Machining a Black Powder cylinder into a .45LC cartridge cylinder

[Bonnie_blue1861]

I was just wondering how many of you guys have taken your original BP cylinder on an 1851, 1860 or similar open top and used it as part of a cartridge conversion for today's store bought or hand loaded cowboy loads or black powder cartridge loads?

I though about using the original cylinder of an 1851 (to retain the lines and roll markings) and having it modified to accept .45LC, then back it up, with a plate from Kirst. (Of course this is a steel frame revolver I'm talking about)

I figure in the long run, the price might come out around the same, either buying both a "Kirst Cylinder" & "Gated Back Plate" from Kirst.... or having a machinist/gunsmith modify my BP cylinder and then buy a Kirst gated back plate.

Any issues with a Pietta  BP cylinder holding up to cowboy .45LC loads? I figure today's metal-ology has to be better than the metal they worked with, back in the 1860's-1870's, etc...so they did this sort of thing way back when.... and other than hearing about the original cast iron Walker cylinders splitting/fragmenting, I haven't heard any scary stories.

Maybe a member like HoofHearted would be a guy to talk with.... but I've seen a few guys here, that have converted BP cylinders for cartridges... but I can't recall if they were always in .38 special or if anyone did it in .45colt.

[rifle]

A "51" cylinder definitly could not accomodate 45 LC. It can do 38al. only and then......the throats would be oversize and need heeled bullets. Having a cylinder made that handles smokeless is what needs done if ya shoot smokeless.
The cylinder of the 60 Army can't handle the 45 LC either. the notches get too thin and the bolt breaks thru or there are smallholes from the get-go from the reaming.
Most all need new cylinders made except the "51" converted to 38cal. The "60" Army can go 44cal. just like the original but.....even that gets toothin at the notches. As in the old days the gun needs a new cylinder just like Colt began to do early in the game.
People do convert Dragoons and Walkers to 45's with the original cylinder and use black only but...it ain't safe. Those guns can do 44cal and use black only  but.....the barrels need re-sleeved to44cal.
Even though the manufactured conversion cylinders with the back plates are too expensive they are the best way to go since they are ordanance grade steel and handle low pressure smokeless and black powder.
In my opinion....the best way to go is to buy a factory made copy of the converted cap&ballers. They are expensive but priced better than buying the conversion kits and are less trouble ....They are made right with good steel cylinders and the right size barrels that don't need heeled bullets and the custom crimp dies and all.
I do have a Walker.....unfired.....that has the cylinder from the percussion reamed and lathed to be a 44 Special with the barrel sleeved to 44cal. A " pro gunsmith" made the cylinder with his machine shop machines and slleved the barrel with his machines also. He mangled the back plate with an un-usable ill fit and a gate that looks like a monkey did the work though. I haven't fixed it right yet. I can use the barrel and cylinder but need to make a new conversion plate and gate. The only problem with the design is the cylinders throats are oversize so(the chambers are .450 in. to begin with and the throats of a 44 need be no wider than .430 or .431)........I guess I'd just load lead balls in the cartridges and shoot those with black powder only. The oversize throats may mean the forcing cone of the barrel could use re-vamped to a over wide  tolerance and lengthened to ,sorta, make a funnelforcing cone to center the ball into the bore. Balls can be done that way but....not conicals.
I read on a site....."Hobby Gunsmith" an old step by step conversion of a Dragoon to 45 Colt caliber. It was tested with black powder loads and held....but the cylinder notches had to be paper thin. Not good. It needed a new cylinder made with shallower notches and a little bigger diameter to be safe with the 45's. It could have the notches break thru and let the brass case bulge into the hole and make extraction difficult. I had a 45cal. Richard Mason Uberti do that and I had to buy a new cylinder fer it. It was like some of the old Colt conversions that used the original cylinders and had the notches break thru and the Hombres still shoot them like that. I read that somewhere. My Richard Mason didn't show any problems except difficult extraction which, while shooting, I took as dirty black powder fouled chambers. I didn't see the little holes in all the same corner of the notches till cleaning time. It was a matter of a little quality control inspection slip up I guess. The earlier guns had smaller diameter cylinders so the later guns have more meat in the notches because of a diameter increase.
Anywhooooo....there's people here that do conversions,I guess, and they could be a little more accomodating about this subject.
One has to start at the beginning in the history of the old Colts being converted. There's a reason the "51's" were 38 Colt designed for that gun  and the "60's" were 44 Colts. The 44 Colt designed for the conversions of the 44's back then has the smallest case rim/head than any 44 out there.

[Sir Charles deMouton-Black]

He didn't say, but I'll bet that Bonnie-Blues' pistol is a gun-that-never-was;- a '51 in .44! 

Could that be altered the way he suggests?

[Bonnie_blue1861]

He didn't say, but I'll bet that Bonnie-Blues' pistol is a gun-that-never-was;- a '51 in .44!  

Could that be altered the way he suggests?

Yep...Its the ever popular Pietta .44 that never was. Also RIFLE...that's a very informative post...thanks for pointing all that out.  I follow where you said "The "60" Army can go 44cal. just like the original but.....even that gets too thin at the notches."

It would then be the same deal for the 1851, since their .44 cylinders themselves  are the same exact cylinder as Pietta's 1860.

[pony express]

That's why the Kirst and R&D '60 army cylinders are five shooters, so the notches are between the chambers, instead of over them.

[Coffinmaker]

Rifle's reply is spot on.  And very informative as well.  To expand, the 1851 and the 1860 both started with the same cylinder (1851) and went from there.  The 1860 cylinder was not rebated, it was expanded in the front for .451 balls and the 1851 frame had the water table rebated to accommodate the larger cylinder.  The result is the rear of the 1860 cylinder is the same size as the 1851 cylinder, especially at the bolt notches.  That cylinder diameter will NOT safely accommodate a re-chamber to .45 regardless of type of powder used.  PERIOD.  There is a very good reason Colt never converted an 1860 to .45 and no respectable gunsmith will do a 6 chamber conversion on an 1860 today.

The Uberti Type II 1860 conversion in .45 is a larger gun than an original 1860 with a corresponding larger cylinder to accommodate the .45 Colt cartridge.

I don't personally feel the Uberti Open Top nor their 1860 R/M conversion should be chambered in .45 Colt.  My customers have brought me guns that had spit the little piece of metal out of the bottom of the bolt notches.  They may have passed proof but they give me the willies.  I firmly believe none of the factory conversions should be chambered larger than .44 (.429).  Any conversion in .45 should only be done with an after-market 5 chamber cylinder.

Coffinmaker

[Mike]

Blue.

I go with you on this why make them in 45. I do have an open top in 45 Schofield but intend to change it as soon as I can get the 44 cylinder and barrel (cost also)

good info here.