|
|
Post by rightwinger on Mar 14, 2014 20:23:00 GMT -5
I just bought a Howell conversion cylinder for my Uberti Walker. I am curious why they recommend only "cowboy " loads. Anyone have experience shooting the 45 Colt cartridge in this gun conversion? Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by jayhawker on Mar 14, 2014 23:26:35 GMT -5
Open top frame, light loads only.
|
|
|
|
Post by rightwinger on Mar 14, 2014 23:42:05 GMT -5
yeah, I guess thats right
|
|
|
|
Post by CraigC on Mar 15, 2014 17:53:43 GMT -5
I would suggest following the conversion maker's recommendations but the Walkers and Dragoons should be strong enough for more than just cowboy powderpuff loads.
|
|
|
|
Post by jayhawker on Mar 15, 2014 22:58:43 GMT -5
Bigger isn't necessarily stronger. We are talking a revolver meant for cap and ball loads only. Installing a cart conversion cylinder does not make the open top frame any stronger.
|
|
|
|
Post by CraigC on Mar 16, 2014 10:51:47 GMT -5
Yes but it is stronger, a cap `n ball revolver capable of double the powder charge of an 1860. These guns are larger and stronger than the 1860 conversions and 1871-1872 Open Top model and they are offered as factory .45Colt's. Methinks this is more liability than anything. I run my Dragoon with standard, full pressure .45Colt loads and am considering converting the Walker into a .45 Blackpowder Magnum.  |
|
|
|
Post by rightwinger on Mar 16, 2014 21:40:28 GMT -5
Thanks Craig, valuable info. This was my thinking also but since I am new to this type of conversion, I had to ask. Thanks again
|
|
|
|
Post by coltnewservice45 on May 10, 2020 12:24:05 GMT -5
  I have one of the Howell .38 Special conversions which I use in a Pietta .36 Remington. The gun is accurate with factory 148-grain hollowbased wadcutter ammunition and gets 740 fps from its 6-1/2" barrel. Cylinder throats of the Howell cylinder are .374" which is a good fit for the barrel in the Pietta .36 Remington.  The hollowbased bullet expands well to fit the bore and recovered bullets shot into water jugs are engraved their full length and are upset to groove diameter. Point of impact was about 6 inches low at 25 yards with the sights as the gun came. Cutting down the front sight until it measured exactly one inch from the bottom flat of the octagon barrel to the top of the front sight did the trick. Groups are now to point of aim, all tens and Xs on the B15 repair center, about 2-1/2" at 25 yards which is as good as my 72-year-old eyeballs can see the sights and hold off sandbags.  I have on order from Accurate the 37-149H heeled .38 Long Colt bullet which I intend to try with 3 grains of Bullseye when it arrives. |
|
|
|
Post by leadhound on May 10, 2020 13:04:10 GMT -5
Cowboy loads are equal to or less than full strength black powder loads, they load down for competition. A full house blackpowder load in 45 colt is a very capable round,it is what it's legacy was built on, wouldn't consider it a powder puff load. Black powder and smokeless have different pressure curves and capabilities, as long as kept in same vicinity should be fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by bula on May 10, 2020 16:52:25 GMT -5
Whooa, that Dragoon, wow !
|
|
|
|
Post by buckelliott on May 11, 2020 16:57:52 GMT -5
Consider what the gun can handle, over the long haul, vs what you can possibly "get away with" in the short run.
Take into account the design and construction of an open-top revolver, and the stress and strain induced on firing..
The arbor and it's attachment to the frame take a real beating, as dies the other end of thevarvor, along with its fitting to the barrel lug and the weak link - the wedge
The pressure and the torque delivered to thos, rather dislocated component parts can be tremendous, and raising those forces only escalates the potential for wear, deformation or breakage.
Over the years, I have seen arbors polled out of frames, wedge slots grotesquely elingated, in either the arbor or barrel lug,, and wedges gated alnost beyond recognition.
Maybe the newer guns are tougher and stronger..?
Maybe not..
¿Quien sabe..?
|
|
|
|
Post by cas on May 11, 2020 19:00:48 GMT -5
Also have to consider that Howell is relying on something out of their control, how well made the gun is... they didn't make and have never seen.
|
|
|
|
Post by 45dragoon on May 12, 2020 10:02:43 GMT -5
Bigger isn't necessarily stronger. We are talking a revolver meant for cap and ball loads only. Installing a cart conversion cylinder does not make the open top frame any stronger. This is a popular misconception. The open top design is actually quite a robust setup. Folks compare top strap frames with modern "Italian" made open tops . . . none of which have ever been made correctly! So, ultimately you're comparing an (admittedly) easier made top strap frame to a flawed copy of an open top frame. Done correctly, the arbor should bottom out (under tension ) in the arbor hole of the barrel assy. This allows the two assemblies to act as a single unit and allows the harmonics an unbroken path throughout. All of the open tops I've worked on have short arbors except for the originals and late model Pietta's (they did fix the short arbor several years ago). The problem with a short arbor is all the things pointed out in the above posts . . . beat up wedges, displaced barrel material at the wedge slot, stretching of the wedge slot in the arbor and possibly pulling arbor threads in brass frames. The reason these things happen is two fold. Competing harmonics (ask an engine builder about harmonics/vibration ) and a wedge not under tension can and will loosen while shooting. When all the deformation of wedges and slots happens, it's the same as a loose wedge. It's the length of the arbor that determines the barrel/cylinder clearance (not a gap since the cyl kisses the f.c. with each cycling of the action). An excessive clearance allows the cyl to act as a slide hammer which is what causes the self-destruction. I set the clearance between .0025" - .003" on cap guns and .002" on dedicated cartridge guns. Since there is contact with the barrel each cycle, the cyl face is "self cleaning" .
Now, with proper setup, the cylinder (pressure vessel) is mounted on the arbor, which one could think of as the "top strap" of a top strap frame. The arbor typically has more material in it than a top strap and doesn't have a sight groove down the middle either. The arbor is in a stronger position as a support structure and the front of the arbor is supported by a robust barrel lug with typically twice the material that a Peacemaker style revolver has. As already stated, the wedge supplies a tensioned connection which completes an extremely strong/compact support system for the cylinder. The perimeter type frame of the top strap design is (as a design) a weaker setup but does allow ease of manufacturing as well as a smaller package (cylinder) because of the base pin size.
I have proven this setup with my own revolvers and a lesson learned over 30 yrs ago. I actually bent a Remington C&B frame while loading it (probably oversized balls or too hard lead). I've never pulled or even heard of anyone pulling an arbor while loading but, I have sheared a loading lever screw loading a Walker. The same force (or actually less force) bent a frame ! . . . go figure . . . and I'm a Remington fan!!! Lol!
Now, as to the op's question about the Howell cylinder, it's a well made cylinder but the cylinder uses a removable back plate. The back plate doesn't allow the support that a "conversion ring" does. The Howell cylinder is an excellent system for the Remington sice it is easily removed and installed (not to mention it is a historically correct setup). The open top is more cumbersome to use with the Howell (not to mention it isn't a historic setup but, a gated (with or without the gate) is correct). I would stick with what Howell recommended.
Mike |
|
