Silly conversion idea - barrel swap

[highside]

I have an 1851 Navy (uberti) that I am thinking about converting to use metalic cartridges. I have done some extensive reading on this and have thought of a few options, and I wanted to get some input from the experts here.

I want this conversion to fire regular .38 special ammunition.

In my research I found that this would mean having the barrel lined to .357. R&D offers this service for $60 plus $200 some for the ejector assembly. This seemed a little steep to me, so I got to thinking:

Would it be possible to simply swap the existing 1851 barrel for a replacement barrel and ejector (from taylors or VTI) for the Cimarron/Taylors '51 R-M conversion pistol? This barrel can be had for $85 and the ejector for about $50. This barrel should already be bored to he proper .357 diameter and be compatable with the R-M ejector.

It seems to me that this swap is ultimately a lot cheaper than purchasing the conversion ejector and having the existing barrel sleeved. This would also present the opportunity to simply swap back to the original barrel to enable firing cap and ball ammunition, and it would offer some barrel length options as the R-M comversion comes in several lengths.

I understand that a barrel swap does involve an amount of fitting, but does this seem like a workable plan, or am I missing something?

For the cylinder I was thinking of going with either the RD or Kirst gated options. It seems that the Kirst presents an easier installation, but the RD offers a cylinder that is a little longer for regular .38 special cartridges. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

[highside]

Replying to my own topic. 

From looking at the schematic, it appears that the R-M cylinder, gate, base pin, and breech can also be pretty readily swapped as well. The parts add up to about $150 or so, which is significantly cheaper than either the RD or Kirst cylinders. Think that one could simply swap those parts as well and have a complete conversion using cheap replacement parts?

Cimaron/Tayloys RM Conversion schematic


Uberti 1851 Schematic

[litl rooster]

   I think the total math $$$ of the project, pistol -conversion kit and extra barrel- tools etc. Buying an R/M or a a open Top would be cheaper.

[highside]

   I think the total math $$$ of the project, pistol -conversion kit and extra barrel- tools etc. Buying an R/M or a a open Top would be cheaper.

That would certainly be the case if I didn't already own an 1851. It also wouldn't be a pistol that I put together myself.

[litl rooster]

is this an Iron frame or a brass frame 1851?

[Pettifogger]

Assuming VTI even has the parts (I've tried ordering several conversion parts and they are not in stock), it would be cheaper to buy a 51 already converted.  You would need to machine the breach since it is set back quite a bit from the percussion model.  Then you would net to drill out the staking pin and remove the old arbor.  The new arbor is different.  You would also need a new hammer and hand since the conversions used a different hammer and a two finger hand.

[highside]

The cylinder looks like too much work, but what about the barrel swap?

[Flint]

The "bolt circle", the diameter of the chamber centers is larger on the Opentops and Uberti factory Conversions than the cap & ball guns.  The cylinder is larger in diameter, so the center of the arbor was moved upward about .028, and the barrel also, for a total diameter of 1.057 to match.  Neither the Opentop nor Conversion cylinder or barrel will fit on a cap & ball frame.

A Colt SAA center is .53, for a diameter of 1.06, a hair larger.  The cap & ball diameter is 1 inch exactly both 36 and 44, both Colt and Remington.

The original Colt conversions were 1 inch, but Uberti opted to put more steel in the walls for the sake of the 45 caliber version.

The Kirst and R&D cylinders have the 1.00 inch chamber circle diameter, so you are stuck with a rebore, or shooting hollowbase bullets.

ASM, when they made the Richards conversion, put in a larger cylinder (full length the diameter of the 1860 Army forward sectiion), but cut away the thickness of the waterline (floor) of the frame window to do it, and that thinning was one of the ASM conversion's weaknesses.

[highside]

Thanks Flint! Thats a wealth of information that I never would have figured out on my own. Looks like I am stuck doing it the hard way.