Ruger Old Army

[M. De Land]

Ha ha sir, you are hilarious!!! I DON'T "defy" physics sir, you just don't understand it!! I've been doing the "impossible" ( according to you) for over a couple of years!!!! You can believe whatever you want but the PROOF is in the testing, not sitting behind a keyboard spouting what you THINK should be!!! You still have no clue apparently! Smokerr obviously understands it better than you (thanks Smokerr!!)!!! I've stated many times that my TOP STRAP Pietta made SAA (same dimensions as the Colt SAA) copy can't handle the ammo that I regularly shoot in my Dragoons and '60 Armys !!! WHY THE HECK IS THAT ?!!!!!! IT'S A TOP STRAP FRAME M. DE LAND? YOUR PHYSICS IS LACKING!!!
It's rather "telling" when some will tell you you can't do what you've been doing . . .

Mike

Well then you shouldn't have any qualms about running 45 Colt loads in the Dragoon to 30 K psi levels which is maximum safe for the cartridge and prove your contention ! Do it remotely for your safety though !
My Ruger Bisley in 45 Colt uses this level of pressure regularly.

 

[TFoley]

Or the fact that the adjustable sight has POI too high and you can't get enough wind-age out of it (and the setup for travel is iffy).

When the ROA came over here, there was a little note in the packaging that acknowledged that 'some shooters may find that the pistol shoots high at the usual pistol ranges - 25 yards - for this reason, Sturm, Ruger Inc will supply an extra-high replacement foresight - easily installed.'

I bought my ROA on March 2nd, 1986, and shot it the next day. The day after that, I sent off the request for the higher foresight to the importers, then Viking Arms.

It is now November 22nd, 2024, and I'm still waiting.....

 

[rodwha]

When the ROA came over here, there was a little note in the packaging that acknowledged that 'some shooters may find that the pistol shoots high at the usual pistol ranges - 25 yards - for this reason, Sturm, Ruger Inc will supply an extra-high replacement foresight - easily installed.'

I bought my ROA on March 2nd, 1986, and shot it the next day. The day after that, I sent off the request for the higher foresight to the importers, then Viking Arms.

It is now November 22nd, 2024, and I'm still waiting.....

Mine shoots just fine with a ball, but shoots high with my bullets so I contacted Ruger and in short order a .45 Colt front sight arrived with some paperwork. This was a little over a decade ago.

 

[TFoley]

Mine shoots just fine with a ball, but shoots high with my bullets so I contacted Ruger and in short order a .45 Colt front sight arrived with some paperwork. This was a little over a decade ago.

I guess that by Ruger standards that was a 'same-day shipping', right?

 

[OldMaineWoodsman]

The design of the Ruger Old Army began with a clean sheet of paper. Bill Ruger's requirements were simply a percussion revolver that would be a really good shooter, and as close to indestructible as could be made, with all the usual features. It utilized Ruger Blackhawk components as much as possible - grips, backstrap, etc. It is called .44 caliber but is technically a .457 because they used .45 caliber revolver barrels.

All the talk of it being inspired by the Remington or Whitney is speculation. It was designed as a percussion Super Blackhawk/Blackhawk utilizing investment casting technology.

 

[M. De Land]

When the ROA came over here, there was a little note in the packaging that acknowledged that 'some shooters may find that the pistol shoots high at the usual pistol ranges - 25 yards - for this reason, Sturm, Ruger Inc will supply an extra-high replacement foresight - easily installed.'

I bought my ROA on March 2nd, 1986, and shot it the next day. The day after that, I sent off the request for the higher foresight to the importers, then Viking Arms.

It is now November 22nd, 2024, and I'm still waiting.....

I had to add a taller front blade to a Ruger I have when I adopted heavy bullets for my favorite load and they mailed me one free as I remember it. That sure beat having to mill one out from bar stock.
I really am leery of shipping guns personally but many folks do it regularly with little problem.

 

[rodwha]

I guess that by Ruger standards that was a 'same-day shipping', right?

I guess I wouldn’t know, it’s the single time I’ve had to use them. My father has several Ruger’s but I’ve never heard him mention having to use their services either. Is it really that bad?

 

[rodwha]

The design of the Ruger Old Army began with a clean sheet of paper. Bill Ruger's requirements were simply a percussion revolver that would be a really good shooter, and as close to indestructible as could be made, with all the usual features. It utilized Ruger Blackhawk components as much as possible - grips, backstrap, etc. It is called .44 caliber but is technically a .457 because they used .45 caliber revolver barrels.

All the talk of it being inspired by the Remington or Whitney is speculation. It was designed as a percussion Super Blackhawk/Blackhawk utilizing investment casting technology.

I don’t know, but I’ve read there’s a book written by one of the men who designed it and it seems there was some inspiration from an old design.

 

[Smokerr]

The design of the Ruger Old Army began with a clean sheet of paper.

Clean sheet of paper? Only as long as it was via the Blackhawk. Nothing wrong with what he did, in fact I admire what he did. But clean sheet of paper it was not and he picked the worst rammer system. Its so annoying, 3 fiddly pieces, almost ruins the fun of shooting it.

I do have to say that the sights are amazing. Better than my Model 57 for clarity by a good 50%. Its actually better than the 47 Walker though I love that long sight radius., The Walker was fixed with a higher front sight and squaring up the rear notch.

 

[45D]

Well then you shouldn't have any qualms about running 45 Colt loads in the Dragoon to 30 K psi levels which is maximum safe for the cartridge and prove your contention ! Do it remotely for your safety though !
My Ruger Bisley in 45 Colt uses this level of pressure regularly.

You can't do that with a Colt SAA
- or an Uberti Cattleman
- definitely not a Pietta SAA copy
- or a Standard Manufacturing SAA copy
- or any of the Remington copies by any manufacturer
- or a Ruger New Vaquero
and they all have "Top Straps" . . .
and my Dragoons will best all of them and my '60's are equals with the top listed . . . contention proven.

My ROA's will best your Ruger Bisley

Your suggestion of a higher tier2 loading is (again) rather reckless and apparently you don't understand how load development is done. Only "Darwin candidates" start at the top . . . so I'll just keep testing the time honored "safe" way thanks.

Mike

 

[45D]

It is called .44 caliber but is technically a .457 because they used .45 caliber revolver barrels.

"Technically", all reproduction ".44's" are ".45's" because the "bore" is .44" but the rifling grooves increase it to .452" which is how modern measurements are taken and why .45C /45acp are compatible for use in them.
The ROA cylinder chambers are .452" as is the barrel. The .457" "suggested" ball / bullet is to allow for much more cylindrical bearing surface ( formed at loading) to take advantage of the 1:16" rifling twist.

Mike

 

[M. De Land]

You can't do that with a Colt SAA
- or an Uberti Cattleman
- definitely not a Pietta SAA copy
- or a Standard Manufacturing SAA copy
- or any of the Remington copies by any manufacturer
- or a Ruger New Vaquero
and they all have "Top Straps" . . .
and my Dragoons will best all of them and my '60's are equals with the top listed . . . contention proven.

My ROA's will best your Ruger Bisley

Your suggestion of a higher tier2 loading is (again) rather reckless and apparently you don't understand how load development is done. Only "Darwin candidates" start at the top . . . so I'll just keep testing the time honored "safe" way thanks.

Mike

Your right it would be reckless in your hand but not fired remotely to test your contention. The Dragoon has far more steel mass in the frame and barrel than does the Ruger Bisley and yet the closed design can handle hte pressure easily.
The difference is alloy and design just as in all the other examples uou listed.
There is no question that closed frame guns have more material in the top strap and lower frame to resist the thrust pressure compared to open frame design using only two sides of the arbor wedge slot to keep the barrel f rom going down range.

 

[45D]

Your right it would be reckless in your hand but not fired remotely to test your contention. The Dragoon has far more steel mass in the frame and barrel than does the Ruger Bisley and yet the closed design can handle hte pressure easily.
The difference is alloy and design just as in all the other examples uou listed.
There is no question that closed frame guns have more material in the top strap and lower frame to resist the thrust pressure compared to open frame design using only two sides of the arbor wedge slot to keep the barrel f rom going down range.

It's funny the "bug" in your head about "Ruger only " loads being the determining factor for an open-top platform being capable and in some instances being stronger than the top strap equivalent. I've never said anything about them shooting Ruger Only loads ( but I am heading in that direction and they are fine!! Which means, I've already proven my point!).
The 2 sides of the wedge slot doesn't matter a whit as long as the "end fit " is correct and tight . . . that's a main factor in why I can already shoot what I'm shooting. Your understanding of the platform is sorely lacking . . .

Mike

 

[springfield art]

As Henry notes, the nominal bore diameter doesn't matter a hoot in the case of the ROA, the recommended ball diameter is .457", no matter it reads .44cal or .45cal on the rollstamps.

However, it led to a LOT of confunglement here in UK, as many folks who had applied to buy a .44cal BP revolver found that the guns they were jonesing after on their LGS were marked as .45cal, especially if they were buying new, and had waited to get their Firearms Certificate or even a variation to one they had, for up to a year.

Get a Lee mould, and it states, right there on the box - '456" dia. for the Ruger Old Army'. You really can't go wrong.

Meanwhile, here in the US, silencers are selling like popcorn at the movies, and you can even "buy one get one free" nowadays. The wait time was streamlined and companies got into the business, handling the paperwork, etc.

 

[RMFnLA]

The design of the Ruger Old Army began with a clean sheet of paper. Bill Ruger's requirements were simply a percussion revolver that would be a really good shooter, and as close to indestructible as could be made, with all the usual features. It utilized Ruger Blackhawk components as much as possible - grips, backstrap, etc. It is called .44 caliber but is technically a .457 because they used .45 caliber revolver barrels.

All the talk of it being inspired by the Remington or Whitney is speculation. It was designed as a percussion Super Blackhawk/Blackhawk utilizing investment casting technology.

If you say so, but the cylinder retention is pure Remington, at least to my eye.

 

[45D]

If you say so, but the cylinder retention is pure Remington, at least to my eye.

Actually a Spiller and Burr. The Remington doesn't have a positive lock like the S&B and the Ruger.

Mike

 

[Dude]

Does a top strap really add any strength over a colt open top? On top strap guns the bullet wants to rip the barrel off the frame, with the top strap and lower frame sections preventing that. The cylinder axle is no help at all.

In the open top colt, it's the same thing - the bullet forces try remove the barrel. What retains it is the arbor securing it with the wedge, plus the leverage of the barrel lower lug pressing against the frame.

Those are two very different ways of securing the barrel. The forces are resolved in completely different ways.

If you compare the 1860 Colt to the 1858 Remington (and not newer more powerful pistols) that shot the same loads during the same time period, I'd have to say the colt was stronger. Since the Remington frame (upper and lower sections), when fired, is under tension (the barrel tries to stretch the frame) take a look at the very thin section at the front lower corner. That doesn't look all that strong to me. There's not very much meat there.

The colt, on the other hand, has the large arbor under tension and the lower frame section under compression.

That, taken into consideration, comparing the Colt arbor and the Remington top strap (those two being the main parts retaining the barrel - both under tension - I'd say the Colt appears stronger to me. Until 45D started pointing out the fallacy of the colt being weaker, I'd assumed that to be true.

Of course, to make an open top handle magnum loads, it would need to be built stronger, just as the pistols with top straps had to be beefed up to handle magnum loads.

I don't understand the argument that the open top isn't very strong since it can't handle magnum loads. That's kind of like saying my 1/2 ton Toyota, which I beefed up to haul a ton, doesn't compare to a Ford F350. Who cares? The point is that the open tops are much stronger than commonly thought and aren't, in fact, a weaker design than pistols with a top strap.

 

[RMFnLA]

Actually a Spiller and Burr. The Remington doesn't have a positive lock like the S&B and the Ruger.

Mike

Yeah, but you know what I’m saying…

 

[French Colonial]

Does a top strap really add any strength over a colt open top? On top strap guns the bullet wants to rip the barrel off the frame, with the top strap and lower frame sections preventing that. The cylinder axle is no help at all.

In the open top colt, it's the same thing - the bullet forces try remove the barrel. What retains it is the arbor securing it with the wedge, plus the leverage of the barrel lower lug pressing against the frame.

Those are two very different ways of securing the barrel. The forces are resolved in completely different ways.

If you compare the 1860 Colt to the 1858 Remington (and not newer more powerful pistols) that shot the same loads during the same time period, I'd have to say the colt was stronger. Since the Remington frame (upper and lower sections), when fired, is under tension (the barrel tries to stretch the frame) take a look at the very thin section at the front lower corner. That doesn't look all that strong to me. There's not very much meat there.

The colt, on the other hand, has the large arbor under tension and the lower frame section under compression.

That, taken into consideration, comparing the Colt arbor and the Remington top strap (those two being the main parts retaining the barrel - both under tension - I'd say the Colt appears stronger to me. Until 45D started pointing out the fallacy of the colt being weaker, I'd assumed that to be true.

Of course, to make an open top handle magnum loads, it would need to be built stronger, just as the pistols with top straps had to be beefed up to handle magnum loads.

I don't understand the argument that the open top isn't very strong since it can't handle magnum loads. That's kind of like saying my 1/2 ton Toyota, which I beefed up to haul a ton, doesn't compare to a Ford F350. Who cares? The point is that the open tops are much stronger than commonly thought and aren't, in fact, a weaker design than pistols with a top strap.

So.......

I am still waiting to see the open top even "beefed up" that handles magnum loads from Casull or Linebaugh, until then.....