Ruger old Army

[tatartot]

Why does the Ruger old Army use larger balls & conicals then
Pietta or Ubertti.Do they have a larger bore than the other .44 cal.

TT

[rodwhaincamo]

I cannot say across the board, but a Ruger should have a .452" groove just as my newer Pietta '58. Ruger made their pistols more proper as it's best to be much closer to groove diameter, though some claim that upon firing there's obturation of the projectile to fill in the gap.

I had my Pietta reamed to .449" instead of the .446" it was, as well as had the chambers chamfered. I'm not sure that it made a difference. I really wanted them opened a little more, but it's the size the fellow who did it had, and it has to be a little better I'd think. It certainly made loading my .456" boolits a little easier!

[kwhi43]

Because the Ruger is made correct, the others are not. The Ruger groove dia.
on mine is .4515. The chamber dia. is .452. So .457 dia balls would be just
about perfect. That would be only .005 larger. A thin ring of lead is shaved off.
The chamber dia should be about .001-.002 larger than the barrel groove dia.
for best accuracy. They all shoot, just some better. My old Euroarms Remmy
made in 1974 that I use in competition, has a barrel groove dia. Of .450
and chamber dia. Of .450. I use .454 dia. Balls which are .004 larger than
the chamber dia. It shoots well enough and has won lots of matches. I think
the Uberties are OK, but I don't think Pietta has it figgered out yet.

[swathdiver]

Pietta made changes for the better in 2012. They went to six lands and grooves with a .4515 groove diameter in their standard guns. The chambers though while uniform are still smaller in their standard .44 caliber offerings. All of the .36 cal sixguns of theirs that I own, the chambers are .002 over groove diameter.

The Ruger Old Army is referred to as a .45 caliber sixgun, not .44.

[jmstr]

Swathdiver, you bring up something that I am curious about.

You state that the ROA is referred to as a .45cal six-gun, not a .44.

I understand that this is accurate-now.

However, Advertisements and sales slips/receipts indicated Ruger described it as a .44cal until sometime around 1990.

What I would like to know is why the caliber name changed, when the barrel measurements were the same [according to the same advertisements: listed at bottom for reference].

I DO have a reason for asking: I just picked up a 1977 ROA in good shape, but without manual or box/parts. If I were to sell it, I would want to call it a .44, as that is what it was called by Ruger at the time it was originally made/sold [and for a decade afterwards]. Yet the last 16+ years of production they called it a .45cal.


So, what changed that caused Ruger to change the name for the caliber?


I am asking in all honesty: NOT trying to pick any fights or make any waves.

Thank you.


ads for reference:

1972 ad on fleaBay, with ability to zoom in on document.

1974 ROA ad, with bore dimensions listed, on fleaBay


1975 ad, still listed as .44cal, but identifies .457cal ball to be used

1987 ad, still listed as "Caliber: .44 bore [.457"]"


1992 ad, NOW listed as "Caliber: .45. Bore: .443. Groove: .457"

[noelf2]

Back in the day, the .44 was a measurement between the lands. Between the grooves has always been .45 cal. So, they probably just decided to measure groove diameter (the current practice for most other guns) instead of lands diameter and call it a .45. Doubt anything changed physically.

[jmstr]

thanks: makes sense.

I was just wondering, as I had seen them referred to both ways by Ruger.

Is this kind of like the .44 Magnum?

I've wondered about that one also, as the projectile is actually around .431.

[alaskabushman]

so...could I shoot the same .457 bullets in a uberti or pietta .44? Just wondering because I love my ROL, and have been thinking about picking up an open top BP pistol, but dont really want to cast two different size bullets...

[noelf2]

Yes you can, but they're hell on a loading lever. Shave off more lead when seating in the cylinder chambers. I shoot .457 in my Pietta NMA .44 but I seat the balls with a separate press.

[rodwhaincamo]

Note when larger balls are used with the same powder and charge:

http://poconoshooting.com/blackpowderballistics.html

[fdf]

Testing was done under field conditions, not lab conditions. Not safe.

The powder loads below do not necessarily represent safe loads. Not safe

After having consulted experts in physics, I have been told that if you are interested in the amount of damage the bullet does to the target pay more attention to the Energy. If you are interested in how much the target is moved or penetrated by a bullet, pay more attention to the momentum. Which experts?


The compressibility of Pyrodex offers a significant advantage in revolvers
It is interesting to note that my walker has started to show mild stretching in the metal behind the pin that holds the two halves together. This has resulted in slightly increased barrel/cylinder gap. Not safe.


The gap is still thinner then a razor after extensive testing with the .31 Remington it is my conclusion that the gun should always be loaded with a full load of 15 grains of Triple Seven in order to achieve the defensive capability that the gun was intended to serve. 15 grains will fill the chamber nearly to the top and then the powder will be compressed when the ball is seated.
Is this wise.

Loads for T/C flintlock, exceed the factory recommendation by 40%.

A quick reading of the attached article makes for some not recommended practices . Being stupid can cause guns to be blown up, does it not?

When a person references a site, they should assume responsibility for it being factual and safe information especially for folks trying to learn about M/L's.

[noelf2]

When a person references a site, they should assume responsibility for it being factual and safe information especially for folks trying to learn about M/L's.

I think the site is pretty clear about the safety issues and results, and I don't believe that any responsibility is assumed by someone referring a site, so lighten up Francis...

[rodwhaincamo]

"Testing was done under field conditions, not lab conditions. Not safe."

Oh my! So when I go to the range or out in the field to shoot I am being unsafe? Should I be looking for a lab that will allow me to shoot my BP guns in?

"The powder loads below do not necessarily represent safe loads. Not safe"

Show us which ones weren't safe since you know all about the safety of loads here. Is the 28 grn charge of Pyrodex P and a .451" RB completely unsafe too in his .44 cal Remington '58? PLease do tell…

I certainly wouldn't want to load up one of my guns to the point that it eventually stretched the frame, and he doesn't recommend that you do.

Assuming you are right as I do not know what T/C recommends as a max load I'd call this playing with fire.

I do not see what is necessarily unwise about his loading his .31 cal pistol with 15 grns of T7. There's been no visible damage so why is this unwise to you?

I think this whole paragraph states it all:
"The powder loads below do not necessarily represent safe loads. There is historic evidence that 19th century revolver were often loaded to maximum capacity and they did sometimes explode as a result. This is mostly attributed to inconsistent metallurgy at the time. Refer to the manufacture's instructions for safe loads. Any loads beyond the manufacture's instructions is at your own risk."

Not once did he mention this is something for anyone to repeat, and my whole point was not to replicate any of his loads, but to notice how a mere increase in ball diameter changes things. So please don't try to paint me out to be some guy who is attempting to talk you into something dangerous. But then I'm guessing anything beyond your target loads with filler that you've gained so many trophies with is the only intelligent use of these types of weapons, right Richard?

[CharlesK80]

Francis, relax. The data are clear. No one is suggesting you or anyone else must use the loads. Or should use them.

[B.L.E.]

Is this kind of like the .44 Magnum?

I've wondered about that one also, as the projectile is actually around .431.

When .44 cap and ball revolvers were first converted to cartridges, they kept the original cylinder bores and loaded cartridges with heeled bullets that were chamber diameter. The modern .22 Long Rifle rimfire uses heeled bullets. Later, they used undersized bullets that fit inside the cartridges because it was less messy and the bullet lube wouldn't pick up dirt and grit. Often they relied on hollow base bullets to expand and fit the bore.
As new non-conversion revolvers were made for longer more powerful .44 cases, the barrel diameter was reduced to fit the inside the case bullets and the ".44" became a true .429.

A similar thing happened when the .36 caliber cap and ball revolvers were converted into ".38" caliber revolvers that eventually evolved into .357 bore revolvers called ".38's".

[BirchOrr]

One of the reasons Ruger made the ROA a true .45 is so a conversion cylinder could be put in to shoot long Colts.

[noelf2]

One of the reasons Ruger made the ROA a true .45 is so a conversion cylinder could be put in to shoot long Colts.

Not quite sure I get this logic. What makes a ROA a "true .45"?

[BirchOrr]

I will answer this question with a question. If a pistol can use a conversion cylinder that will shoot a .45 Long Colt is it a .44 or .45?

[jmstr]

Early advertising listed the ROA as a .44. By the early 1990s Ruger was advertising it as a .45. The diameter of the barrel was the same in both ad copies i read.

[BirchOrr]

Indeed it was.that question and answer was directed at Noelf2.

[noelf2]

One of the reasons Ruger made the ROA a true .45 is so a conversion cylinder could be put in to shoot long Colts.

and

If a pistol can use a conversion cylinder that will shoot a .45 Long Colt is it a .44 or .45?

All of them, with a conversion cylinder, can shoot .45 Colt. They (Pietta, Uberti, and even the ROA) are technically .45's whether shooting .451 round ball or .452 cartridges because the barrel groove diameters are at or greater than .450 and less than .460. Pietta and Uberti (perhaps others as well) undersize the c&b cylinder chambers by a couple thousandths or so, and I guess Ruger does not. The chamber mouth diameter of the Kirst and R&D/Taylors/Howell's conversion cylinders are all greater than .450 so more closely match the pistol barrel groove diameters. The Pietta and Uberti "replica" revolvers are replicas of .44 caliber c&b guns, and back in original time period the measure of a barrel diameter was made between the lands (.44x) versus the grooves (.45x). Since the ROA is not a replica, there is no reason to use the old way and call it a .44 cal. AFAIK, none of the replica or ROA revolvers were made to insert a conversion cylinder, or specifically designed to do so as you suggested, but they should all have the same advantage when inserting a .45 Colt conversion cylinder. Rather than skirting around the issue by asking a question, please explain what YOU think is a "true .45".

[BirchOrr]

So, we have established the fact that if something will shoot a 45 long colt then it is a 45 not a 44. That's all I was trying to say. Why argue about it? Case closed.

[noelf2]

Ah ok. I just didn't know what you meant by a true .45, and I thought you meant that Ruger made a true .45 and the Italian replica makers didn't. My confusion was because there is no such thing as a "true .45", and I knew all the makers were using .45x bore sizes.

[BirchOrr]

... and I, could have been much more clear in what I was trying to say. Simple misunderstanding and we fixed it!