RO Army

[doc623]

I have been casting for the RO Army with Lee dies.
The RB seem oversized or I am just getting old.
The die is for 0.449or 0.45, I think without going and looking. The ball come out that are just a tad over sized and are somewhat difficult to load.
I have tried sizing by pushing thru a flat washer but this leaves a sizing ring only on one side and is not inserted with this ring in the right position - well it just doesn't help.
Question #1. Is there a sizing die for this?
I know go back and check the dies. They are thightly clamped together when using.
I know - send back to Lee for an evaluation.
Anything else to consider?

 

[bpatza]

That seems too small to start with, 457 ball size is what is called for and that is what I use. I would'nt use anything smaller as you must get a good ring shaved off when you seat the ball.

 

[rafterob]

Check the balls with a micrometer? I thought the ROA was a true .45 (that's what someone told me) not like the .44 of other revolvers, so I would think a .449 ball would about slip right in.

 

[mazo kid]

Ruger Old Armies take a recommended .457 round ball. Have you tried one of your balls in the cylinder to see if you get the shaved off ring? .451 is definitely too small, .454 would be very marginal and probably too small also. There is a reason the Ruger folks say to use the .457" ball! Lee makes the correct mould, check to see what yours is.

 

[Blizzard of '93]

no don't use undersize balls. you need to shave a ring of lead off the balls/slugs when pressing into chambers.
the ROA (mine anyway) does fine with .457 diameter balls. I cast my own from as pure lead as I can get. also conicals from a Lee mold.

 

[mykeal]

The chambers on an ROA are 0.450". You MUST use a ball larger than 0.454".

 

[doc623]

I"lll have to mic and see.

 

[FishDFly]

Ruger Instruction Manual, .457" diameter round ball or .454" concical of pure lead.

RDE

 

[doc623]

I think I have found the problem.
The cast balls are .456 and the cylinder of the ROA mic at .440.
So the question remains - do I go back to lee the mold mfg or do I find a way to size the balls?

 

[R.M.]

Is this a Ruger Old Army, or a Remington New Army?

 

[TFoley]

I think I have found the problem.
The cast balls are .456 and the cylinder of the ROA mic at .440.
So the question remains - do I go back to lee the mold mfg or do I find a way to size the balls?

You, Sir, have what appears to be the only Ruger Old Army ever made that does NOT shoot a .457 ball.

There are ten of them in our club, and I make the RB for all of them [a thousand at a time divvied by ten] and I cannot believe that all ten of ours, halfway around the world, were specially made for us over here.

tac

 

[mykeal]

the cylinder of the ROA mic at .440.

With respect, huh???? I don't think so.

So the question remains - do I go back to lee the mold mfg or do I find a way to size the balls?

The only way to size the balls to .440 (???) is to recast them.

 

[TFoley]

the cylinder of the ROA mic at .440.

With respect, huh???? I don't think so.

So the question remains - do I go back to lee the mold mfg or do I find a way to size the balls?

The only way to size the balls to .440 (???) is to recast them.

Yup. Unless he's right handy with a file and calipers... :grin:

Anyhow, in the interests of science, and with the help of my local friendly gun-dealer as well as six fellow shooters, I've checked the chambers of twelve ruger Old Army revolvers, three of them brand-new unsold, the rest of them, like mine loved and cared for.

With 72 chambers tested - the AVERAGE measuremnt, taken in three places around the axes of the chamber bore for consistency, was 0.4498", with a high of 0.4515" and a low of .4486"

This is a remarkable 'measure' of the accuracy of Ruger's incredible tooling consistency over a period beginning in 1985 [mine is the oldest], to the end of production last year.

The OP must have a different Ruger Old Army than the rest of us.

tac

 

[mykeal]

With 72 chambers tested - the AVERAGE measuremnt, taken in three places around the axes of the chamber bore for consistency, was 0.4498", with a high of 0.4515" and a low of .4486"

That's 0.64% error!

 

[doc623]

You might be right.
I'll go back and remeasure with different mi and take an average and report back.

 

[OB OBrien]

I have an early ROA. It's SS and with a 7 1/2 inch barrel. Has a low serial number, 243 and i'm the third owner. It came from Bill Ruger himself to a friend of mine who I got it from, back in 1976 or so. I just miked it and it miked out a .448, .449 and .450. I have the mold marked .457 for conical bullets. They load well and do shave off some lead when loading. Does this help the discussion any?
OB

 

[TFoley]

I have an early ROA. It's SS and with a 7 1/2 inch barrel. Has a low serial number, 243 and i'm the third owner. It came from Bill Ruger himself to a friend of mine who I got it from, back in 1976 or so. I just miked it and it miked out a .448, .449 and .450. I have the mold marked .457 for conical bullets. They load well and do shave off some lead when loading. Does this help the discussion any?
OB

Dear OB - not changed much, have they? :hmm:

Best wishes

tac :thumbsup:

 

[Zonie]

Based on the maximum/minimum diameters given, that results in a .450 +/- .0015 DIA.
That easily falls into a reamed tolerance zone which is to be expected with a well made high quality pistol.

 

[doc623]

Yes it did OB thanks.
Had a chance to mic the cylinders and there are - using a digital read out and clean dry cylinder - as follows: 0.449, 0.449, 0.449, 0.449, 0.448, and 0.448.
The cast balls mic at 0.457.
I do have to use force to load.
It does shave off a ring of lead.
I just must be getting older and weaker but it seems difficult - more than it should.
Suggestions or is it just me?

 

[mykeal]

...chambers... 0.449, 0.449, 0.449, 0.449, 0.448, and 0.448.
... balls ... 0.457.
I do have to use force to load.
It does shave off a ring of lead.

All quite normal. Like every ROA ever made.

I just must be getting older and weaker but it seems difficult - more than it should.
Suggestions or is it just me?

I'm afraid it's just you. Look at it this way: it should NOT be easy to swage lead off the projectiles; if it was easy, what good would they be - you might as well shoot wax bullets.