Unsafe conversion?

**shooter575** · 02-09-2006, 01:09 AM

Found this on another BB.It may work OK if you know what you are doing? But I see some one getting hurt with it.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...MEWA%3AIT&rd=1

**Dale53** · 02-09-2006, 01:43 AM

Let's just say, "I'm totally uninterested"!

Hey, that's why they make Ruger Single Actions in 45 LC...

Dale53

**David R** · 02-09-2006, 07:05 AM

conversion eh? Drill out some chambers and say its safe for smokeless. Get $200 for scrap? Hmmm.....

Says right on it "Black Pow....

David

**SharpsShooter** · 02-09-2006, 08:29 AM

If they want to shoot smokeless...then they ought to buy a revolver designed for it. C&B frames are not built to tolerate the stresses involved with the elevated pressures of smokeless powder. The ruger is likely the toughest of the lot, but I'd not test it with bullseye or unique. Even the Richards Cartridge Conversion was for Black Powder only. FWIW

**StarMetal** · 02-09-2006, 11:54 AM

There are a few companies that made center fire cartridge conversion for quite a few cap n ball revolvers. One of the reasons for this is before the first Colt 1873 came out as one of the first , if not the first cartridge firing revolver, there was a transition period where various cap n ball revolvers were converted to cartridge guns...one coming to mind I believe is the Richards.

Little off subject but I don't see what that Ebay conversion wouldn't work. For your information I've tested the Ruger cap n ball with stiff loads of Unique. I come to the conclusion that revolver is brute strong and in fact I believe it's built to centerfire smokeless powder specs.

There are quite a few cartridges that have made the transition from blackpowder to the smokeless era. What's your problem with this conversion idea?

Joe

**Johnch** · 02-09-2006, 01:28 PM

Shoot , Ruger used to send a sheet of paper with both black and a few smokeless with their Old Army revolvers .

I know they quit sending the sheet after a while , some fool probely could not read and hurt himself .

I normaly shot Green dot .

Some where I still have the sheet .
When I sold the revolver , the guy that bought it was a flake , so I didn't give it to him .

Johnch

**Char-Gar** · 02-09-2006, 01:32 PM

Looks like they installed some kinds plug in the back to the charge holes to reduce the powder capacity. I see no real purpose in this, but it should be safe enough. Looks well used...

**StarMetal** · 02-09-2006, 01:35 PM

Johnch

I'd like to see that sheet if you can find it.

Joe

**versifier** · 02-09-2006, 07:21 PM

I think that for not much more cash you can get a decent used revolver and not have to trust another's questionable maching ability. I could be wrong, but the pictured conversion seems like an attempt for top billing on the Darwin Awards. While it's amusing to speculate, it would be more prudent still to simply avoid.

**StarMetal** · 02-09-2006, 08:26 PM

Versifier,

I'll agree with you that it's expensive for what it is. I'll disagree with you on questionable machining as for one you can't see the maching, that's factory Ruger cylinder and all this person did was machined inserts to put in the chambers to drastically reduce the capacity so one couldn't get into immediate and I also imagine so that you don't have to ram a bullet way down the cylinder over a puny charge.

Just my two cents.

Joe

**Johnch** · 02-09-2006, 09:22 PM

Starmetal I will try to dig it up .

Lets see I sold the pistol in 1984 ...............

It may take a while , but I have SOMEWHERE

Johnch

**StarMetal** · 02-09-2006, 10:02 PM

John,

No problem, just would like to see as I never heard of it. Not saying you don't have it, just very interesting...take your time.

Joe

**versifier** · 02-10-2006, 02:59 PM

Joe, as I see it, the machining is questionable for two reasons.
The first is because I can't see it and examine it. The single photo isn't enough, and there's no real information about it provided. For all you can see, those inserts might be titanium, aluminum, or whoknewmium. He might be a master toolmaker, or he might be Bubba. That's enough of an unknown by itself.
The second is because it's on Ebay and grossly overpriced for what it is - the clearly dubious ethics of the seller involved makes it questionable to me - if it were unsafe, would he know? Or care?
Give it a try if you want to. It's always possible that it has been well done and is safe, and equally possible that it is not. But it is clearly a gamble and the evidence, though circumstantial, tells me that the odds do not appear to add up in my favor. I give you the benefit of the doubt believe that you yourself did some safe experiments, but that does not mean that this experiment was/is safe, or that I should trust it sight unseen. I prefer to err on the side of safety and leave the Darwin Awards for the more adventurous.

**NVcurmudgeon** · 02-10-2006, 08:25 PM

Joe, et al, S&W (thanks to the Rollin white patent) beat Colt to the punch on cartridge revolvers by over ten years. Small S&W revolvers purchased by individuals were very popular during the War of Northern Agression.

**StarMetal** · 02-10-2006, 09:14 PM

Curmudge,

Actually there was a centerfire cartridge for a revolver before that too. The first recoreded European revolver for central fire cartridges appears to be that patented by Perrin and Delmas in 1859.

Joe

**wills** · 02-10-2006, 10:08 PM

Originally Posted by StarMetal

Curmudge,

Actually there was a centerfire cartridge for a revolver before that too. The first recoreded European revolver for central fire cartridges appears to be that patented by Perrin and Delmas in 1859.

Joe

http://armscollectors.com/gunhistorydates.htm

**flhroy** · 02-11-2006, 12:35 AM

At one point in history these were actually very popular.

http://www.riverjunction.com/kirst/history.html

**NVcurmudgeon** · 02-11-2006, 01:57 AM

S&W was selling .22 RF cartridge revolvers in 1859.

**Buckshot** · 02-11-2006, 05:09 AM

...............Ruger says the Old Army frames are made of the same 4140 alloy steel as their Blackhawks. They leave out 'Heat Treatment' in their statement but possibly it's implied? Who knows one way or the other. I'd like to think they did recieve the same treatment, but can't say.

One issue I've heard discussed re: smokless in C&B revolvers besides strength is that extra backward facing hole. The nipple.

It could very well be that the inserts reduce the capacity to such that you cannot get enough fast powder like Bullseye, PB, or 231 in there under a RB to exceed BP pressures? Or if they do exceed them, then not by a large amount?

There may be some intrigued by the idea. I've never seen this conversion discussed anywhere, but I don't get any of the common gunrags. Has anyone else heard of this conversion? Usually a developer of somehting like this would submit it for review.

.....................Buckshot

**StarMetal** · 02-11-2006, 11:53 AM

Well as old arguing know it all Joe said, I've exprimented with some healthy doses of Unique and let me tell you that there was no or should I say not much difference in the backthrust, that was visible, from blackpowder. I can say you know how sometimes your caps will blow off the nipples and sometimes they stay on, well with the Unique the blew off mostly.

I was reading about the steel used in Savage's smokeless muzzleloader and boy it is some special stuff. It was tested to a very very high pressure too, way beyond even what a smokeless center fire cartridge would produce.

I think you don't hear anything about from Ruger is because of law suits, no doubt about it.

Joe

BP	Bronze Point	IMR	Improved Military Rifle	PTD	Pointed
BR	Bench Rest	M	Magnum	RN	Round Nose
BT	Boat Tail	PL	Power-Lokt	SP	Soft Point
C	Compressed Charge	PR	Primer	SPCL	Soft Point "Core-Lokt"
HP	Hollow Point	PSPCL	Pointed Soft Point "Core Lokt"	C.O.L.	Cartridge Overall Length
PSP	Pointed Soft Point	Spz	Spitzer Point	SBT	Spitzer Boat Tail
LRN	Lead Round Nose	LWC	Lead Wad Cutter	LSWC	Lead Semi Wad Cutter
GC	Gas Check

Thread: Unsafe conversion?

Thread Tools

Unsafe conversion?

Posting Permissions