Which Conversion cylinder best for 1858 Rem 44

[jerryjaysr]

I have been looking for about 2 years and thinking on the 1858 SS Rem 44 version now. I have also been looking at Kirst, Howell, RD and Taylor conversion cylinders. At taylor they will "FIT" iT BEFORE sending out which makes me think they may be the way to go. Eventually I may go with the Kirst gated one to make loading easier. Not sure when though.

So after doing alot of diggin around and reading some older posts, still not 100% sure which is the best and why???

Safety is always first concern. Thats one reason why I went with the Rem 44 instead of Open ones like the 1851 (I prefer the looks and feel of the 1851 navy better but to change out any cylinder you need remove barrel, which seems like a pain) and from what many are shooting on 1851 vs 1858, the 1858 many are shooting up to 1000fps where 1851 is generally been 850 ish fps).
So I thought 1858 Rem for now, stainless cant hurt plus last longer and not rust and should hold up to more pressure, and this not being open top should also be able to safely go to 1000 fps as long as the pressure is within limits.

And the 44 version of the 36 seems to make sense since super hard to find any 38LC ammo thats lead and cowboy load out there for the conversion and didnt want to line the barrel nor cylinder.

So could be 2 questions now:
1 - Prefererred Conversion cylinder
2 - Navy 1851 vs 1858 Rem

I do plan on shooting BP also!! Just want to make sure I spend my money wisely in selecting a BP pistol.

Jerry

[noelf2]

1. Howell converter, fluted, 5 shot..for a 2. 1858 sheriff model .44, blued.

Stainless steel will rust and pit if you leave bp fouling on/it. You will need to clean it, same as a blued.

[Hawg]

There's stainless and then there's stainless. I don't know how strong the Italian stainless frames are but the blued steel frames are pretty soft and there's no way I'd go 1000 FPS out of one. It doesn't really matter which cylinder you get. They're all made from tool steel. I think Howell and Kirst are the only ones making them now. It's not the cylinder that's a problem. The extra pressure will beat the frame up. Every time the gun fires the cylinder slams into the recoil shield. It will take time but sooner or later that tool steel cylinder ratchet is going to eat it's way into that soft frame. If it was me and I wanted a .44 I'd go with a Pietta 1860 since for me historical accuracy matters and the 51's didn't come in .44. Uberti's all come with short arbors that need to be fixed where Pietta's are correct.

[Trooper Joe]

I just bought a blue Howell cyl from Taylors for my new Pietta 1858. I am getting one ragged hole at 10 yards with CAS .45 loads or Schofield 185 grn rounds.

Just prior to this, I bought a Howell cyl for my Ruger Old Army in stainless. Both cylinders were flawless with no fitting needed.

Trooper Joe

[45 Dragoon]

Question 1 - a six shot Howell (from Howell or Taylor's) for the Remington. It is a drop cylinder and the Remington platform is excellent for a drop cylinder conversion. It is also a close historic copy of period conversions. All other conversion cyls are 5 shot and they may not play well if you want a "convertible" revolver (5 shot cart. /6 shot cap cyl.).

Question 2 - a correctly set up open top with a Kirst gated conversion would be the best pick (and a stronger revolver (contrary to popular belief)) for 1000 fps or less cartridges. Even better, a Dragoon platform will give you 6 shots and convertibility. Not to mention, it is a more historically correct conversion (no drop cys. were used as conversions for open top revolvers).

Bonus answer - Ruger Old Army with a Kirst conversion is "King of the hill"!! It's an absolute beast!! (Plus, convertibility!!)

Mike

[Trooper Joe]

Here are some photos of my Ruger Old Army with a Howell conversion cylinder. I included one of the quick change Belt Mountain cylinder pin units.






This set up also is giving me very good accuracy. POA is no problem with this ROA since it has adjustable sights.

I read someplace that a guy questioned the ammo to use in a Kirst conversion. He was allegedly advised by Kirst to not worry about it since it was an ROA. I am using standard pressure Silvertip HP ammo and the fired cases almost fall out of my RD cylinder. if I find another ROA I may try a Kirst system in that one.

Also, I like the idea of using a Kirst system in an open top 44, I will have to try that.

As a side note, I just checked with the head of the Michigan State Police firearms registration unit. It looks like simple drop in cylinders with no firearm modifications do not have to be registered in Michigan. If you have to modify ("re-design" according to ATF) the gun, then you have to register it as a modern firearm. This definition may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

This is a great thread and thanks to 45 Dragoon for his comments.

Trooper Joe

[45 Dragoon]

Thanks Trooper Joe. I would think you wouldn't have to do anything unless you were to sell the newly made firearm, but then, I don't know the laws in MI (you have a registry in MI?!)

Anyway, nice pictures!! In your first pic, you can see perfectly the support for the back plate against the frame (the flat area). When a round is fired, the case is pushed against the plate and only about 50% of the area is supported. The beauty of the cyl is it's ease of use in the Remington though!! The Kirst, on the other hand, is fully supported and as I said, it's a BEAST !!!

Mike

[Trooper Joe]

Mike,

To answer your question we do have to register handguns that are considered firearms in Michigan. Cap and ball revolvers including the ROA which still has the cap and ball cylinder. do not have to be registered.

However, in Michigan as well in a lot of other states (not all of them) to carry a cap and ball or non-regulated handgun, you still have to comply with the carry laws. Go figure.

This question usually comes up when an ex-felon wants to own a firearm (long gun or hand gun). The definitions get real fuzzy jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

I really like my setup with my ROA. Since you have to remove the Howell (RD) cylinder to load it, the quick change Belt Mountain cylinder pin system can't be beat. The Belt Mountain cylinder pin is slightly larger than the stock Ruger pin. There is absolutely no shake in the cylinder when using it. I suspect that the stock Ruger pin gives a little more clearance to avoid any residue problems which may occur when shooting black powder. I haven't tried the Belt Mountain cylinder with the cap and ball cylinder but I think I will just to see how it performs.

In the last couple of months, I have picked up three cap and ball revolvers. Those 3 along with my ROA are really fun to shoot. I have actually started to sell some of my modern guns since ammo is an issue anyway.

I have done a little fine tuning to all three cap and ball revolvers involving simply polishing and removing a few burrs. My 1851 and 1860 Colt reproductions both needed a little adjustment on the barrel wedges. I learned a lot about this fascinating time of firearms development in the 19th century.

Oh well, I am starting to ramble on, sorry.

Thanks,.

Trooper Joe

[45 Dragoon]

If they're Uberti's, the arbor length needs to be corrected before you mess with the wedges (you can shorten the Pietta arbor for a closer bbl /cyl clearance if you want, again, before messing with the wedge).

Good luck!
Mike

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by jerryjaysr

I have been looking for about 2 years and thinking on the 1858 SS Rem 44 version now. I have also been looking at Kirst, Howell, RD and Taylor conversion cylinders. At taylor they will "FIT" iT BEFORE sending out which makes me think they may be the way to go.

The Howell, R&D, and Taylor are all the same thing. Ken Howell is (or was) R&D Gunshop. Taylor bought the rights to sell Ken's conversion cylinders. The Kirst Konverter is a different animal.

I have both an early R&D cylinder and a Kirst gated cylinder for the Remington 1858, both in .44 / .45 caliber. I bought the R&D first, because it's the one I knew about. (Possibly before Walt Kirst introduced his). The R&D works very well and required no fitting in my Pietta 1858 clone. However, it is a bit of a nuisance to have to remove the cylinder after each course of fire.

The Kirst Konverter with the gate makes it much easier to reload. The instructions include a template for grinding and filing out the capping relief to allow direct loading. If you aren't comfortable doing metal shaping with files and grinders, you will have to farm this work out. Otherwise, you'll still have to remove the cylinder to reload -- just like the R&D.

[Trooper Joe]

Mike,

You are exactly right. When I received my Uberti 1851 Navy from Dixie Gun Works, the wedge was so loose it would almost fall out. By that time, I had read and was aware of the short arbors in Uberti guns but it seemed hard to measure just how much (it seems like about .010).

I decided to shim the wedge on the side towards the muzzle. I ended up using a shim measuring .008 from an old set of feeler gauges. I epoxied it on, smoothed it out and touched it up with cold blue. It now was tight and a very small tap with my plastic mallet when installing, leaves me with about .005 end gap on the top side of the forcing cone and about .003 on the bottom. In other words, the barrel assembly is probably tilted very slightly up with my wedge modification. At the range, I got a very tight group the first time I shot it and the measurements all stayed the same after getting it home and cleaning it.

If I shim the end of the arbor, my theory is that the slight barrel assembly tilt will go away but I would increase my top side end gap even more than .005 which is already large enough. Since the gun shoots great, I think I will leave it that way.

My other open top is an 1860 Pietta, 44 cal., with the shorter barrel. (Just a quick note, I found this in a Kalamazoo gun shop, used, made in 2009, but unfired, for $250.00 ). The wedge was so tight, I could barrenly get it out, The end gap is a huge .010 but it shoots great. I polished the vertical sides of the wedge and it now goes in better, snugs up tight, and the end gap is the same. Obviously the Pietta arbor length is correct which is what I have been hearing.

I have to be careful or the moderator will move this to the gunsmithing section .

What a great thread. You guys are a wealth of information.

Trooper Joe

[Hawg]

Originally Posted by Trooper Joe

I decided to shim the wedge on the side towards the muzzle.

Shimming just the wedge still makes the wedge absorb the recoil. The proper way is to shim the end of the arbor so it bottoms out in the hole. That way you have a solid fit and don't have an angled cylinder gap. All the recoil is absorbed by the arbor and barrel lug not the wedge. You can drive the wedge in as hard as you want to and not change the gap.

[Trooper Joe]

Hawg

You are probably right, I did not think about that. I am going to find some shim washers as close to .010 that I can. I was trying to sand down a washer last night that is now .026 and all I did was buff up my fingers as they slid off the washer .

Funny thing is that when I talked to the gunsmith at Dixie Gun works, he advised that Uberti knew they needed wider wedges and they were sending him some in January. He also made a comment about the arbor fitting too snug in the barrel assembly is not necessarily a good thing.

I have also seen some so called knowledgeable folks on this issue state that driving the wedge in to a certain point is the way to adjust the cylinder end play. I don't see how you can consistently get the same cylinder end play that way.

I am going to work some more in shimming the arbor contact point with the barrel assembly and get this thing correct.

My only question about the part that is absorbing the recoil would be that if the wedge is lost while shooting in a match, the barrel assembly can go flying of forward. This tells me that it is not recoiling against either the end of a properly fitted arbor or in my case the front part of my shimmed wedge.

In spite of this, I would like to get rid of that upward slant of my barrel even though in my case the forcing cone is seems to be compensating for all these errors.

I appreciate your comments on this.

Trooper Joe

[45 Dragoon]

Just goes to show that the "gunsmith" at DGW would rather sell parts or is totally clueless about this well known build problem. The point is, like Hawg said, the arbor should bottom out in the arbor hole and be under tension. This is what determines the barrel/cylinder clearance. You can either add material to the arbor or add material to the arbor hole to make it less deep. I personally like to leave the arbor as is and shorten the hole with a single spacer. Either way, you should have a repeatable setup that won't beat the wedge up. As an aside, I drill and tap the end of the arbor (all the way into the wedge slot) for a 1/4" X 28 set screw that acts as an adjustable wedge bearing. That allows the owner to adjust for any wear and or a preferred wedge depth setting.

Oh yeah, the wedge should be driven in under tension so the two assemblies will act as a single unit and you won't lose the wedge (finger tight won't get it).
Mike

[noelf2]

Shimming just the wedge still makes the wedge absorb the recoil.

??
Wedges don't absorb recoil. They maintain cylinder gap. They are subject to the forward pressure of the ball hitting the barrel though. Just sayin'.

[Hawg]

Mike can explain it better than I can.

[jerryjaysr]

Thanks for all the INFO!!!