Old army / hard cast.

[bobthemotorcycle]

Can the Ruger Old Army shoot hard cast without issues. Does it simply use factory cast bullets in .46 cal? Those are hard cast aren't they?

 

[Maven]

Can the gun handle hard cast without issues? Yes it can, but that's not the problem. To wit, loading HC bullets puts a great deal of strain on the loading lever. If you break it, replacement parts will be hard to find.

 

[rodwha]

Can the Ruger Old Army shoot hard cast without issues. Does it simply use factory cast bullets in .46 cal? Those are hard cast aren't they?

It does not use factory cast bullets meant for modern .45 cal ammo. It needs a rebated base that slips into the chamber to ensure it’s seated properly by the loading lever. People have resized the bases of the bullets to work or have modified the chamber mouth to allow a .451-2” factory bullet to work. I can see the allure of that for sure. The way percussion revolvers work is that the projectile is oversized for the chamber and is press fit. It needs that friction to stay put, especially under recoil.

 

[Rifleman1776]

Hard cast equals hard to load and can put strains on the gun when loading. Besides, my experience is that soft round balls allow larger charges, meaning higher velocity and more impressive terminal ballistics. Go with way works, don't try to reinvent the wheel.

 

[Smokerr]

I agree on use of soft lead bullets, but I don't think so because of getting higher velocity or impressive ballistics.

It depends on what the purpose of the load is.

Target shooting does not require higher ballistics, its best found what the gun shoot best at be it 650 fps or 850.

Hunting terminal ballistics is a factor but being able to hit what you are shooting at is more important. Kind of the 300 WM argument. A 30-06 does 90% of what a 300 WM does without the hooo ahhh.

 

[rodwha]

Hard cast equals hard to load and can put strains on the gun when loading. Besides, my experience is that soft round balls allow larger charges, meaning higher velocity and more impressive terminal ballistics. Go with way works, don't try to reinvent the wheel.

That would depend on the projectile used. The only one I’d pass on and chose a ball over is the traditional pointy conicals of the day. I’d put any one of my bullets up against a ball when looking for impressive terminal ballistics for hunting. I even have a wide meplat bullet that is shorter than a ball at 0.400” and weighs 170 grns. Not what I’d use for hunting with but it could be a real screamer that has added mass. Maybe one day I’ll look at max charges and see what I see. Really I just stick with my more accurate hunting charges, and will be making a universal bullet for both of my pistols that looks to weigh ~235 grns. A ball couldn’t even remotely come close to the terminal ballistics.