Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 70

Thread: Ruger Old Army 44 cal revolver

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    leeds, west yorkshire
    Posts
    12,947
    just to clarify....
    use swiss 3fg which is marked number 2 on tub and is the one on the right in your pic.
    best person on here to ask about the ruger accuracy is rick,,,,,nightstalker.
    better hand gun shooter than me and was very accurate with his ruger but he used triple 7 and ,456 conicals
    think round balls was just as good but he like the clean holes better with conicals,
    pm him and ask him but dont mention i said he is a better shot than me lol

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    leeds, west yorkshire
    Posts
    12,947
    Quote Originally Posted by tacfoley View Post
    Just to say that the substitutes can be bought on a regular FAC and do not require an Explosives License like BP. They can be stored like nitro propellants, too.
    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

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Newport, South Wales
    Posts
    848
    Thank you for the comments from all.

    I own 5 BP arms as of this moring and use Swiss No1, No2, Crank fine and medium with loads of between 12gr to 50gr.

    Most of the weapons are Pedersoli and the cannon is so over built, you could probably fill it with nitro and still get away with it (NOT THAT I WOULD!)

    So what I take from this conversation is that the Ruger is a great revolver and the powders I use are in the ball park.

    As I understand it, BP has a soft power delivery and does not put out the same pressure curve as nitro, and with modern barrels being well made and well exceed their recommended load, I believe I'm safe using any of the powders I have in any of my arms.

    My club recommended Swiss and Crank powder, they have used it for years with no hands blown off or guns blown up that I know of. This thread has taken a turn down the rabbit hole of powder and seemingly my competence of the powders I use. So here is a list of the arms I have and the loads I use. I'm sure there is nothing that is wildly out or dangerous, in fact, most of the loads I believe to under loaded! We are only shooting for fun, boom and smoke, so please don't get bent all out of shape over accuracy due to load!

    With the current state of the clubs right now, I think comp shooting is going to become a thing of the past very quickly. We've only been shooting for fun thus far and I expect this will now continue well into the future.

    Pedersoli Le Page 36 cal patched round ball 12gr No1 / Crank fine.
    Pedersoli Charles Moore 45 cal Patched round ball 20gr No1 / Crank fine.
    Pedersoli Hawken 50 cal Patched round ball 34gr No2 / Crank medium.
    Table Top Cannon 50 cal Patched round ball 40gr No2 / Crank medium.
    Flintlock Fowler 16 gauge Patched round ball 50 gr No2 / Crank Medium. No1 in the pan.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    leeds, west yorkshire
    Posts
    12,947
    Quote Originally Posted by MrChipShoulder View Post
    Thank you for the comments from all.

    I own 5 BP arms as of this moring and use Swiss No1, No2, Crank fine and medium with loads of between 12gr to 50gr.

    Most of the weapons are Pedersoli and the cannon is so over built, you could probably fill it with nitro and still get away with it (NOT THAT I WOULD!)

    So what I take from this conversation is that the Ruger is a great revolver and the powders I use are in the ball park.

    As I understand it, BP has a soft power delivery and does not put out the same pressure curve as nitro, and with modern barrels being well made and well exceed their recommended load, I believe I'm safe using any of the powders I have in any of my arms.

    My club recommended Swiss and Crank powder, they have used it for years with no hands blown off or guns blown up that I know of. This thread has taken a turn down the rabbit hole of powder and seemingly my competence of the powders I use. So here is a list of the arms I have and the loads I use. I'm sure there is nothing that is wildly out or dangerous, in fact, most of the loads I believe to under loaded! We are only shooting for fun, boom and smoke, so please don't get bent all out of shape over accuracy due to load!

    With the current state of the clubs right now, I think comp shooting is going to become a thing of the past very quickly. We've only been shooting for fun thus far and I expect this will now continue well into the future.

    Pedersoli Le Page 36 cal patched round ball 12gr No1 / Crank fine.
    Pedersoli Charles Moore 45 cal Patched round ball 20gr No1 / Crank fine.
    Pedersoli Hawken 50 cal Patched round ball 34gr No2 / Crank medium.
    Table Top Cannon 50 cal Patched round ball 40gr No2 / Crank medium.
    Flintlock Fowler 16 gauge Patched round ball 50 gr No2 / Crank Medium. No1 in the pan.
    my only concern is kranks black powder lol......it may do the job but it stinks lol
    i have some but i quickly switched to swiss 3fg......more powerful and it doesnt get all over you etc.
    i know the lads at kranks and they say its good powder but when yo decant it into the 1 lt bottles you buy it in , the powder seems to hang n the air as like a fine dust on it.....he said he used to go home reeking off the stuff.
    of course it wont apply to us as we dont have to decant from 25 lt / 50 lt tubs to 1 lt
    let us know how you get on with the revolver

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Worthing
    Posts
    3,311
    Quote Originally Posted by loiner1965 View Post
    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
    Last edited by Abasmajor; 20-07-2020 at 01:14 PM.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Newport, South Wales
    Posts
    848
    Quote Originally Posted by tacfoley View Post
    All look just fine - is your Charles Moore rifled or smoothbore?
    Rifled.

  7. #22
    Turnup's Avatar
    Turnup is offline Dialling code‎: ‎01344
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Crowthorne
    Posts
    5,491
    Quote Originally Posted by Abasmajor View Post
    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.
    True freedom includes the freedom to make mistakes or do foolish things and bear the consequences.
    TANSTAAFL

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Worthing
    Posts
    3,311
    Quote Originally Posted by tacfoley View Post
    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

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Worthing
    Posts
    3,311
    Quote Originally Posted by Turnup View Post
    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

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    leeds, west yorkshire
    Posts
    12,947
    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

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    8,331
    Quote Originally Posted by Abasmajor View Post
    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.

  12. #27
    Turnup's Avatar
    Turnup is offline Dialling code‎: ‎01344
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Crowthorne
    Posts
    5,491
    Quote Originally Posted by tacfoley View Post
    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.
    True freedom includes the freedom to make mistakes or do foolish things and bear the consequences.
    TANSTAAFL

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Worthing
    Posts
    3,311
    Quote Originally Posted by enfield2band View Post
    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

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Worthing
    Posts
    3,311
    Quote Originally Posted by Turnup View Post
    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

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    leeds, west yorkshire
    Posts
    12,947
    Quote Originally Posted by tacfoley View Post
    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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •