Ruger Old Army Deepen chambers for more powder capacity?

[JesterGrin_1]

Has anyone had there chambers made deeper for extra powder capacity on there Ruger Old Army?

And if so what are your thoughts?

And how much powder capacity will one gain?

I ask as I have noticed that Clements does offer this service.

And yes I looked at his .50 Conversion and while nice a bit to costly for myself.

[winelover]

Solution for a problem that doesn't exist. IMO

Cylinder full of Pyrodex "P" topped off with a 220 conical is approaching 44 Magnum felt recoil. Recent deer I took with that load was a essentially a "bang flop". If I need "more power", I'm grabbing my 44 RH or 45 BH.

Winelover

[Nobade]

You could always get one of these:
http://www.classicballistx.com/our_cylinder.html

And not have to cut on your original.

-Nobade

[winelover]

:holysheep Their percussion cylinders cost almost twice as much as I paid for the entire gun!

Winelover

[Outpost75]

Solution to nonexistent problem. Full chamber of Pyrodex P does it.

[country gent]

As you are limited bu the nipples thread length ( you dont want the threads sticking thru in to chamber to corrode and rust outside of the thread making them impossible to remove). I cant see alot to be gained with this. If your calipers have a depth rod on them measure overal length of cylinder then depth of chamber. and recess for nipples. And last nipple threads length. From overall cylinder length subtract chamber depth recsess and thread length. This will give an idea of what amount can be gained. A 45 - 70 case with your normal charge and amount of powder added to the diminsion above will give an idea of new charge.

[mooman76]

777 will give you a little extra power if that's what you are after.

[Omnivore]

Their percussion cylinders cost almost twice as much as I paid for the entire gun!

Not relevant. What matters is what you want to end up with.

So if you'd gotten the gun for free, as a gift, you'd be unable to spend even a penny on it because that would be spending more than you paid for the gun? See how silly that is? Where is it written that the total sum of upgrades on any system must never exceed the cost of the base system?

There must be millions of people who own 300-600 dollar bolt action rifles with 600-2,000 dollar optics packages on them. "Oh ****; I can't use the best optics on my rifle because it only cost me 500 dollars!" "Oh ****; I cannot enjoy the best sound system in my car because the car isn't expensive enough!" "Oh ****; I cannot spend a dime on getting my house re-roofed because I got the house as a gift-- I cannot spend more on the house than I paid for it!" " I would be idiotic to build a $300,000 house on this beautiful lot because I only paid $50,000 for the lot!"

Sorry. It's a pet peeve of mine. I've heard some version of this probably a few thousand times. Usually my response has been something like, "Well, if you only paid "x" for it (some small number), then it means you have more money left over for upgrades and accessories!"

Ooh, how about; "It would be stupid to spend $50,000 to send my kid to college because the hospital only charged us $2,000 to deliver him when he was born! We can't spend more on upgrades than it cost to bring him into the world!"

[winelover]

Not relevant. What matters is what you want to end up with.

So if you'd gotten the gun for free, as a gift, you'd be unable to spend even a penny on it because that would be spending more than you paid for the gun? See how silly that is? Where is it written that the total sum of upgrades on any system must never exceed the cost of the base system?

There must be millions of people who own 300-600 dollar bolt action rifles with 600-2,000 dollar optics packages on them. "Oh ****; I can't use the best optics on my rifle because it only cost me 500 dollars!" "Oh ****; I cannot enjoy the best sound system in my car because the car isn't expensive enough!" "Oh ****; I cannot spend a dime on getting my house re-roofed because I got the house as a gift-- I cannot spend more on the house than I paid for it!" " I would be idiotic to build a $300,000 house on this beautiful lot because I only paid $50,000 for the lot!"

Sorry. It's a pet peeve of mine. I've heard some version of this probably a few thousand times. Usually my response has been something like, "Well, if you only paid "x" for it (some small number), then it means you have more money left over for upgrades and accessories!"

Ooh, how about; "It would be stupid to spend $50,000 to send my kid to college because the hospital only charged us $2,000 to deliver him when he was born! We can't spend more on upgrades than it cost to bring him into the world!"

Sorry, to step on your toes. But it's all about priorities. Maybe, I should have used purple font!

My earlier post states my opinion on a stock ROA. I can see no advantage, for me to drop $250+ on a replacement percussion cylinder, that offers no real advantage to me.

That being said, if I wanted to purchase another cylinder for my ROA, it would be a conversion to centerfire. But, since I already own other 44 and 45 centerfires, my priorities prevail. Two hundred and fifty dollars is half way to another entire gun not a piece of one.

BTW, I happen to believe in top of the line optics. Check my other posts, if you wish!

Better yet, check the thread of my house build.

I don't have an avatar of "Dom Perignon" for no reason!:popcorn:


Winelover

[JesterGrin_1]

I will think on this to be sure. I did pick up some 777 to try with my Lee Ruger Old Army Conical.

Sorry I can not believe I did not think of that. I just now removed the cylinder from my Ruger Old Army and the information was correct in that one could not really deepen the cylinder bore without hitting the nipple. Thus the only way to do it would be to deepen the bore and shorten the nipple threads.

I think I will just be happy with the way it is and try the 777 powder out. :).

Thanks Gang

[pworley1]

More powder capacity might not give you much of a performance increase, you are more than likely blowing a good bit of unburned powder out the end of the barrel now.

[Wolfer]

While I have shot 777 out of my 58 rem I don't remember being impressed. My best performance/more power is always with 3F black.
Powders are different brand to brand and jug to jug. I had some Wano that would get me 100fps over Pyrodex P. I have a jug of Goex now that seems pretty potent in my rifle but I haven't run it thru the pistol yet.
Over the years I've tried most everything that came along but nothing ever worked as good as 3F black. Some time back I decided I was done experimenting. From now on I'll shoot black all the way.

[Nobade]

While I have shot 777 out of my 58 rem I don't remember being impressed. My best performance/more power is always with 3F black.
Powders are different brand to brand and jug to jug. I had some Wano that would get me 100fps over Pyrodex P. I have a jug of Goex now that seems pretty potent in my rifle but I haven't run it thru the pistol yet.
Over the years I've tried most everything that came along but nothing ever worked as good as 3F black. Some time back I decided I was done experimenting. From now on I'll shoot black all the way.


Try some Old Eynsford FFFg. I am amazed at how powerful that stuff is.

-Nobade

[rodwha]

There isn't unburned powder blowing out as that would mean the Colt Dragoon would be pointless, and more likely even the Walker. Nobody claims these to spray unburned powder.

There is a thread in which a fellow tested a stock cylinder against a deepened one which held an additional 5 grns of powder. This thread is on a traditional forum that doesn't allow non members to view so there's no point in giving a link or I would as his results were surprising. This is a part of his post:

"Finally had my buddy cast some pure lead 220 Lee conicals.
The results surprised me. Surprised me so much I had to do it twice.
Yesterday was off and on drizzle and cool.
Powder is Swiss 3F. So before anyone says "I can fit XX amount of XX powder" Swiss does NOT compress. Measurements are by volume.

The standard ROA cylinder with a Lee conical will fit 30 grains volume comfortably. Any more and there's a good chance you will have to cut the top of the bullet off.

The Clements deepened cylinder will hold 35 grains comfortably.

5 shots through the chronograph with the standard cylinder with 30 grains averaged 754 fps.

5 shots with the modified cylinder and 35 grains averaged 877 fps.

I thought this quite the increase for 5gr of powder. So ran two more shots each with basically the same results.

After I got to thinking about it, doing the math it pretty much is dead on. (if you use common core your on your own)

Your increasing your powder charge roughly 16% and receiving roughly a 16% return in velocity.
All shots were fired through the 5 1/2 barrel ROA."

I have a long bullet that Accurate Molds made for my ROA that weighs 285 grns. I'm sure an extra 5 grns would produce a world of difference, and it's something I'm considering down the road one day.

http://accuratemolds.com/bullet_detail.php?bullet=45-285C-D.png

Felt recoil is irrelevant.

[Omnivore]

A fellow recently did a charge weight-to-velocity test using Swiss powder in a Remington repro. revolver. Turns out the muzzle energy to charge weight, from 10 to 35 grains, is quite linear;
http://1858remington.com/discuss/index.php/topic,6530.0.html
That would strongly suggest that the eight inch 44 revolver, charged with 35 grains, has not come even close to its point of diminishing return on charge weight increases, and it is another way of reinforcing rodwha's point.


What matters is what you want to end up with.



My earlier post states my opinion on a stock ROA. I can see no advantage, for me to drop $250+ on a replacement percussion cylinder...

winelover; as you can see, we are in complete agreement.

[Wolfer]

While I've always felt more is better Especialy when we're talking cap and ball revolvers my limited experience has not shown that.
The two deer I've shot with my 58 rem was with a cylinder full of 3f Wano and the lee 452-200 RF at a velocity of 700 fps.
The end result mirrored deer shot with my 45 colt @ 1000 fps. I've long came to the conclusion that where you put the little hole matters much more than what you put it with.

[Multigunner]

I deepened the chamber of a 1851 Navy replica many years ago.
I'd noticed that the nipples when screwed in fully only occupied half the depth of the threaded holes and the bottom of the chambers was conical.
I'd found an old patent drawing of a Colt C&B revolver and the drawing showed the chambers to be cylindrical and much deeper.

I used a 3/8" drill bit with the cutting edges on the sides ground off anf the tip ground nearly flat. I carefully turned this with a hand cranked drill to remove quite a bit of metal from the bottoms of the chambers. I stopped when the ends of the nipples were flush with the bottom of the chambers. The increase in the amount of powder the chambers could take was remarkable and the power level was noticably greater.

Some European copies of Colt C&B revolvers have been noted to have shallow chambers that greatly reduce powder capacity.

[rodwha]

"While I've always felt more is better Especialy when we're talking cap and ball revolvers my limited experience has not shown that."

I certainly see your point. For deer I don't see there being much "need." For me, though, my revolvers are mostly as a backup for the just in case I have to track it and it may want to seek revenge type critter such as hogs or even black bears, given the chance. At that point I'd certainly not mind a little overkill as the more penetration I can be certain of the better, especially since I'll likely be hunting alone these days.

I load mine up to their maximum accuracy with what I believe may be enough, which is 35 grns volume of Olde E or T7. I'm not sure how deepening my chambers might effect this as I'm figuring my numbers to be somewhat comparable to Mr. Beliveau's numbers using 30 grns of T7 and a 220 grn Lee conical with my 195 grn WFN, which would give me close to 500 ft/lbs. I wish I knew that having this done would certainly improve things though, but for hogs I feel this is good enough, and I didn't move to VA's bear country as I thought I might...

[Wolfer]

Yes I can see where I would want more when dealing with things that might bite.