Conversion cylinder for 1860 Uberti Army .44

[Doug.38PR]

http://www.williamssports.us/Products/conversion-cylinders/uberti.html

This site, midway and brownells all seem to have cylinders for above said gun that are only 5 shot.  The original ball and cap cylinder is 6.  Why the difference?

My first throught is that the .45 long and cartridge take up too much room for a cylinder that size.  BUT, Ubert sells converted guns of the 1860 that are .45 long colt and shoot 6 shots.

Are there any conversion cylinders that take 6?

I gave a ball and cap of one of these to my uncle this morning for Christmas.  He's real interested in it.

[PvtGreg]

Doug,

As you correctly guessed conversion cylinders for 45lc 1860 army repros (Uberti and Pietta) are 5 shot because a replacement cylinder with 5 shots can handles the pressure from a 45lc cartridge better than one with 6 given that the diameter of the conversion cylinder has to be the same as the original cap and ball cylinder.    Boring for 6 rounds would leave too little metal for safety.

The conversions you see for sale by Uberti have an enlarged frame and cylinder to handle 6 cartridges.

I know the Kirst 1860 conversions have a safety notch for the hammer that makes them SASS legal.

[Flint]

The conversions were 44 Colt, which is a cartridge case the same diameter as a 44 Mag/Special/Russian.  The bullet, however was a heeled 45 caliber to fit the bore.  The 45 Colt cartridge has the bullet inside the case, so after adding the brass thickness, the case is too large to chamber safely in an 1860 cylinder.

[Advertising]

[Mako]

Doug,

As you correctly guessed conversion cylinders for 45lc 1860 army repros (Uberti and Pietta) are 5 shot because a replacement cylinder with 5 shots can handles the pressure from a 45lc cartridge better than one with 6 given that the diameter of the conversion cylinder has to be the same as the original cap and ball cylinder.    Boring for 6 rounds would leave too little metal for safety.

The conversions you see for sale by Uberti have an enlarged frame and cylinder to handle 6 cartridges.

I know the Kirst 1860 conversions have a safety notch for the hammer that makes them SASS legal.

Private,
The actual reason for the five chambers probably has more to do with the rim diameter than the wall thickness.  The only cartridge that will fit is a .44 Colt with it's small diameter rim.

If you chambered it in .44 Colt, people would be forced to either sleeve the barrel to accept a modern Ø.429 bullet, or resort to heel base bullets with the major diameter matching the O.D. of the case.  Some people do that, there are examples here on this forum and other boards on this site of people who have made that type of conversion.

In addition, if you sleeved your barrel to Ø.429 in order to use in the case modern style bullets and modified your original cylinder you would have a huge amount of "overbore" in the cylinder before the bullet hit the forcing cone.  You'd literally have no seal.  Some people do this with Navy models chambered to .38 Colt or .38 spl and sleeve the barrels.  Then they use hollow base .38 caliber (Ø.358) bullets that obturate enough to seal the chamber bore before hitting the forcing cone.  Some people keep the original bore and allow the skirt on the hollow base to upset to the diameter of the barrel.  There are even a few that used heeled bullets with the original bores which is the most authentic.

Going to .45 caliber allows you to use a bullet that is equivalent in diameter to the loaded ball or bullet on loose powder in an unmodified Army model.  The only way to fit the .45 rim is to go to a chamber pattern of less than 6.

Regards,
Mako

[Mako]

Haaaaaaaaa,
I see Flint beat me to it.  He posted while I was typing.

Flint my old friend, I have a Christmas present for you.  Have you see the models I have been using over on the Darksider's Den?

Merry Christmas.
Mako

[Mako]

This is the problem in a nut shell.

I have included four models below to show the problem with the overlap of the rims.

• The first shows an unmodified cylinder just as a reference.

http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/1860%20Conversion/ArmyCylinder.jpg

• The second shows a cylinder that has been bored through and the ratchet recut and cleared for the rims.  This is what the Colt original conversions looked like and the ones that are done on current cylinders if someone is actually making an accurate conversion on and Army model.    

http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/1860%20Conversion/44ColtOblique4jpg.jpg

• The third shows the same cylinder converted to .44 Colt end on.  Note how there is still rim clearance and there is sufficient ratchet face for the hand to engage.      

http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/1860%20Conversion/Colt44EndOn.jpg

• The fourth model shows the overlap problem with a .45 Colt or any of the other .45 cases.  Even though the .45 Colt has a relatively small diameter rim it won't fit.  The ratchet face has also shrunk to almost a sharp edge.  

http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/1860%20Conversion/45ColtEndOnjpg.jpg

Also note that on a 6 shot conversion you can't use .44 spl or .44 Russian cases, only the .44 Colt has a small enough rim diameter. The .44 Colt Rim is Ø.483, the specifications for other modern .44s and the Russian are Ø.514.  The .45 Colt is specified as Ø.512.

So when Uberti made their Richards and Richards-Mason conversions they scaled the diameter of the cylinder.  It is larger than the originals.  I have a pair of Type II Richards conversions made by Uberti and they stretch the holsters I use for my Army models.  If you've handled enough Army models there is something that just doesn't look right about them.  It is because even though mine are chambered in .44 they are sized to accept a .45 caliber case or the rim of a .44 spl or .44 Russian.

There is a problem with the Uberti conversion pistols and '72s in the .45 calibers but it's not with the cylinder.  The problem is with the forcing cone area cracking where the metal is thin at the point where the arbor rides.  Not all parts of the pistols were scaled.  The barrel diameter is pretty much the same, in addition they cleared it for gas rings unlike the originals on the conversions.  The .44s and smaller are fine.  I won't, and I don't think Flint or any other knowledgeable gunsmith would recommend those Uberti built "conversion" models or '72 Open Tops pistols in .45 caliber.  I'm sure there are individuals out there who are tickled pink with their .45s but I know of pistols that have cracked and Flint does too.

Remember the last paragraph above is about the Uberti built "open top" frame pistols in.45 caliber (not the SAA clones) and I'm not talking about the 5 shot aftermarket conversion cylinders.

Regards,
Mako

[Fox Creek Kid]

For those of you w/ the McDowell book this is covered in detail in that Colt ran into this problem when first making the 1st Model Richards & using the original percussion cylinder for this process. They had to manufacture newer & fatter cylinders to handle the then new .44 Martin ctg. used by the military which was also a tad larger in circumference than the .44 Colt commercial ctg. The machined percussion cylinders were bursting through on the 12 stop Richards.

[Hoof Hearted]

I have attempted the 44 Colt in a Pietta 1860 cylinder. After turning the back down on the clinder and pilot drilling the back of the chambers, the reamer cut the bottoms right out of the cylinder stop notches............
Just buy a Kirst convertor if you want 45 and an ejector, R&D if you don't..............

[Mako]

I have attempted the 44 Colt in a Pietta 1860 cylinder. After turning the back down on the clinder and pilot drilling the back of the chambers, the reamer cut the bottoms right out of the cylinder stop notches............
Just buy a Kirst convertor if you want 45 and an ejector, R&D if you don't..............

One of the reasons I like Ubertis...

These models are direct representations of dimensions taken from two NIB Uberti '60s and certain dimensions rechecked on two more.  They won't break through.

http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/1860%20Conversion/Cut1.jpg

http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/1860%20Conversion/Cut2c2.jpg

http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/1860%20Conversion/Cutb1.jpg

Hoof, whose reamer were you using?  Do you know what the proximal diameter is? And what is the taper, and when does it stop?

Regards,
Mako

[Fox Creek Kid]

There was an article a few years ago in the "Man at Arms" journal on the bursting of many early original '60 Army percussion revolvers before Colt went to a tapered chamber.

[Mako]

FCK,
I know you weren't saying they did, but Uberti doesn't taper their chambers, they use a two stepped hole.  The smaller diameter measures Ø11.2mm (pretty close to 7/16") which corresponds with a standard metric drill size.  The second is a reamed hole which averaged Ø.4505.  The drawing shows the dimensional averages from 12 chambers.

http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/1860%20Conversion/CylinderX-Section1.jpg

It can be tricky to chamber one of these.  Clymer's standard .44 Colt reamer opens the base diameter to Ø.461 which is actually .001" larger than the .44 Russian/Spl /Mag.  The rim cutter diameter is Ø.500, which is really too big for a conversion, Ø.455 at the mouth and a throat angle of 7° 45' which brings it down to Ø.431.  This reamer was obviously made for modern larger cylinders and ratchets.  It is made for a Ø.429 bullet inside of the case loading.

Those dimensions are all wrong for a Heel Base bullet conversion on an Army model.  I can't even regrind the Clymer reamer without losing my free bore cut.  I think the dimensions need to be Ø.458 tapering to Ø.452 (1.080") with a free bore following that of Ø.452 or Ø.451 if I wanted to risk a tight bullet fit when chambering.  I think .452 will seal fine, but I solicit input.  I would only cut the rim clearance to Ø.490.  You might have to fully size your cases the first time, but after that they should be fine.  All of the Starline brass I have will fit that.

I asked Hoof what he was using because I suspected he was using a reamer made for a modern bullet in the case, but after looking at Piettas they may be the source of the problem.

Your friend,
Mako

[Montana Slim]

Thanks for sharing all these models & info.....I have forgotten some of these details. Coincidently, I developed a goodly number of similar 3D CAD models back in the 1990's...some of my data (NM Remington & Colt conversions) was later furnished to R&D by a 3rd party with my consent.

Regards,
Slim

[StrawHat]

Marking for reference

[Mako]

Thanks for sharing all these models & info.....I have forgotten some of these details. Coincidently, I developed a goodly number of similar 3D CAD models back in the 1990's...some of my data (NM Remington & Colt conversions) was later furnished to R&D by a 3rd party with my consent.

Regards,
Slim

Slim,
From the '90s?   Wow...  I had been using ComputerVision (as far back as CV CADDS4) and then switched to Pro/ENGINEER in '92 which was the first parametric package.  I currently use both Pro/E and Solidworks.  

Throw up some images up for us, I'd love to see what you were doing at the time.

Regards,
Mako

[Montana Slim]

mako, Interesting to hear your CAD background.

Way back when....well, the 1980's I started using AutoCad (like lots of folks), used that product in many forms until 1989, when I got familiar with Unigraphics (UG)...It was used by my employer due to it's heavy integration to manufacturing via integrated CAM tools and some excellent 3rd party support (The shop is still using it). I learned how to use madules for our applications and then taught classes for our employees....and was also a CAD & operating system (HP-UNIX) manager . I was fortunate to use UG in a variety of projects...everything from vehicle armor kits to howitzers...and we made all this stuff, too. My lunchtime projects was modeling C&B pistols, which I reverse engineered at home. Full rendering was no problem & we had some fancy color printers then as well.

The group I work with now uses ProE...it's ok, but I must say it is a far better product today vs. 10 years ago....ProE has caught-up quite a bit.

Unfortunately, I don't have the UG system to load my models on...and, they are 12-15 yrs old... Still, I believe I have a few STL files of a few subassemblies....might be able to get them up in product view or something. Will give it a go when I can.

Another fun/fast project was using cartridges I modeled to build assemblies of 50 rounds, then build 3D boxes, unfold and create templates to make my own cartridge boxes.

Regards,
Slim

[Mako]

Slim,
I never got to play in the 2D CAD world, I went directly from the board to 3D.

I'd love to see an STL or any other transfer or output  format you might have lying around.

Later,
Mako

[Pettifogger]

I have a pencil and a ruler.

[StrawHat]

I have a pencil and a ruler.

Me too, and a compass for the rounder parts. 

[Mako]

I have a pencil and a ruler.

Me too, and a compass for the rounder parts.  

That is what I started with many years ago.  

You may now grace us with your illustrations.

Have a great day,
Mako

[Crow Choker]

Hey Mako, what has happened to the illustratins/pictures you posted with your replies? See also up on the 'Darksiders' section some have disappeared also on a post about flasks. From what I saw of them eariler, didn't see anything out of order!!!!! Bring em' back. Yers, Crow Choker