Ruger Old Army conversion cylinders

[Base Pin Maker]

Anyone have experience with these, who makes the most reliable and/or easiest to use? Thanks, Kelye @ Belt Mtn

 

[ChiefTJS]

I've got a Kirst in mine and it's worked flawlessly. Lets me shoot my OA at the indoor range without annoying the other shooters with my smoke cloud.

 

[ClemBert]

Anyone have experience with these, who makes the most reliable and/or easiest to use? Thanks, Kelye @ Belt Mtn

From my research it seemed to me that the Howell (R&D) was a little simpler to install because you don't have to worry about how the cylinder installs whereas on the Kirst design you do. Specifically, the Kirst system's backplate has a "flat" on it and you have to make sure you install the cylinder with the "flat" pointing down. Whereas on the Howell design the backplate is completely round and you just roll it into place without a second thought. Clearly, both the Howell and Kirst designs are excellent products. I ended up going with the Howell design. You can see my video of it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5AwhP9yzKk You'll like that it highlights the Belt Mountain base pin. BTW, when are you guys gonna make some "ClemBert" pins!!!!

 

[Base Pin Maker]

Got something in the works now, hope to have ready soon. Thanks, Kelye @ Belt Mtn

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy Kelye

I can't help you with Ruger Old Armies, but I can tell you for a 1858 Remington I prefer the six chambered R&D style cylinder distributed by Taylors.

Be interested to see what you are cooking up, I have your pins in a couple of Colts and a few Vaqueros.

 

[MOUNTAIN WILLIAM]

Installing the R&D unit is a breeze, but as far as performance goes, I can't help you. I never got around to actually shooting mine.

 

[flatgate]

I have a question for those experienced with the "conversion" cylinders. IIRC, one brand actually has the chambers cut on a slant, i.e. the center of the cartridge rims is on a larger diameter circle than that of the cartridge's throats.

That piques my curiosity. How in the heck can it push the projectiles down the bores in any sort of straight line?

Or, am I off in Left Field again?

flatgate

 

[ClemBert]

I have a question for those experienced with the "conversion cylinders. IIRC, one brand actually has the chambers cut on a slant, i.e. the center of the cartridge rims is on a larger diameter circle than that of the cartridge's throats.

That piques my curiosity. How in the heck can it push the projectiles down the bores in any sort of straight line?

Or, am I off in Left Field again?

flatgate

No, not left field...maybe center field. Anyhow, the Howell (R&D) .45 Colt conversion cylinder for the 1858 has canted chambers on only the 6 shot design. The reason for this is without canting the chambers the rims of the .45 Colt cartridges interfere with each other as there isn't enough room on the back of the cylinder for 6 cartridges. On the 5-shot version this isn't a problem. But hell, these are supposed to be sixguns!

Howell's ingenious solution to create a 6 shot 1858 conversion cylinder in .45 Colt is to cant each chamber out by about 1/2 of one degree. The chamber throats still all line up with the forcing cone. There is no performance issue with this at all and numerous people have chimed in to verify this.

So again, to repeat....ONLY the Howell 6-shot conversion cylinder in .45 Colt for the 1858 has canted cylinders. Taylor's and Company purchased the exclusive distribution rights on that particular patented design from Howell. Even Howell doesn't sell it directly.

 

[flatgate]

Ah, OK, that helps a lot! I do happen to have a couple "charcoal burners" around here......

However, I'll probably stick to slinging 335 grain gas checked slugs down the bores of my good ol' Blackhawks.

flatgate

 

[B.L. Hall]

which one has the cuts between the cylinders like the bp cylinder so you can have the hammer down between the chambers?