Cas City Forum Hall & CAS-L

Special Interests - Groups & Societies => STORM => Topic started by: SPJ on July 14, 2020, 10:49:16 PM

Title: Why are there no conversions options in .44 Caliber?
Post by: SPJ on July 14, 2020, 10:49:16 PM
The conversions that I have found for the Colt 1860 and Pietta 44 Navy by Howell and Kirst conversions are both in 5 round cylinders in .45 Colt. What I don't understand is why they are not made to take cartridges in .44 caliber like the 44 Special which could be reloaded to better replicate .44 Colt ballistics, and I imagine would allow enough space for a 6th round. Is this possible?

I found a pre-made converted 1860 on Cimarron's site (https://www.cimarron-firearms.com/richards-transition-model-type-ii-44-special-8-in-barrel.html) but I'm not sure if they achieved the 6th round by changing the dimensions of the revolver to the point where it is not an accurate copy of the original conversions. Can anyone tell me if this is the case?
Title: Re: Why are there no conversions options in .44 Caliber?
Post by: Abilene on July 14, 2020, 11:14:17 PM
Howdy SPJ.  Conversion cylinders are generally not made in .44 because the bore of a .44 cap gun is ~.452, perfect for 45 Colt/Schofield/etc.  Kirst did at one time make some .44 Colt cylinders but it required the use of heeled bullets (original style .44 Colt, not the modern .429 inside-lubed .44). 

Yes, the Uberti Army conversions are slightly larger than originals to allow for six 45's.
Title: Re: Why are there no conversions options in .44 Caliber?
Post by: SPJ on July 14, 2020, 11:22:01 PM
Howdy SPJ.  Conversion cylinders are generally not made in .44 because the bore of a .44 cap gun is ~.452, perfect for 45 Colt/Schofield/etc.  Kirst did at one time make some .44 Colt cylinders but it required the use of heeled bullets (original style .44 Colt, not the modern .429 inside-lubed .44). 

Yes, the Uberti Army conversions are slightly larger than originals to allow for six 45's.

So could someone convert one of them to 6 rounds of 44 special, and then either use heeled bullets or sleeve the barrel to 44 caliber?
Title: Re: Why are there no conversions options in .44 Caliber?
Post by: Long Johns Wolf on July 15, 2020, 01:06:05 AM
One of the few conversion artists could do that, SPJ.
Like Jared Baker of Longhunter in Amarillo, TX.
Long Johns Wolf
Title: Re: Why are there no conversions options in .44 Caliber?
Post by: AntiqueSledMan on July 15, 2020, 05:31:13 AM
Hello SPJ,

The biggest issue with converting to 44 Colt is the fact that one could very easily break through the locking notches with the chamber. On the factory conversions they use a larger frame & cylinder, and also use the standard .429 bullet.

On my Howell 1858 Cylinder in 44 Colt, it's diameter is slightly oversized and the notches are not as deep as the original cylinder. Still plenty of room to operate and hold six rounds.

If you are determined to convert an 1860 to a six shot in 44 Colt, you will need to find a smith to build you a cylinder, (very costly).

AntiqueSledMan.
Title: Re: Why are there no conversions options in .44 Caliber?
Post by: The Pathfinder on July 15, 2020, 07:56:00 AM
SPJ, in the beginning, back in the late '80s early '90s, the custom smiths, Millington, Howell, Gren, would do them and did. I had one done by John Gren, an 1860 with navy size grips I found in a little shop in CA, had it done in 44 Colt heeled. John would do them with a lined barrel, but I wanted to savor a little of what it was like back in the day, I know, I'm an idiot. Back then you had to custom order dies from RCBS and a bullet mold from Rapine to be able to feed it. Cases were trimmed 44 magnum that John supplied at the time. When John did an 1860 he had to mill off some of the rear of the water table and then used a newly made straight cylinder, reminiscent of the 1872 open top in order to get all six in without cutting thru the bolt notches. Kinda looks like a cross between a Richards and a long cylinder conversion. While a fun piece, and I learned a lot from trying to feed it (look up some of Mike Beliveau's old work from that time as he tried the same work with heeled bullets) nowadays I just use a pair of Richards II conversions from Cimarron. Although I am the caretaker of an original Colt 12 stop cylinder that looks like it has never been on a gun, so ....

Also check out Hoof Hearted's threads on loading heeled bullets up in the pinned section, he would have most anything you would need and his advice would be invaluable. Gary is the man as far as heeled bullets go.
Title: Re: Why are there no conversions options in .44 Caliber?
Post by: Major 2 on July 15, 2020, 08:04:15 AM
SPJ, in the beginning, back in the late '80s early '90s, the custom smiths, Millington, Howell, Gren, would do them and did. I had one done by John Gren, an 1860 with navy size grips I found in a little shop in CA, had it done in 44 Colt heeled. John would do them with a lined barrel, but I wanted to savor a little of what it was like back in the day, I know, I'm an idiot............ 

Not in the least way, you are a kindred spirit .... we are not conformist and never will be  :)

I'd love to see your 12 stop  ....so very cool
Title: Re: Why are there no conversions options in .44 Caliber?
Post by: Crow Choker on July 15, 2020, 09:11:37 AM
Howdy SPJ.  Conversion cylinders are generally not made in .44 because the bore of a .44 cap gun is ~.452, perfect for 45 Colt/Schofield/etc.  Kirst did at one time make some .44 Colt cylinders but it required the use of heeled bullets (original style .44 Colt, not the modern .429 inside-lubed .44). 

Yes, the Uberti Army conversions are slightly larger than originals to allow for six 45's.

My first round at having and shooting a 'open frame' Colt was a Uberti Colt Open Top model chambered in 44 Special bought in 2008. It's a shooter, mostly load and shoot 44 Colt black powder fueled 200 grain Mav Dutchmans through it. Around a year after getting it I considered 'strongly' to convert my 1860 Colt or one of my Dragoons with a Kirst cylinder and ejector. Didn't care for the Howells as they required the breaking the gun down every time to unload brass and reload-still wouldn't care for or have a Howell. After pricing a Kirst cylinder and ejector unit I found I could just buy a Cimarron Uberti Richards II for around the same cost and not have the need and any cost for fitting. Didn't want to just install a Kirst cylinder without an ejector and have to carry around a wooden dowel to punch out the brass. Wanted to be able to shoot 44's anyway vs 45 Colt. Bought the Richards II in 44 Spec and love every ounce of it. Reload and shoot mostly 44 Colt black powder in it also. Happy with both Cimarron Uberti's, all six shooters. I'm aware I could convert back to percussion on any revolver I buy a conversion cylinder for, but figured there might be times I may wish to shoot whatever revolver I convert both in cartridge and percussion at the same outing. There are many times I do.

 A couple of years ago, I had the NTA (Need To Acquire) a 38 Special Colt open style for shooting black powder. I checked the pricing of a Kirst cylinder and ejector assembly to convert one of my two 36 caliber cap guns (1851/1861). Same story, was able to buy a Uberti Richards/Mason model in 38 Special way cheaper. Not slamming Kirst or Howell, those that have them, want them, manufacturer, and or sell them. Just can't see buying those units when you can buy conversion open top models ready to shoot (of course some of them may need a bit of tuning and arbor work, but so will any cap gun you buy to convert or already have). The Kirst and Howell serve a purpose, I believe the Kirst is miles ahead of the Howells, they're pricey to buy and convert, but if someone wants to convert their cap and ball revolver using them, I'm fine with that. No problem with gunsmiths who will convert a cap and ball to whatever someone wants, if they have the need for and dollars, I'm fine with that. Some shooters wouldn't pay the price I've done so on some of my more modern double action revolvers such as my Colt Python's, rather buy some other double action at half the price and enjoy shooting them as much as I do my Pythons. Guess it boils down to "whatever trips your trigger" or what kind of trigger ya like to pull!!!!  Who knows, maybe someday I'll take back every thing I posted for not buying a Kirst and do so.  ;D  Take care and stay safe everyone.  :) :)
Title: Re: Why are there no conversions options in .44 Caliber?
Post by: Coffinmaker on July 16, 2020, 09:34:27 AM
My Turn  ;)
There are some very appropriate mechanical reasons Percussion Colt revolvers were not converted in the same manner we think of.  The first restriction is the basic frame size.  ALL 36 and larger Colt percussion guns were built on the same base 1851 frame.  There was no real room for expansion.

When conversions became possible (White patent expired), the dimensions of the cylinder were constrained by the original design (1851) dimensions.  The exception was the rebate to the Water Table to allow the stepped cylinder of the 1860.  The back of the 1860 cylinder was still the same dimension as the .36 cylinder.

Converting to .45 was never and option in the 19th century.  Those guns had Iron Frames and Iron Cylinders.  There was insufficient cylinder wall thickness to contain 45 Colt Cartridges and pressures.  The only large bore option was the 44 Colt cartridge with heel base bullets.  The smaller diameter of the 44 colt cartridge with it's minuscule rim allowed 6 cartridges to fit without interference of the cartridge rims and the recesses in the Star.  It must be remembered, the 44 Special and 44 Russian are modern iterations of the 44 not seen in the halcyon days of yesteryear.  The modern 44 Colt also has a much differs case.  The rim of the modern 44s is not far removed from the rim diameter of the 45.  A very difficult "fit" in guns of the 19th century.

Fast forward.  Today dawns along with reinactors and CAS.  CAS shooters clamoring for non historically accurate reproductions of 19th century guns.  Up jumps UBERTI of Italy.  A golden opportunity for profit appears.  Uberti scaled up the size of their 19th century reproductions to just barely accept 45 Colt cartridges.  In fact, it the early days, it was not uncommon for Uberti built Open Top reproductions is 45 to spit out the bottom piece of metal (super thin) of the cylinder locking bolt slots.  As a Gunsmith, I was never in favor of 45 Colt in the reproductions of 19th century guns.  Even in modern materials, the cylinder walls are just too thin.  Anyway, the increase in size of the cylinders also allowed the modern rim size to load without interference all the way to 45 Colt.

I don't personally recall any Gunsmiths converting Colt pattern 19th century guns to 45 Colt.  I knew Robert Millington and Robert wouldn't attempt it with a 6 shot cylinder.  Remember, Iron Frames and Iron Cylinders do not mix well with modern smokeless powders.  Even todays conversion smiths won't put 45 ACP in conversion cylinders because of the high pressure of the ACP round.

This has been the condensed version of "WHY" in this case.

We now return to our regularly scheduled programing.

Hide and Watch   ;D

PS:  I forgot.  19th century .44s were not 44s.  The bore diameter was actually that of a .45.  Heal base bullets allowed that diameter bullet to be loaded in a 44 Colt cylinder (smaller than a 45).  Stuffed into a 44 Colt case which was smaller in diameter than a 45 cartridge.  Today's .44s are 44s.  Well not actually.  Today's 44s are actually .43s.  Oh, and to muddy more, Todays .38s are really 35s so go figure.  Cause .36s are actually almost true 38s.
Title: Re: Why are there no conversions options in .44 Caliber?
Post by: The Pathfinder on July 16, 2020, 11:43:17 AM
Major 2, here is a link to a post I did when I first got the cylinder.

https://www.cascity.com/forumhall/index.php?topic=60734.msg721625#msg721625

Title: Re: Why are there no conversions options in .44 Caliber?
Post by: Marshal Will Wingam on July 16, 2020, 12:04:55 PM
That 12 stop cylinder is very cool. Thanks for posting that link.
Title: Re: Why are there no conversions options in .44 Caliber?
Post by: The Pathfinder on July 16, 2020, 01:02:45 PM
Some more info on the cylinder.

Title: Re: Why are there no conversions options in .44 Caliber?
Post by: Major 2 on July 16, 2020, 01:41:52 PM
I don't recall seeing that before, thanks for the link ...very cool
Title: Re: Why are there no conversions options in .44 Caliber?
Post by: SPJ on July 16, 2020, 02:51:41 PM
Some more info on the cylinder.

Very nice. That seems to match up with the measurements listed in my digital copy of A Study of Colt Conversions by R. Bruce McDowell. Except they listed measurements to the third decimal place.
Title: Re: Why are there no conversions options in .44 Caliber?
Post by: The Pathfinder on July 16, 2020, 03:20:58 PM
I think McDowell had better digital calipers than I do, mine only go to 2 decimal places. I believe by the serial no. on mine that it would fall into the converted percussion grouping, not sure why it didn't go back into it's original firearm.
Title: Re: Why are there no conversions options in .44 Caliber?
Post by: Black River Smith on July 16, 2020, 06:29:32 PM
I am just going to jump in with one idea that I have not seen mentioned by any other poster.

In order to make a 'true 44Colt' the cylinder must be bored straight through so that the heeled bullet of larger diameter fits in the chamber.  Therefore a cylinder step or throat is not being created, which by this day and age standards would 'possibly bring a law suit' when a person used an incorrect magnum length shell with smokeless.  The 44Mag rim, as is, would not fit a 0.484 cut ratchet for the 44Colt but in the newer modern conversions it would create a problem.

That is why most black powder gun - cylinder makers will not produce a true straight bored 44Colt cylinder and the fact that most people cannot buy and will not take the time to load a heeled bullets.  There is not a large enough market.  IMHO.

I know, because I asked enough times of the makers of the Kirst, when I was active in NCOWS and really wanted one also.
Title: Re: Why are there no conversions options in .44 Caliber?
Post by: greyhawk on July 16, 2020, 08:51:30 PM
So could someone convert one of them to 6 rounds of 44 special, and then either use heeled bullets or sleeve the barrel to 44 caliber?

Rim size beats you on most of these conversion attempts - you might be able to through bore the cylinder but then the walls are paper thin and the rims overlap at the back end - one of the early 6 shot conversions actually had the new cylinder bored at a slight angle to accomodate this.


Title: Re: Why are there no conversions options in .44 Caliber?
Post by: SPJ on July 16, 2020, 10:02:09 PM
Rim size beats you on most of these conversion attempts - you might be able to through bore the cylinder but then the walls are paper thin and the rims overlap at the back end - one of the early 6 shot conversions actually had the new cylinder bored at a slight angle to accomodate this.

I was wondering about angled bores. I know that the Kenny Howell 1858 conversion cylinders are bored with holes at a 1/2 degree angle in order to allow 6 .45 colt rounds. I was wondering if that would work better in the 1860 cylinder too. I'm not sure if the Kenny Howell cylinders have the holes angled inward to the axis, out outwards though. My first thought in the case of the 1860 would be to angle it outwards and take advantage of the extra mass at the stepped end of the cylinder. Besides that I figure you could deal with the rim size by manually grinding down the rims on each cartridge case you use to match the rim diameter of the .44 Colt. I'm surprised I can't find any semi-rimmed cartridges in .44 that could be used
Title: Re: Why are there no conversions options in .44 Caliber?
Post by: Professor Marvel on July 16, 2020, 10:25:12 PM
Thanks for the cylinder info SPJ, I do not yet have McDowells book and that saves me a lot of trouble.
Of course, it is important to know that McDowell probably used a micrometer rather than calipers. even digital calipers are not as accurate
as a good micrometer.

As you stated, rim size can be an issue. Those fanatics motivated indiduals that prefer to do it the hard way have taken the
route of shaving existing case rims, etc on a lathe to achieve their goal.

I myself, as an ignorant poor college student , took a Navy Arms 1851, bored out a spare .36 cylinder, turned down the ratchet side (backside)
with a bastard file,  and actually ground off almost 1/4 to 1/3 of the rim of a handful of .38 specials  to get them to clear ... I was planning on
using 3F Goex and Lee .36 concicals. They did look remarkably ugly...

I never did get up the cajones to load and fire them tho...

Ah But I did make .36 paper cartridges using .38 spcl HB wadcutters and zigzag papers. They looked great, but .... were a little loose.,
When I fired the first one, I got a chain fire  and all six went off. My  Later version paper cartridges used larger .375 - .380 conicals.

yhs
prof marvel
Title: Re: Why are there no conversions options in .44 Caliber?
Post by: SPJ on July 16, 2020, 10:51:53 PM
Thanks for the cylinder info SPJ, I do not yet have McDowells book and that saves me a lot of trouble.
Of course, it is important to know that McDowell probably used a micrometer rather than calipers. even digital calipers are not as accurate
as a good micrometer.

As you stated, rim size can be an issue. Those fanatics motivated indiduals that prefer to do it the hard way have taken the
route of shaving existing case rims, etc on a lathe to achieve their goal.

I myself, as an ignorant poor college student , took a Navy Arms 1851, bored out a spare .36 cylinder, turned down the ratchet side (backside)
with a bastard file,  and actually ground off almost 1/4 to 1/3 of the rim of a handful of .38 specials  to get them to clear ... I was planning on
using 3F Goex and Lee .36 concicals. They did look remarkably ugly...

I never did get up the cajones to load and fire them tho...

Ah But I did make .36 paper cartridges using .38 spcl HB wadcutters and zigzag papers. They looked great, but .... were a little loose.,
When I fired the first one, I got a chain fire  and all six went off. My  Later version paper cartridges used larger .375 - .380 conicals.

yhs
prof marvel

I'm a poor ignorant college student too. So I'm glad to learn from those who have gone through the work I can't afford. I do have that fanatical motivation, but not all the resources to satisfy that drive. Here is a link to were I downloaded my copy of that book https://b-ok.org/book/1281189/64ae87.  How come you had to grind the rims .38 spls? In an 1851 cylinder there should be enough clearance for 6 cartridges without rim overlap. Is that an issue unique to the Navy Arms model?
Title: Re: Why are there no conversions options in .44 Caliber?
Post by: Professor Marvel on July 17, 2020, 03:59:29 AM
Thanks for the link to the book!

For my pathetic attempt at a .38 ish conversion, I used a drill press, a 3/8 bit , and turned the backside down with a bastard file .
I left the thing as larger a diameter as possible as I feared I would not have enough to engage the hand! I think I still have it
( my gawd it's been since 1977 ) if I can find it I will post a photo of said abomination.

prf mvl

Title: Re: Why are there no conversions options in .44 Caliber?
Post by: Coffinmaker on July 17, 2020, 03:37:29 PM

 :)  Ah Yes, Mia Amigoes   ;)

Couple of interesting and not too expensive options.  Suggestion # 1)  Start with a Uberti Richards/Mason .44 Conversion.  Have the cylinder throats reamed completely out.  Replace the the Barrel with a Uberti Richards/Mason .45 Barrel.  Load the beast with 44 Russian brass and heal based bullets.

Suggestion # 2)  Start with a Uberti Open Top in .44 Special/Colt/Russian.  Same same, ream out the cylinder throats.  Toss the 44 barrel and replace with a Uberti Open Top 45 Barrel.  Also load this beast with 44 Russian brass and heal based bullets.

One could also probably use 44 Colt brass, I just haven't measured.  It is a simple method to arrive at a nearly almost but not quite authentic reproduction.

The CAVEAT:  First things first.  FIRST correct the abysmal Barrel to Arbor fit.

Live Long and Prosper (Stol'd Famous Movie Line)
Title: Re: Why are there no conversions options in .44 Caliber?
Post by: Black River Smith on July 17, 2020, 04:03:57 PM
Adding to what Coffinmaker stated above.

The best and cheapest way to do it would be to buy the 45Colt Richards Type II or the Richards/Mason (which ever design you like) then buy a 44Spec cylinder and ream it all the way through.  Then load with 44Colts Starline and heel based bullets.  It as close to original Second Model as we can get.  Then if you get tired of the firearm you still can sell the 45Colt intact and through away the unsafe 44 bored cylinder.

If you do it Coffinmaker's way you could not sell an intact firearm.  Just have a bunch of parts.

Thought about the same thing after I received my Richard Type II in 44Spec in 2018.  Darn it - to late.  But I am happy having the option of loading any of the 44 Series (44Rus/44Colt/44Spec) shells in this firearm.
Title: Re: Why are there no conversions options in .44 Caliber?
Post by: AntiqueSledMan on July 18, 2020, 06:55:44 AM
The Richards Mason Conversions were new made cylinders,
ratchet teeth needed to be relocated to in-between the chambers.
The percussion cylinders had the ratchet teeth located on center of chamber.
The plans to convert an 1851 are posted on the home gunsmith forum,
http://www.homegunsmith.com/cgi-bin/ib3/iB_html/uploads/post-94-54002-1851_Colt_Cartridge_Converson.pdf

AntiqueSledMan.
Title: Re: Why are there no conversions options in .44 Caliber?
Post by: Coffinmaker on July 18, 2020, 10:20:37 AM

 :)  BR SMITH   ;)

You certainly can.  With the Richards/Mason, since you have added a .45 Barrel and still have your .44 Barrel, just fit a new .44 Cylinder.

With the Open Top, Same same.  You still have your OEM .44 barrel laying around so just fit up a new 44 Cylinder and in both cases, swap the barrels back to OEM.

Or:  Fit up .45 Cylinders.  Either of those choices results in a complete, functioning gun for sale.  Or Trade.  Or just to play with as .45s
Title: Re: Why are there no conversions options in .44 Caliber?
Post by: Black River Smith on July 18, 2020, 12:13:44 PM
Cofinmaker,
Please note I said the 'cheapest way' is what I proposed.  Buy the firearm at ~$600 and an additional cylinder at ~$137 additional cost.

Your proposal is buy the firearm at ~$600 then buy an extra barrel at ~$150 and then a replacement cylinder at ~$137.  Your additional cost is ~ another $290.  Mine is only the ~$137.

In both situations that bored cylinder is a loss.

Also my way lets anyone fire 2 calibers not just one.  Just by changing the working cylinders back and forth.
Title: Re: Why are there no conversions options in .44 Caliber?
Post by: Coffinmaker on July 18, 2020, 05:45:04 PM

BRS

We're going around in a circle.  Your talking about most frugal (quote the Professor) and I am disputing you can't sell a complete gun.  You can.  I never mentioned frugal.

Grin.  Makes 'em wonder what yer up too   ;D
Title: Re: Why are there no conversions options in .44 Caliber?
Post by: SPJ on July 19, 2020, 01:53:35 PM
The Richards Mason Conversions were new made cylinders,
ratchet teeth needed to be relocated to in-between the chambers.
The percussion cylinders had the ratchet teeth located on center of chamber.
The plans to convert an 1851 are posted on the home gunsmith forum,
http://www.homegunsmith.com/cgi-bin/ib3/iB_html/uploads/post-94-54002-1851_Colt_Cartridge_Converson.pdf

AntiqueSledMan.

Thank you, that is a beautiful. Do you know how the measurements of the plate thickness and cylinder length of this conversion compare to mass market option available today like the Kirst and R&D for the 1851?

Also, it seems to me after some more reading that maybe the best option to get 6 rounds in a colt 1860 conversion would be to do a recreation of a long cylinder conversion, of a conversion in to an 1871-72 open top conversion. Which would include machining off the rest of the watertable of the revolver frame on an 1860 so as to allow a cylinder with an OD of 1.6" along it's whole length. Then for historical accuracy's sake you could recreate the ballistics of a 44 Henry in a 45 Colt or Schofield case as I know others have done like on InRangeTV.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fa8qDDTNoQI

This seems like the best solution to me since the biggest issue in converting the 1860 is the smaller OD in the rear of the cylinder, and that the average OD in 45 conversions like the Remington New Army and Open Top is approx. 1.6"

https://1858remington.com/index.php?topic=8530.0;nowap

https://www.cascity.com/forumhall/index.php?topic=33638.0
Title: Re: Why are there no conversions options in .44 Caliber?
Post by: SPJ on July 19, 2020, 01:54:48 PM
Open Top Cylinder Dimensions
Title: Re: Why are there no conversions options in .44 Caliber?
Post by: Coffinmaker on July 19, 2020, 03:50:22 PM

 :)  SPJ   ;)

Not quite.  The original COLT guns, be they 1860 or Open Top were NOT converted to 45 Colt.  Cylinder is just too small.  The Colt guns of the day, were chambered in 44 Colt.  44 Colt was not a .44  the 44 Colt was loaded with a heel base bullet to fill the 1860 45 Bore (which wasn't really 45) and the Open Top was similar, chambering 44 Henry Flat or 44 Stetson.  Outside lube heel base bullets.

I'm trying hard to figure out what you're trying to accomplish.  Trying to get 6 rounds in Colt pattern 1851 or 1860 frames just isn't mechanically sensible.  Were you to fully rebate the water table, you would also have to alter ALL of the parts of Lock Works.  So WHY are you so determined to try and do something that is completely impractical.

If what you desire is something comparable to 19th century Ballistics/Performance and to be able to shoot the same cartridge in Rifle and handguns, there are much better and more practical ways to accomplish it.  Select ANY of the Toggle Link lever rifles, add a Smith Shop short cartridge Carrier Block and away you go.  You can run Cowboy 45 Special cases in any of the Toggle Link rifles so modified.  Then run the same cartridge in any of the commercially .45 chambered Conversions or the Open Top.  Or, same carrier, in an 1866 or 1873 chambered for 44 Special and just run 44 Russian cases.  Same same with 44 Special conversions and Open Top.

Or.  Are you just determined to try and do something the most difficult and expensive way possible??  Regardless, you not going to get 6 45 Colt cartridges in a period dimension cylinder.  Unless of course, you really do want it to blow up in your Hand??

Hide and Watch

PS:  Can I have the Peanut and Popcorn concession for the attempt??
Title: Re: Why are there no conversions options in .44 Caliber?
Post by: Professor Marvel on July 19, 2020, 04:41:32 PM
Thanks for the link, SledMan

Those ancient Anvil Enterprise drawings are the closest any will find for "conversion plans" .
Most guys with machine tools and superhuman capabilities "just wing it" and I don't know of any who bothered to document
paper plans for mere mortals.

A long time ago, before fotobucket jumped the shark I did download a series of fotos a gent took documenting his
successsful effort o n an 1860. He did machine the watertable flat... it seems there is just barely enough material,
and i cannot recall the caliber.

I will try to
- find the fotos
- upload the fotos to a free (did I mention I am frugal?) service and
- post the link if/when I am succesfull

at the very least, this thread is highly entertaining...

yhs
prof marvel
Title: Re: Why are there no conversions options in .44 Caliber?
Post by: SPJ on July 19, 2020, 05:43:09 PM
:)  SPJ   ;)

Not quite.  The original COLT guns, be they 1860 or Open Top were NOT converted to 45 Colt.  Cylinder is just too small.  The Colt guns of the day, were chambered in 44 Colt.  44 Colt was not a .44  the 44 Colt was loaded with a heel base bullet to fill the 1860 45 Bore (which wasn't really 45) and the Open Top was similar, chambering 44 Henry Flat or 44 Stetson.  Outside lube heel base bullets.

I'm trying hard to figure out what you're trying to accomplish.  Trying to get 6 rounds in Colt pattern 1851 or 1860 frames just isn't mechanically sensible.  Were you to fully rebate the water table, you would also have to alter ALL of the parts of Lock Works.  So WHY are you so determined to try and do something that is completely impractical.

If what you desire is something comparable to 19th century Ballistics/Performance and to be able to shoot the same cartridge in Rifle and handguns, there are much better and more practical ways to accomplish it.  Select ANY of the Toggle Link lever rifles, add a Smith Shop short cartridge Carrier Block and away you go.  You can run Cowboy 45 Special cases in any of the Toggle Link rifles so modified.  Then run the same cartridge in any of the commercially .45 chambered Conversions or the Open Top.  Or, same carrier, in an 1866 or 1873 chambered for 44 Special and just run 44 Russian cases.  Same same with 44 Special conversions and Open Top.

Or.  Are you just determined to try and do something the most difficult and expensive way possible??  Regardless, you not going to get 6 45 Colt cartridges in a period dimension cylinder.  Unless of course, you really do want it to blow up in your Hand??

Hide and Watch

PS:  Can I have the Peanut and Popcorn concession for the attempt??

I was afraid that milling the watertable for a cylinder big enough would cut into the recess for the cylinder stop. Its too bad that all these issues with the 45 Colt case would apply to 44 Special too due to their having about the same rim diameter. As I learned from that link I posted to an older thread, I now know that the factory made Open Top replica's allow a larger cylinder by having the arbor higher on the frame. So they are not as historically accurate as my anal retentiveness would like. I am not afraid of doing things the hard way, but with the insight of the others here I will now accept that I cannot have a 6 shot 1860 conversion without having a custom cylinder made along with custom cartridge cases with shorter rims, or BP loaded rimless cases like for 45 acp or 45 Win Magnum.  :'( Oh well, life is full of disappointments, but it may make a fun challenge when I have the resources. Conversions for rimless ammo should be an option since it seems like the best solution. Howell even made 45 acp conversions for the Remington, but only in 5 shots. Most likely so people can use full pressure smokeless rounds. It would be nice to see an option in a 6 round rimless cylinder one day, for those willing to load the cases with BP

Thanks for the link, SledMan

Those ancient Anvil Enterprise drawings are the closest any will find for "conversion plans" .
Most guys with machine tools and superhuman capabilities "just wing it" and I don't know of any who bothered to document
paper plans for mere mortals.

A long time ago, before fotobucket jumped the shark I did download a series of fotos a gent took documenting his
successsful effort o n an 1860. He did machine the watertable flat... it seems there is just barely enough material,
and i cannot recall the caliber.

I will try to
- find the fotos
- upload the fotos to a free (did I mention I am frugal?) service and
- post the link if/when I am succesfull

at the very least, this thread is highly entertaining...

yhs
prof marvel

A thanks from me to Sledman again. A recourse like this is something I would die for. I am worried about the cylinder gap if I made the parts to specification though. Not sure if I would best remedy that with a thicker conversion ring, or with a modification to the wedge holding the barrel to the arbor. Please post those photos if you can. I would love to see them. Thank you
Title: Re: Why are there no conversions options in .44 Caliber?
Post by: SPJ on July 19, 2020, 09:19:42 PM
The Richards Mason Conversions were new made cylinders,
ratchet teeth needed to be relocated to in-between the chambers.
The percussion cylinders had the ratchet teeth located on center of chamber.
The plans to convert an 1851 are posted on the home gunsmith forum,
http://www.homegunsmith.com/cgi-bin/ib3/iB_html/uploads/post-94-54002-1851_Colt_Cartridge_Converson.pdf

AntiqueSledMan.

Since you shared that let me share dimensions I photocopied from my copy of the Pitman Notes Volume 2
Title: Re: Why are there no conversions options in .44 Caliber?
Post by: SPJ on July 19, 2020, 09:25:03 PM
2nd
Title: Re: Why are there no conversions options in .44 Caliber?
Post by: Professor Marvel on July 20, 2020, 02:28:23 AM
My Appologies, it turns out the author was converting an 1851 and an 1861 - I finally found the link, here
http://www.homegunsmith.com/cgi-bin/ib3/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=3;t=17231;st=0
but the photos are missing.

yhs
prof marvel
Title: Re: Why are there no conversions options in .44 Caliber?
Post by: AntiqueSledMan on July 20, 2020, 07:33:18 AM
Hello Professor,

I saved as a PDF, unfortunately it's to large to post. Yes they were converted to 38 Long Colt's.

I also was obsessed with the 44 Colt Conversion but after studying the issues, I have come up with the only way to do so is with a "New Manufactured Cylinder". In an 1860, there is no way a percussion cylinder can be converted to 44 Colt.
The only way one could do it is either a 5 Shot or a Long Cylinder conversion, both of which would need New Cylinders.

Unfortunately SPJ refuses to understand that the ratchet teeth need to be relocated to between the chambers.
On a 36 Caliber one might be able to get away with leaving them on center as was the percussion cylinder.
At this point I would say to SPJ, go ahead and chuck up your 1860 cylinder, turn it down to allow the cartridge
to fit. When you realize you have ruined your cylinder, post pictures so nobody else does the same.

AntiqueSledMan.
Title: Re: Why are there no conversions options in .44 Caliber?
Post by: SPJ on July 20, 2020, 01:38:19 PM
Hello Professor,

I saved as a PDF, unfortunately it's to large to post. Yes they were converted to 38 Long Colt's.

I also was obsessed with the 44 Colt Conversion but after studying the issues, I have come up with the only way to do so is with a "New Manufactured Cylinder". In an 1860, there is no way a percussion cylinder can be converted to 44 Colt.
The only way one could do it is either a 5 Shot or a Long Cylinder conversion, both of which would need New Cylinders.

Unfortunately SPJ refuses to understand that the ratchet teeth need to be relocated to between the chambers.
On a 36 Caliber one might be able to get away with leaving them on center as was the percussion cylinder.
At this point I would say to SPJ, go ahead and chuck up your 1860 cylinder, turn it down to allow the cartridge
to fit. When you realize you have ruined your cylinder, post pictures so nobody else does the same.

AntiqueSledMan.

I'm sorry for the miscommunication. I know that the ratchet teeth need to be relocated, and I figured that I would need a newly made cylinder for things to work properly. That's why I was posting measurements, to best figure out what dimensions of a new cylinder would work. I'm sorry for implying I thought otherwise, and thank you again for your help. I would like to see the PDF, could you possibly post screenshots of the pages? Or could you email it if I gave you my address?
Title: Re: Why are there no conversions options in .44 Caliber?
Post by: Professor Marvel on July 20, 2020, 03:22:43 PM
I managed to copy the fotos quite a while ago, and was able to upload them to the wayback machine.
try this, it came up as a slide show
https://archive.org/details/483904-big

this fellow did quite a lot of work, including cutting the frame and the cylinder "ratchets" .

hope this helps
prf mavl
Title: Re: Why are there no conversions options in .44 Caliber?
Post by: Coffinmaker on July 20, 2020, 07:20:29 PM

 :)  See There   ;)

Easy Peasy.  Nuthin too it.  Just swap out a couple parts, some simple machining and . . . . DONE!!

Anybody should be able to do it!!  Right??  Yea Right!!!

Let us also remember.  Uberti does NOT convert Percussion Guns.  Uberti conversions are purpose built to mime conversions from scratch.  As we have all been pointing out, Uberti Conversions are also oversize also from scratch.  Fun Stuff it is.
Title: Re: Why are there no conversions options in .44 Caliber?
Post by: AntiqueSledMan on July 21, 2020, 08:27:22 AM
Hello SPG,

I did have plans to build a 5 Shot Cylinder in 44 Colt, I just didn't have time before retirement.
Here is a rough drawing what I intended to do. My plan was to make it a 10 notch like on the Howell's.
Another option might be like this guy did with an 1858 cylinder, it would be very tight but possible.
One or two cylinders would probably end up in the scrap barrel.

AntiqueSledMan.
Title: Re: Why are there no conversions options in .44 Caliber?
Post by: The Pathfinder on July 25, 2020, 10:32:36 AM
Ok, little more info on my original 12 stop Richards cylinder. The walls between the chambers are .031" at the cartridge insertion end (top) and .0465 at the bullet exit end (bottom). The wall thickness to the exterior of the cylinder is .037" at the top and .083" at the bottom. I'll try to redo all the measurements this weekend as I now have a better caliper.

And a little more to add, apparently the depth of the locking notches is around .033", leaving barely .004" of steel, 1860s era steel, to contain the cartridge case. No wonder so many of the converted cylinders are found with blown out notches. I wonder if the replacement cylinders had notches that were any shallower or if that area of the new cylinders was made thicker? Anyone got one they can measure at some point?
Title: Re: Why are there no conversions options in .44 Caliber?
Post by: Long Johns Wolf on May 21, 2022, 09:22:57 AM
Just stumbled over this old but still educational discussion.
Found these pics of an old Uberti made 1860 Army percussion revolver converted by an unknown smith into a Richards conversion.
Seemingly the original percussion cylinder was bored through to shoot (probably) .44 Colt cartridges ... which did not quite work.
The pistol was sold over at German internet auction house Egun in 2020.
Long Johns Wolf
Title: Re: Why are there no conversions options in .44 Caliber?
Post by: Tuolumne Lawman on May 21, 2022, 08:02:43 PM
One could buy a .45 Colt Uberti Richards conversion (which has the corect bore for original .44 Colt heeled bullets), then fit a .44 Special cylinder that was bored to case diameter full length.  Then you could shoot heeled bullets.

You would need to shoot black powder though, unless you are fine with just getting one load from the case.  I found loading .375" heeled .38 long Colt bullets is that when you use smokeless propellants, you need to excessively crimp the heel into the case to create enough back pressure. The cases tend to tear where the petals of the crimp die join on the case mouth.  Black powder explodes, so it does not need as severe of a crimp.
Title: Re: Why are there no conversions options in .44 Caliber?
Post by: Long Johns Wolf on May 22, 2022, 02:31:38 AM
I don't know the owner of this Uberti percussion 1860 converted to R1.
Why the gunsmith who made this conversion did not make a new strengthened cylinder, i.e. increased the dia of the breech band and used proper steel is beyond me.
This pistol would never had survived the mandatory proof testing procedure.
Long Johns Wolf
Title: Re: Why are there no conversions options in .44 Caliber?
Post by: Niederlander on May 22, 2022, 06:44:29 AM
For what it's worth, a friend of mine had an original, that was essentially a rusty dug-up.  (He collected those.)  As I remember, most of the notches were all the way into the cylinder.  We surmised they were so thin a little bit of wear would result in a hole.  We also surmised that may have been why it had been discarded, or at least not looked for very hard when it was lost.