conversion cylinder by Taylors and Co

[Dave DeLaurant]

Again, my stance is that buying a cap 'n ball revolver, then buying an aftermarket swappable conversion cylinder is not worth it. It is only economically sound when you can buy them together.

I paid less than $400 for my Uberti and Howell combo. But that was because I found someone selling it for a loss.

It kinda/sorta makes better economic sense where I live, thanks to CA legislative weirdness. You won't get more for your money, but you may actually end up spending slightly less on some combo options than any centerfire factory SAA.

As of today anyway, I can order a percussion revolver and have both it and a Howell conversion cylinder delivered to my door in my locale. Shipping and "normal" state sales taxes apply, but not so the excise taxes, FFL fees and other expenses involved when buying through a licensed dealer here.

Shopping around, you can buy both and end up with a new revolver for six and a half bills. I did this a few months ago, ordering a Pietta 1858 "Sheriff" from Midway and a 5-shot .45 ACP cylinder directly from Howell The total was $602 plus tax and shipping.

A good used centerfire SAA revolver will run closer to $750-800 out the door at any gunshop around here. I know that because I priced several last week while doing a circuit with a friend. Even at that price, I'm tempted by a 3-screw Ruger in .30 Carbine I handled. I'll have to make up my mind soon because CA is adding a further 11% tax on firearms in July.

BTW, for me, Howell's 2-part 1858 conversion cylinders are close enough to original 2-part rimfire conversions to pass the smell test. Here's an original:



And here's one of my repro setups:



Having said all this, I don't think the drop-in conversion cylinder route is so hot with open-top Colts -- I'd personally much prefer going with a factory Richard's-type conversion job on one of those.

The 1858 solid-frame conversion cylinders are also a bit fiddly to handle. They are a tight fit into the frame, and I've found that it sometimes helps to roll the cylinder clockwise to get under the hand/pawl during insertion.

In short, for me conversion cylinders are more fun/interesting rather than practical/economical.

BTW, I got into these because I wanted something else to shoot the same light .45 Auto Rim loads I use in my shaved Mk VI Webley. I've counterbored my Howell's to accept the thick rim, and they have proven surprisingly accurate.

 

[45 Dragoon]

Oh look, a factory conversion. Not an aftermarket Krist or Howell conversion. If you actually read the entirety of my post. I said those are worth it.

Thanks for the compliment!!

Mike

 

[45 Dragoon]

In short, for me conversion cylinders are more fun/interesting rather than practical/economical.

I can agree-
Practical.


Economic-


Mike

 

[armoredman]

And...fun.

 

[CraigC]

Still trying to figure out how a drop0-in cylinder is "impractical" but a cap `n ball revolver is not.

 

[Onty]

Here's a Ruger Old Army with a Kirst cylinder and a Bisley style hammer and trigger-
View attachment 1207239

Who made Bisley hammer for Ruger Old Army? Is it made from the scratch, or Bisley hammer spur just welded on ROA hammer?

 

[Dave DeLaurant]

Still trying to figure out how a drop0-in cylinder is "impractical" but a cap `n ball revolver is not.

Rebutting reply #25? If so, I'll clarify: this reply was in regard to an earlier reply about factory Richards-type conversions as compared with drop-in cylinder conversions.

In their respective, overlapping heydays, both the original percussion revolvers and their varied cartridge conversion systems were entirely practical defensive weapon choices. I personally would not choose a centerfire cartridge conversion over a modern S&W revolver for my bedside table, so for me, they are fun/interesting. But again, this is just my opinion and YMMV.

For my purposes in 2024, the biggest advantages of the drop-in conversion cylinder vs. the percussion originals are the use of smokeless powder so I can use them on an indoor range, eliminate the danger of chainfire and make my life easier when it's time for cleanup.


BTW, for an interesting discussion of why some hombres back in the day kept on using their percussion revolvers, check out what Karl has to say in this video. I don't follow Karl so much these days, but he has certainly had much more experience using percussion revolvers than I'll ever get.

1860 Colt vs Cartridge Conversion

When cartridges really became viable, both militarily and commercially, a lot of "average" people didn't bother to upgrade because of cost, but also because ...

www.youtube.com

 

[45 Dragoon]

Who made Bisley hammer for Ruger Old Army? Is it made from the scratch, or Bisley hammer spur just welded on ROA hammer?

Ron Wells Grip Frames

Thanks!

 

[45 Dragoon]

Rebutting reply #25? If so, I'll clarify: this reply was in regard to an earlier reply about factory Richards-type conversions as compared with drop-in cylinder conversions.

In their respective, overlapping heydays, both the original percussion revolvers and their varied cartridge conversion systems were entirely practical defensive weapon choices. I personally would not choose a centerfire cartridge conversion over a modern S&W revolver for my bedside table, so for me, they are fun/interesting. But again, this is just my opinion and YMMV.

For my purposes in 2024, the biggest advantages of the drop-in conversion cylinder vs. the percussion originals are the use of smokeless powder so I can use them on an indoor range, eliminate the danger of chainfire and make my life easier when it's time for cleanup.


BTW, for an interesting discussion of why some hombres back in the day kept on using their percussion revolvers, check out what Karl has to say in this video. I don't follow Karl so much these days, but he has certainly had much more experience using percussion revolvers than I'll ever get.

1860 Colt vs Cartridge Conversion

When cartridges really became viable, both militarily and commercially, a lot of "average" people didn't bother to upgrade because of cost, but also because ...

www.youtube.com

Maybe, if the 6th shot is the all important shot . . . and it's a "bedside table" gun, the Dragoon holds six "muscular" rounds . . .

 

[Dave DeLaurant]

Maybe, if the 6th shot is the all important shot . . . and it's a "bedside table" gun, the Dragoon holds six "muscular" rounds . . .

Good points. Fired indoors, a Colt Dragoon would definitely get anyone's attention.

My usual bedside is a 'modern' S&W M1917, which takes the same loads as my wimpier Pietta conversions, only with +1 in a full-moon clip.

I wouldn't mind upgrading to an even more modern S&W, like a 625 JM -- I saw one once at a LGS, but didn't have the coin to jump on it then and haven't seen another for sale here since.

 

[45 Dragoon]

Good points. Fired indoors, a Colt Dragoon would definitely get anyone's attention.

My usual bedside is a 'modern' S&W M1917, which takes the same loads as my wimpier Pietta conversions, only with +1 in a full-moon clip.

I wouldn't mind upgrading to an even more modern S&W, like a 625 JM -- I saw one once at a LGS, but didn't have the coin to jump on it then and haven't seen another for sale here since.

Of course I meant 6 45C rounds as all of my revolvers are conversions.

Mike

 

[armoredman]

I do have to admit, I pictured touching off a fully charged Walker indoors...that would be interesting. Briefly.