Indeed, though what I see is that having a bullet of similar weight traveling at a similar speed gives one an idea of capabilities. My NMA is virtually an uncased.45 Schofield and my ROA is virtually the original .45 Colt load with a lighter bullet. And when put in this light or perspective it provides the evidence that these aren’t the weak things I was told they were when I got my ROA and noticed it was the size of a .45 Colt. I was told that at best it was a .38 Spl and wasn’t humane to hunt with. Not so.
Guns and Ammo just did a hatchet job on BP revolvers.
- Thread starter piettakid
- Start date
- Status
Indeed, though what I see is that having a bullet of similar weight traveling at a similar speed gives one an idea of capabilities. My NMA is virtually an uncased.45 Schofield and my ROA is virtually the original .45 Colt load with a lighter bullet. And when put in this light or perspective it provides the evidence that these aren’t the weak things I was told they were when I got my ROA and noticed it was the size of a .45 Colt. I was told that at best it was a .38 Spl and wasn’t humane to hunt with. Not so.
A ball would outperform a FMJ from a .355” as they tend to be somewhat pointy which makes for a smaller than caliber hole.
ThomasT
Member
Powerwise they are weaker. So what? It doesn't mean they are weak or underpowered. And they have been proven deadly for almost 2 centuries. Besides who reads Guns&Ammo anymore? A few decades ago they were cutting edge journals. Now they are are nothing but long winded ad copy for what ever gun or product they are reviewing. There is no longer any meat to their content. I stopped wasting money on them many years ago.
Out of curiosity are there any side-by-side ballistics gel tests for the similar cap and ball versus cartridge arms?
I've got no experience beyond shooting other people's cap and ball revolvers much less using them on living tissue, I am curious if there's testing been done to see if the round ball is more effective than an oblong solid.
The FAQ list I could find was saying nothing over 12,000 PSI whereas list max for the 45LC appears to be 14,000.... I'm getting The feeling that that's just a generic FAQ rather than specifically for the ROA.
Could you point me at any other data available?
I've got no experience beyond shooting other people's cap and ball revolvers much less using them on living tissue, I am curious if there's testing been done to see if the round ball is more effective than an oblong solid.
I went looking for data on Kirst conversions, since I don't know much beyond my basic research when I was looking at picking up a percussion revolver and conversion cylinder.
The FAQ list I could find was saying nothing over 12,000 PSI whereas list max for the 45LC appears to be 14,000.... I'm getting The feeling that that's just a generic FAQ rather than specifically for the ROA.
Could you point me at any other data available?
arcticap
Member
Ed Sanow did geletin tests that led to his estimated one shot stop percentages listed in this post. --->>> https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...l-concealed-carry.865106/page-2#post-11425934
If you click on the original source material links at the end you can see the gelatin penetration results.
Last edited:
1KPerDay
Member
Not sure how valuable these are but FYI
https://youtu.be/TCYaiRmcYVI
https://youtu.be/Rsz_5XVACKc
https://youtu.be/auzVlzr0jRg
https://youtu.be/a1PcIddAGFM
https://youtu.be/H4f4UMX_ewA
Talking about "today's ballistic standards" Ruger Old Army 7.5" barrel, using black powder and 255 grains Kaido Ojaama bullets, sent it through 10 water filled jugs;
.
Using 777 and same bullet it went through 11+ jugs:
.
Also, here is Ruger Old Army using Lee REAL bullet 260 grains and 30 grains of 777:
This looks like quite stout load, definitely not "anemic", by any yardstick.
woodnbow
Member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2007
- Messages
- 2,085
No Smokeless in ROA or any other bp revolver! Ever! To even suggest otherwise is irresponsible at least.
Jim Watson
Member
Does G&A get a lot of C&B advertising? I thought not.
Sad, I remember when it was a serious publication, more information than the best of present newsstand stuff.
Sad, I remember when it was a serious publication, more information than the best of present newsstand stuff.
Ive never gotten a complete answer on that question either....why not?
i very recently shot my Pietta NMA with an 8" barrel over a chronograph, with a chamber filled to the top with Pyro RS FF, I estimate 40-45 grains, and a 137 grain ball. The chrono consistently said speeds were well over 1100. I would write this off, but I have had similar performance with a different chrono.
That puts it around 400ft lbs. and about parallel to a .40s/w, or very hot 9mm. Recoil was very harsh, lots of smoke. I don't normally load this high, but was having fun with it that day.
That puts it around 400ft lbs. and about parallel to a .40s/w, or very hot 9mm. Recoil was very harsh, lots of smoke. I don't normally load this high, but was having fun with it that day.
He did specify factory non+p, so its closer to 230 grains at 790fps. Sure some factory ammo will reach 850, but probably not the ball you buy in the cheap section. My own experience with the 1858 gets 137grain balls up past 1100 which in energy terms beats even GI ball. That said, I wont be offended if you don't believe me, I check the chrono against known loads both times I tried, wouldn't have believed it if it didn't feel like a .44 mag (well not quite).
DocRock
member
Using conicals changes the equation by adding weight. A 250 grs conical at 800 FPS essentially gets us to 45acp factory loads.
That's' your opinion but not everyone agrees. I've never tried it myself but others have told me they did and it was fine.
Here's a wikipedia article on the subject
The revolver was tested by loading each chamber to capacity with Bullseye smokeless powder and a lead ball. While this might result in catastrophic failure in other firearms, the Old Army proved to be strong enough to handle the pressure.[
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_Old_Army
DocRock
member
We all know Ruger used modern gun steel. The cylinder is strong. The issue is the threaded nipples pointing back at you. That’s their weak spot and not designed to handle smokeless even if it did. There’s no data on what they can handle which makes it dangerous.
You don't know that.
Jackrabbit1957
Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2018
- Messages
- 2,869
Do you fellows remember that knucklehead on YouTube a while back shooting a Remmie by loading smokeless powder with a spoon? I don't recall what powder he used but he never mentioned nipples blowing out.
1KPerDay
Member
Yeah, it was clays. and he was measuring "about two thirds of a 1/4 teaspoon" LOL
what a maroon.
I hesitate to post this:
Lots of assumptions made by people who try this. "it must be the same type of steel they use in their cartridge guns..." "Well it didn't blow up so it must be safe!" etc.
I'm gonna say....Who cares? Everything is relative to something else. A crowbar is an "anemic" weapon relative to a '58 remmy or an ROA, until you end up on the wrong end of one. An Abrams M1 tank is an "anemic" weapon compared to an ICBM.
A GREAT deal of the effectiveness of any and all of the above, comes down to the skill of the operator. An extra 2000fps isn't gonna mean a damn thing if the bullet is traveling 30-45-90-180 degrees off target, right? Knowing HOW to utilize the given tool, makes for a much more effective utilization.
Another angle...."writers" make money by "writing", so you can probably file this article in the "I have to make my car payment!" folder. Neither the article nor this cork sniffer's need to make his car payment really has any bearing whatsoever on you, or myself.
Maybe I'll write an "article" about how anemic a 155mm howitzer is compared a fully loaded B-52, my car payment is coming up....
A GREAT deal of the effectiveness of any and all of the above, comes down to the skill of the operator. An extra 2000fps isn't gonna mean a damn thing if the bullet is traveling 30-45-90-180 degrees off target, right? Knowing HOW to utilize the given tool, makes for a much more effective utilization.
Another angle...."writers" make money by "writing", so you can probably file this article in the "I have to make my car payment!" folder. Neither the article nor this cork sniffer's need to make his car payment really has any bearing whatsoever on you, or myself.
Maybe I'll write an "article" about how anemic a 155mm howitzer is compared a fully loaded B-52, my car payment is coming up....
woodnbow
Member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2007
- Messages
- 2,085
Let’s say you do this in a ROA. You studied pressure curves, educate yourself far beyond what anyone but an engineer will do, determine a safe load (they do this in merry old England you know in guns and cylinders designed for target loads of smokeless powders.) and nothing bad happens. Rugers are strong, much stronger than the 58 Remington your buddy is shooting but he thinks, “a gun’s a gun. They even look similar” he grabs a container of H110 or 231 ball, “hey, it’s grey!” Loads her up and touches off a hand grenade. His fault right?
I know it can be done safely. But I bet you and maybe anyone else on this forum doesn’t have the engineering background to pull it off. The numbers are in my favor...
Last edited:
I’ve read somewhere what was used, modern. I can’t seem to find anything with a quick google search though. The parts are Blackhawk parts.
4140, but I’m still trying to track down something irrefutable to link to and not just a discussion.
Last edited:
woodnbow
Member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2007
- Messages
- 2,085
I remember reading the article by Taffin when it was written. He also advised that nobody should be dense enough to try loading smokeless powder into their old army at home.
Black powder firearms, even the vaunted Ruger Old Army, are designed to safely contain pressures generated by black powder. They are not designed for any kind of smokeless powder. Wikipedia notwithstanding. (How many internal ballistics engineers do they have on staff again?)
Ooops!
Last edited:
- Status
