In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Conv. Cyl's which on eis better?

odenthevikingodentheviking Member Posts: 523 ✭✭✭
Lets go with the Remington 1858 Mdl, which is the better Conversion Cylinder?
Kirst seems to only allow 5 shot cylinders and has only one firing pin and the cylinder moves around that ring correct?
The R&D has 6 rounds but also 6 firing pins,(more to go wrong?), and I have heard some say this can bind-up on the frame.

I have seen the Kirst Konversion on both a Mdl 1861 Army and a 1851 Navy Colts an dthey seemed to function well/very smooth. But what about for the Remington 1858?


  • krazy4kragskrazy4krags Member Posts: 39 ✭✭
    edited November -1

    I would say that both are good quality. I own an old R&D for an 1858 and haven't had any problems yet. I also have a Kirst, but for the Old Army Ruger. The benefit I see for the 1858 with a Kirst is that you could have the recoil plate with the loading gate and machine the frame to speed up loading...that way you don't have to disassemble the firearm to load. Other than this, there is not any advantage that I can see. Both cylinders work fine if you take care of them and don't try to push things too far. By no means have I tried to 'hot rod' the loads for either gun, but in iron framed guns the cylinders from both companies are sound.

  • bigal125bigal125 Member Posts: 1,136 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Don't know about the Remington 1858, but for the Ruger Old Army, the Kirst conversion cylinders seem to be true "drop-ins"....the Taylor R&D conversion cylinders sometimes have to be "fitted and tuned" by a gunsmith. At least, that has been my experience, anyways.

    All other things being equal, I'd go with a Kirst, IMHO.

    Big Al (kinda curious about other people's experiences, m'self. Glad you asked this, Oden! [:)] )
  • odenthevikingodentheviking Member Posts: 523 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    In the mail I just got in a Kirst Konversion cyl. for a Pietta 1858 Remington. I was told that this has never been in a pistol. It dropped right in and seems to function perfectly. My Pietta Remington has only been used as a C&B pistol.

    While looking for this Cyl. I was offered a Kirst Konversion Cyl for a Pietta 1851 Navy. This cyl did not seat all the way as the frame bed is concave/shaped like the cylinder. So I decided to lightly file the edges of the cylinder ring, it dropped right in and is very tight.

    So two Kirst Konv. Cyl. fit and function with little or no adjustment.
  • 44caliberkid44caliberkid Member Posts: 925 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    I have an R&D cylinder in a Pietta 1858 Remington and it has worked fine. That said, I have tried R&D's cylinders for Colt style revolvers and they are terrible, as is their customer service. I sent my Pietta 1860 to them for fitting (free with purchase if you pay shipping both ways). After two months I tried to call them but you only get a voice mailbox which is always full, likely from complaints from other irate customers. I tried e-mail with no response. I called their post office and asked their mail carrier if they were still in business and he said everything appeared normal there. I don't live that far from them so I sent an e-mail saying I was going to drive up there and get my pistol. Three days later I got the pistol back, Priority Mail. The cylinder still did not fit (binding) plus my original percussion cylinder now no longer fit and it had a different set of grips on it. The original grips were unusually nice walnut for a stock Pietta gun, that I had stripped and put on an oiled finish.
    I also have a 38 R&D cylinder for a Uberti 1851 Navy. It was too long and bound in the frame. I had a machine shop use a precision grinder to take a few thousands off the front of the cylinder and cold blued it and it works fine, but I would never send anything to R&D again.
Sign In or Register to comment.