Ruger Old Army

Thanks, DATAM and Jim. :) Jim, I've used a variety of powder measures, but my favorite one is this one:

http://www.midwayusa.com/viewproduct/?productnumber=714741

714741.jpg


(I found mine at Wal-Mart for about half what Midway USA charges, but I've never had anything other than wonderful service from Midway and tend to order from them at least four times a year.)

What I like about this measure is that 1) it appears accurate - not always the case with the volumetric measures I've found, 2) it has a nice funnel incorporated - you can swing the funnel over to swipe level the extra bit of powder and then use the funnel to make sure that every speck of powder goes into the revolver's chambers, and 3) you can see the powder level clearly as it approaches the top, so you tend to overpour less frequently. :)
 
Ardent said:
How does the Old Army handle light conicals? Always liked them.
Click to expand...

The ROA mould from Lee - made to the unusual size of .457" - makes a conical with a reduced diameter base to make it easier to load.

In practice, it's STILL a PITA to load as they are sooooo tight. The benefit of shooting conicals, unless you are stuffing/cramming the maximum load you can for hog shooting, has thus far escaped me.

Charge for charge, the conical gives you more recoil and Ka-boom effect, but in my gun at least the accuracy is less than my pet ball load - mind you, I'm only a paper-killer, me. Our local hog breeder would get seriously p*ssed if I started shooting his prize hogs.

tac
 
Mike, thanks for the info - I did not know that and I'm sorry I brought it up. Larry Potterfield is making a foolish decision to turn his back on so many sportsmen customers in a business-friendly environment next door. It's not as if the Canadian laws are all that difficult to understand and comply with . . .

Man, how about Wal-Mart? Here in the States, they're happy to ship stuff to you, but the stores are so convenient and will get anything that you ask.

Tac, I've never really "gotten" the reason for conicals in these revolvers, either, since I'm not liable to hunt with one (my T/C .54 Scout pistol, on the other hand . . . ). I've got friends over in TX who use conicals a lot - ball seems great for target shooting and the Civil War demonstrated that it worked horribly well on people, so that's what I'll stick with for the time being. I enjoyed reading your thoughts on the conicals, though.
 
Right, that's what my friend Mike Cumpston tells me. Shove the little packet into the front of the chamber, slam the ram, and then cap it. These cartridges were usually pretty light on the powder, I'm given to understand.

Anyone here had their ROA bored out by Dave Clements to take more powder? Or bought one of these Classic Ballistics cylinders (they come bored out)?

http://classicballistx.com/our_cylinder.html
 
i've had mine since 74, and it's seen a good many "conicals" go through it- well, long before lee came out with their fancy bullet mold, we SLUGGED THE BARREL and matched the mould to the barrel- turns out that the old army uses the EXACT same barrel as the blackhawk in 45c-451 diameter- mof, you can think of the old army as a blackhawk "conversion" to black powder- this makes a lot of sense as from a company point of view, you wouldn't manufacture an "oddball" bore size for one revolver -
my "typical " load is 30 grains of fffg, a cci cap, and a 200 grain swc that commons with my 45acp-and yes, i DO know about ruger cautioning AGAINST using hard cast- but the other side of the argument is that it's a MODERN steel barrel, used on the blackhawk, and that uses hard cast- i've never chrono'd the load, but it's downright smart as far as recoil- like a heavy 44 or a 45- and just crisco over the top to prevent chainfire- no "filler" 1 there's no ROOM for it, and you don't need it
my mold is a lyman 6 cavity, and using that makes the lee OBSOLETE
 
t-star said:
i've had mine since 74, and it's seen a good many "conicals" go through it- well, long before lee came out with their fancy bullet mold, we SLUGGED THE BARREL and matched the mould to the barrel- turns out that the old army uses the EXACT same barrel as the blackhawk in 45c-451 diameter- mof, you can think of the old army as a blackhawk "conversion" to black powder- this makes a lot of sense as from a company point of view, you wouldn't manufacture an "oddball" bore size for one revolver -
my "typical " load is 30 grains of fffg, a cci cap, and a 200 grain swc that commons with my 45acp-and yes, i DO know about ruger cautioning AGAINST using hard cast- but the other side of the argument is that it's a MODERN steel barrel, used on the blackhawk, and that uses hard cast- i've never chrono'd the load, but it's downright smart as far as recoil- like a heavy 44 or a 45- and just crisco over the top to prevent chainfire- no "filler" 1 there's no ROOM for it, and you don't need it
my mold is a lyman 6 cavity, and using that makes the lee OBSOLETE
Click to expand...

Ah, what it is to live in a land where .45 cal bullets can still be bought...[sigh], and every corner store sells Lyman six-cavity moulds, too [more sigh].

Or more to the point, where a free man can have a Colt .45ACP.....

tac
 
I think it was 2009, #1. [Edited: I was wrong - it was 2007.] Sad day . . . man, the prices have gone up on them, particularly the 5.5" ones.

Which brings up a question: who among the assembled company has a 5.5" ROA? I wonder about the velocity drop between it and the standard barrel length with full charges. The shorties are really popular down here with the folks who shoot the "Frontiersman" category of SASS, but they download their guns so much that I've never thought to ask them.
 
Last edited:
Funny I thought they went out of production years ago..being they are a 3 screw According to sn mine was made in 1972 There has been some nice pics of the 7.5" Anyone have any pics of 5.5"?
 
Unless I missed it in previous posts...what's the rate of twist on the ROA? I could be wrong but don't the repro's have a rate of twist built for ball's? I just finished throwing all my Fancy REAL, MAXI and such balls in the melting pot as they are not built to function in my Kentuky rifle. The rate of twist is too slow.
Are the ROA's slow twist for balls or tighter rate for conicals?
 
tokguy said:
Unless I missed it in previous posts...what's the rate of twist on the ROA? I could be wrong but don't the repro's have a rate of twist built for ball's? I just finished throwing all my Fancy REAL, MAXI and such balls in the melting pot as they are not built to function in my Kentuky rifle. The rate of twist is too slow. Are the ROA's slow twist for balls or tighter rate for conicals?
Click to expand...

Well, all I can say is that mine shoots into two inches or so at 25m with ball, and about three inches with conicals, one-handed.

So I'm not complaining.

As has already been pointed out, the ROA seems to use the self-same barrel as the Ruger Blackhawk and Super Blackhawk in .44 Magnum - and both guns shoot any bullet from around 180gr right up to 300gr pretty well, as I recall.

tac
 
tacfoley said:
Well, all I can say is that mine shoots into two inches or so at 25m with ball, and about three inches with conicals, one-handed.

So I'm not complaining.

As has already been pointed out, the ROA seems to use the self-same barrel as the Ruger Blackhawk and Super Blackhawk - and both guns shoot any bullet from around 180gr right up to 300gr pretty well, as I recall.

tac
Click to expand...

actually, it's a 45colt blackhawk barrel- 451 diameter, the 44 would be a 431or 429, depending on who made it- and it's not seems to use- it IS- fixed it for you
and it's a 1/16 twist , same as the 45 colt/acp/ whatever
 
the only cautions i've ever seen in print are doing REALLY stupid things like putting a charge of 2400 or 296 or something in the cylinder and lighting it off- that's b/c some IDIOTS figure that it's blackhawk based, , it can take blackhawk pressures- then they go and fill the clyinder FULL of slow burning SMOKELESS powder- and the gun blows up and they wonder why?- only BLACK POWDER is used in this firearm- if you want to do the smokeless thing, buy the appropriate revolver
 
t-star is completely correct, of course. While I have it on actually good authority (not merely the usual internet scuttlebutt - like this ;) ) from someone who was involved that the gun was proof-tested with Bullseye, proof-testing is one thing, and usage is another. We don't even know how much Bullseye was used, and no one should ever never try anything like this. I certainly recommend that no one go near these guns with such an idea.

Here's a problem you'll run into with smokeless or even 4F black powder: the ROA uses caps on nipples with powder and bullets directly into the chambers - an "open" ignition system. Pressures go up too high, and you'll have that hammer blown right back. Not good for the gun.

I have a very experienced friend who used an interesting homemade device to load hardcast bullets into his ROA over mild loads of a smokeless powder designed for mild cowboy action shooting loads (I will not go into details, and I strongly discourage anyone from so experimenting). He reports that he found that he quickly reached a point at which increasing the powder charge resulted in a lessening of velocity from the gun, and attributed the problem to there being no way to crimp the bullets into the cylinder (to allow pressures to properly build as they do in a cartridge). I'm sure Giovanni Battista Venturi could easily explain this phenomenon to us. So, not only is it dangerous and bad for the gun, it also doesn't give especially worthwhile results.

While it was interesting to hear about my friend's experiment, it's completely outside the design parameters of the Ruger Old Army. With 777 and Buckhorn 209 available, the Ruger Old Army can do some pretty remarkable things in a completely safe way. (As I've reported, I get over averages around 1100 fps with minimal spreads with only 35 gr 3f Triple7, a CCI #11 Magnum cap and a 143-grain .457" ball.) It's possible to drive 190-gr conicals at over 1k fps average, pretty easily, really.

Again, t-star is totally correct: there is no sense - and there turns out to be no real profit - in playing with smokeless in this gun. Fortunately, it's a wonderful device for use with Holy Black or black powder substitutes. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom