In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
Conv. Cyl's which on eis better?
odentheviking
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?
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?
Comments
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.
-Hutch
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! [:)] )
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.
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.