Modified 58 Remmie

Pettifogger · December 17, 2007, 03:32:23 PM

Started the thread over on the BP site, but figured the finished product should go here. Haven't shot a Remington since the 1960's. So I bought one and decided to customize it for CAS competition. Here is a list of things I have done so far:

Remove barrel, mill frame and install bushing in cylinder to stop base pin fouling
Shorten barrel to 4 3/4" and move sights and loading lever stud
Shorten loading lever and modify to look like 1890 Remmie
Install coil and plunger hand spring
Mill cap windows to open them up so snail capper can be used
Bevel front of cylinder
Chamfer front of chambers
Install Treso nipples

Starting to feel pretty good. May get another and shoot them in a few matches instead of my Ruger ROAs.

Oldelm · December 17, 2007, 04:47:29 PM

Lookin pretty good , there, Pettifogger

Have you shot it yet? Just wondering how effective that cylinder bushing is, ......like you say, it probably really helps keep her up and running longer without fouling.

Betcha Halfway Creek Charlie would smile seein that....

Nice work!

Hoof Hearted · December 17, 2007, 05:33:56 PM

Lookin' might fine there, sir!

How's the sight working out with the short bbl? Does it shoot to point of aim?

Pettifogger · December 17, 2007, 05:34:29 PM

Haven't shot it yet, but I used the same dimensions for the bushing that Ruger uses on the ROA so I am pretty sure it will improve things.

Mason Stillwell · December 17, 2007, 09:34:20 PM

Larsen I see what you are up to. I move out of the country and you make the ULTIMATE 58 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!WOW that looks good. I'll bet it shoots good.

Now I just gotta have a couple of those.LOL

Mason

Capt. Augustus · December 18, 2007, 09:19:35 AM

The Remington really looks great. I have one question, not trying to be a rules nazi, concerning the bushing. Is it considered a external modification? I know in the past a couple of us tossed the idea around, but backed away from it.

Pettifogger · December 18, 2007, 02:33:30 PM

Captain, who knows? Most people couldn't tell the difference looking at it, especially with a little BP crud all over the gun. I suppose someone could raise a fuss if they don't have anything better to do. Lots of 73s out there with the safety lever removed. That is visible if you know what you are looking for. Don't know. If someone complains, rather than argue about it I will talk an MDQ.

Mason Stillwell · December 18, 2007, 05:34:26 PM

If'n I have a chance to own those type of 58's I would SHOOOOOOT THEM until someone cried about it. Then shoot them at local matches.
To much bellyaching and not enough FUN if you ask me

Mason

Capt. Augustus · December 18, 2007, 08:25:38 PM

I only asked a question, I didn't look for statements of who would cheat.

What if you were shooting in a match against someone also shooting a Remington without the change. Both of you are neck and neck, then his cylinder drags and you beat him by .020 second. Would you be man enough to own up to the change on your pistol or accept the plaque.

I'm far from perfect, but I could not compete with an illegal change. As I told my childern, integrity is what you do when no one is watching.

Pettifogger · December 18, 2007, 08:52:12 PM

Whoa there pard. I was having fun playing around with a gun, you asked a question, I said I didn't know and now I'm a cheat?

Stophel · December 19, 2007, 03:26:32 PM

How does the coil spring arrangement for the hand operate? Drawing or photos?

Pettifogger · December 19, 2007, 11:13:15 PM

Look at this schematic for the Ruger Old Army. It's part numbers 30 and 31. The Italian cap and balls seem to have a lot of problems with poor quality hand springs and they break a lot. Ruger eliminated the problem by replacing the leaf spring with a plunger and coil pushing the hand instead of the leaf spring. Much more reliable. http://www.brownells.com/aspx/ns/schematics/schemmfg.aspx?schemid=21&m=13&mn=Ruger%c2%ae&model=Old+Army+

Stophel · December 20, 2007, 07:37:49 AM

Is it just a hole drilled forward in the frame to hold the spring and plunger?

Pettifogger · December 20, 2007, 10:13:04 AM

Quote from: Stophel on December 20, 2007, 07:37:49 AM
Is it just a hole drilled forward in the frame to hold the spring and plunger?

On a Colt with the removable backstrap that's all it is and getting the hole properly located is pretty easy because the back of the frame is flat and it is easy to take measurements and to drill the hole. The Remington is a lot more involved. The hand is much thinner and shorter than a Colt hand so the hole has to be more precisely located, and the area where the hole has to be drilled is curved. Also, since there is no backstrap, the outboard end of the hole has to be tapped so a set screw can be put in to hold the plunger and spring in the gun.

Barbarosa, your picture is an old model Ruger trigger return spring. We are talking about the hand/pawl return spring.

Oldelm · December 20, 2007, 11:10:09 AM

Pettifogger,
Thanks for explaining how that coil spring goes for the Remmy. I always wondering just how that would work, and now it seems much clearer to me.
Do you buy the plunger & coil for the Ruger and adapt it to the Rem, ...or make up your own?

thanks again

Flint · December 20, 2007, 11:18:01 AM

To get an idea of how the coil and plunger hand spring will look on a Remington, look at a Ruger Bearcat.

I drew up a Remington a few years ago on CAD to locate the proper placement, but haven't done it yet. I have converted several Colt types and my Opentops.

Holding the Remington in the mill or drillpress to make the hole is more difficult due to the barrel, which would have to be removed unless you have a right angle mill drive.

This is an Uberti Colt Opentop:

Oldelm · December 20, 2007, 11:49:41 AM

Nice photos, Flint.

Good job on that Opentop!

You're one heck of a gunsmith!

Marshal Will Wingam · December 20, 2007, 06:10:37 PM

Flint, that is so cool a conversion I'll have to buy an 1851 Navy just to try it out.

Any good excuse, you know.

Pettifogger · December 20, 2007, 09:10:28 PM

Great photos. The set screw isn't needed in the Colt style guns because the backstrap holds the spring in. The Remington was a lot more of a problem than the Colt. The Remington hand is much shorter and narrower so getting the coil and plunger to fit right took a little figuring. First thing was that the regular plungers and springs I have (which are all stock Ruger single action parts) were to big for the Remington. If you drilled the hole to center the plunger on the hand it would penetrate the hammer channel. If you moved the hole inward a little more you hit the edge of the hand channel in the frame. What I finally wound up using was a plunger from Ruger part number KE 51. I had ordered these from Brownells several months ago. They were supposedly for the Ruger single actions, but were smaller in diameter and a little longer. The KE 51 is only .093" in diameter so a number 42 drill fits just perfect. This also makes the hole the right size for a 4-40 set screw. Everything fit about as good as can be expected given the dimensions of the Remington frame and hand. If you go to the Brownells site and look under Ruger parts and then look under the Vaquero, Single Six, or any of the single action revolvers, Brownells has the KE 51 listed. It is the wrong part for a Ruger Single Action, but fits the Remmie just fine. I ran the part number on the Ruger web site and it is from their double action revolvers. Guess I was lucky Brownells sent the wrong part as it turned out perfect for the Remington. The KE 51 plunger doesn't come with a spring, but I have a box of spring stock that I bought from Brownells years ago. Found one in there that fit perfect.

Flint · December 21, 2007, 10:20:44 AM

Good info, Pettifogger. I'll have to order that smaller plunger before I tackle my Remingtons. Maybe one of the springs listed on the Brownells site is the one for the Ruger plunger you have,