I'm still waiting......

[TFoley]

to see how a poster on this forum manages to load 43gr of Triple 7 plus a ball into a Ruger Old Army.

In the absence of a response from the OP, would anybody here please be kind enough to try this out and provide a picture to prove it.

TIA

tac
Supporter of the Cape Meares Lighthouse Restoration Fund

 

[Dave Rosenthal]

I put 45 grains in mt 3rd Model Dragoon, but THAT IS A BIG HORSE PISTOL! I don't think that you can get that much 777 into a ROA cylinder. And IF you could, it wouldn't allow any room for a wonder-wad either, and you'd really have to compress it too!

Dave
Also waiting for said photo!

 

[bubba15301]

i have used 40 grs of 777 and a rb in my old army . no wads

 

[Pete Gaimari]

Not all powder measures are accurate.

With that said. I wouldn't bet my life that it couldn't be done.

 

[TFoley]

Dave, Arcticap on the other thread about the ROA has put me in the picture about compressing loads of Triple 7. However, I retain the right to my opinion that squozing 40gr [by weight] or more of Triple 7 into a ROA chamber constitutes more than a 'light compression'. The use of an over-powder wad is discouraged, too.

tac
Supporter of the Cape Meares Lighthouse Restoration Fund

 

[Dave Rosenthal]

tac,

O-K, so please keep me in the loop. As a NRA ML Pistol Instructor, I feel that it's important for me to be able to answer shooters questions accurately, as they tend to look-up to us for advice. The careful use of 777 with limited compression has come up in the past. And some shooters still use wads with that powder as well.

The "fine print" on some of the subs leaves a lot to be desired. Reading glasses are required in the store, before you buy it. Goex cans have easily read print.

Dave

 

[gordy]

I'm not sure of what the question is , being asked ? It"s been several years since I sold my ROA , triple 777 was not an option sub at the time , but if I recall properly , I could get 40 grs. of 3fff BP or Pyrodex RS or P in a chamber with no problem . This meassurement was by "volume" not weight . All the reccomended loads I"ve re ad , use "volume" as opposed to weight measurement . Unless my memory is regressed more them I"m aware of , t7 loads should be reduced about 15% by volume loading and being a lighter powder you would be contrary to the Mfgs. caution plus , if loading by weight you would be adding the 15% + the difference in the weight to volume scale. What reason would you have to put such max. loads in this hand gun? Ruger suggest that the greatest accy. is achieved at approx. 20 to 25 grs 3fff BP .by "volume" . It appears that your mindset is still geared to smokeless powder where weight is the factor in reloading . :hmm:

 

[TFoley]

I'm not sure of what the question is , being asked ? It"s been several years since I sold my ROA , triple 777 was not an option sub at the time , but if I recall properly , I could get 40 grs. of 3fff BP or Pyrodex RS or P in a chamber with no problem . This meassurement was by "volume" not weight . All the reccomended loads I"ve re ad , use "volume" as opposed to weight measurement . Unless my memory is regressed more them I"m aware of , t7 loads should be reduced about 15% by volume loading and being a lighter powder you would be contrary to the Mfgs. caution plus , if loading by weight you would be adding the 15% + the difference in the weight to volume scale. What reason would you have to put such max. loads in this hand gun? Ruger suggest that the greatest accy. is achieved at approx. 20 to 25 grs 3fff BP .by "volume" . It appears that your mindset is still geared to smokeless powder where weight is the factor in reloading . :hmm:

Sir - 'twas NOT me, but a poster on another thread here who noted that he used 43gr of Triple 7.

It just seemed to me to be a horrendous overload, especially in view of the fact that I tried Triple 7 for a while and got great results using a 'mere' 26gr by volume and RB. But then I'm not trying to make my ROA behave like a Model 29.

For that, I have a Model 29.

tac
Supporter of the Cape Meares Lighthouse Restoration Fund

 

[Pete Gaimari]

I think he questions that 43gr by volume would fit in a Ruger chamber.

 

[Dphar]

I put 45 grains in mt 3rd Model Dragoon, but THAT IS A BIG HORSE PISTOL! I don't think that you can get that much 777 into a ROA cylinder. And IF you could, it wouldn't allow any room for a wonder-wad either, and you'd really have to compress it too!

Dave
Also waiting for said photo!

Not to mention that high compression (crushing the powder) of Pyrodex and likely T7 is bad idea.

Dan

 

[Pete Gaimari]

There's no mention of compressing the powder too much as being bad on the T7 bottle.

All it says is seat the projectile on the powder so there's no air.

 

[Bon Sauvage]

to see how a poster on this forum manages to load 43gr of Triple 7 plus a ball into a Ruger Old Army.

In the absence of a response from the OP, would anybody here please be kind enough to try this out and provide a picture to prove it.

TIA

tac
Supporter of the Cape Meares Lighthouse Restoration Fund

There is at least one company that offers newly manufactured, deep bored cylinders for the ROA and has done so for a number of years. One of those cylinders should handle a volume of 43gr of 777 no sweat.

 

[tv_racin_fan]

It may well be that his measure was off enough to claim it was loading 43 grains when in fact it was closer to 38 or less. You have to be careful in how you pour powder into a measure in that if you vibrate the measure the powder will settle and different levels of vibration will result in different levels of settle and thus different ammounts per throw.

 

[TFoley]

Is that so? I was unaware of that. In fact, I've never heard of such a thing, but then you have to remember that I live for the most part in UK.

I am therefore absolved from knowing what your custom gun-makers are doing with the ROA.

tac
Supporter of the Cape Meares Lighthouse Restoration Fund

 

[Zonie]

There's no mention of compressing the powder too much as being bad on the T7 bottle.

All it says is seat the projectile on the powder so there's no air.

Actually, there is mention of compressing T7 on the Hodgdon web site.

Although the Loading Notes do not say much about muzzleloaders except to warn about not leaving an air space above the powder it does talk about compression when loading cartridges.

Quoting the artical it says:
"Triple Seven In Cartridges: Use data specifically developed for Triple Seven FFG only. Cartridge loads should be used exactly as listed in this pamphlet. You may safely use a card or polyethylene wad up to .030" in thickness to protect the base of the bullet. Loading density should be 100% with light compression not to exceed .100". Testing has shown that Triple Seven will perform best when the bullet just touches the powder. Allow no airspace between the base of the bullet and the powder..."

If one can compress T7 up to .100 in a cartridge it isn't a stretch to say it can be compressed in a Cap & Ball pistol chamber.

Now, seeing that Hodgdon states that T7 is 15% more powerful than an equal volume of black powder I don't know why someone would want to try to cram 40+ grains into their C&B pistol but there are always a few who think more is better.

The complete Hodgdon article is in this link. http://hodgdon.com/loading.html

 

[Pete Gaimari]

I knew that Zonie. However, if it was dangerous to do it they would have put it on the bottle. Not everybody goes to their web site, or even has a computer.

I think what the deal is....It's more consistent and accurate to not compress it too much. :wink:

 

[arcticap]

Originally posted by Smokin_Gun:

ROA ffffg loads from 1975 Lyman Book/ROA 7 1/2

Test Gun.......................Ruger Old Army 7 1/2" bbl...
Projectile.......................R.B. .457" 143gr
Charge..........................41.0gr ffffg G-O powder
Velosity (FPS)................1036
Muzzle Energy (FT./lbs.)...340

Not bad, I have had this book some time Copywrite 1975.

Posted by AJumbo:

Also of note- extensive use of 4f loads caused some gas cutting of the top strap, in line with the barrel/cylinder gap. Ruger's silhouette revolver (the SRM?) had the same trouble, though the cutting seemed to stop at a depth of .030.

Posted by Clembert:

I usually shoot with 35 grains 777 with a lubricated wonder wad and .457 swagged lead ball. I've tried 40 grains but its difficult when using a wonder wad as this requires some compression...something that 777 doesn't like. 40 grains with or without wonder wad should work fine with black powder. If you don't use a wonder wad then there should be room for 40 grains of either 777 or BP with no compression....just use lube over the ball in this case.

What reason would you have to put such max. loads in this hand gun?

Posted by BP Pistol Hunter about the SS Remington Buffalo Hunter .44:

I use 777 in my Pietta 1858 stainless steel buffalo revolver and it works great. Real accurate load is 30-35gr 777 3f and a .454 ball. I have loaded up to 40 gr of 777 for hunting but have found that accuracy tapers off past 35 gr. This load chronographs average is 1200fps out of the 12 inch barrel and about 450 ft lbs which is plenty juice for Florida deer as long as you keep your shots under 50 yards and aim for the lungs it works out quite well. I shot a 65 pound wild boar last season with it and it was a one shot kill at 30 yards.

I have also seen photos of ROA's with custom 12 inch barrels, and then there's the Clements Custom 5-shot .50 ROA that's actually designed for firing maximum loads of 777 (50 grains before causing ball creep).
After all the Colt Walker was designed to fire 60 grains of "black powder" in order to effectively shoot horses with, and at longer distances.
And believe it or not, in North America some folks can actually benefit by having the most capable Ruger C&B medicine available for bears and other dangerous beasts. :wink:
http://www.gunblast.com/Cumpston_ClementsFugett.htm