Old Army Max Load

[rodwha]

I certainly would not use smokeless, though it may be strong enough, but it does give one confidence that it should do well with max loads of 777 throughout it's life if one should desire to do so.

 

[aeatwood]

I have mentioned that before, but it just gives me the willies thinking someone may take that as license to use smokeless. IIRC, they estimated chamber pressure @ ~60,000 PSI.

ANOTHER thing to consider is that no matter how strong the cylinder is, percusssion nipples are in no way designed to handle those pressures, and while they may handle it once, there is no guarantee you won't receive a blast of white hot molten stainless steel blasting back through the hammer slot in the frame headed straight for your head. Witness the nipple erosion that occurs w/ even black powder in the whitworth and similar conical shooters.

 

[markmahaney]

Junkman, why do the maunfacturers recommend 18-24 grains max powder load, depending on the revolver? Sounds like it's a liability issue. Also, would a brass frame revolver also be safe to load as fully as possible?

 

[Dphar]

I recently received a Ruger Old Army and have been looking for max loadings for it. I have come across conflicting info for it ranging from "as much as the cylinder will hold" from Ruger to anywhere from 40-50 grains of powder. So which is it (other than Ruger's statement)?
I've also read many conflicting reports of which is better for hunting, the round ball and higher (muzzle) velocity/energy, conical, or heavier SWC/FN bullet.
I'm chompin" at the bit to get to the range!

BP arms are not like smokeless powder arms.
It is best to forget anything you know about handloading even when loading BP in metallic cartridges. Very few things are the same. Fussing over powder charge weights, at least with BP, is one of the things you forget about. It does not matter. At least in modern percussion revolvers made of suitable materials.

The revolver will likely shoot best and give the best power with all the powder that will fit behind the bullet with just a little compression.
I had a ROA years ago for a couple of months (it was just too big and clunky for me being used to Colt C&Bs) and it shot fine and could be used with Keith semi-wadcutters for the 45 Colt if they cast .454-.455.
I suspect that the Ruger is made of modern barrel steel, an assumption but I can't imagine Ruger letting cheap steel in their plant, might end up in the wrong production line so even T-7 is likely OK in it. But I would use BP, it likely will shoot best.
I shot round balls in mine almost exclusively and only shot the 45 Colt bullets once just for giggles. IIRC it would hold about 30-35 gr behind a Kieth Bullet. Never tested it for velocity but its pretty close to a BP loaded 45 Colt.
DO NOT over compress Pyrodex or T-7. BP it generally just screws up the accuracy. I know P-dex at least can start having pressure events if over compressed, or so I have been told by a guy that has expertise in BP and the subs.


Hunting?
Shot placement will trump any bullet design. So use what works best and you can shoot best.
So practice and shoot for the lungs.

Dan

 

[Dphar]

HERE IS A FASCINATING FACT ABOUT THE STRENGTH OF THE OLD ARMY.

In R.L. Wilson's definitive work entitled, "Ruger & His Guns", Harry Sefried, the designer of the Old Army, proofed the revolver with a cylinder full of Bullseye and it held!!!!!!!!!!! See page 126 of the referenced book.

Most modern revolver cylinders will not burst, though they may bulge with a cylinder full of Bullseye. The ROA will probably stand 50K psi, but I would not be around to see it if I knew what was occurring unless it was being fired remotely.
At least if the S&W 357s which have been tested ad nauseum by S&W to find out how people were bursting them with Bullseye are any guide. Turns out it was UNDERCHARGING. Like shooting 50 grains of 3031 in a 50-140 (fragments).
Regardless of what pressures the gun may withstand there are places where smokeless powder should NEVER BE, ML arms and 50-140s are two of them.
No matter what some fool (well Sefried was no fool, surely doing this for legal reasons I am sure) got away with.
People have shot TC "Hawkens" with smokeless and got away with it. Others were less lucky, even with BP.

Not only will smokeless far exceed BP pressures, the IGNITION system is not proper. UNDER IGNITING smokeless is poison. This was why when Smokeless became available as a canister powder for reloading the primer manufacturers increased the compound in the primers by about double.
Caused fits for the BPCR match shooters like Harry Pope, and its still causing fits today.
But it gets the smokeless, with its retarders, started properly. If its ignition cycle in not as it should be the retardants can be disabled and the propellant gots "H.E".
Dan

 

[crockett]

I'm one of the maximum load guys but within reason. I think there is beginning to be too much focus in this area. Elmer Keith was perhaps the original heavy powder charge advocate but he would work up a load and then back it off a few grains.
As I see it, there are some problems with all this: the safety people often seem to me to not even want to discuss the issue. You also have folks that just seem to want to push things too far. I think that rather that talking about "maximum" loads the better term might be "heavy" loads, loads that are within the manufacturer's recommended range but at the higher end.
I've said before that if you want more power get a bigger gun. I think before the 357 Magnum was developed the Old Walker Colt was one of the most powerful handguns around- so, if you want a really powerful black powder pistol load- think about one of the Dragoon models.
Some safety issues drive me nuts. As a sidebar- take the 38 special vs 357 magnum. Are the cases any different in the web area? If the cases are the same you ought to be able to load a 38 special to 357 specs- provided OAL is the same- BUT when I contacted manufactuers- they all hit the panic button but couldn't explain WHY this would be ill-advised- probably because some chap could put one in a beat up, weak 38 special- but what I am trying to point out is that trying to get good information in this area can be frustrating and without the information you need the only sane answer is to err on the side of safety even in areas that don't seem to make sense- there is no other alternative.

 

[rodwha]

Most of the loads I see recommended are roughly in the 38 Spl realm, which is a bit too anemic for me to consider. Not that our deer down here are too big and require much more.
I typically shoot 'em in the (first third near the body - the part that moves the least) neck (rifle) from a good rest and they drop right there (time will tell if I can reliably do so with this handgun) and so I would no doubt get pass throughs with less power on these field dressed 75-125 lb deer.
It's the hogs and likely chance that less than optimal angles would be provided. And I would like to be able to shoot out to 50 yds if the gun and I can do it. Time will tell with that.
Accuracy is always a must to a point. If I can achieve Long Colt levels and keep a grouping within 4" I'd rather use that than something along the lines of 38 Spl and get 2" groups.
I feel people all too often assume that it's all about getting 44 Mag performance that is the goal despite the 2' groupings all for the sake of achieving some magical numbers.
I would like to have the oomph to get pass throughs on vitals if possible.
Maybe I'll find that it can only do on the little deer we have and small hogs to 25 yds and ought to only be used as a backup to a rifle. I'm looking for info on what can be expected.

 

[crockett]

Well, to get back to your original question, Ruger makes a strong gun. If you use a round ball the old time thinking was you could use as much black powder under the ball as possible and not damage the gun- that's with all the disclaimers...good condition, indexing correctly, etc, etc, etc. So, experiemnt, keep adding powder until even with a "crunch" you can't seat the ball fully into the chamber, then add lube over the ball.
On the conicals- there's a lot of variables because weights and ogives vary so much. The pressure will go up, that's for sure.
The old round ball had a flat sprue- the diameter was about equal to a 38 caliber SWC and the flat sprue was, theoretically" supposed to hit hard.
On hogs you want something that with plow deep and off hand I would thin the conical would be better but once again, I'm not sure. You would likely be pretty close and the round ball would be starting at a much higher velocity and likely still be moving pretty fast.
What you need is a comparison of a round ball versus a conical fired from a 44 cap and ball into ballistic gelatin-set at 25 yards. At that range which is better?
Maybe repost to that question?

 

[OLD CROW]

I shoot several RUGER revolvers and I am active on the RUGER forum site,so i have a bit of knowledge about them YES!!!!!!the ROA was tested with a full chamber of BULLSEYE. yes THE ROA was able to stand the pressure from BULLSEYE. YES, you can use 2f,3f or 4f.YES you can stuff as much black as you can seat a ball on. Max load of 3f in my ROA was 41 gr. not accurate. 20=25 works best in MY roa. I do suggest one follows suggested loads for ROAs. A major problem with any smokeless powder ,at least in the ROA ,is the HIGH PRESSURE takes path of least resistance,. and that is BACK THRU THE NIPPLE VENTS.RUGERS are very strong but they should not be abused . but i don't know squat.

 

[Zonie]

Regardless of some testing that someone supposedly did with a Ruger under no circumstances should ANY SMOKELESS POWDER EVER BE LOADED INTO A RUGER OLD ARMY!!!

I've seen first hand what just a double load of a fast pistol powder can do to a Magnum cartridge gun that is made to withstand high chamber pressures and the results were far from pretty.

I know you were not really suggesting that anyone should load a smokeless powder into a cap and ball pistol but when someone says a Ruger is safe with such a load it indirectly tells the unknowledgeable shooter that doing this is OK.

 

[Dale Allen Raby]

HERE IS A FASCINATING FACT ABOUT THE STRENGTH OF THE OLD ARMY.

In R.L. Wilson's definitive work entitled, "Ruger & His Guns", Harry Sefried, the designer of the Old Army, proofed the revolver with a cylinder full of Bullseye and it held!!!!!!!!!!! See page 126 of the referenced book.

Not sure I believe that story... though it has been told many times. I generally load 30-35 grains of fffg black powder or the same volume of 777. Years ago, I acquired an Armi San Marco Walker. I loaded it with 60 grains ONCE. It turned out to be more of a handful than I liked. I dropped the max charge to between 40 and 50 grains of fffg. I found this to be just fine for busting gallon milk jugs. I don't hunt bears with it.

 

[Smokerr]

I would request people clarify loads in Volume or Grains weight. I have been cross checking my dispenser (volume) vs weight and there is considerable difference in what is listed on the markings (volume) vs the weight. Someone noted there is no standard for volume as what powder you use F/FF/FFF/FFFF as well as manufacture of the powder (be it true black powder or the substitute).

I am a re-loader and always did it by weight. 380 and 9mm can get wild due to the small amount of powder they use and my take was volume was not the way to go. That has been true of my target rifles as well though percentage wise if you can get an accurate volume its not nearly the impact of smaller cartridge pistols)

I know not everyone has it but I like velocity data as well. I have seen some amazingly good min/max figures as well as SD out of the Black Powder Pistols.

 

[Smokerr]

First, I fully agree use good judgement in upper end loads. You need to find out what your gun like (again within sane reason)

But the mfgs are also in the CYA area. If they stay with the herd then they think they have less legal exposure. Its not exclusive to guns.

One of the funniest twists on that is the wisdom on "how to break a new barrel in (rifle usually). I believe it is Shillen that says, it makes no difference but because you people keep bugging us, here is the cut and paste (shot 1 or 5 and then clean etc)

What I liked about Savage is they were the first ones that put a decent adjustable trigger on a high volume production rifles. They were all scared of their own shadows when Savage did it.

Again I am not advocating going nuts on powder use but I do believe its not anything they tested, just the heard speak.

 

[Dickydalton]

I bought some 220 grain Kaido conical bullets on Gunbroker that smack pretty good over 30 grains of Swiss 3F.