1860 Colt vs. 1858 Remington

[GYJ]

Good point !
The early military Single action Colt .45s were also sighted for 75 yds, same as their percussion predecessors.
Later when they went back to the armory for rehab & shortened they were tweaked to impact at a much shorter range.

None of that would appear to be true. The SAA's had tall front sights and could be zeroed.

 

[Smokerr]

This is what I did to raise my front sight on a Pietta NMA Target, shooting way high (18 inches I think) at 15 yards (I am shooting 15 yards while I play with these as I don't want to wreck the target frame. It may have to go higher still or cut down the rear notch. I took out the screw, got a 6 mm replacement (longer) shimmed it up (the front is resting on top of the slot). That is a lot of adjustment. I had it on a slant when I first did it and it was not enough, this is level and will be higher but may not be enough.

 

[earlwb]

Read all the forums about the mods needed for each model your considering to turn a working revolver into a less frustrating and functional revolver.

Really one needs to shoot their stock revolver for a while. You may not need to do anything. I haven’t done anything to mine. They work just fine for me. Some people get caught up in the upgrade modification path and can’t stop until they ruin it. I see that all the time with a modern unmentionable pistol. If one wants a super accurate target pistol buy one instead of a cheaper one to modify. But if you are learning gunsmithing on the side then go for it.

 

[Bad Karma]

Not sayin nothin . . .

He’s still working on some ROA parts, don’t bother the man!

 

[Bad Karma]

None of that would appear to be true. The SAA's had tall front sights and could be zeroed.

There’s a heck of a lot of adjustment in that blade…

 

[Smokerr]

There’s a heck of a lot of adjustment in that blade…

If the front sight is tall then you can file down and get it on. If its too short then no. So while technically not adjustable, too tall does let you get it down for 15-25 yards

No then for 100 yards its probably going to be low

 

[stephenprops1]

Conversion cylinders in a modern replica make zero sense to me.
I could see converting a existing gun at the time but to do it with a modern replica really seems...........pointless for a lot of reasons.

Well, that is your opinion and your choice. I have never done a black powder cartridge conversion, and I probably never will. However, I have no qualms with anyone that wants to do such.

 

[stephenprops1]

I can also relate to vision issues.
I conjured this fix up about 50 years ago, it provided my nearsighted eyes with an excellent sight picture at
matches & hunting & flipped out of the way between matches.
The one shown is made from a jewelers loupe off Amazon, glass lense in the loupe served as a pattern & was replaced with
the bottom off of a 35mm film canister.
A 0.40 - 0.60 dia. hole works for most.
Finding these old 35mm film canisters is the hard part.
Relic shooter

Dixie Gun Works used to sell one of these. If they are out of stock other places might have them.

 

[stephenprops1]

I find 75 yards an amazing distance for a pistol. Judging from my spreads so far (hand rested, I am still getting into the BP grove) I would be lucky to hit an elephant at that distance.

I have my pistol Eyepal mounted to my old glasses now (see the fix, which is an electrical crimp terminal cut to fit!). The nose pieces are glued on, after 30 years or so I guessed it was time to replace them!)

As for preferences, I am both a rifle and pistol guy. I focused on pistols as that was my after work entertainment on a 6 x 10 work week (wilds of AK you could go shooting in any gravel/borrow pit). Rifles were for hunting, so sight in at 100 yards and off we went.

That said, my take is whatever floats your boat on the cartridge conversions. For me the BP aspect is what is interesting. I have other modern cartridge pistols to shoot. The BP is more fun stuff for me. I got to shoot an AK semi auto. It brought a serious appreciation to what that gun was about and the BP pistols is the same.

When I was younger (now aged 70) I have used a single action revolver, 7 1/2" barrel, 44 magnum, and shot pop cans off a fence post at 100 yards, shooting free hand. I averaged about 4 cans hit for every 6 shots fired.

 

[Smokerr]

Really one needs to shoot their stock revolver for a while. You may not need to do anything. I haven’t done anything to mine. They work just fine for me. Some people get caught up in the upgrade modification path and can’t stop until they ruin it.

That assumes you ruin it. Worst case you guy a new spindle.

But while not a Colt type, my Pietta needed work from the get go. The ram shape was so bad is mashed round balls let alone what it did to conical s. It hit 18 inches high.

If I get a Uberrti Colt style (47 Colt Walker is what I am interested in and only Uberti makes that) I will tear it down, clean it, make and check the fit. I will probably shoot it but work on it as well if I see the issues reported

 

[Smokerr]

When I was younger (now aged 70) I have used a single action revolver, 7 1/2" barrel, 44 magnum, and shot pop cans off a fence post at 100 yards, shooting free hand. I averaged about 4 cans hit for every 6 shots fired.

That beats me all hollow. 1.5 inch groups at 25 yards were good back when I was a youngster. So at 100 yards I would have been as much as 4-5 inches off. So even if the sights were adjusted I might get one can and remotely two at that range.

 

[AlexB]

Seems simple enough to test to destruction and then back off 10%.
How many of these platforms have you taken to failure?
What loads and pressures caused them to fail and where did they fail?

If your answer is none have failed then you can't be trying very hard.

 

[Jedidiah]

Mike in FL,
Maybe reread my posts . . . ? I'm shooting 45acp +p's out of a belt pistol ( Army) and you're talking about anemic?? That's about 50% hotter than tier 1 45C. I'm shooting 45C+p in my Dragoons. Nothing anemic at all !! Probably better than you'll get with "factory" conversions.

If you read Ruger instructions, you may see something to the affect of "not shooting reloads" . . . you think folks are shooting "reloads" in Rugers?

Mike

Ruger does not want the liability from some yahoos that reload and screw up, hence the no reload policy. It is actually very simple.

 

[45D]

Ruger does not want the liability from some yahoos that reload and screw up, hence the no reload policy. It is actually very simple.

Yes, which is exactly my point.

Mike

 

[45D]

Seems simple enough to test to destruction and then back off 10%.
How many of these platforms have you taken to failure?
What loads and pressures caused them to fail and where did they fail?

If your answer is none have failed then you can't be trying very hard.

My answer IS none. Haven't made it there yet but be my guest, I'm not in a race.

Mike

 

[GYJ]

Seems simple enough to test to destruction and then back off 10%.
How many of these platforms have you taken to failure?
What loads and pressures caused them to fail and where did they fail?

If your answer is none have failed then you can't be trying very hard.

I wish this was a legitimate question and not facetious trolling.

Nobody is trying to take these guns to the point of catastrophic failure. We don't learn anything from that anyway. Since a major manufacturer is already building a .45ACP conversion cylinder for them, we can reasonably assume the cylinder (which is going to be the point of failure in an overload) is strong enough to make its failure point irrelevant. The question is, how long will the rest of the gun stand up to regular use of .45ACP or +P loads before it loosens up to the point of needing rebuilding. In my opinion, much of what is accepted as "conventional wisdom", what folks like yourself repeat as gospel, has already been proven wrong.

 

[GYJ]

I agree. I dearly love the 45Colt cartridge but the anemic rounds used in a conversion gun is just silly IMO, especially when we buy those Italian guns in the first place for the history and the joy of loading the old way. Can't you buy a cartridge gun that looks like a black powder cap and ball? From Taylors? Not sure. That might be the way to go for those who don't think the concept is silly. I sure don't mean to argue or put down what other people do and like; I'm just putting forth a personal opinion.

What's anemic about a 250gr bullet at 900fps?

You can buy factory cartridge conversions, yes. However, you cannot buy any and every imaginable variation and the factory guns are slightly enlarged to accommodate six .45Colt cartridges. The percussion guns are closer to the originals and have to be a five-shot. I like the factory guns because I can buy them in .44Colt/Special. I have several gunsmith-converted percussion guns. The first was a 3rd Model Dragoon, can't buy those in cartridge form. I have three Navy .36 conversions. You can buy `51's but not `61's. I also have an 1851 .44 converted to .45Colt (botched job by popular gunsmith) and you cannot buy one of those either. Any of them are good for standard loads. No need for mousefart cowboy loads.

 

[AlexB]

Not being able to answer a basic question regards design testing doesn't make it trolling facetious or otherwise.
You guys are making some bold statements about the subject at hand and have some strong opinions I was hoping you had actually done the work.

 

[GYJ]

Not being able to answer a basic question regards design testing doesn't make it trolling facetious or otherwise.
You guys are making some bold statements about the subject at hand and have some strong opinions I was hoping you had actually done the work.

Asking about destructive testing is a "basic question"? No, it's trolling because it's not an honest question, judging by your previous posts. I notice that you didn't address the rest of my post.

We're DOING the work, smart guy.

 

[AlexB]

Asking about destructive testing is a "basic question"? No, it's trolling because it's not an honest question, judging by your previous posts. I notice that you didn't address the rest of my post.

We're DOING the work, smart guy.

This may be the most inane post I have read yet.
You are doing the work which in your words is testing the limits of the platform.
The upper limit is failure so knowing when and why it happens is the question at hand.......that's been your whole point.