• You are using the old Black Responsive theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

1851 .44

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

crazyjennyblack

Member
Joined
May 19, 2008
Messages
391
I keep thinking about getting an 1851 colt. Don't flame me for it, but I'd like to get it in the historically nonexistent .44 simply because I have tons of .44 components and no .36 stuff.

However, if I choose to convert it using a Kirst kit at some later time, can I do it? Some people say yes, and some say no, even on THR. Has anyone ACTUALLY done it?

Also, the 1860 colt type kirst conversions use .45 schofield cases. Is it possible to use .45 auto rim (handloaded to about 700 fps or so), since it's even shorter than the schofield? Or are the rims too thick? Again, not looking for hearsay, but someone who has actually done it and tried it. The interwebz seem to be full of conjecture these days....:cuss:

Thanks again!
 
If it's a steel frame, you can use either of the conversion cylinders if the '51 is either a Pietta or a Uberti. You can not use .45 Auto Rim cases because the rims are too thick, but you can use the Cowboy .45 Special cases from Adirondack Jack's. They are .45 AR with .45 Colt rims. You use .45 AR loading data. You can also use .45 Colt cases if you load them short. I can use .45 Colt in mine if I keep the COAL down to 1.565" vs. the normal 1.6". Of course the .45 Schofield cases are ideal.
 
As said the steel frame 1851 revolvers can be easily converted to 45LC. But I find using the Cowboy 45 brass much better. Less powder, less recoil and superb accuracy out of a set of converted 1858 revolvers and a set of 1860 revolvers.

withwords-vi.jpg

DSC_4196-vi.jpg
 
Howdy!

Here is the scoop:

The 1860 (45 Colt/Schofield) conversion unit (either R&D or Kirst) will fit the 1851 44 Cap and Ball revolver. Of course Pietta fits Pietta and Uberti fits Uberti. I have installed many of these in my shop.

45 Auto Rim will not work because of the thicker rim.
45 "Special" (as sold by Adirondak Jack) will work.
45 Schofield will work.
45 Colt will work if loaded with a flat nose "Cowboy" bullet or some folks load the bullet deeper and crimp over the driving band.

Check out my site for more information!
Good Luck
HH

crazyjennyblack said:
I keep thinking about getting an 1851 colt. Don't flame me for it, but I'd like to get it in the historically nonexistent .44 simply because I have tons of .44 components and no .36 stuff.

However, if I choose to convert it using a Kirst kit at some later time, can I do it? Some people say yes, and some say no, even on THR. Has anyone ACTUALLY done it?

Also, the 1860 colt type kirst conversions use .45 schofield cases. Is it possible to use .45 auto rim (handloaded to about 700 fps or so), since it's even shorter than the schofield? Or are the rims too thick? Again, not looking for hearsay, but someone who has actually done it and tried it. The interwebz seem to be full of conjecture these days....:cuss:

Thanks again!
Click to expand...
 
I too have a lot of .44 accessories as you would say (I don't own a 36 caliber) the reason why. Does the 1851 .44 caliber revolvers balance, feel, point as good as a .36 navy? It may be a stupid question I just never held one before.
 
They 'point' the same but are a little bit lighter (due to the bigger bore) so the 'feel' is different.
 
I never thought of it being lighter due to a bigger bore. So pointing and balance would be the same with a different feel. Reckon why colt never made a 51 model in .44 kinda makes you wonder.
 
I need to add a 45 Auto Rim comment........

I can machine the recess necessary on each chamber to allow the use of 45 AR cartridges.
The but (it's a biggun) is that after doing so you will not be able to use 45 Colt or Schofield.

Regards, HH
 
Probably a bit off topic here but I was under the idea that the things use a faster twist for the like 144 or so round balls and may not shoot that great with the usual 250 grain type .45 slugs or am I over thinking issues here?
 
You have a valid concern, but have it backwards. The longer (heavier) bullets need a faster twist (theoretically) than the shorter round ball to optimally stabilize them. At pistol ranges it doesn't really matter all that much though.
 
buttrap said:
Probably a bit off topic here but I was under the idea that the things use a faster twist for the like 144 or so round balls and may not shoot that great with the usual 250 grain type .45 slugs or am I over thinking issues here?
Click to expand...
They shoot fine and can be quite accurate with a bit of dilligent reloading!
The heavier bullets shoot higher though...........

Regards, HH
 
Hoof, thats good to know as I was thinking if I got a conversion cylinder I would be best off loading round ball loads in the .45 case and a lot of horse feed. I do not think that would be a issue robbing the horse feed to fill the case but it seems it would be a pain in the rear.
 
buttrap said:
Hoof, thats good to know as I was thinking if I got a conversion cylinder I would be best off loading round ball loads in the .45 case and a lot of horse feed. I do not think that would be a issue robbing the horse feed to fill the case but it seems it would be a pain in the rear.
Click to expand...
"Pain in the rear" "horse feed"
buttrap.........

Why not horse poop?

I'm guessing you are referring to a case filler like grits or maybe corn meal.
There are opinions going both ways and you can buy those "Cowboy Special" cases or use Schofields or seat the projectiles deeper (BP loads) and crimp over the driving bands (no airspace). Heck I have even trimmed Schofield cases shorter........

This is no different than what was done with the 38 Colt and 41 Colt of yesteryear. There must be three or four case lengths.

Regards, HH
 
I like the 1851 .44.
Sure, it's not historically correct.
Neither is the ROA or any of the current sheriff's models.
Doesn't stop me from liking them.
They're all fun to shoot.
 
It's only historically correct to the period of about 1972.
It's not a copy of an original gun.
Just like the .44 1851 is not a copy of an original gun, because the 51 was never made in .44.

Of course, we could dissect the historical incorrectness of the Italian repro-guns.

I can always count on junkman01 to argue with anything anyone ever says. :)
 
I am not historically correct, so I allow myself some latitude in “period” firearms.

I am not politically correct, either, thus the guns in the first place.
 
I don't normally care about historical correctness.
I'm pretty sure Italian made howdah pistols and 5.5" barreled Remington New Army revolvers aren't HC, but they sure are FUN.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top