How to proceed, Colt Conversions??

[Slowhand Bob]

Though most seem to favor the Uberti manufactured Conversions over do-it-yourself versions I plan to buck that trend.  My plan is to actually sell my early pair of Uberti RMs to start the funding for converting my favorite pair of Pietta cap and ball .44s to Kirst Conversions.  Though the Uberti RMs are very nicely made and attractive revolvers, I have just never warmed to shooting them very often.  There is a world of difference in how they compare, in the hand, to an 1851 Colt clone.  I even went so far as to swap out the grips from two of my SAA revolvers to see if that improved them for me at last months local match.  Though it helped a bit, the gun just feels really large and heavy with the cap and ball feel lost in the translation.  Those who have both, look at them side by side, its a big difference.  I cleaned them real well after the match, swapped the grips back and now out they will go.  No more playing safe queens for them.

My real questions concern the method by which I will convert my cap and ball pistols and to some degree the money received from the sale of the R/Ms will play a part in those decisions.  How practical would it be to start out with just the Kirst converter cylinders and reload by pulling the barrel at shooting matches?  Would this constant pulling apart cause undue wear on the fitted parts involved?  This would also allow me to use the same set of revolvers for shooting cap and ball a bit longer.  Later, as finances permit, I could have ports cut and add extractor assemblies. 

Thoughts, ideas and opinions welcome but remember, this is not a comparison of the R/Ms to the Kirst Conversions.  They are as different from each other as a Ruger Old Army is from a period cap and ball revolver clone.  Besides, the Ubertis are chambered for .44 cartridges and I would be happy reducing that caliber from my cowboy reloading needs.
 

[Major 2]

I've read this twice and I'm still a bit confused  

Are your Pietta C&B 44's in fact 51 Navy's in 44 ?

Then yes they will be lighter in front because,
Uberti's R&M's are 38 and the barrel has more meat , moving the balance
forward....
also your Pietta Grips have a differnt profile and will feel different in hand..

Have you concidered ,Uberti's Man with no Name conversions in 38 ?
here I think you'll find the balance more to your liking.

But to your question... Its not a big deal to pull the barrel and load, but it does get a bit old.
IMHO
I believe, Jay Strite will fit your Kirst Cyl. (bought from Kirst/Strite)cut your loading ports
and refinish for less than the R&M should sell for.

[Fingers McGee]

I've read this twice and I still a bit confused  

Have you concidered ,Uberti's Man with no Name conversions in 38 ?
here I think youl find the balance more to your liking.

Ditto.  I find no difference in balance and feel with my MWNN revolvers.  As much as i hate to admit it - and It'll probably come back to bite me - but, I kinda prefer the MWNN revolvers over my '51 and '61 Navies.

FM

[Marshal Deadwood]

Uberti and Pietta cap and ball guns dont feel like my second gen colt cap and balls anyways.

At least the Uberti conversions are made of harder steel than uberti or pietta cap and balls.

[Slowhand Bob]

A friend has my pair of '60 Armys which does not help but I took the following picture with the '51 .36=top, the Uberti '60 .44 R/M=middle and the '51 .44= bottom.  For me the camera, the scales and the calipers do not show the amount of difference that I perceive when handling and shooting these guns but the differences are there and recorded.

The biggest surprise for me was the weights.  Top gun (36 Navy) weighs 2lb 11.5oz, middle gun (R/M 44) weighs 2 lb 9.5oz and the shocker was the bottom gun (44 Navy with short barrel) weighs in at 2 lb 6.3oz.  Not having the long barl 44 cap and ball makes comparisons a bit more difficult but it would seem obvious that the bottom pistol would have been heavier than the R/M if it had the additional barrel length.  Another area that might cause weight difference is the cylinder mass of the cap and balls with their solid cap ends.

What the weight does not show is the dimensional difference with all measured thicknesses being greater on the R/M.  First I measured the frames, just above the front of the trigger guards.  '51 (.36) = .799,  R/M (.44) =.843 and '51 (.44 shorty) = .793.  I had always heard that the Uberti was beefed up to handle smokeless loads and this was one indication of that.  Not sure what to think about the tolerance difference in the two Pietta frame measurements, within acceptable range??

Cylinders were as I expected with the Uberti R/M swelling from 1.610 up to 1.676, while the .44 Pietta went from 1.535 to 1.592 and the .36 Pietta was a uniform 1.535.  Not sure how to compare a round barrel to the Navy barrel but here goes with the R/M once again being the heavy weight at .742D at rear, the '51 in .44 was .713 across flats and the .36 version was .695??  A bad measurement or another possible tolerance variance, either way the Uberti is beefed up again here without a doubt.

I am sure the Uberti cartridge gun will have more invested into its ability to handle heavier charges than one would expect for guns that were not designed to handle modern smokeless cartridges (or cartridges at all for that matter).  See my reference above to the Ruger firearms, the Old Model Vaqueros came out on a revolver frame that was capable of taking the 44mag while Colt fans were ragged for using a much older, lighter and weaker design BUT there are some who just take a different path while hoping to reach the same end.  Can it be achieved???

On the loading issue, I doubt that breaking down to load and unload cartridges, until I could do otherwise,  would be much more of a problem than the actual cap and ball chores.  Unlike shooting in the field, we do have nice covered tables on which to break down the Colts quickly without the need to juggle parts in our hands.  My problem is that the ones I have are new and have very tight  wedges.

One last question, the Richards design that Cimaron used to carry, was it done on a black powder frame or was it on a beefed up frame like the Uberti?  Im thinking that since it was available as a six shot 44, perhaps the frame was enlarged?  

PS:  to clear confusion, the bottom gun is from the pair of short barrel .44s I want to convert.

[Raven]

At least the Uberti conversions are made of harder steel than uberti or pietta cap and balls

I am sure the Uberti cartridge gun will have more invested into its ability to handle heavier charges than one would expect for guns that were not designed to handle modern smokeless cartridges (or cartridges at all for that matter).  See my reference above to the Ruger firearms, the Old Model Vaqueros came out on a revolver frame that was capable of taking the 44mag while Colt fans were ragged for using a much older, lighter and weaker design

I think you guys are mistaken! The cylinders in the cartridge guns are probably made out of 4140 or something close but the barrels and frames are still made of Low Carbon Steel They are made slightly oversize to accomadate the cylinder. While the cylinder is strong.....perhaps as strong as a Ruger the rest is not.

The percussion cylinder is capaple of being loaded with much more powerfull loads than a cartridge is as long as we are talking about Blackpowder. When we get to Smokeless thats where big problems can occur....which is why these guns are for Cowboy Loads Only i.e. Under 1000FPS and Lead Bullets only.

Even if the cylinder can handle the same loads that a Ruger can the Open Top design Can't...even if it is beafed up.

Raven

[Montana Slim]

My Pa has several converted 1851 & 1861 Colt C&B....All Pietta, both with Kirst and R&D gated cylinders. Intially, the loading levers retained (ejectors not available for some time)....but  eventually were fitted with the ejector assemblies. I believe the R&Ds are a bit nicer since they have optional roll engraving on the cylinder (which my Pa purchased)...and the gates operate a bit smoother. All shoot very well. He's using a light smokeless loading with a HBWC bullet.

Me ?....well, I'm mostly into 1860's.  I'd probably like his 1851 conversions more if I loaded the ammunition 

Slim

[Marshal Deadwood]

I've thought about a Kricst cartridge cylinder just for the '60 Armys. Not convert the gun,,but just use a conversion cylinder.

Raven, will ya'll tune and fit the cylinder if one sent you the revolver ?

MD

[Raven]

I've thought about a Kricst cartridge cylinder just for the '60 Armys. Not convert the gun,,but just use a conversion cylinder.

Raven, will ya'll tune and fit the cylinder if one sent you the revolver ?

MD

MD,
Give me a call I'll take care of you.
254-248-0663

Raven

[Marshal Deadwood]

Will do Raven. I kinda hate to convert my second gens totally and forever to cartridge,,although it has crossed my mind. But conversions cylinders might be the happy medium for me.

mD

[Holden A. Grudge]

So I gotta ask, since I am looking at doing the same thing;

Slowhand- Since you are thinking of just pulling the wedge for a while before maybe eventually getting the recoil shield opened up, are you thinking of getting the gated cylinders and still pulling the wedge (is that even possible)?  Or getting the two piece cylinders and then maybe later getting the gated ones?

Reven- please see above question....can you start with a gated cylinder, not open the recoil shield, and still load by pulling the wedge?  Or does the gated cylinder require that you load through the gate?

And what kind of cost would it be to have the recoil shield opened up and cylinder fitted....please do't feel the need to answer here...I can give you a call and we can talk if that works better.

[Slowhand Bob]

My experience is limited to Remington revolver conversions but  think it works the same.  Yes you can use the gated versions for a spell before having the guns ported.  On Colts there are two break down problems I have encountered, the tight wedge and the tight something else.  I have never fitted a wedge but have heard it is the easy fix, perhaps someone will address it for us?  The other is the gun that has a wedge that pops right out but then the barl does not want to slide off.  These can usually be seperated with the ram but I do not know how to make the fit looser or even if I should?