Which conversion?

[Marshal Deadwood]

Ya know Frenchie, the very though has crossed my mind.
Keep on cartridge gun for a 'go to' and just do cap and ball totally.

I DO like the cap and balls better,,,I guess its the alure of an earlier time.

Marshal Deadwood  *who carries a brace of '60Armys

[Halfway Creek Charlie]

Well I like them both but have to admit, I have had a ball shooting C & B the last two CAS matches. Just a HOOT! But I love my Conversions.

If I were going the buy a new Conversion...I wouldn't because they are not the proper Caliber that the Originals were. That said I'll convert my C & B's to their original calibers cause I can. Most all 44 Cal BP originals were converted to 44 Rem/Colt C.F. because they were all about ,451 Grooves.

If the new conversions were in 44 Rem/Colt C.F then I'd think about it.

The 1871 Open Tops were 44 Colt of the smaller dia. but not the RM conversions as I understand it.

It is a bit confusing, but once you have it straightened out it's easy to remember.

MD,
Just a brace??.............I carry all I can jam in my belt, the pommel bags and in my hands......

[Flint]

The problem with chambering a revolver for the original 44 Colt and Remington is that they were heel based bullets of 45 caliber.  Now, if you are willing to invest in the molds and special dies to do the work required reload heel based bullets, have at it, but I prefer to reload the later reduced caliber bullet seated inside the case both for the more readily available bullets and dies, and the time involved.  The modern 44 Colt will chamber and shoot in a modern made  44 Sp 44Colt or Mag revolver of .429 caliber.

The cap & ball bore more readily converts to 45 Schofield or 45 Colt as available today.  That it's not as authentic, but to me that's not as important as the availabilty of components and the ease of reloading.

The original 1871/2 Opentop Colt was chambered in 44 Henry rimfire, and a few in 44 Henry Centerfire, not 44 Colt, of either bullet type.  The popularity of the 44 Henry cartridge used at the time in both the Henry and the 1866 Yellowboy were a driving factor there, just as chambering the SAA in 44 WCF was designed to match the 1873 Winchester rifle.

The Richards and R-M conversions were most often 44 centerfires when chambered in big bore, and 38 rimfire and centerfire on the Navy frames.

[Major 2]

BY the BY Charlie... how them pommel bags workin out ?

[Halfway Creek Charlie]

I love them. I use them when I go to a CAS match to carry two extra guns and a bunch of "STUFF". LOL
Plus they look grat with the 2nd Gen Navies in the holsters. Nothing like them red Grips and Silver backstraps poking out to get attention. Style points fer sure...now ,Them, the Henry, two 44 Remy Original Conversions or the 44 Armies in those Tommy Tornado Holsters.....I'll be Styling fer sure.

[Tuolumne Lawman]

I have used both R&D and Kirst in Pietta and Ubertis, and favor the Kirst.  I am using it in my forged frame Uberti New Model Army .44 (aka: 1858).

It is five shot (though SASS legal) but so where a huge number of the original  .46 rim-fire conversions.  In fact the .45 Schofield with 27 grains of BP and a 230 grain bullet is almost identical to the .46 rimfire round.  It also is easier to remove and replace than an R&D is (in my experience).

[sundance44`s]

I`ve always had one of each on the conversion cylinders ..I noticed something this weekend while cleaning my pistols ..the Remmie I use the R&D cylinder in has little indentions on the recoil sheild from the R&D cylinder not being smooth on the backing plate /// The Remmie with the Kirst doesn`t make a mark here ..because the Kirst cylinder has a smooth plate for the fireing pin and it doesn`t move around like the R&D does ... Not a big deal , but just something that caught my eye , I`ve never had a problem with eaither cylinder ..they both work flawless.

[The Avocado Kid]

I have a Pietta NMA "58" with an R&D cylinder....the only thing I had to do was remove the blue(came off real easy) from the cylinder pin....the cylinder dropped right in with no problems and works great...I think with the R&D cylinder its much less fuss. Dusty.

[Flint]

I prefer the R&D even though it can sometimes be trickier to insert, because it is much less destructive to the hand than a Kirst, and much smoother runnning without the asymetrical rachet spacing of the 5-shot Kirst.  Someone like the Smith Shop needs to offer hard steel hands for the Remington and Colt conversions, as the soft Italian steel can't take the 4140 and 4150 steel cylinder rachets very well with extended use.