Ok, before any more "confusion" happens, a Dragoon is a 6 shot shooter whether cap gun or converted. The '60 Army is a 6 shot cap gun but a 5 shot conversion  in 45C  or 45acp.  Maybe Mr. Crow Choker is "mis-remembering".  The Kirst cyls have a "hammer down safety" position between the chambers except for the ROA cyls. The Howell cylinders for ROA's don't come with the safety notch but one can be ground in (since it uses the "cyl cap" setup). Both manufacturers ROA cyls are 6 shot cyls as well.
  I have never talked with Mr. Howell but I do like his product for the Remington platform, I'm  just much more familiar with Mr. Kirst's cyls and have talked with him extensively about them. I'm not affiliated with the Kirst business in any way and their instructions say Not For +p Ammo just to make that clear!
  The reason I use Kirst cyls for testing the Open Top platform is because -1. I know the parameters of them so I can stay safe and 2. You can't stress the O.T. platform with bp or any of the replacement powders.  The loading tables give you a better  indication of pressures involved, likewise "trusted loads" from Brian Pearce (and others) can help as well.

Mike

Quote from: Crow Choker on Today at 09:24:55 AM9245: IMO why a Kirst cylinder is much better than a Howell has nothing to do with quality/strength. The Howell's are a quality product, BUT 1) With a Kirst you don't have to take the cylinder out after firing, unload, reload, and then reinstall. Seems to be steps not needed, not any faster than a percussion reload, besides IMO the more you disassemble, the more wear and tear you put on your revolver-don't care what those who say it doesn't. 2)The five vs 6 round argument really isn't all it's argued to be. If yer shooting SASS/NCOWS, you load only five rds per revolver. You're not under attack by hostile tribes, nor facing a showdown in Dodge City, and you get used to it.

Before I bought a 3rd Model Dragoon with a 45 Colt five shot Kirst cylinder I bemoaned the lose of one round. Anymore I don't think anything about it. To me, the PITA of disassembling a open-top style Colt revolver into three pieces or even the hassle of taking out a Howell cylinder in a Remington is the 'biggy'! I currently don't have a conversion cylinder for my Remington's, maybe someday, but I don't plan on facing the bad guys as on Main St in Pale Rider either. If some scenario like that occurred, hopefully I'm armed to the teeth with some of my modern day revolvers/pistols, wearing a ballistic vest, and behind strong cover with a AR at my side. 

Am I missing something obvious here?  Don't the gateless Kirst and Howells function the exact same way?  Don't they both have to be removed to reload?

Both Kirst and Howell have a gated version, if that's what you mean.

I think for me the whole 6 vs. 5 shot thing is a mental block, I feel like I'm losing something.  Also in my mind a revolver is "supposed" to have 6.  This is all a me issue though, just the way I'm wired.  Now if I GAINED something by going to 5... that's a different story.

You are right about cap and ball vs gate loading reloading though, it's a break even, that's one of the reasons people still used cap and balls well in to the cartridge era, they did not really gain much by switching, at least not when the alternative is a gate loader.  The only real advantage was more weather proof ammo and as time went on paper cartridges becoming scarce.  For me, in 2024, I just like the conversion ascetic and convenience.

As far as practical uses I see only one, hunting, the extra shot could come in handy, potentially (I doubt it, but maybe).  In cap and ball configuration I could add usefulness in ammo shortages and panics (the original reason I got my cap and balls, in the last great panic I got frustrated with my inability to get to the range for fear of wasting precious irreplaceable ammo and foresaw the possibility of one day having such a situation become long term, but obviously that has zero to do with cartridge conversions).

 I'm usually a fan of "plain Jane" blued pistols but I love the Baroque engraving/nickel of this piece. It does recall my old Mattel "Shootin' Shell" cap pistol of my youth. I imagine pistoleros of the past would like to jazz up there arsenal with style. Bat Masterson is probably the best known example in this regard.

Knarley Bob,
Thank you for starting this discussion and many thanks to those who responded!  Very helpful for a newbie like me.
Best,
John Brooder

9245: IMO why a Kirst cylinder is much better than a Howell has nothing to do with quality/strength. The Howell's are a quality product, BUT 1) With a Kirst you don't have to take the cylinder out after firing, unload, reload, and then reinstall. Seems to be steps not needed, not any faster than a percussion reload, besides IMO the more you disassemble, the more wear and tear you put on your revolver-don't care what those who say it doesn't. 2)The five vs 6 round argument really isn't all it's argued to be. If yer shooting SASS/NCOWS, you load only five rds per revolver. You're not under attack by hostile tribes, nor facing a showdown in Dodge City, and you get used to it.

Before I bought a 3rd Model Dragoon with a 45 Colt five shot Kirst cylinder I bemoaned the lose of one round. Anymore I don't think anything about it. To me, the PITA of disassembling a open-top style Colt revolver into three pieces or even the hassle of taking out a Howell cylinder in a Remington is the 'biggy'! I currently don't have a conversion cylinder for my Remington's, maybe someday, but I don't plan on facing the bad guys as on Main St in Pale Rider either. If some scenario like that occurred, hopefully I'm armed to the teeth with some of my modern day revolvers/pistols, wearing a ballistic vest, and behind strong cover with a AR at my side. 

No dog in the fight, just passing on the info

ManTheLine.com
BRITISH P1903 5 POCKET AMMO BANDOLEER-$32.95, 50% OFF-24HR SALE




ManTheLine.com
 
Sun, Nov 10 at 9:07 AM



 BRITISH P1903 5 POCKET AMMO BANDOLEER
50% OFF
24HR SALE!

     $32.95

Bonus I suppose for those interested.  I would hardly call myself an expert as I have only recently begun researching this but it seems there were a few known conversion types on originals, some factory, some gunsmith.

The gateless gate loader (factory style), either a new cylinder (factory conversions) or a cap and ball cylinder that has had the back removed and a new back welded or brazed on (gunsmith).  Just a straight gate loading conversion but WITHOUT a full conversion ring, and without an actual gate (if you aimed up your cartridges might fall out), these were typically made so that you could still use a cap and ball cylinder, and many have been found in cases sets with both.  Handy if you might not have access to metallic cartridges.  I have seen some with crude hinged gunsmith aftermarket gates installed, lousy gate design, but better than nothing.

The gated conversion (both factory and gunsmith), very similar to a modern Kirst or Howell gated conversion, but typically only seen on Navy models, not Armys.

Rimfire conversion (gunsmith).  Very similar to the modern Howell gateless cylinders, but with a simple slot cut for a fixed firing pin hammer to reach the cartridge base instead of individual firing pins. Modified hammer.

Gateless centerfire conversions (gunsmith), same as above except with a hole in the center instead.

Experimental centerfire type.  I have seen only one picture of this, it was a prototype made by Springfield Armory.  Very similar to the Howell gateless cylinders, complete with individual firing pins, but the back of the cylinder "attached" in a bit different way.  It was an Army model, not the Navy.

I saw a few other one offs too, like an interesting gateless one that used a two piece cylinder simular to a Merwin and Hulbert, without looking it up again I think it was made by Whitney.

I have seen only one .45 Colt, it was a 6 shot (balloon head cases, so no angled chambers required), and was of the gateless gated type with one of the crude gates apparently added.  It looked like a factory conversion (probably .46 Remington) that was then gunsmith altered with a custom .45 Colt cylinder and the gate.

So none of the modern gateless conversion cylinders are 100% correct, but of the two available the Howell is probably the closest to what existed in period (though it would not shock me if a one off gunsmith example exists somewhere that was near identical, in fact it would surprise me if it didn't).  As far as the gated conversion cylinders, both the Howell and the Kirst would be near dead on when used in Navys, but again, it would not shock me at all if an army example existed somewhere and I would be more surprised if it didn't, I just have not seen one yet.  However (in terms of Armys) I would give the edge to Howell just because it's a 6 shot and the only .45 colt original I have seen was too, albeit of a different type.

In terms of sheer shootability I suppose either would work depending on what you wanted to do, but it appears the Kirst (though Howell makes a 5 shot as well) may have an edge on strength, if you can get over losing 1 shot.  If you can't, the Howell is the only way to get full capacity.

  Gundogblue

You're listening to Old Wives Tales.  The Uberti and Miroku 1873 Replicas are not "weak actions."  Not as strong as a 92, but are successfully chambered and proofed for 357 Magnum and 44 Magnum.  You're not going to hut it with reasonable ammunition.

You're going to get "Blow By" regardless of load.  The 45 case will NOT expand sufficiently to seal the chamber.  It is possible to mitigate some of the Blow By with heavy loads but not eliminate it.  The only ways to eliminate Blow By is to anneal your cases or fire form 44-40 cases to 45 Colt.

DeaconKC,
You're right about the blowback, i use light loads in my .45 SAA and those cases get pretty sooty. But the reason I'm using starting loads in my 73 is cuz I've heard that toggle action is pretty weak, and I sure don't want to hurt that rifle.
Paul