Ruger Old Army 44 cal revolver

[Abasmajor]

i have triple 7 too but didnt fare too well with it wether it was me or my loading with it as i couldnt quite get it right without compressing.
chap at club as perfected it with 2 of his bp pistols......gets good groups at 25 yards with round ball.
might have another bash with it but shooting bp revolvers indoors gets some members moaning.
too much noise and smoke lol

This has been an interesting post which has hopefully clarified the uses of the different types of powder granulation in muzzle loading firearms.
Without wishing to muddy the waters, I thought I would just outline my own experiences with the use of BP substitutes and smokeless conversions.
I turned to muzzle loading revolvers following the 1997 breech loading pistol ban as a means of continuing with the sport I’ve been involved with for over forty years.
As I live in a flat and had concerns with the storage requirements associated black powder, I used Pyrodex P substitute. This worked fine, but the the gun needed to be cleaned almost immediately after shooting due to the highly corrosive deposits present after shooting. When Hodgdon 777 appeared on the market this aspect notably improved with much less residue being apparent after shooting. I’m not sure if this is due to the lack of sulphur in 777, but cleaning now only takes as long as it would with a breech loading firearm. When the club I use lost their outdoor range facility, we adapted our indoor range to include large (pistol calibre) rifles and nitro conversion revolvers, but unfortunately the ventilation wasn’t up to the use of black powder firearms. Although I prefer shooting outdoors and have since found another club with a an outdoor range, I thought it would be nice to be able to occasionally shoot indoors, especially during the winter months. As I’m not a purist and had a Ruger Old Army which is already a modern design, I had it converted and proofed to use smokeless powder. Now I have the best of both worlds and can use either 777 outdoors or a large flake smokeless powder when shooting indoors. As I dispense and carefully weigh my smokeless loads, I decided to do the same with 777 substitute. Experimentation resulted in a weighed charge of 13grns of 777 behind a lubricated wad and a .457 round ball being the most accurate and comfortable to shoot. The equivalent smokeless load is 4.5grns of Herco with no wadding and an Alox lubricated .457 round ball. Another advantage with the conversion is the ability to use 209 shotgun primers which are not only easier to fit, but cost less than conventional percussion caps. Although it’s good practice to clean a gun as soon as possible after use, using smokeless powder removes the immediacy of the cleaning process when this is not convenient.
I can fully understand a preference by many to use only traditional original or reproduction firearms and consumables, but I believe there is always room for those who have adapted in order to continue shooting the disciplines they once enjoyed before restrictive legislation intervened.
Brian

[Turnup]

This has been an interesting post which has hopefully clarified the uses of the different types of powder granulation in muzzle loading firearms.
Without wishing to muddy the waters, I thought I would just outline my own experiences with the use of BP substitutes and smokeless conversions.
I turned to muzzle loading revolvers following the 1997 breech loading pistol ban as a means of continuing with the sport I’ve been involved with for over forty years.
As I live in a flat and had concerns with the storage requirements associated black powder, I used Pyrodex P substitute. This worked fine, but the the gun needed to be cleaned almost immediately after shooting due to the highly corrosive deposits present after shooting. When Hodgdon 777 appeared on the market this aspect notably improved with much less residue being apparent after shooting. I’m not sure if this is due to the lack of sulphur in 777, but cleaning now only takes as long as it would with a breech loading firearm. When the club I use lost their outdoor range facility, we adapted our indoor range to include large (pistol calibre) rifles and nitro conversion revolvers, but unfortunately the ventilation wasn’t up to the use of black powder firearms. Although I prefer shooting outdoors and have since found another club with a an outdoor range, I thought it would be nice to be able to occasionally shoot indoors, especially during the winter months. As I’m not a purist and had a Ruger Old Army which is already a modern design, I had it converted and proofed to use smokeless powder. Now I have the best of both worlds and can use either 777 outdoors or a large flake smokeless powder when shooting indoors. As I dispense and carefully weigh my smokeless loads, I decided to do the same with 777 substitute. Experimentation resulted in a weighed charge of 13grns of 777 behind a lubricated wad and a .457 round ball being the most accurate and comfortable to shoot. The equivalent smokeless load is 4.5grns of Herco with no wadding and an Alox lubricated .457 round ball. Another advantage with the conversion is the ability to use 209 shotgun primers which are not only easier to fit, but cost less than conventional percussion caps. Although it’s good practice to clean a gun as soon as possible after use, using smokeless powder removes the immediacy of the cleaning process when this is not convenient.
I can fully understand a preference by many to use only traditional original or reproduction firearms and consumables, but I believe there is always room for those who have adapted in order to continue shooting the disciplines they once enjoyed before restrictive legislation intervened.
Brian

Thanks for sharing this. Friend of mine is experimenting with nitro + shotgun primers but has not bothered with nitro proof. AFAIK this is not illegal per se as long as he does not try to sell it - I have issued dire mutterings but he is adamant that this is safe 'cos he knows others who have done similar - it's his hand......

Was the nitro conversion a new cylinder or just a re-proof of the original? Also does the nitro proof marking mention any load limit? It occurs to me that a chamber filled to the max with BP remains perfectly safe but this might not be so for nitro.

[Abasmajor]

Thanks for sharing this. Friend of mine is experimenting with nitro + shotgun primers but has not bothered with nitro proof. AFAIK this is not illegal per se as long as he does not try to sell it - I have issued dire mutterings but he is adamant that this is safe 'cos he knows others who have done similar - it's his hand......

Was the nitro conversion a new cylinder or just a re-proof of the original? Also does the nitro proof marking mention any load limit? It occurs to me that a chamber filled to the max with BP remains perfectly safe but this might not be so for nitro.

Hello,
The cylinder is a modified original and the gun was proofed for a max load of 5 grns of Herco or similar large flake smokeless powder.
Brian

[loiner1965]

During development of the Old Army one of Ruger's Engineers filled the chambers with Bullseye powder then seated a ball and a then cap. The gun digested six loads with no problems.

That's quite the test.

Info appears in Bill Ruger and His Guns'.

However, please don't try it out, OK?

thats quite true but he also recommended black powder loads only
http://www.sixgun-forums.com/sixguns...ruger-old-army

[enfield2band]

Another advantage with the conversion is the ability to use 209 shotgun primers which are not only easier to fit, but cost less than conventional percussion caps.
Brian

This is why I think the cost of percussion caps and top hats are over priced.

209 primers and centrefire primers are half the price but during manufacture, apart from having more components than a percussion cap, they also have to be within a tight tolerance of 10th's of a thousandth of an inch or they will not go in the primer pocket, or they will fall out.

Percussion caps and top-hats must be a lot easier to produce, and the tolerances do not have to be as precise, so they should not be any dearer than centrefire primers.

[Abasmajor]

This is why I think the cost of percussion caps and top hats are over priced.

209 primers and centrefire primers are half the price but during manufacture, apart from having more components than a percussion cap, they also have to be within a tight tolerance of 10th's of a thousandth of an inch or they will not go in the primer pocket, or they will fall out.

Percussion caps and top-hats must be a lot easier to produce, and the tolerances do not have to be as precise, so they should not be any dearer than centrefire primers.

A case of supply and demand I guess as many more shotgun primers are probably produced than BP percussion caps.
Brian

[Abasmajor]

Good and interesting post, Abasmajor. Have you retained your BP cylinder, or did you do a one-for-one swap?

Hi tac,
The rear end of the original cylinder was machined off and modified to accept 209 shotgun primers with a new backplate made to accommodate a trapped firing pin.
The rest of the gun remains as per the original revolver allowing for on-gun reloading rather than the need for a separate press.
Brian

[loiner1965]

i read on an american forum that one poster said the ruger cylinder was cast and not as strong as we think they are......i will try and find and read further as i was just flitting through etc

[loiner1965]

only posting what i read and even the converted ones only recommend smokeless cowboy loads....personally i think its the best bp revolver out there and one would like to own.....heres another
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/arch.../t-273123.html

[loiner1965]

pdf manual for ruger
http://pdf.textfiles.com/manuals/FIR...er_oldarmy.pdf

[MrChipShoulder]

Just to complicate matters, I've now been offered a Pietta Remington 1858 with target sights in mint condition for £150.

[loiner1965]

Just to complicate matters, I've now been offered a Pietta Remington 1858 with target sights in mint condition for £150.

i have the revolver and its dated 1992 i believe
great revolver but not in the same leauge as the ruger
if you are serious bp shooter them its the ruger everytime
if you only shoot twice a years etc then get the pietta.
a little tip about pietta 1858
ypu can buy all parts forthem including hammers / cylinder stops / trigger/sear and index arm nut the tooling was changed around 1995 so revolvers like mine parts need fettling.
i replaced all my parts but the cylinder lock stop will lock the gun up when fitted so i use the old part etc
kranks have offered to look at it for me but i need to stay there whilst they look at it,,,,,just one of them things with the early revolver

[Abasmajor]

Just to complicate matters, I've now been offered a Pietta Remington 1858 with target sights in mint condition for £150.

I would definitely stick with the Ruger for the previously stated reasons. In my experience anyway, Uberti make the best of the affordable Italian replicas with only the far more expensive Pedersoli Remington 1858 replica possibly providing something better. I have two Uberti Remington 1858 replicas and have been entirely satisfied with both, but If I were restricted to one muzzle loading revolver, it would be a Ruger Old Army.
Brian

[Turnup]

Ah, right, I know the difference, I was just wondering if you had retained the facility to shoot BP by using the original cylinder but it seems that you've had it converted, rather than buy one that has already been done.

I think that it would be OK to use the modified cylinder with BP but some careful load development might be indicated since the shotgun primer is more grunty than a percussion cap.

[Abasmajor]

I think that it would be OK to use the modified cylinder with BP but some careful load development might be indicated since the shotgun primer is more grunty than a percussion cap.

So, just to clarify, I can confirm that there should be no safety issues using 209 shotgun primers with BP substitutes, but I can't comment on their use with black powder loads.
Brian