Just FYI, the first time "bear" was mentioned was on page 10 (of 13).
( but who's counting right?)
Mike
Ruger Old Army
- Thread starter trad_bowhunter1965
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
Just FYI, the first time "bear" was mentioned was on page 10 (of 13).
( but who's counting right?)
Mike
rodwha
58 Cal.
I thought we would be moving to Virginia putting me the woods with black bears, something I’ve read is rather tasty. So I moved past the 245 grn hog bullet I designed for my Ruger to a 285 grn bullet for black bears. I created it to have a very long top driving band to create additional pressure to help push it a little faster as I know the Ruger can handle it. It’s just a couple of little hairs longer than Lee’s 255 grn bullet.
Here’s Kaido’s modified Lee 255 grn bullet for the Ruger:
And my 285 grn WFN:
And here’s a good side comparisons with a 0.457” ball, my 195 grn 0.460” WFN, Kaido’s 240 grn Lee modified for repros, Kaido’s modified Lee 255 grn, and my 285 grn WFN:
https://accuratemolds.com/bullet_detail.php?bullet=45-285C
There’s not much data out there but a fellow on a now defunct black powder Remington forum compared several powders and compared the results using 30 grns. Swiss was king and right behind him was Olde Eynsford, followed by Triple 7 showing them to be very comparable, though the variance follows suite with the velocity averages. So using the P-Max calculator designed for Swiss I figure I should see similar results, maybe slightly higher as the pressures I’m creating are unusual for percussion guns. I can usually get 35 grns, which weighs 37.5, but sometimes I can fully seat the bullet so a weighed 35 grns of Olde E. These results were this:
At 35 grns of sporting grade powder I figure I’m looking at something along the lines of this, more than capable of going through as many bones as it might present and still see the light of day in the blink of an eye:
Alas I’m still in hog country with no beard in sight and so I’m creating a bullet to take advantage of both my Ruger and my Remington’s more accurate powder charge, which so far seems to be about a weighed 32.5 grns for the NMA and 37.5 grns for the ROA with what looks to be about a 230-240 grn bullet with the same wide meplat design.
I would amend that.
Its not better, its how capable and far less understood how sturdy the Open Tops are. I am very late to BP revolvers but have read mike 45D and his work and I am fully on board. Quite a number are, so while 45D has done the work, those of us with understanding of what he is saying, agree he has proven his contention.
Those who disagree have an opinion but they have no facts to back it up, its just an opinion.
The Sun is going to rise in the East tomorrow and that is a fact. They can claim its going to rise in the South, North or West and that is an opinion refuted at dawn by the fact, East it is (well South South South East for us up here).
No bear story
Nick - Perhaps, to a lay person, this is a boring conversation. But to us engineering types, it's fascinating. At first glance, the open top looks less substantial - weaker - than the top strap variety. It's easy to assume the open top was an early design and constructed that way for manufacturing reasons, or ignorance, or who knows, and eventually abandoned for the 'stronger' top strap design.
Now 45D has shown us that the open-top is actually stronger than the top-strap that superseded it.
I just love it when 'common knowledge' is proven false; finding out that appearance isn't what I thought. Somehow Sam Colt got it right - and he wasn't even an engineer!
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2021
- Messages
- 2,865
- Reaction score
- 6,106
NO....No he has not..
If so, show us the proof. If you really think so, go to S&W, Colt, Taurus and etc. and plead your case and if you can prove it you will change the industry.
Is it stronger than we thought it was, maybe so, is it stronger than a comparable top strap. No it is not.
And how do you know that? The media?
Did you check out the apparatus and procedures of those who claimed they'd done it?
Any of us finding out that someone successfully created something, want to know how we can do it too. When Idaho Ron posted hitting a steel plate at 1,000 yards with his TC Renegade, did you say "That's not possible, you're a liar! Get out of here!!! Or did you want to know how he did it so you could duplicate his success?
Concerning the Cold Fusion affair, what did we hear in the media?? We heard a bunch of scientists yelling and screaming it couldn't be done and they wanted to arrest these guys - they shouldn't be telling lies like this!!!
Now you tell me - does this sound rational?
If you're saying cold fusion isn't possible, you're in company with those who said man can't fly, you can't fly faster than sound, the world is flat, the universe revolves around planet earth, etc etc - in other words, it hasn't been done, this is what 'everyone' knows, so it can't. But in the case of the open-top vs top-strap - you've lost that argument.
Are you calling 45D a liar?
I actually think that's rather humorous.
He's been shooting +p loads in the 1860 Colt, loads that rattled the Colt NMA apart.
Now, if he's lying and that's not the truth, then I'm acting on false data. But the next question is why would he lie about it?
Of course, I see where you're going. I said that the open-top colt is stronger than the 1873 NMA that replaced it. Instead of agreeing with my true statement, you now say it's not as strong as a colt python. Get logical, man! Quit trying to win an argument by shifting the focus.
Why, yes - the 1860 Colt probably isn't as strong as a Colt Python. But we don't even know that for sure. Has anyone besides 45D tested the limits of this design? And he hasn't, as yet, found the limits. Still in the process.
I don't think it's very bright hanging on to an engineering or scientific idea that has been proven false. Solidly trounced!
When I'm in an argument - for me, it's a thing of logic, not a debate to be won by the use of speaking tricks, special word choices, delivery, or clapping from the audience. It's a presenting of view points that either work or they don't work. If I'm presented with a more logical or workable view, then I'm all for it. I'm not trying to win acclaim for my pet theories. And on the other hand, if the other person doesn't see the logic in my presentation, I hope to create a logical path to my view from his. In this case, I don't think that's ever going to happen. I can't reach an agreement on the simplest first step - that the 1873 Colt NMA wasn't as strong as the 1860 Army.
Comparable top strap? Colt SAA, Pietta Frontier, Great Western . . .
Of course it is !!! Haaaa!!!
Mike
Last edited:
Don't really care to "impress" you.
Then don't get one .
See, it's really pretty simple.
Mike
Are you calling 45D a liar?
I actually think that's rather humorous.
He's been shooting +p loads in the 1860 Colt, loads that rattled the Colt NMA apart.
Now, if he's lying and that's not the truth, then I'm acting on false data. But the next question is why would he lie about it?
Of course, I see where you're going. I said that the open-top colt is stronger than the 1873 NMA that replaced it. Instead of agreeing with my true statement, you now say it's not as strong as a colt python. Get logical, man! Quit trying to win an argument by shifting the focus.
Why, yes - the 1860 Colt probably isn't as strong as a Colt Python. But we don't even know that for sure. Has anyone besides 45D tested the limits of this design? And he hasn't, as yet, found the limits. Still in the process.
I don't think it's very bright hanging on to an engineering or scientific idea that has been proven false. Solidly trounced!
When I'm in an argument - for me, it's a thing of logic, not a debate to be won by the use of speaking tricks, special word choices, delivery, or clapping from the audience. It's a presenting of view points that either work or they don't work. If I'm presented with a more logical or workable view, then I'm all for it. I'm not trying to win acclaim for my pet theories. And on the other hand, if the other person doesn't see the logic in my presentation, I hope to create a logical path to my view from his. In this case, I don't think that's ever going to happen. I can't reach an agreement on the simplest first step - that the 1873 Colt NMA wasn't as strong as the 1860 Army.
Great post!! Thanks Dude!!
That's right!!
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2021
- Messages
- 2,865
- Reaction score
- 6,106
Yada YadaAre you calling 45D a liar?
I actually think that's rather humorous.
He's been shooting +p loads in the 1860 Colt, loads that rattled the Colt NMA apart.
Now, if he's lying and that's not the truth, then I'm acting on false data. But the next question is why would he lie about it?
Of course, I see where you're going. I said that the open-top colt is stronger than the 1873 NMA that replaced it. Instead of agreeing with my true statement, you now say it's not as strong as a colt python. Get logical, man! Quit trying to win an argument by shifting the focus.
Why, yes - the 1860 Colt probably isn't as strong as a Colt Python. But we don't even know that for sure. Has anyone besides 45D tested the limits of this design? And he hasn't, as yet, found the limits. Still in the process.
I don't think it's very bright hanging on to an engineering or scientific idea that has been proven false. Solidly trounced!
When I'm in an argument - for me, it's a thing of logic, not a debate to be won by the use of speaking tricks, special word choices, delivery, or clapping from the audience. It's a presenting of view points that either work or they don't work. If I'm presented with a more logical or workable view, then I'm all for it. I'm not trying to win acclaim for my pet theories. And on the other hand, if the other person doesn't see the logic in my presentation, I hope to create a logical path to my view from his. In this case, I don't think that's ever going to happen. I can't reach an agreement on the simplest first step - that the 1873 Colt NMA wasn't as strong as the 1860 Army.
No one is calling him a liar, just saying he is wrong. And he makes money off working on them for people who believe his BS.
He is not using an original 1860, he is using a reproduction which is stronger than an original and I never mentioned a Python.....why are YOU shifting the focus!
Solidly trounced? SHOW the proof! Show where the 1860 made with modern steel is as strong as a Ruger Blackhawk and can withstand 30,000 lbs of pressure.
Logic would say that the people at Colt, S&W etc. etc. that transitioned away from open top knew more than you or him.
ugh.!!!!think I will shoot within my experience.keep my loads within limits lol 
but if I have any problems I'm asking Mike.He would get a good laugh at my questions when I ask him. lol
but if I have any problems I'm asking Mike.He would get a good laugh at my questions when I ask him. lol
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2009
- Messages
- 4,570
- Reaction score
- 8,163
Smile when you say that, mister… ;-)
Well then, take your favorite 1873 Colt replica, load it up with 30k loads and report back. If you’re still able to type with both hands I’ll buy you a cigar. Otherwise, maybe we could compare Granny Smith versus Gala instead of pie apples and tangerines…
