.36 Remington

[nkbj]

Can a .36 Remmie be modified to .40 or .41?
Does anyone have a reproduction .36 Remington?
If so and if you could make a micrometer measurement, could you please say what the thicknesses of steel are between the chambers and the chamber to exterior diameter of the cylinder. Thanks a bunch.

 

[pr.piburn]

Yes it can.You can make it into a 44 just by
getting a 44 cylinder and barrel. You can put a
41 or 40 barrel on it and open up the chambers to
where they are groove dia. to .002 over. Then use
a ball .003 over this dia. It will work well, I
have one. My barrel is a 9mm which has a groove
dia of .355. My chambers are .357 and I use a .360
ball. Good Luck

 

[Don]

Why do you want to enlarge it to .40 or .41 cal.?

Don

 

[Cascade Pete]

I had one. It was an early production Lyman. Instead of converting it to .40, .41...Why not just find another in .44??

 

[bigbore442001]

Don't laugh but I have thought of something like that. A .400 bore cap and ball.

 

[gordy]

Just curious , but why do you want to go to .40 or .41?? Nothing wrong with doing it, but is there a balistical reason that I,m missing??

:thumbsup:

 

[nkbj]

For fun. Since the 70's I've used conicals in the usual .31, .36 and .44 revolvers. I would like to try out one with .41 cast slugs. Heck I'd like to have one that took .53 round ball too.

 

[nkbj]

Don't laugh but I have thought of something like that. A .400 bore cap and ball.

Bigbore,
One of the finest cap & ball revolvers I've ever seen was hand made by an Alabama fella, machinist working on offshore oil rigs. It was a stainless Remington 1858 design,.410 smoothbore, cylinder about an extra inch long and barrel longer too. Man! What a piece!

 

[Gatofeo]

Wondered about a .40 or .41 caliber, but realized that the .36 is really .37 caliber. I can't see all the expense is justified for 3 calibers (less than 1mm difference).
When it comes to using modern bullets, I think a lot of shooters fool themselves:

1. Any conical bullet used in a cap and ball revolver will require a reduced-diameter "heel" on the bullet's base, to get it started straight in the chamber. If not seated straight, the bullet will be lopsided and the flight characteristics affected. Accuracy suffers.

2. Bullets must be made of soft lead, no harder than about Brinnell Hardness 8, which is softer than wheelweights. If a harder alloy is used, leading occurs.

3. Bullets intended for cap and ball revolvers must be fairly stubby, to fit under the rammer. Modern bullets are usually too long to fit.

Colt made a few 1851 Navies in .34 caliber. Doubtless, he decided it was too close to .36 caliber to be significantly different.
An 1851 Navy in .40 or .41 might be fun to ponder but I have to wonder if it would possess any advantage.
You'd have a slightly heavier projectile, and a correspondingly larger chamber to hold a little more powder, but whether you'd get any significant extra energy or velocity is unknown.
I guess you'd have to make one to find out.

 

[bigbore442001]

Don't laugh but I have thought of something like that. A .400 bore cap and ball.

Bigbore,
One of the finest cap & ball revolvers I've ever seen was hand made by an Alabama fella, machinist working on offshore oil rigs. It was a stainless Remington 1858 design,.410 smoothbore, cylinder about an extra inch long and barrel longer too. Man! What a piece!

I would love to have seen that work of art. Now a gun like that would be a wonderful hunting pistol if it were rifled. It almost makes me want to go to night school for machine shop and machining skills.

 

[ZUG]

Lucky - where did you get your 9mm barrel?

 

[pr.piburn]

It was put on, and the cylinder sleeved and line
bored by Rob Lewis of Ohio. It's just for competion.

 

[Otony]

I am another feller that has thought of converting a .36 Remmie to .40, considered it on more than one occasion.

Never worked up the time or effort to do so, but I think it would make for a crackerjack bit of something different! :thumbsup:

 

[Rifleman1776]

Why do you want to enlarge it to .40 or .41 cal.?

Don

Agree with Don. Why?
My understanding of the historical reasons for smaller calibers was the intention, in combat, was to incapacitate, not necessarily have the big 'knock down' power we are so enamoured with today. Even a little .36 or even .31 would injure and, slowly and painfully, kill the enemy. No real surgery or anti-biotics available then. No one wanted that kind of death. Even Lincoln took days to die with a point-blank shot to the head.
If yer gonna kill me :shocked2: , do it quick, please. :wink:

 

[Flash Pan Dan]

I believe Lincoln died the morning after he was shot and the philosophy of incapacitating rather then out right killing an enemy in the field was a late 19th century theory that was later promoted by the Germans of WWII when they came out with the Sturmgewehr. Please correct me if I wrong.

 

[mjulihn]

Yes, Lincoln died early the next morning after being shot in the back of the head at point blank range by Booth with a .44 pistol:

The specific Derringer on display at Ford’s theatre that allegedly killed Lincoln had its own, unique characteristics, which helped the FBI in its investigation: 1) the length of the weapon is just under six inches; 2) the pistol is a .44 caliber; 3) the rifling of the barrel is counterclockwise, in contrast to the typical model’s rifling that curves to the right; 4) a crack in the pistol’s stock indicates that the weapon was damaged, either by being discarded after Lincoln’s assassination or by some prior accident; 5) Derringers of this model were sold in pairs, and its twin is still at large.

 

[Ray-Vigo]

My understanding of small calibre cap and ball revolvers is that the metal and manufacturing limitations of the day demanded somewhat more material in the cylinder. The .44 pistols prior to the 1851 were larger pistols and had bigger cylinders which could contain a larger powder charge. In fact, some of the Walkers blew chambers.

The .36 of the 1851 Navy was because they wanted a belt-type pistol (as opposed to saddle holster) but needed the extra material for strength gained by dropping the ball size back. The .44 (Dragoon) needed more material, but they were able to get a bigger ball than was in the .31 (Pocket type).

Medicine of the time being what it was, the .36 could be just as deadly as a .44, though perhaps not as immediately so. Nevertheless, Colt always wanted a belt-type pistol in .44, and so they finally worked to the 1860 Army as improvements in manufacturing and design came about.

I don't think they were consciously trying to reduce the power for incapacitation vs. killing, but rather to deal with materials and manufacturing limitations of the day.