Remington Revolving Carbine

[9245]

I'm struggling to find an affordable rifle (and also historically correct) (I just drop $1,200 on a rifle), and all roads seem to be leading me to the Remington Revolving Carbine, for a few reasons.

I need something that is correct for 1885 so that rules out the Rossi R92, which is the only remotely affordable lever action that I have found that's not a .22LR.

It is the ONLY period repeating rifle that I have found that was theoretically capable of firing .45 Colt (I have found ONE original example that a gunsmith converted to .45 Colt, and, conveniently, it also had the barrel shortened to 18 inches (you know like the Uberti reproduction), it used a two piece conversion cylinder, like a Howell, albeit with a modified hammer instead of multiple firing pins).

.45 Colt is cheaper to buy and cheaper to reload than .44-40.

.44-40 Would not be correct (or possible) for a cartridge conversion to a Remington New Model Army, but I HAVE seen an original example in .45 Colt (again, one example and with the same style of conversion cylinder as the rifle).

It can also be used in it's original cap and ball form.

My questions are, first, am I wrong?  Is there a better way to go about this?  Second, would it be match legal for NCOWS?  I know that it is not for SASS for some reason.  Third, assuming that it is allowed, what style of conversion would be allowed.  The example I found was the two piece cylinder, but I have seen the navy versions of the revolver typically have gated conversions so I don't think it would be much of a logical stretch to assume that if the two piece conversion were possible that someone could not have made a gated one as well.  So would a gated conversion be allowed?

Last question, going for revolvers as well, what about hot swapping the cylinders?  I know the historicity of that is questionable, but given that both types of conversion's required a new cylinder it is not at all unreasonable to assume that the gunsmith would have returned the original cylinder to the customer, thus leaving them with two cylinders, one for cartridges and the other for percussion.  Is it that much of a logical stretch to assume that the spare could have been carried?  (Yes I'm aware of the safety concerns (although I question the validity of that to an extent, because without a barrel I don't really see that projectile as being able to do much more than make a popping noise), but what about swapping in an uncapped cylinder?)