I'm considering getting one of the Howell 6 shot .45 Colt conversion cylinders for my Pietta 1858 Remington, but what loads could it actually handle?

Could it handle 30-40 grains of 3F (the same maximum load as with cap and ball)?  What about 4F Swiss? Or can it only handle popgun loads?

OK

The Howell Arms Cylinders are rated for SAAMI pressure 45 Colt.  That includes Black Powder and APP.  Do remember smokeless powders and Black Powder have entirely different pressure curves/levels.  4F is not intended for use in cartridges.

Quote from: Coffinmaker on November 09, 2024, 09:21:11 AMOK

The Howell Arms Cylinders are rated for SAAMI pressure 45 Colt.  That includes Black Powder and APP.  Do remember smokeless powders and Black Powder have entirely different pressure curves/levels.  4F is not intended for use in cartridges.

4F Is normally priming powder only, but there is some confusion with the Swiss, the labeling and the existence of 0b seems to suggest 4F Swiss was intended for pistols, while 0b is the priming powder, which confuses me, hence the question, is Swiss different?

SAAMI pressure?  Are you sure?  Great if correct, but Howell's site cautions against loads over 850 fps.  Has anything official come out from Howell on this?  So I assume a maximum (full case, no filler) load of black powder would work safely then?

Edit: If it's SAAMI spec, could Howell just be saying that because of the frames?

Coffinmaker is correct (and he knows more than i do!) , both Howell and Kirst are spec'd at "standard for old guns and modern italian guns" SAAMI .45 colt pressures.

They started saying 850 fps because few if anyy cartridge companys show their pressure specs, and many cartridge companies will how either "fps" or "cowboy loads".

Also few reloading folks have pressure equipment, but some do get chronometers, so...

But if loading your own you need to get several manuals, read the "non recipe" pages thoroughly, and get and understand pressure curve data and burn speed data.

If using swiss, contact them.
P

Quote from: Professor Marvel on November 09, 2024, 02:19:35 PMCoffinmaker is correct (and he knows more than i do!) , both Howell and Kirst are spec'd at "standard for old guns and modern italian guns" SAAMI .45 colt pressures.

They started saying 850 fps because few if anyy cartridge companys show their pressure specs, and many cartridge companies will how either "fps" or "cowboy loads".

Also few reloading folks have pressure equipment, but some do get chronometers, so...

But if loading your own you need to get several manuals, read the "non recipe" pages thoroughly, and get and understand pressure curve data and burn speed data.

If using swiss, contact them.
P

Thankyou, that explains quite a lot, I was unaware that there was more than one SAAMI spec for .45 Colt, which confused me because some of those modern smokeless loads for .45 Colt can be a bit "warm" to say the least!

But what you said makes perfect sense.  Do you happen to know the maximum safe charge for black powder?  (At the moment the only reloading manual I have is the Hornady one) I know the cap and ball cylinders can handle about 35 grains with conicals and 40 with ball (with a good bit of compression) so would it be safe to assume that the conversions can too or are they paradoxically weaker?

   OK 

You missed a point here.  Professor Marvel expressed you need to "get several reloading manuals."  Allow me to reiterate what the good Professor stated.  "You need to get several Reloading Manuals."  Failing that, your local Library??

A suggestion:  NEVER, EVER, TRUST loading data provided or found from persons unknown.  It can rapidly lead to disaster.  Search for reputable Web Sites.  DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH.

However, before getting yourself into real trouble, Pyrodex is a rusting Agent that just happens to Burn.  Stay away from it.  Tripple Seven (777) is not recommended for cartridges.  It was developed as a BP Substitute for muzzle loading rifles.  Commercial Conversion Cylinders are made from very High Grade stuff and are NOT the weak link.  The weak link is the gun Frame itself.

 

Swiss blackpowder is generally considered to be 15% more powerful than the equivalent amount of Goex / Wano etc.  "Olde Eynsford" is the closest American blackpowder to Swiss.

If you want to load & shoot ".45 Colt Blackpowder Magnum"-loads I would suggest getting a Ruger Old Army, an Uberti Dragoon or Uberti Walker.  These three have way thicker cylinder-walls in their respective conversion cylinders than the Remington-replicas.

The Kirst 5-shot conversion cylinders for Remingtons leaves a little more steel in the chambers compared to the 6-shot R & Ds / Howells.

A final word of caution: if getting a 6-shot conversion cylinder, check that the firing pin at the 6 o'clock position does not contact the rear of the frame during recoil. 
That was the case with my 1996-vintage Uberti 1858 Percussion Revolving Carbine.
A little "Dremel-work" on the lower, rear corner of the frame eliminated this hazard.

  A big difference between the Howell  and Kirst cylinders for Remington revolvers can be seen at the back end of the cylinder.  The Kirst cyls use a stationary plate whereas the Howell uses a "cap".  The stationary plate offers 100% support for the cartridge case to back up against  .  .  .  the cap on the other hand is rounded to mimic the profile of the c&b cyl. and offers 3/4 support at best. That being the case, I would use nothing more than tier1 loads in a Howell cylinder.
 I have not run any tests on a Remington platform revolver but have done fairly extensive tests on Uberti open-top platforms and can say it is a rather robust setup when the platform is built to design. I would recommend an 11° fc be cut / cleaned up if your chamber throats are correct for .452 bullets to ensure pressure consistency as well as revolver longevity.

Mike

Quote from: 45 Dragoon on November 09, 2024, 08:00:17 PMA big difference between the Howell  and Kirst cylinders for Remington revolvers can be seen at the back end of the cylinder.  The Kirst cyls use a stationary plate whereas the Howell uses a "cap".  The stationary plate offers 100% support for the cartridge case to back up against  .  .  .  the cap on the other hand is rounded to mimic the profile of the c&b cyl. and offers 3/4 support at best. That being the case, I would use nothing more than tier1 loads in a Howell cylinder.
 I have not run any tests on a Remington platform revolver but have done fairly extensive tests on Uberti open-top platforms and can say it is a rather robust setup when the platform is built to design. I would recommend an 11° fc be cut / cleaned up if your chamber throats are correct for .452 bullets to ensure pressure consistency as well as revolver longevity.

Mike

I'm confused what you mean by "stationary plate" vs "cap," do you have any pictures?  I always thought the back plate worked the same way.

I'm loath to use the Kirst if I can avoid it just because I would lose a cartridge (also the only original .45 Colt conversion example I have seen was a 6 shot, albeit using balloon head style cases).

On a side note, I wish either Kirst or Howell would make another run of .44 Colt conversions.

Stationary meaning  "doesn't revolve with". The Kirst's have a conversion "plate or "ring" with a single firing pin.  The Howell has a "cap" that fits on the back of the cylinder ( thus turns with the cyl)  with a firing pin for each chamber. Therefore, the "footprint" for the fired case would be the same as for the cap cylinder with the outer edges of the "cap" unsupported. That means no heavy loads.  Walt Kirst has told me he will never make a 6 shot cyl for Remingtons because of the angling of the cartridge and thinness of material.   The 5 shot Kirst cylinder allows for safe cary of a fully loaded cyl and with the odd number of chambers you have the locking notch between chambers for maximum strength.  As I said, I haven't done any testing of the Remington platform yet but my Uberti  '60 Armys and Dragoons get a steady diet of 45acp +p's and 45C +p's  respectively.  This isn't a recommendation though as I have set these revolvers up for testing purposes of the platform  .  .  .  not the cylinder. The cylinder is already "known " and I won't divulge  that on a forum.
  So, staying within tier1 loads,  you should be fine with a Howell cylinder.

Mike

Quote from: 45 Dragoon on November 09, 2024, 10:15:37 PMStationary meaning  "doesn't revolve with". The Kirst's have a conversion "plate or "ring" with a single firing pin.  The Howell has a "cap" that fits on the back of the cylinder ( thus turns with the cyl)  with a firing pin for each chamber. Therefore, the "footprint" for the fired case would be the same as for the cap cylinder with the outer edges of the "cap" unsupported. That means no heavy loads.  Walt Kirst has told me he will never make a 6 shot cyl for Remingtons because of the angling of the cartridge and thinness of material.   The 5 shot Kirst cylinder allows for safe cary of a fully loaded cyl and with the odd number of chambers you have the locking notch between chambers for maximum strength.  As I said, I haven't done any testing of the Remington platform yet but my Uberti  '60 Armys and Dragoons get a steady diet of 45acp +p's and 45C +p's  respectively.  This isn't a recommendation though as I have set these revolvers up for testing purposes of the platform  .  .  .  not the cylinder. The cylinder is already "known " and I won't divulge  that on a forum.
  So, staying within tier1 loads,  you should be fine with a Howell cylinder.

Mike

Thanks, that makes sense.  I should point out though that the Howell does have the safety notch as well, though I don't know why it's only one.

So as I understand it, the Kirst cylinder functions more like a modern revolver and basically just adds a backplate, sort of like a gated conversion without the gate, while the Howell is more like the original (two piece cylinder type) 19th century conversions (although those seem to just have a hole for a modified fixed firing pin hammer vs separate pins, and then just the Navys,  though I did see one picture of an experimental Army one from the Springfield Armory that did use separate pins).  Is that right?

What do you mean by tier 1?

Is there an issue with the angled chambers?  I thought the only "issue" was a patent?

I have no intention of using smokeless loads in these, but that it can take +p is impressive!

Yes, that's how the Kirst functions.  I'm not sure which looks more like actual 19th century conversions of Remingtons, as I haven't gone looking.  I do know that a lot of gated conversions functioned more like the Kirst with a stationary backing plate, but with the plate permanently fastened to the revolver frame.  For non-gated conversions, I wouldn't know.  I do know the Kirst style supports the base of the cartridge better, as stated before.

Tier 1 loads would be those intended for normal .45 Colt revolvers.  Reloading manuals typically have two sections of .45 Colt loads: a section for normal firearms, and a section with stiffer loads for stronger guns like the Ruger Blackhawk or T/C Contender. 

(Like others have stated, I also strongly recommend getting a few more reloading handbooks and reading them before starting any load development.  With your interest in black powder, that should definitely include a Lyman Black Powder Handbook and/or Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook.  Yes, it's another expense, but personally I'd look on the used market while still trying to get fairly close to current editions.  If you go back far enough, the pressure testing wasn't always as thorough, so the older recommendations aren't always as reliable.)

A patent on angled chambers is an "issue" itself, as it means that other parties can't produce them without paying royalties and signing a contract (which the patent holder might be unwilling to sign at all).  But probably the issue Walt Kirst was referring to is this: the angled chambers are closer to the outside of the cylinder at the rear (so there's more room between chambers for wider rims at the base of the cartridges).  That means that the outside wall of the chamber is very thin because the chamber is so close to the edge of the cylinder.  Howell thinks it's still thick enough; Kirst apparently thinks it's thin enough he won't do it.

FYI, one other reason a conversion cylinder might be weaker than expected compared to a cap-and-ball cylinder, is that even with the same diameter bullet (e.g. .451), the conversion cylinder needs to have chambers wide enough for the cartridge case.  A .45 Colt cartridge case is wider than the bullet (because the brass fits around the bullet).  Since the base of a .45 Colt cartridge is supposed to be .480 diameter, the chamber needs to be at least that wide at the base (.4862 per SAAMI).  The wider hole in the cylinder leaves less room for chamber walls, weakening the cylinder.  Manufacturers will account for that when deciding what type of steel to use, how hard to make the cylinder, etc....and whether to make a certain type of cylinder at all.

Finally, read carefully!  The mention of +p was only with reference to '60 Armys and Dragoons.  Just because it works in a different style of gun, doesn't mean it would be safe in the Remington.  Mike (45 Dragoon) is a highly rated gunsmith particularly skilled in Colt-style conversions, and knows what he's doing.  Until he says you can do it in the Remingtons, I wouldn't.  And I at least expect it shouldn't be done in a Howell conversion of the Remington, both because of the angled cylinders and because of the less-supported case head.  And 45 Dragoon already recommended only Tier 1 loads in the Howell, i.e. NOT +p.

Quote from: 9245 on November 09, 2024, 11:54:55 PMWhat do you mean by tier 1?

Is there an issue with the angled chambers?  I thought the only "issue" was a patent?

I have no intention of using smokeless loads in these, but that it can take +p is impressive!

1. Tier1  are the loads listed for 14,000 psi and under.

2. The issue with angled chambers for Kirst is "angled chambers" and strength compromise. Patent is no longer protected.

3. I never said the Howell will handle any +p ammo!!! All my converted revolvers have Kirst gated conversions in them (except for ROA's which are not gated).  KIRST cyls in my '60 Army's and Dragoons are for testing,  I don't even own a Howell cylinder.  So, make sure you understand that really well!!

Mike

Edit:  Thanks Hair Trigger Jim for reiterating that Howell cyl is NOT safe with +p pressures !!!  Saw  9245's post this morning and thought  Holy Cow, didn't make myself clear enough I reckon!

Quote from: Hair Trigger Jim on November 10, 2024, 06:49:42 AMYes, that's how the Kirst functions.  I'm not sure which looks more like actual 19th century conversions of Remingtons, as I haven't gone looking.  I do know that a lot of gated conversions functioned more like the Kirst with a stationary backing plate, but with the plate permanently fastened to the revolver frame.  For non-gated conversions, I wouldn't know.  I do know the Kirst style supports the base of the cartridge better, as stated before.

Tier 1 loads would be those intended for normal .45 Colt revolvers.  Reloading manuals typically have two sections of .45 Colt loads: a section for normal firearms, and a section with stiffer loads for stronger guns like the Ruger Blackhawk or T/C Contender. 

(Like others have stated, I also strongly recommend getting a few more reloading handbooks and reading them before starting any load development.  With your interest in black powder, that should definitely include a Lyman Black Powder Handbook and/or Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook.  Yes, it's another expense, but personally I'd look on the used market while still trying to get fairly close to current editions.  If you go back far enough, the pressure testing wasn't always as thorough, so the older recommendations aren't always as reliable.)

A patent on angled chambers is an "issue" itself, as it means that other parties can't produce them without paying royalties and signing a contract (which the patent holder might be unwilling to sign at all).  But probably the issue Walt Kirst was referring to is this: the angled chambers are closer to the outside of the cylinder at the rear (so there's more room between chambers for wider rims at the base of the cartridges).  That means that the outside wall of the chamber is very thin because the chamber is so close to the edge of the cylinder.  Howell thinks it's still thick enough; Kirst apparently thinks it's thin enough he won't do it.

FYI, one other reason a conversion cylinder might be weaker than expected compared to a cap-and-ball cylinder, is that even with the same diameter bullet (e.g. .451), the conversion cylinder needs to have chambers wide enough for the cartridge case.  A .45 Colt cartridge case is wider than the bullet (because the brass fits around the bullet).  Since the base of a .45 Colt cartridge is supposed to be .480 diameter, the chamber needs to be at least that wide at the base (.4862 per SAAMI).  The wider hole in the cylinder leaves less room for chamber walls, weakening the cylinder.  Manufacturers will account for that when deciding what type of steel to use, how hard to make the cylinder, etc....and whether to make a certain type of cylinder at all.

Finally, read carefully!  The mention of +p was only with reference to '60 Armys and Dragoons.  Just because it works in a different style of gun, doesn't mean it would be safe in the Remington.  Mike (45 Dragoon) is a highly rated gunsmith particularly skilled in Colt-style conversions, and knows what he's doing.  Until he says you can do it in the Remingtons, I wouldn't.  And I at least expect it shouldn't be done in a Howell conversion of the Remington, both because of the angled cylinders and because of the less-supported case head.  And 45 Dragoon already recommended only Tier 1 loads in the Howell, i.e. NOT +p.

Thanks, that clears it up.  I suppose I have some books to find.

Quote from: 45 Dragoon on November 10, 2024, 07:07:35 AM1. Tier1  are the loads listed for 14,000 psi and under.

2. The issue with angled chambers for Kirst is "angled chambers" and strength compromise. Patent is no longer protected.

3. I never said the Howell will handle any +p ammo!!! All my converted revolvers have Kirst gated conversions in them (except for ROA's which are not gated).  KIRST cyls in my '60 Army's and Dragoons are for testing,  I don't even own a Howell cylinder.  So, make sure you understand that really well!!

Mike

Edit:  Thanks Hair Trigger Jim for reiterating that Howell cyl is NOT safe with +p pressures !!!  Saw  9245's post this morning and thought  Holy Cow, didn't make myself clear enough I reckon!

It was a little confusing, but then I suppose I was too.  I figured out that you were talking about the Kirst ones, I was just saying that I was impressed.

Bonus I suppose for those interested.  I would hardly call myself an expert as I have only recently begun researching this but it seems there were a few known conversion types on originals, some factory, some gunsmith.

The gateless gate loader (factory style), either a new cylinder (factory conversions) or a cap and ball cylinder that has had the back removed and a new back welded or brazed on (gunsmith).  Just a straight gate loading conversion but WITHOUT a full conversion ring, and without an actual gate (if you aimed up your cartridges might fall out), these were typically made so that you could still use a cap and ball cylinder, and many have been found in cases sets with both.  Handy if you might not have access to metallic cartridges.  I have seen some with crude hinged gunsmith aftermarket gates installed, lousy gate design, but better than nothing.

The gated conversion (both factory and gunsmith), very similar to a modern Kirst or Howell gated conversion, but typically only seen on Navy models, not Armys.

Rimfire conversion (gunsmith).  Very similar to the modern Howell gateless cylinders, but with a simple slot cut for a fixed firing pin hammer to reach the cartridge base instead of individual firing pins. Modified hammer.

Gateless centerfire conversions (gunsmith), same as above except with a hole in the center instead.

Experimental centerfire type.  I have seen only one picture of this, it was a prototype made by Springfield Armory.  Very similar to the Howell gateless cylinders, complete with individual firing pins, but the back of the cylinder "attached" in a bit different way.  It was an Army model, not the Navy.

I saw a few other one offs too, like an interesting gateless one that used a two piece cylinder simular to a Merwin and Hulbert, without looking it up again I think it was made by Whitney.

I have seen only one .45 Colt, it was a 6 shot (balloon head cases, so no angled chambers required), and was of the gateless gated type with one of the crude gates apparently added.  It looked like a factory conversion (probably .46 Remington) that was then gunsmith altered with a custom .45 Colt cylinder and the gate.

So none of the modern gateless conversion cylinders are 100% correct, but of the two available the Howell is probably the closest to what existed in period (though it would not shock me if a one off gunsmith example exists somewhere that was near identical, in fact it would surprise me if it didn't).  As far as the gated conversion cylinders, both the Howell and the Kirst would be near dead on when used in Navys, but again, it would not shock me at all if an army example existed somewhere and I would be more surprised if it didn't, I just have not seen one yet.  However (in terms of Armys) I would give the edge to Howell just because it's a 6 shot and the only .45 colt original I have seen was too, albeit of a different type.

In terms of sheer shootability I suppose either would work depending on what you wanted to do, but it appears the Kirst (though Howell makes a 5 shot as well) may have an edge on strength, if you can get over losing 1 shot.  If you can't, the Howell is the only way to get full capacity.

9245: IMO why a Kirst cylinder is much better than a Howell has nothing to do with quality/strength. The Howell's are a quality product, BUT 1) With a Kirst you don't have to take the cylinder out after firing, unload, reload, and then reinstall. Seems to be steps not needed, not any faster than a percussion reload, besides IMO the more you disassemble, the more wear and tear you put on your revolver-don't care what those who say it doesn't. 2)The five vs 6 round argument really isn't all it's argued to be. If yer shooting SASS/NCOWS, you load only five rds per revolver. You're not under attack by hostile tribes, nor facing a showdown in Dodge City, and you get used to it.

I believe if a shooter gets used to shooting a revolver with only a five round cylinder they won't think about it after a while (get used to it)! To me, the PITA of disassembling a open-top style Colt revolver into three pieces or even the hassle of taking out a Howell cylinder in a Remington is the 'biggy'! I currently don't have a conversion cylinder for my Remington's, maybe someday, but I don't plan on facing the bad guys as on Main St in Pale Rider either. If some scenario like that occurred, hopefully I'm armed to the teeth with some of my modern day revolvers/pistols, wearing a ballistic vest, and behind strong cover with a AR at my side. 

 (Edit)I edited this post as I incorrectly posted that my Krist 45 Colt cylinder was a five shot when it is a six shooter. I initially posted my 3rd Model Colt Dragoon had a Krist five shot cylinder but was thinking along the lines of something else. Didn't proof read as I should have as the Mrs. was advising we had to leave for church and I posted it as is. Not a smart way of posting!!!!

Quote from: Crow Choker on November 10, 2024, 09:24:55 AM9245: IMO why a Kirst cylinder is much better than a Howell has nothing to do with quality/strength. The Howell's are a quality product, BUT 1) With a Kirst you don't have to take the cylinder out after firing, unload, reload, and then reinstall. Seems to be steps not needed, not any faster than a percussion reload, besides IMO the more you disassemble, the more wear and tear you put on your revolver-don't care what those who say it doesn't. 2)The five vs 6 round argument really isn't all it's argued to be. If yer shooting SASS/NCOWS, you load only five rds per revolver. You're not under attack by hostile tribes, nor facing a showdown in Dodge City, and you get used to it.

Before I bought a 3rd Model Dragoon with a 45 Colt five shot Kirst cylinder I bemoaned the lose of one round. Anymore I don't think anything about it. To me, the PITA of disassembling a open-top style Colt revolver into three pieces or even the hassle of taking out a Howell cylinder in a Remington is the 'biggy'! I currently don't have a conversion cylinder for my Remington's, maybe someday, but I don't plan on facing the bad guys as on Main St in Pale Rider either. If some scenario like that occurred, hopefully I'm armed to the teeth with some of my modern day revolvers/pistols, wearing a ballistic vest, and behind strong cover with a AR at my side. 

Am I missing something obvious here?  Don't the gateless Kirst and Howells function the exact same way?  Don't they both have to be removed to reload?

Both Kirst and Howell have a gated version, if that's what you mean.

I think for me the whole 6 vs. 5 shot thing is a mental block, I feel like I'm losing something.  Also in my mind a revolver is "supposed" to have 6.  This is all a me issue though, just the way I'm wired.  Now if I GAINED something by going to 5... that's a different story.

You are right about cap and ball vs gate loading reloading though, it's a break even, that's one of the reasons people still used cap and balls well in to the cartridge era, they did not really gain much by switching, at least not when the alternative is a gate loader.  The only real advantage was more weather proof ammo and as time went on paper cartridges becoming scarce.  For me, in 2024, I just like the conversion ascetic and convenience.

As far as practical uses I see only one, hunting, the extra shot could come in handy, potentially (I doubt it, but maybe).  In cap and ball configuration I could add usefulness in ammo shortages and panics (the original reason I got my cap and balls, in the last great panic I got frustrated with my inability to get to the range for fear of wasting precious irreplaceable ammo and foresaw the possibility of one day having such a situation become long term, but obviously that has zero to do with cartridge conversions).

Ok, before any more "confusion" happens, a Dragoon is a 6 shot shooter whether cap gun or converted. The '60 Army is a 6 shot cap gun but a 5 shot conversion  in 45C  or 45acp.  Maybe Mr. Crow Choker is "mis-remembering".  The Kirst cyls have a "hammer down safety" position between the chambers except for the ROA cyls. The Howell cylinders for ROA's don't come with the safety notch but one can be ground in (since it uses the "cyl cap" setup). Both manufacturers ROA cyls are 6 shot cyls as well.
  I have never talked with Mr. Howell but I do like his product for the Remington platform, I'm  just much more familiar with Mr. Kirst's cyls and have talked with him extensively about them. I'm not affiliated with the Kirst business in any way and their instructions say Not For +p Ammo just to make that clear!
  The reason I use Kirst cyls for testing the Open Top platform is because -1. I know the parameters of them so I can stay safe and 2. You can't stress the O.T. platform with bp or any of the replacement powders.  The loading tables give you a better  indication of pressures involved, likewise "trusted loads" from Brian Pearce (and others) can help as well.

Mike

  Allow me to also address this "Mental Block" and "Revolvers are suppose to have 6" thing.  We're talking cartridge revolvers here.  Until the advent of the modern Double Action and Transfer Bar single action, NO cartridge revolvers were carried with 6 rounds in the cylinder.  PERIOD.  There has ALWAYS been an empty chamber under the hammer of single action cartridge guns.

If you wish to stay all hell bent on authenticity, forget "Pale Rider" and gun fights in the midst of High Street.  That is strictly Hollyweird.  In the age of percussion guns, nobody attempted to reload in the middle of the of a fight.  They grabbed another fully loaded gun.  Percussion guns carried 6 up with the hammer down on the safety pin.  Single actions??  That wern't happening.  Bad guys reloaded the same old way, grabbing a previously loaded gun with the hammer down on an empty chamber.

If you ponder for just a moment though, you will realize you DO actually gain something going to 5.  You eliminate the happenstance of shooting yourself in the foot, the thigh or the calf by doing something stupid.  Kirst gated conversions have a recess between chambers to capture the firing pin and prevent the cylinder from turning.  Howell Gated conversions operate quite similar.  Locking the cylinder in the middle.

The Howell, R & D (Howell) and Kirst two piece cylinders DO have to be removed to reload.  Whether you use them in a Replicant Remington or Colt Pattern gun, the cylinder has to come out to reload.  This method is slow and cumbersome.  Reloading with a gated conversion is also slow and cumbersome.  My personal CAS Match guns are Cap Guns that I reload on a cylinder loading stand (gun apart), or Kirst Konverter conversions I reload in the common SAA fashion.  Neither is "FAST."  In an actual emergency situation, nobody reloads in the middle of a fight.  You either get it done with what is in the gun or you die.  It  Is  Just  That  Simple.  Get over yourself.