Snyd,
Thanks for the link. I had seen that one, as that got my interest in the first place. I even went out and priced the cost of two new guns, to see what that would be like. Put the 45 Colt on the snubbie SRH and put the 454 on the longer RH. Wink Wink. While I would have zero interest in a snubbie 454, I could see keeping a snubbie 45 Colt. I thought that perhaps there was a place where metal, issues, fit etc. had been thoroughly hashed out.
I did not fully understand nor appreciate the differences in the Bowen conversion v. your method, and the additional reading cleared this up, as well as barrel and frame material. After reading about things, and pondering, I kind of came to the conclusion that you clarified. As any gun I would try and make would have the shorter barrel, why on earth try and run FA mega loads through it, or 200 grain jacketed 460 type loads (not actual 460 data but the concept, light and fast). As I tend to the heavier weight bullets, running slower (and likley to be hard cast)it seemed any forcing cone issues could be mitigated by proper handloading and bullet selection.
I am no where near financially fit to try this, but at least with the info now if I see some of these guns in my travels, I can now reflect upon possible use. I dearly love my FA, but a double action 454 that is not as butt ugly as the SRH (sorry folks) that has more "svelt" lines like the RH has always made me want more. I would want a gun in a barrel length of something more than 4, up to about 6, and this conversion fits the bill.
I also got my head around the grip frame differences between your conversion and the Bowen, and understand this now. I think I would prefer the modularity of the SRH grip, but as I have done my own grips before, I could probably fashion RH grips that would work for me. Seems to be a major complaint for that platform.
Thanks again for your help here, and sharing your conversion process.
Craig
