good load for an Old Army?

[Stubert]

I've got a Ruger Old Army and a bunch of Lee 456-220 conicals. I'm looking for a 25-40 yd. deer load. Who's got one that uses those bullets?

 

[crockett]

I don't have any but I think the Ruger is a strong design than a true Remington clone- call Ruger and see if a few guys there don't have some suggestions.
Is a handgun legal for hunting in NY? Didn't know that.

 

[Stubert]

Yes, pistols are legal in New York, You must have a pistol permit though. I'm in Dutchess county. Permits are easy to get here, $120.00 to the sheriff, 6 month background check. Dutchess only issues concealed carry or on premis permits. They are valid for life or until revoked.

 

[Blizzard of '93]

I have that revolver and use those slugs. I shot through a near 300 lb feral hog sow with a load of 3F measured useing a cut down 30-30 case about 35 grs, a 1/16th"felt and that slug. tightly pressed and the slugs just made it under the cylinder. recoil is significant.
this was at about 50'. just IMO 100' would be max distance for a pistol hunting.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

The Lyman Black Powder Hanbook lists stats for the Ruger ld Army with round balls and 4f, although I think that would be quite hot. I have a 210 wad cutter type bullet that I shoot over 37 grains of 3f. There is barely any room and the powder gets compressd on loading. For a black powder gun, it is bit rough on the wrist recoil wise.

There is more to hunting power than ft lbs of energy. But with a 45 cal, there isn't much of a knock down factor.

 

[hangman]

I load mine with 53gr of FFFg and 190gr Conical Buffalo bullet (.457) and it shoots just fine. I believe that Lee mold is the same as the Buffalo bullets. Buffalo went out of bussiness so I have meaning to order that mold since I am running low but have TONs of free lead.
When I called Rugar about loading info they said as long as you can get the ball or bullet 1/16th below the cylinder when it is loaded.

 

[Jim/OH]

hangman, how in the world can you get 53 gr. of powder plus a conical bullet in a Ruger Old Army? Mine only holds 40 gr. with a round ball. Or was that a typo? Still would be a pretty stiff load with a conical. Would expect recoil to be noticable, but ok if you are developing a hunting load.

See ya, Jim/OH :hatsoff:

 

[hangman]

I have an old brass measurer that only goes to 60gr in increments of 5gr it sits between the 50 and the 55. So 53gr. I do not use a wad just powder and the buffalo bullet. I do not put any grease on the top since the buffalo fits tight. I will use a different measurer and check the results. However I did just weight 3ea. different charges and they all came in at 44.9gr, 45.3gr, 45.4gr. What ever that is worth. It does kick some but not as much as my old pig (M60) back in the Army days. I also have the conversion kit that lets you shoot .45 long colt with it.

 

[hangman]

Ok went to the range today and did some shooting with the Old Army. If I use fffg Goex I can only get 42gr and a Buffalo bullet in .457 to seat right. However if I use 777 I can get 52gr in and still seat the bullet. Why is that??

 

[Zonie]

When you say only 52 grains are we speaking actual weight or volumetric weight?

If volumetric, I don't know how you can be so precise?

Actually, not to be a PITA but I wonder if you've read the litature that comes with 777?

Among other things it says:

"Triple Seven is a high energy product designed to provide the muzzleloading hunter with higher velocities when used in the same VOLUME as blackpowder. To duplicate a blackpowder load velocity using Triple Seven, you must decrease the powder charge by 15%. *See WARNING below.

Pyrodex is lighter in weight than blackpowder and weighs only about 70% as much as blackpowder. However, because Pyrodex yields more energy per pound than does blackpowder, the same volume of Pyrodex gives similar performance to blackpowder. Pyrodex loads given in this manual for muzzleloading guns are measured by volume, not weight."

That is saying to me that it is already 15 percent more powerful than black powder and it weighs 30 percent less (actual weight).

Hodgdon goes on to say about 777:

"...Do not heavily compress powder charges. The use of filler wads, inert fillers or heavy compression may cause a dangerous situation, which could cause injury and/or death to the shooter, bystanders or damage property."

IMO, messing with heavy, compressed loads of 777 is asking for trouble.

If the 52 grains is an actual weight of the 777 powder load it would be equal to 69 grains volume of black powder.
If it is 15 percent more potent than black powder that 69 grains equivalent has the energy of a 79.7 grain black powder load.
If it is heavily compressed under a heavy slug it is, in my mind totally OVERLOADED.

If you want to shoot magnum power loads go buy a .44 or .45 mag and have fun.

For folks who want to read Hodgdons full comments you can follow this link
Hodgdon 777 LOADING INFORMATION

 

[hangman]

It was buy volume. I know about 777 being 15% hotter. I have been shooting it with 52-53gr for years. My measurer goes from 10gr to 60gr. I just place it half way between the 50 and 55 marks. I think that I will drop down to 45gr of 777 for that will equal 51.75gr RBP then. I use it for a back up when deer hunting.

 

[madcratebuilder]

I read that Ruger did some proof testing with the ROA using smokeless powder and that the revolver handled it fine. I don't think you could put enough black powder or sub in the chamber to overload a ROA. It may not be very accurate but it wont damage the gun. You can put 60grs in a Walker with out a problem and the chamber wall of the ROA is as thick and a much better grade steel.

 

[Dave Rosenthal]

If he blows-up his gun using triple-7, he comes to you for a free replacement, right?

The manufacturers stamp on the barrels of revolvers usually say "Black powder or Pyrodex Only". They don't say 777 :nono: . In my mind I consider the use of 777 to be dangerous to the hobby, right up there with badly-poured/measured duplex loads containing black powder and smokeless. Sooner or later, somebody will ruin a perfectly good side arm trying to push "the outside of the envelope" just a smidge too much when compressing a full load of 777 :redface: . But then what do I know, I've just been doing this for more years than I care to remember.

A Ruger Old Army ISIN'T a .454 Cassul. It sits on a frame the size of a Smith & Wesson about half-way between the .357 L Frame and the .44 N Frame.

Be safe and don't bring any undo (unnecessary) attention to our wonderful hobby

Dave

 

[mykeal]

The manufacturers stamp on the barrels of revolvers usually say "Black powder or Pyrodex Only". They don't say 777

They also don't say American Pioneer, or Goex Pinnacle, or Clean Shot, or any one of a number of other black powder substitutes that are clearly just as safe as real black powder. So what does the omission of 777 prove? Nothing.

In my mind I consider the use of 777 to be dangerous to the hobby, right up there with badly-poured/measured duplex loads containing black powder and smokeless. Sooner or later, somebody will ruin a perfectly good side arm trying to push "the outside of the envelope" just a smidge too much when compressing a full load of 777 :redface: . But then what do I know, I've just been doing this for more years than I care to remember.

You have a good point about 'pushing the envelope', but the problem is not 'the use of 777'. Hodgdon has done an excellent job of providing guidance for the safe and effective use of 777. People who ignore that guidance have only themselves to blame. 777 is not the problem. Do you blame smokeless powder when some bubba blows up his bp revolver with it? Nor should you be trashing 777 as dangerous to the sport. It's no more so than smokeless powder.

A Ruger Old Army ISIN'T a .454 Cassul. It sits on a frame the size of a Smith & Wesson about half-way between the .357 L Frame and the .44 N Frame.

What does the size of the frame have to do with the cylinder's ability to withstand a hot load?

 

[Dave Rosenthal]

mykeal,

Didn't mean to ruffle feathers! What I was trying to point out is that compressing 777 was the only way to get that much powder into the cylinder in the first place, but my brain wasn't engaged enough to write that the last time I posted :redface: . I have to admit to handling a phone call from a "Bubba" when I typed my post, so I guess a little anxiety spilled-over, sorry.

On a similar note: I had a problem while running a pistol shoot last June when this "Bubba" showed-up with what looked like a mixture of smokeless and a sub in a flask, without the original container it came in. To avoid a big problem, I gave him my pre-measured 3Fg tubes so he wouldn't have blown-up his Remmy. This guy couldn't tell me what the powder was called, after he'd bought the stuff from a store that sells mostly smokeless products.

Size of frame refers to the over-all "meaty-ness" of the gun to withstand hot loads, cylinder included...guess that something got lost in my "Jersey-speak", again my apologies.

You and I are usually right "in-sync", so thanks for the wake-up slap--I deserved it.

Dave

 

[TFoley]

It was buy volume. I know about 777 being 15% hotter. I have been shooting it with 52-53gr for years. My measurer goes from 10gr to 60gr. I just place it half way between the 50 and 55 marks. I think that I will drop down to 45gr of 777 for that will equal 51.75gr RBP then. I use it for a back up when deer hunting.

Just me being a wise-a$$, but have you ever compared the graduations on your 'measurer' with reality, using a set of digital scales?

You might be surprised. The weight by volume of any granular material like black powder or its substitutes varies considerably between the different grades.

Just a thought, is all.

BTW - I just measured the actual physical weight of the charge of Pyrodex P that completely fills the chambers of MY ROA - and blow me down if I can get more than 35.2gr of the stuff in [measured on my Lyman digital scales] - that load is flush with the top of the chamber - there is no room for anything else, let alone a ball.

So without compressing it, how on earth do you guys get these enormous loads into it? Unless, of course, YOUR ROA's are different you ours....

tac

 

[nightwolf1974]

hangman, how in the world can you get 53 gr. of powder plus a conical bullet in a Ruger Old Army? Mine only holds 40 gr. with a round ball. Or was that a typo? Still would be a pretty stiff load with a conical. Would expect recoil to be noticable, but ok if you are developing a hunting load.

See ya, Jim/OH :hatsoff:

i use 40grs. 3F, .457 RB, and a wad over that to prevent chainfires. it shoots flat and is way more power than a Walker, plus has the adjustable sights. :thumbsup:

 

[hangman]

OK first let's get some things clear. When I got my ROA I could not find any load data for it so I called Rugar. I called and asked their support center and here is what I was told. "ANY charge of black powder or sub will work and as long as you can seat the bullet or ball bellow the cylinder top you are OK." It was asked on here asked what kind of load people are shooting. Then someone asked how I could be shooting that?? So I doubled checked at the range on SAT. Like I said 42gr of Goex fffg and 52gr of 777. Yes I compressed the loads, No I did not know that you should NOT compress 777. I did not see that on the container anywhere. I just looked again and can still not find it.
Now I went back out Sun and did some more shooting with fffg and actually got a better grouping then with the 777. About a 3" grouping at 25yds and 6" at 50yds. The problem is getting fffg is HARD here in MD. And no getting some people to go in on a case will not work for most guys shoot those guns that we must not speak of along with those pellet things.
So the bottom line is I LIKE 42gr of fffg and the kick that it gives and Rugar said it was OK. Besides it is just a back up for my A&H Hawkens. OH and I do not use a wad between the bullet and the powder for the Buffalo bullet sites real tight and comes pre-lubbed.

 

[mykeal]

mykeal,

You and I are usually right "in-sync", so thanks for the wake-up slap--I deserved it.

Dave

So we are, sir. I admit to having been a bit surprised by your post; I now understand, having been similarly distracted many times in my life. Accepted, and the coffee is on me.

 

[Zonie]

tac
You can measure by volume and check those measured loads by weight ONLY if you are using real black powder.

ALL of the synthetic powders weigh less per cubic centimeter (or cubic inches) than an equal volume of real black powder.

This is the reason your weighed measure of Pyrodex P weighed less than was expected.

These less dense synthetic powders are designed so that when measured using a volumetric measure they will have approximently the same amount of power as an equal volume of real black powder.

This allows us to safely use the Traditional volumetric method of measuring a powder load with the synthetic powders and ending up with roughly the same velocity and pressures one would expect from that amount of black powder.

As I mentioned above, the 777 powder has about 15 percent more energy (and pressure) than an equal volume of black powder.
This explains why Hodgdon recommends reducing the volumetric load about 15 percent under a black powders volumetric load to achieve similar results.