Appropriate cylinder gap for Colt revolvers

[Pete453]

Mike and Mr De Land have been debating the open top/top strap dispute for a while. I'm curious, Mike has claimed the Colts are stronger than a Remington and Mr De Land has compared the open top to MODERN full frame revolvers. The debate is Colt v. Remington, not Colt v. Freedom Arms. Has anyone shot Remingtons with 21K+ ammo to see how the Remington holds up? That would seem a more fair comparison. If someone wants to spring for a conversion cylinder and ammo, I'll put my Pietta 58 Remington on the line. I'm thinking the ammo will be the expensive part.

 

[M. De Land]

That decision can be made on a number of members he

Mike and Mr De Land have been debating the open top/top strap dispute for a while. I'm curious, Mike has claimed the Colts are stronger than a Remington and Mr De Land has compared the open top to MODERN full frame revolvers. The debate is Colt v. Remington, not Colt v. Freedom Arms. Has anyone shot Remingtons with 21K+ ammo to see how the Remington holds up? That would seem a more fair comparison. If someone wants to spring for a conversion cylinder and ammo, I'll put my Pietta 58 Remington on the line. I'm thinking the ammo will be the expensive part.

I looked up Taylor .45 Colt cylinders for 58 Rems to night in my Brownell's catalogue and they are over $ 300.00. They do say to use only black powder, BP substitutes and Cowboy loads which include some low pressure smokeless I believe.

 

[M. De Land]

Mike and Mr De Land have been debating the open top/top strap dispute for a while. I'm curious, Mike has claimed the Colts are stronger than a Remington and Mr De Land has compared the open top to MODERN full frame revolvers. The debate is Colt v. Remington, not Colt v. Freedom Arms. Has anyone shot Remingtons with 21K+ ammo to see how the Remington holds up? That would seem a more fair comparison. If someone wants to spring for a conversion cylinder and ammo, I'll put my Pietta 58 Remington on the line. I'm thinking the ammo will be the expensive part.

I wouldn't be surprised if an ROA frame would stand anything the cartridge cylinder could take but then again it is a solid frame design made of 4140 alloy.
Kieth used to regularly run heavy loads of 44 special in 73 Colts before the advent of the 44 Mag and I'm told he wrecked a few while testing pressure limits but I don't remember him admitting it in any of his books I have. He preferred the 44 special to the .45 Colt he said because of the extra eylinder thickness in the chambers.
The weakness of the 73 was not the frame of the gun but rather the very thin walls of the cylinder chambers in ,.45 Colt that would give out with heavy smokeless charges. The 73 was designed for black powder as well. I have a close friend that told me he's seen a Ubert .45 Colt with bulged bolt notches from to hot loads and they're of course made of modern steel. alloy.

 

[45D]

Mike and Mr De Land have been debating the open top/top strap dispute for a while. I'm curious, Mike has claimed the Colts are stronger than a Remington and Mr De Land has compared the open top to MODERN full frame revolvers. The debate is Colt v. Remington, not Colt v. Freedom Arms. Has anyone shot Remingtons with 21K+ ammo to see how the Remington holds up? That would seem a more fair comparison.

Thanks Pete453 !! But, we'd need 23K psi ammo (45acp+p's/45C+p).

I have a Pietta '58Remington in 45C but I'm not really looking to bend it !!
My Pietta Frontier ('73 copy) has an acp cylinder for it and I DID shoot 45acp +'s in it before I did in the '60. I sent 5 rounds down range to see what to expect since I'd never shot +p's.

That's when I questioned my testing but since that was the purpose I went on with it. The '60 is heavier with an 8" bbl and it was pretty much a "non-event" !! It was actually no big deal ( as far as recoil is concerned)!! Sent 15 down range in the '60 (20+p's is all I had). Since then I shoot 20 +p's out of 50 shots fired each time I go to the range.

As far as the Pietta Frontier, when I put the 45C cylinder back in, the rims made contact with the recoil shield and I had to clearance it !!! So, there was obvious movement . . .
To much custom work to that one just to mess it up so no more +p's in that one.

Of course, as I've said many times, the '60 remains in perfect condition after 1,000 rounds (all but 50 have been FMJ or JHP) with +'s mixed in as stated.

I may try some 21K rounds of 45C in the Remington and see if there's any movement. These would be 250gr bullets rather than 230's or lighter.

Mike

 

[Malamute]

I wouldn't be surprised if an ROA frame would stand anything the cartridge cylinder could take but then again it is a solid frame design made of 4140 alloy.
Kieth used to regularly run heavy loads of 44 special in 73 Colts before the advent of the 44 Mag and I'm told he wrecked a few while testing pressure limits but I don't remember him admitting it in any of his books I have. He preferred the 44 special to the .45 Colt he said because of the extra eylinder thickness in the chambers.
The weakness of the 73 was not the frame of the gun but rather the very thin walls of the cylinder chambers in ,.45 Colt that would give out with heavy smokeless charges. The 73 was designed for black powder as well. I have a close friend that told me he's seen a Ubert .45 Colt with bulged bolt notches from to hot loads and they're of course made of modern steel. alloy.

I recall Keith writing about one or two 45 SAA coming apart, which was why he went to the 44 spl for trying for better performance loads.

Many (not you) have had the idea he attempted to push guns past their limits and went about blowing up guns as a regular and accepted thing to him, that wasnt my take at all. Yes, he wanted to see if he could achieve improved performance, but never have I seen where he said he tried to blow a gun up, just see what was practical. His comments on factory 44 mags vs his handloads illustrated that point, he said he was happy with his handloads being lower pressure than the factory loads and would leave such high pressure loads to the factory, same basic idea when he discussed the hot factory 357 loads of the 50s used in the smith model 19s, he said his heavy 38 spl loads were better suited to the 19s.

 

[Pete453]

I looked up Taylor .45 Colt cylinders for 58 Rems to night in my Brownell's catalogue and they are over $ 300.00. They do say to use only black powder, BP substitutes and Cowboy loads which include some low pressure smokeless I believe.

Right, Taylor's are the old R&D I believe, they've always recommended black powder level loads(14000psi). I'm thinking we would need a Kirst cylinder to keep things on a level playing field. Probably in ACP flavor.
I'm not looking to wreck my Remington, but I am curious. Besides, if it stretched, I would have an excuse to buy a new one.

 

[45D]

Right, Taylor's are the old R&D I believe, they've always recommended black powder level loads(14000psi). I'm thinking we would need a Kirst cylinder to keep things on a level playing field. Probably in ACP flavor.
I'm not looking to wreck my Remington, but I am curious. Besides, if it stretched, I would have an excuse to buy a new one.

The R&D / Howell "cap" doesn't have the support the full "ring" of the Kirst offers. The Kirst gives 100% support for the case head.

Mike

 

[45D]

I just checked the cylinder fit in my "shop" Remington and it's a good fit. I think it's a good test bed for a Pietta Remington. If it bends it won't hurt. So, I'll get some "guts" in it and see what happens.

Mike

 

[Malamute]

Seems like careful monitoring of the BC gap on the Rem will tell if its stretching, and one could stop before it became truly an issue, such as if it grew .002" or .003" or so, it would be a sign to stop, and it would still be usable in its original form. The barrel of course could be set back and re-gapped if need be, it wouldnt be a total disaster if it did stretch some in testing.

 

[45D]

Seems like careful monitoring of the BC gap on the Rem will tell if its stretching, and one could stop before it became truly an issue, such as if it grew .002" or .003" or so, it would be a sign to stop, and it would still be usable in its original form. The barrel of course could be set back and re-gapped if need be, it wouldnt be a total disaster if it did stretch some in testing.

Yes. That’s why I'm leaving the Pietta Frontier alone with these loads.
I agree, the Remington may show its hand before the open-top does.

Mike

 

[M. De Land]

Right, Taylor's are the old R&D I believe, they've always recommended black powder level loads(14000psi). I'm thinking we would need a Kirst cylinder to keep things on a level playing field. Probably in ACP flavor.
I'm not looking to wreck my Remington, but I am curious. Besides, if it stretched, I would have an excuse to buy a new one.

I just looked up Kirst cylinders and read his web page on development of his product. He states not to use Plus P or any other high pressure loads in them and that he developed and tested these back in the 90s. I currently have an open frame Sheriffs model with a what looks like (no name on the cylinder) Kirst cylinder in 45S which I think means Scoffield as a normal .45 Colt cartridge is to long for the chamber leaving the bullet nose protruding.
Also there is no way that a loaded cartridge will fit through the loading gate. It will need take down to load the cylinder.
The problem on this cartridge cylinder is that the studs between the chambers are catching on the edge of the loading gate when closed. Looks like the gate arm or mounting stud is bent a bit or the back plate is bent/warped out of being flat as the gate is misaligned with the back plate when closed. I am assuming the gate arm or stud is warped or bent.
As there is no name I could find on the cylinder I'm wondering if this may be a knock off of some kind .

 

[45D]

I just looked up Kirst cylinders and read his web page on development of his product. He states not to use Plus P or any other high pressure loads in them and that he developed and tested these back in the 90s. I currently have an open frame Sheriffs model with a what looks like (no name on the cylinder) Kirst cylinder in 45S which I think means Scoffield as a normal .45 Colt cartridge is to long for the chamber leaving the bullet nose protruding.
Also there is no way that a loaded cartridge will fit through the loading gate. It will need take down to load the cylinder.
The problem on this cartridge cylinder is that the studs between the chambers are catching on the edge of the loading gate when closed. Looks like the gate arm or mounting stud is bent a bit or the back plate is bent/warped out of being flat as the gate does misalign with the back plate when closed I am assuming the gate arm or stud is warped or bent.
As there is no name I could find on the cylinder I'm wondering if this may be a knock off of some kind .

Pics?

 

[M. De Land]

Pics?

When I get a few minutes later today I will post some pics Mike ! This is new ground for me and curiosity is taking over.

 

[M. De Land]

When I get a few minutes later today I will post some pics Mike ! This is new ground for me and curiosity is taking over.

Here are the photos promised.
I stoned a radius on the lead of the gate so the studs won't catch but it looks like the whole gate could use milled flat on the face about .010 -.015 so it will be flush with the rest of the plate. Perhaps the shell case rims will keep the studs from making contact but at least they don't catch the edge now and the cylinder will turn.
The cartridge is a magnum load .45 Colt Ruger Bisely using a Kieth designed 280 grain hard cast lead bullet I am using for fitting purpose as it is far to much pressure for this gun even if it did fit .

 

[45D]

Here are the photos promised.
I stoned a radius on the lead of the gate so the studs won't catch but it looks like the whole gate could use milled flat on the face about .010 -.015 so it will be flush with the rest of the plate. Perhaps the shell case rims will keep the studs from making contact but at least they don't catch the edge now and the cylinder will turn.
The cartridge is a magnum load .45 Colt Ruger Bisely using a Kieth designed 280 grain hard cast lead bullet I am using for fitting purpose as it is far to much pressure for this gun.

First of all, that is a Kirst conversion.
2nd- the gate is being pushed forward because the "loading port" hasn't been cut in the recoil shield.
3rd- I'm sure that's a Pietta since I see engraving so hopefully that's a cylinder made for Pietta's. Pietta cylinders are slightly longer than Uberti cylinders. For that reason, I use Pietta cylinders for all my conversions. The Uberti cylinder is a "reload" only because of the length. Likewise the Pietta cyl will take factory length fodder.

Question: what is a "magnum load .45 Colt Ruger Bisely"? It's hard to discern the pressure since no powder is listed.

Here's what the recoil shield should look like for that conversion.

Mike

 

[scottgze]

After reading this topic in its entirety, looking for a straightforward answer (like the OP), I have to agree with the member that stated that flame wars like this lose new members (new to this forum, not to BP).
I came to this forum looking for helpful advice about muzzleloading firearms, asI do have an 1860 with one or two issues that need to be sorted.

After the infantile display on the previous pages, and in other threads I've read, I'll seek my information elsewhere.
Of course, those very same infantile minds are going to post replies like "why announce that you're leaving" etc.
The answer is simple: if the guilty parties don't know they have turned people away, they will continue to do so.

We as shooters in general are an endangered species, regardless of what part of the world we live in. We need to stick together, have each others back.
We should not be dividing ourselves into cliquey groups, scoffing at those that aren't in the "know". That is just putting our heads into the lefty lions mouth.
If shooters of all disciplines support each other as a united group, and put our misgivings and biases toward other disciplines aside, we stand a better chance of keeping whatever firearms liberties we have still.

 

[M. De Land]

First of all, that is a Kirst conversion.
2nd- the gate is being pushed forward because the "loading port" hasn't been cut in the recoil shield.
3rd- I'm sure that's a Pietta since I see engraving so hopefully that's a cylinder made for Pietta's. Pietta cylinders are slightly longer than Uberti cylinders. For that reason, I use Pietta cylinders for all my conversions. The Uberti cylinder is a "reload" only because of the length. Likewise the Pietta cyl will take factory length fodder.

Question: what is a "magnum load .45 Colt Ruger Bisely"? It's hard to discern the pressure since no powder is listed.

Here's what the recoil shield should look like for that conversion.
View attachment 236985

Mike

The pictures are the way I received the gun except for the gate radius to make it function. I have zero experience with conversions and no instruction sheet of how to fit them. I can easily use a carbide ball mill to enlarge the gate port but without instruction I don't want to get to radical. I guess the thing to do is contact kirst and see if I can get their conversion instructions but find it hard to believe milling the gate port would be something the average shooter could handle or expect from a drop in unit.
If you look closely at the gate and how tightly it fits the step at the rear of the ring you will see it is proud in relation to the ring itself not the recoil shield of gun proper. I think this may require the front of the gate face to be lowered to level with the rest of the ring/plate face.
It is a Pietta but the cylinder length seems right for the frame and wedge and lock up is tight.

 

[M. De Land]

After reading this topic in its entirety, looking for a straightforward answer (like the OP), I have to agree with the member that stated that flame wars like this lose new members (new to this forum, not to BP).
I came to this forum looking for helpful advice about muzzleloading firearms, asI do have an 1860 with one or two issues that need to be sorted.

After the infantile display on the previous pages, and in other threads I've read, I'll seek my information elsewhere.
Of course, those very same infantile minds are going to post replies like "why announce that you're leaving" etc.
The answer is simple: if the guilty parties don't know they have turned people away, they will continue to do so.

We as shooters in general are an endangered species, regardless of what part of the world we live in. We need to stick together, have each others back.
We should not be dividing ourselves into cliquey groups, scoffing at those that aren't in the "know". That is just putting our heads into the lefty lions mouth.
If shooters of all disciplines support each other as a united group, and put our misgivings and biases toward other disciplines aside, we stand a better chance of keeping whatever firearms liberties we have still.

The trouble is where are you going to be able to go to get this much sound technical information and discussion challenge. This sight is a fire-hose of good data to improve any ones knowledge of firearms.
May I respectfully suggest (being one of the prime offenders) that the knowledge imparted from pictures and discussion here are well worth enduring the infantile behavior ( challenge , occasional poke and counter challenge) they are presented in.
I hate to see you leave,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, the knowledge loss will profoundly be your own !

 

[M. De Land]

First of all, that is a Kirst conversion.
2nd- the gate is being pushed forward because the "loading port" hasn't been cut in the recoil shield.
3rd- I'm sure that's a Pietta since I see engraving so hopefully that's a cylinder made for Pietta's. Pietta cylinders are slightly longer than Uberti cylinders. For that reason, I use Pietta cylinders for all my conversions. The Uberti cylinder is a "reload" only because of the length. Likewise the Pietta cyl will take factory length fodder.

Question: what is a "magnum load .45 Colt Ruger Bisely"? It's hard to discern the pressure since no powder is listed.

Here's what the recoil shield should look like for that conversion.
View attachment 236985

Mike

The .45 Ruger Biesley load is 23 grains of H-110 behind the Kieth 280 grain flat point and CCI 350 Mag primer for a hair over 1300 fps from a 5 inch barrel over my Oehler P-35. Max charge for this combo is 25 grains of H-110 or 296. It probably is my most accurate revolver load and I've yet to loose a case from pressure in reloads . I think I got this load from Linebaugh data if memory serves.
I read some where that the .45 Colt can often be loaded to the same velocity with a heavier bullet at approximately 6K less pressure than can a .44 Mag.
What was the standard BP load of the time , seems like I remember 30 grains of 3f behind a 250 grain bullet for about 930 fps. ? I was thinking the charge was 40 grains but I don't see how they could get that much in a case although the old balloon head cases did have more capacity.

 

[45D]

If shooters of all disciplines support each other as a united group, and put our misgivings and biases toward other disciplines aside, we stand a better chance of keeping whatever firearms liberties we have still.

So, the support doesn't extend to the "conversion" crowd . . . So "we" should leave or shut up? That's not very "uniting " sounding to me!
I'll have to say, setting up cartridge revolvers has benefited the cap gun bunch tremendously.

Mike