to know it is a quality product too. For a 1858 I would definitely go with an R&D as it has 6 cylinders while the Kirst only has 5. I don't think the number of firing pins is an issue either way. From the reviews I've read from owners of the 1858 R&D cylinder the angled cylinders is also a non-issue. I'm thinking about getting a Kirst cylinder for my Walker. The reason for that is I like Kirst's loading gate solution which means I wouldn't have to worry about backplate alignment every time I installed it.