Ruger Old Army

[B P Arn]

Colts open frame design is and was perfectly adequate for black powder stress levels but became inadequate when the pressure and velocity levels of semi smokeless and smokeless powder was invented and became widely used.
The design also flexes more than does solid frame construction and is another reason for the design evolution to more rigid platforms..

What evidence can you cite to support you assertion?

 

[TFoley]

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?

I'd say that given the gun was new in 1986, and it's now 2024 your question is pretty much redundant.

 

[M. De Land]

When someone loads up .45LC loads using a 250 grain Hornady over 26 grains of H110 (My standard hunting load) in an open top and fires off 500 rounds I will become a believer.

A Ruger Blackhawk can and does.

Exactly and me to !

 

[SPQR70AD]

surprised nobody brought this up but when cartridges came out colt submitted an open top for a 44 henry rd. army tested it and said we want a stronger frame design so they answered with the colt SAA. I am sure the army had vast experience with pistol designs

 

[45D]

surprised nobody brought this up but when cartridges came out colt submitted an open top for a 44 henry rd. army tested it and said we want a stronger frame design so they answered with the colt SAA. I am sure the army had vast experience with pistol designs

Yes, it's been in at least one or two of these "discussions". The Army's request was for a top strap design, don't believe it said anything about "strength" or "stronger". Can you produce your evidence for the "stronger" request other than "you think"? The Military isn't in the business of "production", just a list of " here's what we want" . . . Same as today . . .

 

[M. De Land]

What evidence can you cite to support you assertion?

I already have several times if you go back and read all the posts. Let's see, no magnum revolvers are made in open frame guns, the cartridge conversion cylinder makers will not chamber them in magnums, bolt action rifles with single lugs are know to be weaker and do not exceed about 40 k. The big one is none of these folks that make the claim of equal strength are willing to prove it. All they need do is run their 45 Colt conversions to 30 K just as my Ruger does and show the world their contention is correct ! Plus P loads are pushing it but a steady diet of 30 K psi will sort it out real quick !

 

[M. De Land]

Not necessarily Mike, in my mind the most obvious reason open tops have never made the leap to magnum calibers is that lack of a handy dandy spot for the rear sight. I would love to own a magnum chambered 1860 and it may well be possible to build one but we’ll probably never see it because there’s really no market for it other than a few oddball gun cranks.

There would be a market for convertible magnum cylinders so chambered though if it were safe and there are none ! Not even in the massive Walkers or Dragoons let alone the rebated cylinder 60.
As was earlier pointed out the conversion cylinder makers using heat treated 4140 alloy are not afraid of their cylinders ability to handle the pressure, they know the weaker platform probably won't take a steady diet of it.
Good discussion !

 

[Dude]

Just because there are no magnum open tops isn't proof it couldn't be done. It only says no one has built one. Why? Who knows? Saying it hasn't been done BECAUSE IT'S NOT POSSIBLE or because IT'S A WEAK DESIGN, until the testing data or engineer's reports are displayed, is just conjecture. Idle opinions.

Just because there are no open tops (currently, or ever) made for magnum loads isn't proof the open top is weaker. The last of the open tops went away in 1873 with the military contract for the SAA Colt. Saying the military didn't adopt the open top due to it being a weaker design, isn't something I've read. As far as I know, that's just conjecture 'everyone knows'. Perhaps the top strap model was chosen because of the ease of cylinder removal. No wedge to lose. Easier for the soldiers to learn and care for. Perhaps the top strap SAA Colt was cheaper to produce so cost less? Maybe it just 'looked right' to the board. Get us the data that supports your view.

Did you know that in the time of the Wright brothers and their flying invention, there were seven other means of heavier than air flight? (don't ask me what they were, that's all I know) but we've latched onto two. Does that mean that all other means of flight aren't possible?

On the other hand, 45D has proven the open tops can handle greater pressures than comparable top straps. Seems proof enough to me. Yet the goal posts get moved out there farther.

You know, I get the idea if 45D built a magnum open top, it would be disqualified for some reason - too big, too heavy, as massive as a Blackhawk, too expensive... it's not possible to win this argument, even with irrefutable proof.

 

[45D]

There would be a market for convertible magnum cylinders so chambered though if it were safe and there are none ! Not even in the massive Walkers or Dragoons let alone the rebated cylinder 60.
As was earlier pointed out the conversion cylinder makers using heat treated 4140 alloy are not afraid of their cylinders ability to handle the pressure, they know the weaker platform won't take a steady diet of it.
Good discussion !

Not yet !!! Isn't that like griping about "there would be a market for revolvers" if there were some - before there were some?!!

 

[Bad Karma]

I already have several times if you go back and read all the posts. Let's see, no magnum revolvers are made in open frame guns, the cartridge conversion cylinder makers will not chamber them in magnums, bolt action rifles with single lugs are know to be weaker and do not exceed about 40 k. The big one is none of these folks that make the claim of equal strength are willing to prove it. All they need do is run their 45 Colt conversions to 30 K just as my Ruger does and show the world their contention is correct ! Plus P loads are pushing it but a steady diet of 30 K psi will sort it out real quick !

Except the difference between your Ruger and an open top colt is not an apt comparison… compared to an SAA the kirst conversion cylinder in an Uberti is stronger. You’re not going to run +p in an SAA or clone without damage.

surprised nobody brought this up but when cartridges came out colt submitted an open top for a 44 henry rd. army tested it and said we want a stronger frame design so they answered with the colt SAA. I am sure the army had vast experience with pistol designs

I’ve never seen a reference to a request for a stronger design from the government. I have seen documentation that indicates the government was concerned about replacing wedges. If I were a soldier of the period I might take comfort in a captive cylinder if only on the off chance that the wedge could be dropped at an inopportune moment resulting in embarrassment or much worse.

 

[45D]

Just because there are no magnum open tops isn't proof it couldn't be done. It only says no one has built one. Why? Who knows? Saying it hasn't been done BECAUSE IT'S NOT POSSIBLE or because IT'S A WEAK DESIGN, until the testing data or engineer's reports are displayed, is just conjecture. Idle opinions.

Just because there are no open tops (currently, or ever) made for magnum loads isn't proof the open top is weaker. The last of the open tops went away in 1873 with the military contract for the SAA Colt. Saying the military didn't adopt the open top due to it being a weaker design, isn't something I've read. As far as I know, that's just conjecture 'everyone knows'. Perhaps the top strap model was chosen because of the ease of cylinder removal. No wedge to lose. Easier for the soldiers to learn and care for. Perhaps the top strap SAA Colt was cheaper to produce so cost less? Maybe it just 'looked right' to the board. Get us the data that supports your view.

Did you know that in the time of the Wright brothers and their flying invention, there were seven other means of heavier than air flight? (don't ask me what they were, that's all I know) but we've latched onto two. Does that mean that all other means of flight aren't possible?

On the other hand, 45D has proven the open tops can handle greater pressures than comparable top straps. Seems proof enough to me. Yet the goal posts get moved out there farther.

You know, I get the idea if 45D built a magnum open top, it would be disqualified for some reason - too big, too heavy, as massive as a Blackhawk, too expensive... it's not possible to win this argument, even with irrefutable proof.

Thank you sir!!

 

[Smokerr]

Agreed, one of my points, no one has tried to build one so its an open top (grin) question that 45D is answering a step at a time!

There would be a market for convertible magnum cylinders so chambered though if it were safe and there are none ! Not even in the massive Walkers or Dragoons let alone the rebated cylinder 60.

That is a totally unsupported (grin) statement. Mfgs of unmentionable cylinders are rightly risk adverse. They take what the gun mfg designed to for pressure and they put limitations in writing. Equally the open top design might stand up but the materials the Italians use are not up to 44 mag standards.

None of us knows what the Italian build spec is. My Unique overload in the 47 Walker was something in the 35-40,000 Cup range (using extrapolated 44 magnum setup as its not Listed in 45C. )

That proves it will survive one very stupid (on my part) high pressure shot.

 

[M. De Land]

Thank you sir!!

Prove your contention with the tuned up Dragoon. You risk it with the plus P loads with no apparent misgivings and already have the platform for it ! Your all set up to give it a go.

 

[45D]

Prove your contention with the tuned up Dragoon. You risk it with the plus P loads with no apparent misgivings and already have the platform for it ! Your all set up to give it a go.

I already did!! ( tuned up "Dragoons"). The Dragoons are easily ahead of the revolvers listed in my post above.