1860 Colts with Kirst Konverter cylinders for NCOWS???

[Lone Gunman]

While the discourse on this stumpy little cartridge is interesting, I’m surprised the other part of the original post hasn’t received a single comment:

I have a question about a brace of 1860 Colt replicas made by Pietta.  I'm having them outfitted with Kirst Konverter cylinders and ejector rods.

According to the Kirst FAQ at River Junction Trade:

Q. Will you be offering Cartridge Konverters® for other cap and ball revolvers?
A. We have no plans to offer a Konverter for a Colt 60 Army model in .44 cal.

Has Walt changed his mind about the ’60 Army, and if so, what convinced him?

[Dusty Tagalon]

Custom, or prototype?

The R&D conversion for the 1860 is a five shot .45 Schofield.

Dusty

[Deadeye Don]

Custom, or prototype?

The R&D conversion for the 1860 is a five shot .45 Schofield.

Dusty

Actually it is a 45 colt, but of course you can shoot 45 Schofield in it too.

[Advertising]

[Dick Dastardly]

Walt Kirst is a personal friend.  He has begun a custom run of Kirst Konverter cylinders for 1860 open tops.  My two pietta 1860s leave for the Twin Cities this weekend.  When they come back they will sport Kirst Konverter cylinders and ejectors.  The frame will be ported and the guns will load with the cylinders in the gun.

I'm not sure if they will chamber 45 Colt or not, but I won't be shooting anything that strong in an open top design.  .45 Schofield or C45S ammo with EPP-UG bullets will fill those chambers.  They will emulate round ball performance.

DD-DLoS

[Black River Smith]

Something to consider:  We presently have people taking 44Special Henry's and 1866s and altering to the shorter 44 Henry and the corresponding 44 Henry centerfire casing.  I applauded this and like it.  But now I ask, Is that or is that not for competitiveness or authenticity.  HAve to think!!!

Now this casing came along and is shorter, with claims of being a 455 Eley.  The 1873Colt was chambered for this casing during the period. Sooo...

My only question to AJ.  Were you trying to Reproduce the 455 Eley or 45 Webley (like the people reproducing the 44Henry centerfire) or something else?  Why did you not just make it to the equivalent OAL?  Then your argument about shortening 38 Spec to 38 LC would be agreed and would work.

AJ, I would like to also commend you on creating a carriage stop that looks like it will work for the shorter casings in our 73's and 66's.

LG as DD has stated, yes, he appears to be offering a 60 cylinder in 5 shot (I believe).  When the topic surfaced by Tuolumne at the STORM forum I asked if he would inquire about a 44 version.  Don't remember getting a response.  I was wrong here is Tuolumnes' comment about 44:
 """"""If the first 25 pre-productions sell as he anticipates, he will do a larger production run, including .44 Colts (for healed or hollow based bullets).  They will also be five shot (with SASS legal safety chamber) because the original conversions were switched to double pronged  cylinder hands to accommodate the shortened ratchets on the cylinder face.  All original and replica 1860s have single prongs on the hand.""""

[Dusty Tagalon]

Hopefully in the future it will become part of the Kirst product line.

Dusty

[Adirondack Jack]

Something to consider:  We presently have people taking 44Special Henry's and 1866s and altering to the shorter 44 Henry. And the corresponding 44 Henry centerfire casing.  I applauded this and like it.  But now I ask, Is that or is that not for competitiveness or authenticity.  HAve to think!!!

Now this casing came along and is shorter, with claims of being a 455 Eley.  The 1873Colt was chambered for this casing during the period. Sooo...

My only question to AJ.  Were you trying to Reproduce the 455 Eley or 45 Webley (like the people reproducing the 44Henry centerfire) or something else?  Why did you not just make it to the equivalent OAL?  Then your argument about shortening 38 Spec to 38 LC would be agreed and would work.

AJ, I would like to also commend you on creating a carriage stop that looks like it will work for the shorter casings in our 73's and 66's.

LG as DD has stated, yes, he appears to be offering a 60 cylinder in 5 shot (I believe).  When the topic surfaced by Tuolumne at the STORM forum I asked if he would inquire about a 44 version.  Don't remember getting a response.  I was wrong here is Tuolumnes' comment about 44:
 """"""If the first 25 pre-productions sell as he anticipates, he will do a larger production run, including .44 Colts (for healed or hollow based bullets).  They will also be five shot (with SASS legal safety chamber) because the original conversions were switched to double pronged  cylinder hands to accommodate the shortened ratchets on the cylinder face.  All original and replica 1860s have single prongs on the hand.""""

I wasn't DIRECTLY trying to replicate either the .455 Eley or the .45 Webley.  I was trying to make a round easily usable in .45 Colt guns that would be easy to load with available bullets and dies, and replcate the EFFECT of the short rounds of old.  They were efficient and effective TARGET loads that would be well suited to CAS was my thinking.  I was using the very fine, but also very hot BP sub, 777, (storing real BP in a rental I didn't own was an issue) and found full case .45 colt loads ridulous for our purposes.  I also was keely aware of the success of .45 ACP in Bullsye competitions, an since ACP dies were readily available, and that was the target case capacity, close to both .455 ELEY and .45 Webley, and efficient and accurate with smokeless in ACP) I chose to have the case made at .895".  Sure, I could easily have chosen to exactly duplicate .45 Webley, but since my entire frame of reference was use within SASS rules, saw no need to do so.  Further, the use of ACP length and case capacity allowed the direct mining of a tremendous volume of VERY GOOD load work done by Bullseye shooters for many, many years.  Messing around with a case duplicating .45 Webley, with shorter OAL and further reduced case capacity would have had me "off the reservation" where many prospective loaders would fear to tread.

FWIW, I got my production prototype carrier installed in a borrowed '73 rifle today, and it fed a wide variety of bullet profiles and weights without any trouble.  We shoot it tomorrow.

[O.T. Buchannan]

I'm 'that other guy' that shoots Webley revolvers.  Unfortunately, the Webley Mark 1 and the Webley Green Target were rechambered prior to my purchasing them (in .45 ACP and .45 Colt, respectively), but they were still fun to shoot.  I also owned, and shot a 5 shot British Bulldog in .44 calibre, but I've since sold it.  Currently, the only one that I have that I intend to shoot in NCOWS is a Webley RIC, in .450 Adams.  I load, shoot, and enjoy this gun quite a bit.

I do a bit of cartridge collecting myself, and over the years, I've loaded for, and shot a LOT of different cartridges.  This .45 Cowboy Special is similar enough to other (especially British) cartridges of the period, that I honestly don't see an issue with it.  In the Henry Rifle, and in the 1866 Winchesters, we currently shoot them with .45 Colt and .44-40 cartridges...with neither of those being correct.  The cartridges are correct (and even they have modifications....solid head vs. baloon head, etc.) for the era, but not for those particular firearms.  This cartridge is much closer to what the Henry and 66 DID fire back in the day, and mind you, the Colt Open Top was chambered in .44 Henry.  In other words, if you are loading a Colt Open Top, for example, and it is chambered in .45 Long Colt, this .45 Cowboy Special is closer to what you SHOULD be loading into it, if we are being authentic.  Consider if you will, that we are loading our Open Tops with .45 Colts and .45 Schofields (and I load my .44 Colts with .44 Russians), and those are not the correct cartridges for those guns, and we know it.

Actually, both my Henry and 66 Winchester are centerfire (not correct, although some 66s were later chambered in centerfire).  To make matters worse, I shoot a .56-50 Spencer, also in centerfire version.  In other words, those rounds are not 'quite correct', but we allow them because this allows us to shoot correct style, authentic firearms.  If you have a Colt Single Action Army chambered in .357, can you tell from a few feet away that the caliber is not quite correct?  Once again, we allow the .357 mag (and the .44 mag) because it allows us to shoot authentic firearms, even if the calibers of those firearms are 'not quite right'.  Sure, it would be fun to shoot Henrys, Spencers, and 66 Winchesters with correct rimfire calibers, but we have already established a precedent for giving leeway on the cartridge, as long as the firearm itself is correct.

The .45 CS (although I don't like that name) is much closer to common cartridges that actually existed, than are the .357 Magnum, .44 Magnum, and as Dr. Bob stated, the .32 H&R Magnum???!!!  Will I use the cartridge?  I doubt it...no reason to, unless I pickup a Henry converted to it.  Otherwise, no, I will stick with what I'm using.  That said, I see no problem with the cartridge, but I would like to converse further with the other members of the Authenticity Committee to get their thoughts.

[Adirondack Jack]

Thank you OT B for your thoughts.

I know from my mail that Henry and Winchester '66 shooters want the ability to run the short rounds, both in .45 (the most common chambering made in the replicas) and in .44.  The carrier we are about to roll out will allow .44 Russian and C45S (call it .45 Special if it makes ya feel more at ease), and restore at least the ability to pass the "seven year old" test (seven year old at seven yards would think it was authentic).

As to converted C&B arms, especially the open tops, again it is not only more "period correct", but also a lot easier on guns.

We'd all love to have the .44 Flat and .41 RF to play with, (personally I'd love a "wobbley Webley" in .450 revolver (nee .450 Adams), just because.

[Will Ketchum]

O.T., a well reasoned post.  It hits the nail right square on the head.  In reality Jack's cartridge is actually more authentic in some firearms than what we are already shooting.

WIll Ketchum

[Ottawa Creek Bill]

Well.....
I don't usually do this but I'm going to have to disagree with O.T. on this one...The 45 CS has nothing in common with the .44 Henry other then shooting a .45 caliber bullet (in the wrong bullet weight) and IS a 45 caliber case...we all know the Henry and the 66 were both .44's shooting a .45 cal. flat nosed heeled bullet.

To get a closer more historically correct bullet to the Henry, I re-chambered mine to .44 colt (it will also cycle .44 Russians) and load it with black behind a 210 grain flat nose heeled bullet, a more correct bullet then what the factory chambering is.
I really think we are opening a can of worms with this cartridge......

Since this cartridge has been approved by SASS I'd like to know how  many are loading this cartridge with duplex loads.....if you don't like the recoil of a .45 with a full load of the Holy Black...then shoot .38s.......

If somebody asked me what bullet I was shooting and I had to say .....the .45 cowboy special...I think I would be embarrassed to answer them.

JMHO

Bill

[Adirondack Jack]

Well.....
I don't usually do this but I'm going to have to disagree with O.T. on this one...The 45 CS has nothing in common with the .44 Henry other then shooting a .45 caliber bullet (in the wrong bullet weight) and IS a 45 caliber case...we all know the Henry and the 66 were both .44's shooting a .45 cal. flat nosed heeled bullet.

To get a closer more historically correct bullet to the Henry, I re-chambered mine to .44 colt (it will also cycle .44 Russians) and load it with black behind a 210 grain flat nose heeled bullet, a more correct bullet then what the factory chambering is.
I really think we are opening a can of worms with this cartridge......

Since this cartridge has been approved by SASS I'd like to know how  many are loading this cartridge with duplex loads.....if you don't like the recoil of a .45 with a full load of the Holy Black...then shoot .38s.......

If somebody asked me what bullet I was shooting and I had to say .....the .45 cowboy special...I think I would be embarrassed to answer them.

JMHO

Bill

I think yer laboring under a misconception that the C45S HAS TO be weak.  Not at all.  Especially with subs like 777, but even with BP, a fair to middling bullet in the 185 to 220 grain range and a stoutly compressed load of BP in the short powder column makes for respectably lively rounds.  My 777 load is a 200 (I started with 250s at 730) with a fair amount of compression (not tons, but quite a little bit) and it barks pretty well and runs over 700 fps.  No wrist breaker, but stouter than many shoot in long cases.

[O.T. Buchannan]

Ottawa is correct, in that he and I don't usually disagree.  We usually see things pretty much the same way.  Personally, if I wanted to shoot a .45, but wanted less recoil, I would simply shoot a .45 Schofield.  I tend to like heavy bullets...so my choice in .45 Schofield is 230grs., and my choice in .45 Colt is 250grs.  My favorite handgun round of the era is the .44 Russian, and I shoot 240gr. bullets in that.  My favorite rifle cartridge of the era is .56-50 Spencer.  All of my rounds are loaded with full blackpowder charges.

With that said, I also shoot a variety of British cartridges and handguns.  My 'hideout gun' is a Webley RIC in .450 Adams.  Loaded with 200gr. bullets, but only 10grs. of blackpowder (all that will fit in a modern case), it ain't gonna knock nobody over!  In it's original loading, it only held 13grs. of powder, and even back in the day, it wasn't known as a powerhouse.  Still, it is a correct period cartridge, actually pre-dating the .44 Russian, .45 Schofield, .45 Colt, .44-40, and quite a few others.

So, that is why I don't object to this particular round, because it is closer to a period type round than some others that we use.  However, although I have no intentions of using it, if I did, I would want to load it with 200 plus grain bullets...as most .44 and .45 caliber rounds of the day were 200 grs. or more....

Personally, I think if Adirondack Jack had simply made it to the length of a .455 Webley or .45 Webley (all depending on the 'mark', and utilizing the longer case) and then named it something like '.45 Webley M (M for 'modern' case), then there would be less opposition to it.  I know at this point in the game he is not going to change it, and I'm not suggesting that.  I'm simply saying that it would have made things a bit easier, at least as far as NCOWS is concerned.

If you show up at an NCOWS match, and you are using a .45 Colt, .45 Schofield, .44 Russian, or even a .450 Adams, and your cases are loaded full of blackpowder, and you are using 200 plus gr. bullets, nobody would have a problem with it.  HOWEVER, if you show up at the same match, and you have a .45 Cowboy Special, loaded with a light smokeless charge and a light bullet...well, THAT is different, and I think THAT is what some of our members are seeing, and thinking about.  While most NCOWS folks are not trying to get an advantage to 'beat' somebody, the immediate perception of a shooter with .45 Colt revolvers, but shooting the .45 CS...especially with light bullets and a light charge...is that the shooter in question is looking for an advantage.  If that shooter WAS in fact doing that to get an advantage, then like Ottawa said, just shoot .38s......

So, while many of us who are into authenticity would not choose this cartridge, and not everybody is going to 'love' this cartridge, it doesn't seem that bad to me either....

[Black River Smith]

I am going to agree with OTB's line of reasoning here.

What we have done in the past and will continue to do is approve the cartridge based on the name and/or designation and then trust a members word as to what he is using.  My 38LC's are cut 38 Spec but to the correct later 1.03" length (spec would not fit in my convert 51) or should I be using the even shorter earlier 38Colt.  Are either gamey???, not in my mind.  My first 44Colt's were cut from 44Mag(now have some Starline marked 44Colt brass) but to the proper length and I use a 214gr inside bullet (less powder) until I created the heeled mold I use (more powder). 

The issue is I tried my best to recreate what was with what is available.

What we don't do though is approve the handloading of those approved cartridges.  So is my use of a 251 gr bullet in 44Rus any better than OTB's 240 gr as he stated using?  Mine has maybe a little less powder.  Is my use of 158 gr in 38LC any different than using the more original 150 gr heeled bullet?  To be totally correct or to the period we would have to use factory loaded.  But I won't do that, can't afford it.  And I doubt that we will ever move to checking loads at a local or regional shoot.  We trust the members word that they are good loads, not squibs.

So with that in mind, the use of this shorter casing that is 'close or close enough' to the original does not seem as ridiculous as having had the 32 H&R Mag approved by our Club.  I know most of us do not acknowledge this casing but we are stuck, plus I do not want something like that to occur again.

Just more food for thought for the Judge and authenticity committee.

Thanks

[French Jack]

For those who have trouble chewing on the 32 H&R, food for thought:  It's a ringer for the 32 Extra Long Ballard which was produced in both rimfire and centerfire versions.------

[O.T. Buchannan]

French Jack, thanks for the reminder, I thought it was close to a period style casing. 

[Ottawa Creek Bill]

I can tell you this for sure...........if we (NCOWS) continue to approve these calibers that didn't exist pre 1899 ....you're going to
loose some members that feel this is no different then approving a short stroked rifle....I think we're probably opening up a can of worms we'll regret...

Maybe our posse should have applied for a SASS charter instead..........

Bill

[Adirondack Jack]

I can tell you this for sure...........if we (NCOWS) continue to approve these calibers that didn't exist pre 1899 ....you're going to
loose some members that feel this is no different then approving a short stroked rifle....I think we're probably opening up a can of worms we'll regret...

Maybe our posse should have applied for a SASS charter instead..........

Bill

Sir, asked little Billy, How come they use .45 Colt in the rifles? I read somewhere that .45 Colt wasn't used in rifles until 1950 or so.

How come they use .44 Magnum in NCOWS?  I know it didn't exist until the 1950s.

They use .357 magnum?  Really?  (1935)

.44 S&W Special?  (1907)

.38 Special?  (1902).


So if ya use .38 EXTRA Long Colt (.38 special cases), I suppose that passes with a wink and a nod if anybody even knows the actual history.

Or .44 Extra Long Russian (.44 magnum)

So I gotta imagine that .45 webley "very slightly long" would have to pass through the same needle's eye as the rest of the other camels......  Unless somebody thinks 1955, 1935, and 1902 are all "Better" violations of the era than 2006.


As to what "looks right", if ya go to load up yer Henry, there's "period correct" (if ya wanna just point the rifle and shout "bang", as .44 Henry Flat is out of print), and there are compromises.  Some of em look a little more "right" than others.










As to "power", from left to right we have .450 Adams at 13 gr BP, a claimed 700 fps (I got em to run about 600 with 130+ year old powder, when reloaded in modern cases of the proper length with modern primers),

Next up the .45 Webley, about a 20 grain powerhouse, and the C45S, that will JUST ABOUT take 20 grains with a 200, depending on bullet shape.  BUT, if loaded with 777 and a 200 at 730 fps, the C45S EXCEEDS the performance of the vaunted .45 Colt loaded with Goex cowboy, or any of the "soft shooting" subs.  As Dick Dastardly is wont to put it, "This ain't no mouse phart".

Then we have the US military cartridges, the .45 S&W and .45 Colt.  As stated above, these are commonly downloaded using light bullets and reduced charges and/or weak subs or "overly processed" BP (Goex Cowboy).

As I stated above, I'll accept whatever decision the powers that be comes up with.  I just want to understand the logic and see the round presented properly.

[Lee Clayton]

I can tell you this for sure...........if we (NCOWS) continue to approve these calibers that didn't exist pre 1899 ....you're going to
loose some members that feel this is no different then approving a short stroked rifle....I think we're probably opening up a can of worms we'll regret...

Maybe our posse should have applied for a SASS charter instead..........

Bill

What kinda idiotic logic is that.

LC

[French Jack]

This is getting to be quite a warm discussion.  I am sure that everyone is interested in the fate of the .45 Cowboy Special. 

I would suggest that instead of getting overboard here, that the comments be made to the Representatives and Senators if you are sincere about it one way or the other.  The Authenticity Committee has the job of making a recommendation if requested, the Congress has the job of approval or disapproval.  It won't happen here on this forum.