Back to Bizzaro World... what if...

[Old Ironsights]

Assuming all other frame/cylinder dimensions remain static...

If one were to make a cylinder and barrel for an 1858 Army that pushed a .36 ball (.357 groove) - what would the maximum capacity in grains per chamber be for said C&B cylinder?

Would such a (steel) frame withstand a "conversion" cylinder that took modern .357 SAAMI ammo?

[Hawkeye2]

Other than barrel length the .36 and .44 58 Remington reproductions share most of the the same components, i.e. they are both built on .44 frames. Euroarms (EOA) is the only manufacturer that I'm aware of that made a .36 Remington on the correct sized frame. I don't know if a conversion cylinder is long enough to ream to .357 Mag or not but I would be concerned about the barrel strength and the life of the frame. I expect maxing out .45 Colt or .38 special +P loads would batter one apart soon. It would be an interesting gun but I don't think it would be a good idea.

[Blaine]

No
Maybe, with black powder only loads?

[Ben_Rumson]

FWIW I've seen flame cutting from BP in steel frame 58s at the barrel/cylinder gap in the adjacent top strap.

[Old Ironsights]

OK...

So, what I'm hearing is that (A) the Stainless Steel in my Uberti 1858 is not as strong as the stainless steel in my SP101, and, (b) even though a SAAMI .357 fits into a .45 Colt conversion cylinder with a few thousandths of OAL to spare (not to mention tons of cylinder meat) it wouldn't work dimensionally.

It's not like I want to take apart my current 1858, but I'm looking for actual physics/mechanical/metallurgical reasons why it could not be done on a modern (stainless) Steel frame...