Can ROA+conversion cylinder handle .45Colt +P?

[Jaymo]

The reason I ask is because I'm thinking about getting a conversion cyl for my 7.5" ROA. I'd like to use it to hunt with hot .45 Colt ammo, such as Buffalo Bore +P, or my own handloaded equivalent.
I'm wondering if the ROA is as stout as the large frame Blackhawk .45 Colt.

I'm not trying to make a .454 Casull out of it. I don't enjoy shooting a Casull.
I want to load some .45 wide, flat nosed, cast boolits for deer and hog hunting, at around 1200, or so, FPS.
Is this unrealistic, or abusive to the gun? Is it downright dangerous?
Is it safe in this behemoth of a BP revolver?

Ya see, if I can safely load it with hot .45 Colt hunting loads, I won't need to buy a 7.5" EAA BBBH or Ruger BH/SBH.
Not saying I won't get one of those, but it would be cheaper to buy the cylinder.

What say ye, O wise gentlemen of the ROA?

In other words, what are the hottest loads it can safely handle that won't be abusive to the gun?

 

[Lost Sheep]

Are you sure it would be cheaper to buy the cylinder? Those things are pretty dear. Also, reloading involves removing the cylinder, disassembling the plate on the back of it and replacing the rounds before reassembling and reinstalling.

It sure would keep your ammunition costs down.

I cannot testify to the answer to your original question about strength, but have read warnings against using anything with greater peak pressures than the original black powder ammunition.

Sorry I couldn't be more help.

I was thinking about getting a conversion cylinder for .45 ACP (super cheap ammo), so did some research. No one makes a 45 ACP conversion cylinder. That hints at something. In the one manual I keep near the computer, 45 ACP runs around 19Kpsi. 45 Colt runs around 12Kpsi.

I advise you to pick up a used Blackhawk.

Lost Sheep

 

[Malachi Leviticus Blue]

Lost Sheep,

Howell makes a 45ACP conversion Cylinder for the ROA if you want one.

 

[Busyhands94]

If you want hotter loads you could possibly put a hefty load of Triple Seven and a conical bullet in there with some grease over the top. Although I'm not sure how accurate it would be. If you use a round ball it will be lighter and go faster, it would be like comparing a CCI Mini Mag to a CCI stinger. One is light and goes 1700 FPS (IIRC) and one is heavier and goes 1200 FPS.

Just my $0.02.
~Levi

 

[[email protected]]

What more could you want in "Buffalo Bore" 255 gr bullet at 1,000 fps at
standard 45 Colt pressure 14,000 psi. This would be safe and take anything
that walks in North America.

 

[mykeal]

The question isn't whether or not the ROA can take it, it's whether or not the cylinder can take it. The answer for that needs to come from the cylinder manufacturer.

 

[Prairie Dawg]

Conversion cylinders specify "cowboy loads".
They are not high-pressure loads like the ones you want to shoot.
I have my doubts about either Kirst or Howell saying their cylinders will handle those loads.
--Dawg

 

[Lost Sheep]

Lost Sheep,

Howell makes a 45ACP conversion Cylinder for the ROA if you want one.

Thanks. I eventually got a Bisley Blackhawk in 45 Colt/45 ACP. But still, it would be a hoot to be able to run the cheap 45 ACPs, so I will check it out.

Lost Sheep

 

[robhof]

robhof

As stated above, the gun and the cylinder MAY take it, but it wasn't made for that purpose as the BH was so why tread on dangerous ground, if there are safer routes. The ROA wil handle all standard 45 loads safely and properly placed, they will handle most American game. In the modified words of Spock"it will live long and prosper-if properly treated"

 

[unspellable]

45 loads

I cannot speak for the Kirst, but in the case of the RD, the manufacturer states that the cylinder is proofed with standard SAAMI 45 Colt proof loads. The cylinder is safe for any commercial 45 Colt load or equivalent. (So called "Blackhawk loads" run beyond the SAAMI specs or conmmercial range.)

The reason for the "cowboy loads only" caveat is not the cylinder but the frame of most BP revolvers. They are not all that heavy nor do they run to that good a grade of steel. The exception is the ROA which is essentially a Blackhawk. I consider it perfectly safe with any commerciall load. I'd not maker that recomendatioon for any other BP revolver.

 

[Jaymo]

255 gr at 1,000 fps is good enuff fer me.

 

[CraigC]

I would follow the conversion cylinder manufacturer's recommendations. They should know how strong their cylinders are and I would suspect they do not build them as tough as a factory Ruger Blackhawk cylinder for ease of machining. I also would not assume that an Old Army is just as strong as a Blackhawk.

 

[unspellable]

ROA vs Blackhawk

The ROA is not 'strong as a Blackhawk", it IS a Blackhawk.

When Ruger switched from the Old Model Blackhawk to the New Model they were left with tooling for the Old Model. That's what inspired the ROA. It's the Old Model Blackhawk with the front of the frame modified to take the loading lever. That and perhaps the cutout for the hammer nose and lack of loading gate are the only differences. The main reason the ROA was discontinued is that the tooling was wearing out and the market didn't justify a new set.

The RD cylinder is stated by the manufacturer as being proofed with standard SAAMI 45 Colt proof loads. It will take any commercial load. I'm not recommending so called "Blackhawk" loads.

There's an incredible amount of misinformation on the street. The Blackhawk 45 will suposedly take more pressure than the S&W. In actuality, both cylinders are about the same diameter and both when tested to destruction will blow at around 60,000 psi. The real reason for lighter loads in the S&W is that it will develop end shake with such heavy loads.

 

[Lost Sheep]

The ROA is not 'strong as a Blackhawk", it IS a Blackhawk.

When Ruger switched from the Old Model Blackhawk to the New Model they were left with tooling for the Old Model. That's what inspired the ROA. It's the Old Model Blackhawk with the front of the frame modified to take the loading lever. That and perhaps the cutout for the hammer nose and lack of loading gate are the only differences. The main reason the ROA was discontinued is that the tooling was wearing out and the market didn't justify a new set.

The RD cylinder is stated by the manufacturer as being proofed with standard SAAMI 45 Colt proof loads. It will take any commercial load. I'm not recommending so called "Blackhawk" loads.

There's an incredible amount of misinformation on the street. The Blackhawk 45 will suposedly take more pressure than the S&W. In actuality, both cylinders are about the same diameter and both when tested to destruction will blow at around 60,000 psi. The real reason for lighter loads in the S&W is that it will develop end shake with such heavy loads.

Yes, there is a lot of misinformation out on the 'net.

Verify for yourself everything you learn. Believe only half of what you see and one quarter of what you hear. That goes double for everything you find on the internet from casual sources or sources you cannot vett (with the possible exception of the actual manufacturers' web sites or written communications). This advice applies to my message as much as anything else.

What I will tell you without fear of nuance or contradiction is that Ruger makes their frames of investment castings (also knows as "lost wax casting"). Tooling is cheap, as the initial machining is done on wax, not steel.

Draw your own inferences and do your own research.

The cartridge adaptation cylinders are not made by Ruger (none that I know of, anyway).

Blowout pressure of the Smith & Wesson cylinder is a matter of record (to which I do not have access) and blowout pressure of the Ruger cylinders likewise. I do not know if either manufacturer has shared that data with the general public.

Isn't end shake a symptom of a stretched frame? What causes that?

I will repeat my earlier advice: While it might be cool to go hunting with muzzle-loader converted to centerfire, I think the inconvenience of the aftermarket cylinders would sway me toward a used Blackhawk (interminably slow reloading; I think I could reload the muzzleloader quicker than the aftermarket cylinder.) The cost and uncertainty of the strength of the aftermarket cylinders would clinch the decision.

Get a Thompson-Contender if you want a hunting gun with cachet. Or a used Blackhawk, which will not set you back a whole lot more for a complete gun than the aftermarket ROA cylinder.

Lost Sheep

 

[CraigC]

The ROA is not 'strong as a Blackhawk", it IS a Blackhawk.

Pure BS. Unless you can prove that the Old Army is made with the same steel alloys and heat treatments, you cannot make this statement with any accuracy. Which is my point. Has anybody even measured the frame, to know if it is the size of the old mid-frame or the large frame??? I do not know either way and would make NO assumptions without consulting those that DO actually know. David Clements, who has built three custom Rugers for me, builds a five-shot .50cal Old Army and would be my first stop.

Just as some people like to claim that the New Vaquero is stronger than a Colt SAA. It's pure speculation with no scientific basis. Speculation based more on Ruger's BS marketing than reality. Fact is, we don't know but if "I" was going to assume anything, it would be that Colt's forged frame is stronger than Ruger's, being that they are the same size. That I wouldn't feel comfortable in believing the slightly larger diameter cylinder of the Ruger afforded me any more room to play. Without knowing for sure what the guns are capable of, the only safe and prudent assumption would be that they are comparable enough to be treated as equals.

The Blackhawk 45 will supposedly take more pressure than the S&W.

The cylinder diameter is only part of the equation. While it must contain chamber pressures, the frame must resist the resulting backthrust and that is where the S&W falls short. What that has to do with this discussion I have no idea. ?rolleyes:

The cartridge adaptation cylinders are not made by Ruger...

Exactly and a very important point. Being that it is the cylinder that withstands pressure and is always the part that blows first.

 

[unspellable]

ROA

Yes the ROA is made with the same steel as the Blackhawk. It wouldn't be worth the bother to use a different steel. The information I have on the steel comes right straight from Ruger.

While the RD cylinder is not made by Ruger it IS proofed with standard proof loads and safe in itself for any commercial load. Its true that on almost any modern revolver the cylinder will blow out before the frame gives way.

The S&W got dragged in because of the question of end shake.

To answer the question above, frames don't "stretch" in the sense the question means. End shake develops due to wear on the areas that locate the cylinder fore and aft. On the Blackhawk or ROA the cylinder's forward travel is limited by the neck bearing on the frame. There is quite a large load bearing area and it holds up well. In the S&W the tail of the yoke bears on the bottom of the cylinder well. It's almost a knife edge and peens down while wearing a groove in the bottom of the well. This is the S&W's Achilles' heel. In addition the S&W will lose timing with less end shake than a Blackhawk.

Ruger's casting method does cut down on machining, but it does not eliminate it. The ROA has the same dimensions as the Old Model since it was made with the same tooling.

I'm stating that the ROA with an RD is safe for any commercial load or equivalent. I'm NOT claiming it's safe with the kind of home brewed Blackhawk loads that that make the bluing peel off.

 

[CraigC]

Yes the ROA is made with the same steel as the Blackhawk.

Like I said, prove it. No speculation or assumptions.

It wouldn't be worth the bother to use a different steel.

Maybe, maybe not. Stronger alloys and heat treatments cost money and blackpowder guns are not held to the same standards as cartridge guns. As evidenced by the soft steels used in most blackpowder guns.

The ROA has the same dimensions as the Old Model since it was made with the same tooling.

The machinery is irrelevant and I asked "which" Old Model, since there were two frame sizes. Not that it really matters because no assumptions can be made unless we know for a cold, hard fact that the Old Army was made with the same alloys and heat treatments as its cartridge cousins.

I'm stating that the ROA with an RD is safe for any commercial load or equivalent.

Then we are in agreement.

 

[Patocazador]

I have a stainless ROA with a Howell cylinder and shoot handloads of 255 gr. cast semi-wadcutters over 8 grains of Unique. This load is NOT full-house and quite pleasant to shoot. I have not chronographed the load in that gun/cylinder combination. However, I do shoot a stainless Blackhawk with very hot handloads of 20 grains of 2400 and a Hornady 250 XTP/HP. It barks and kills game. I would NOT use the hot handload in the ROA/Howell combination. It just seems like a recipe for potential disaster.

 

[mykeal]

Ummm...

As evidenced by the soft steels used in most blackpowder guns.

Like I said, prove it. No speculation or assumptions.

 

[CraigC]

As evidenced by the soft steels used in most blackpowder guns.

I have three dozen cartridge revolvers with zero evidence of the bolt reshaping the steel of their cylinders. Some with several ten thousand rounds down range.

I have three blackpowder revolvers with evidence of the bolt "smearing" the steel of the bolt notch leedes.

 

[mykeal]

That's a claim, not proof. Show me the steel specifications, from the manufacturers, like you demand from unspellable.

Would you accept, "I have both a Blackhawk and ROA" from unspellable as proof that they're the same frame? I think not. If you aren't able to meet your own standard you might want to think about what you ask for.

 

[CraigC]

You want to make the claim that the Old Army is just as strong as the Blackhawk, you better be prepared to prove it because if someone believes it and proceeds to detonate their Old Army conversion with a 32,000psi "Ruger only" load, that's on YOU. A claim that is based on 'what', exactly??? Speculation and wishful thinking? Marketing hype???

I make the claim that blackpowder guns are typically constructed of softer steels because I actually have evidence. The aforementioned smeared bolt notch leedes as one example. Have you ever put a file to an Italian blackpowder repro? A modern Ruger, S&W or Colt?

To flip the statement about how it wouldn't be worth it to make the Old Army to lesser standards, why wouldn't a company build a blackpowder gun, that runs at half the pressure, with no industry standards, with softer materials???

If Ruger builds the .454 and .480 Super Redhawks out of stronger alloys, what keeps them from using lesser alloys in the Old Army??? The answer is nothing.

My point is not that the Blackhawk is stronger than the Old Army. My point is that we do not know how strong an Old Army is, period. We KNOW how strong a Blackhawk is because they have been pressure tested to destruction in a lab environment. Got any such data for the Old Army? Got anything but marketing hype, speculation and wishful thinking??? I didn't think so.

 

[mykeal]

Hmm. Still no manufacturer's data to back up your claim. I guess your own rules don't apply to you.

 

[Lost Sheep]

Hmm. Still no manufacturer's data to back up your claim. I guess your own rules don't apply to you.

See post #20. CraigC does have a small stable of representative revolvers. While the evidence is anecdotal, it does tend to support his position and is, however slim statistically, hard evidence of hardness. Hardness does relate to strength in metallurgy.

What question is in debate here, anyway? I think it has gotten muddied. Any debate (to have any hope of resolution) must have a clear question at its center.

Lost Sheep

 

[CraigC]

Thanks Lost Sheep, excellent post and points.

Hmm. Still no manufacturer's data to back up your claim. I guess your own rules don't apply to you.

Wow, what effort you go to to dispute my statement.

So do you actually support the unsubstantiated claim that Old Armies are as strong as Blackhawks or are you just arguing to argue???

I made a claim based on my educated opinion, which comes from a lot of experience and supported by anecdotal evidence. You can believe it or not. Either way, nobody gets hurt. At least you know 'why' I think what I think.

Unspellable made a highly disputable statement put forth as fact. Based on....well, we don't know....but if believed, somebody WILL get hurt.

Ruger is not in the habit of sharing proprietary data so I would love to know the source is of whatever information unspellable claims to have but has yet to actually share.