Ruger Old Army With smokeless Powder

[bouncer50]

I own a Ruger old army i was doing some reading in how the factory tested them. They would charge each cylinder with smoke less powder bulleyes to test them. They said their guns were safe using smokeless. Has anyone ever hear of this before:-o:shock:

[Hickory]

Don't you believe it.
You can get in a lot of trouble doing something like that.
And I mean physical damage to the gun and yourself.

[Outpost75]

I am familiar with Ruger's proofing procedure, and they did not use Bullseye, but something similar to Trail Boss using a wad to achieve powder compression. Bullet was a 250 lead conical inserted backwards like a wadcutter. AND they fired the gun remotely in a proof box, which is a strong suggestion that only a fool would hold it.

A Kirst conversion and Cwboy loads is much safer.

[Beagle333]

Just don't do it. There are smokeless cylinders available for almost all repro BP guns, and also the Old Army.
My .02 is to get a .45 conversion cylinder and play with that in whatever you want to go smokeless with.

[M-Tecs]

I own a Ruger old army i was doing some reading in how the factory tested them. They would charge each cylinder with smoke less powder bulleyes to test them. They said their guns were safe using smokeless. Has anyone ever hear of this before:-o:shock:

Not True!!!! Ruger did test with smokeless to determine what it took to blow them up that is total different than smokeless safe. The metal and gun is strong enough however the percussion cap priming system is not.

http://pdf.textfiles.com/manuals/FIREARMS/ruger_oldarmy.pdf

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-5710.html

http://www.decadecounter.com/vta/articleview.php?item=441

[bouncer50]

Not True. Ruger did test with smokeless to determine what it took to blow them up that is total different than smokeless safe. The metal and gun is strong enough however the cap priming system is not. I not dumb enough to do it. But Ruger should have not said they tested it with smokeless. It give people a idea they can do it. I bet a few people have tried it not knowing any better about black powder and smokeless.

[Thumbcocker]

"It give people a idea they can do it. I bet a few people have tried it not knowing any better about black powder and smokeless." Always room for one more in Darwin's waiting room.

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

I own a Ruger old army i was doing some reading in how the factory tested them. They would charge each cylinder with smoke less powder bulleyes to test them. They said their guns were safe using smokeless. Has anyone ever hear of this before:-o:shock:
I'd sure be interested in seeing how that was said, with all the context, and the source.

[pietro]

I am familiar with Ruger's proofing procedure, and they did not use Bullseye, but something similar to Trail Boss using a wad to achieve powder compression. Bullet was a 250 lead conical inserted backwards like a wadcutter. AND they fired the gun remotely in a proof box, which is a strong suggestion that only a fool would hold it.

A Kirst conversion and Cwboy loads is much safer.


The conversion cylinder makers recommend that NO loads, stronger than Cowboy loads, be used in their products - the various gun's designs (basically Civil War era designs) just cannot safely handle anything stronger.


.

[DIRT Farmer]

The shear strength on 1/4 28 nipples is 10K for 75% threads. Think about that.

[Outpost75]

The shear strength on 1/4 28 nipples is 10K for 75% threads. Think about that.

You are quite correct. I was told at Ruger that the reasoning for the smokeless tests was to determine at what point the nipples blew out and that data indicated a 1/4-28 UNF-3A thread which gave better than 75% engagement, and a grade 18-8 stainless nipple which resisted stress corrosion cracking in the thread root and provided optimum shear strength. Aperture size in nipple also affects pressure rise, cap rapidly disintegrating above about 10kpsi to hasten leakage.

[bob208]

if the ruger was safe with smokeless it would rolled o the barrel. every one I have picked up has had use black powder only.

[docone31]

What is wrong with black powder? It works real well in my pistols. All my loads for them are with BP.
Fast lock time, great accuracy. My '51 Navy penetrates equal to a 9mm. Easy to clean.
I wondered this many years ago. Glad I never tried. Would have been a waste of pistol, and possibly me.
My pistols are not my ACPs. However, if I ever run out of shells, I can always load BP direct.

[SniderBoomer]

I have some specially made 209 primer nipple-conversions for my ROA. They screw straight in.

I have been using them in the prescribed manner that the revolver was nitro-proofed for use with at a main English Proof House. Namely, a 454 Lead Round Ball, absolutely no wads or grease cookie, seated with the stock ROA ball-seating ram. No deeper.

Very accurate and pleasant to shoot.

Why? In mainland Britain (Scotland, England and Wales) but surprisingly not Northern Ireland or some of the UK Islands, metallic cartridge handguns (inc 22 rimfire) were banned outright a few years ago, in knee-jerk response to some pedophile nutjobs that went on murder sprees with guns. Here, we are governed by Corporations, the Tabloid Media and Politicians, in that order, so the Media partially got their 'gun ban'.

It left us a restricted choice when using 'handguns' for target shooting. The 'Long Barrel Revolver' is still allowed, but the barrels must be 12 inches long or more, with a permanently welded extension rod on the grip to make the overall permanent length sort of classed as a Revolving Carbine. No ideal at all. Many shoot these in 357, 44, whatever, but of course, they are not the same as the 'old days' when we could shoot regular, unchanged revolvers and semi-auto's.

The 18-inch barrelled 'Buntline' clones using metallic cartridges were also untouched by the ban, because of their extreme length.

But for the experience of compact 'regular' handguns, we were left only with muzzle-loader revolvers, which were unaffected by the ban (as were the really old stuff like Flintlocks).

Now, one problem is that many indoor clubs have problems with the smoke and soot of BP, and also there's the cleaning issues. So we had numerous small gunsmith-engineers develop fresh-made 'muzzle-loading nitro cylinders' that fit into our originally-Black-Powder revolvers, and allowed small charges of nitro to be used with 209 shotgun primers.

These seem to be developing all the time, as quite simply, we have a need here and a growing market.

To return to my Ruger Old Army. Yes, the nitro powder load was indeed Proofed with a stock Ruger Old Army cylinder fitted with the 209 primer nipples. Proofed for that specific charge and ball size/weight. Everyone trying this adaptation, is urged to have their own individual ROA sent away for Proof testing with THAT exact load by their gunsmith.

I haven't mentioned the specific load, as it was safe for my own revolver. I do know there is a great concern that some will tinker, push the limits and cause injury. But the same could be said of umpteen Black Powder firearms used prudently with nitro (577 Snider etc).

Not wanting to be a fox in any hen-house here.

[Edit] fwiw, I have a preference for Black Powder, nitro only for indoor visits where soot can be an issue.

[Omnivore]

Don't even think about it. We all know that proof loads are far higher pressure than ordinary safe loads. Right? Right. It's not a secret. It shouldn't have to be a secret.

SO, having that information, are you going to haul off and use proof loads for your regular shooting? If you're that stupid, you deserve what is certainly going to happen as a result.

Also; the priming system here, being a threaded plug in the back of the chamber, WILL deteriorate. Just because it may have survived ONE shot doesn't mean it is therefore perfectly safe to fire that same load seven hundred times. It is not.

My car engine once survived running out of oil temporarily too. It really did. Does that mean I should therefore conclude that it is perfectly safe to drive it around all day with no oil in the engine? Right. You go ahead and try that. Good luck, Fool. I know exactly what'll happen, and I don't have to even try it to know. Funny how that is, ain't it?

Actually, never mind. You just go right ahead and do it. We've all see the many exploded guns all over the internet, on youtube and so on, because people keep asking the same question, never having learned from the thousand idiots that preceeded them, but you just forget about all that and try it One. More. Time. Maybe your experience will be the first one to actually defy the laws of physics - you never know.

[Omnivore]

Do a little research on the matter of muzzleloaders that were SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED for smokeless powder. You'll find that they blow up, and so they tend to quit making them. Apparently, with the lack of that most important wear part we know of as the brass cartridge case to seal the breech, the breech plug undergoes some gas cutting. It happens oh, so slowly at first, but just like the space shuttle Columbia's SRB joint seals; once the cutting reaches a certain level, the whole thing goes to hell right quick.

Just like socialism, it works perfectly fine, right up to the point where it doesn't. Then you die.

[Tar Heel]

134851

[Omnivore]

Oh by the way, I just thought of something; I'm the chief designer and President in a manufacturing business. I'm sitting here in my office right now, surrounded by computers. I've done things to guns in product testing. Horrible, destructive things. Things I would NEVER do with my personal firearms. Get it? No really; GET IT? It's how you (hopefully) discover the fail points in a system. It's what you do, for science. So you know you have a safety margin, because without a safety margin, people get *****'d. Is this sinking in yet?

[dead dog]

You can a 44 special Ruger flat top at Buds for 500 bucks. Sell the old army and save your face.

[gandydancer]

I got one the first year they came out no 457 RB no molds. a worker at Lyman's in ct had one he was testing loads with loaned it to me to cast some up. I shot around a hundred rds with BLACK POWDER 3ff only with it over the next few weeks. I was reloading it at the range one day 5 chambers loaded from a flask on the six chamber powder dumped in went to put the ball in no powder in chamber?? brass tube on flask gummed up? pour in another 28 grs grab ball what? no powder in chamber? fill powder tube double check. its full. dump powder in chamber & watch it run inside the cylinder wall. a hole the size of a pencil eraser in chamber wall. looked to me like the cylinder was made from a casting. sent it back they put in a new cylinder and it was fine. Hate to think what would have happened had i pulled the trigger on it that day. old lefty one eyed died in a cloud of smoke. and them that where there remember the day well. Proof loads using Bullseye? I don't think so

[gandydancer]

I know of a fool who did 20 successful snap rolls in a Cessna 150 on the 21st he landed on that big runway in the sky.. "MAYBE"

[SniderBoomer]

Sorry guys, I didn't write that very clearly. It was nitro-proofed with the 454 Round Ball, that specific, not 457, and the working charge was taken back from the proof charge, which are of course higher. Nobody shoots Proof loads. I wasn't clear.

Don't shoot the messenger guys, I just use these as an end-user, with a pristine cylinder, of course I wouldn't use this system with questionable nipple-thread contact, corrosion, etc, and if it weren't Proofed.

Appreciate what you also say about just getting a conversion cylinder to use metallic cartridges like 45 Colt - as i said, they are outright banned where I live.

[shdwlkr]

Look at what Ruger says about what to use in the ROA, I would think they know what is safe to use in a given firearm.

POWDER CHARGE
It is safe to use as much Black Powder as the chamber will hold, leaving room for
the bullet. This maximum loading is not usually the most accurate loading,
however.
A good starting accuracy load, using a pure lead .457
”
diameter ball, is 20 grains
of FFFg and sufficient filler (corn meal is frequently used as a filler material) to
seat the ball approximately 1/16
”
below the chamber mouth. You may find that
some minor adjustment of this charge upwards or downwards is more accurate
in your
“
Old Army
”
.
Filler is not required and can be completely dispensed with if the powder charge
takes up at least 1/2 of the cylinder.

Page 10 of the ROA manual what more do you need to know?

[Blizzard63]

I totally agree with Not using the smokeless powder , its just not worth the consequences and to think that one of those nipples can fly like a piece of shrapnel..

[bedbugbilly]

My suggestion would be that for anyone who is foolish enough to think they can use smokeless powder in a BP pistol should spend some time reading a reloading manual - and since Bulls Eye was mentioned - and I use a lot of Bulls Eye for reloading 38s - read of the dangers associated with a "double charge" and what it can do to a handgun that is DESIGNED for smokeless powder . . and then re-read it again.

Regardless of what is written on the "net" . . and we all know it's true 'cause we "read it on the net" . . . and regardless of what Ruger does, did or didn't do . . . it is unfortunate that there are still those who "know it can be done" and instead of using BP in a BP firearm . . they try their own "special load" that ends in disaster. And I say this adamantly because I have seen the results on two different times when working rescue.

My comments are not a "snark" at anybody . . . but what always alarms me is how often someone would be foolish enough to try smokeless in a BP firearm.

Yes . . . I suppose a person can "do anything" if they set their mind to it. I drive a car . . . I can also drive a car over cliff . . . how many times I can do that though is questionable . . . and is it using common sense?

[bouncer50]

About 20+ years ago in are local newspaper a young guy in his teens loaded a muzzle loader with smoke less powder he fired the gun it blow up and killed him. A chunk of steel hit him in the head. I believe Ruger should have never said they tested it smokeless powder. Because some people will try it.

[country gent]

Keep in mind ythat the cap and ball black powder revolvers are a vented system thru the nipple touch hole and a modern revolver for cased ammo is sealed by the case. Allowing the smokless powders pressure to "vent back thry the nipple is going to be way harder on nipples hammer face and parts. Also the blast in your face will be much more uncomfortable. Not to mention that smokless will create an unsafe condition. The idea behind blue pills or proof loads is to find flaws and problems quickly. They arnt meant as a steady diet but one round and done. While the Ruger old army is a stout well built firearm I dont think it will stand up to a steay diet of that but for testing it does the intended job

[Squeeze]

ehh go ahead and try it.. just give the wife my contact info first. I LOVE buying gun collections off widows for what the deceased told her he paid :bigsmyl2:

[johnson1942]

just get a 45 long colt cylinder for you ruger and you can shoot what you want in it if it isnt over the top. im about to make that purchase for my ruger old army soon and this is what im going to shoot through it. the powder will be blackhorn 209. their will be a 60 thousands wad between the powder and base of the bullet. the bullet will be a 50 cal roundball that i push into my .451 swageing die with a sharp round ball type nose punch. what that does to the .50 cal round ball is trim off neatly the few extra thousands and leave a nice small bearing surface on the ball .451 diam. the trimmed ball goes into the case and the case is roll crimped so the trimmed ball stays in place. i expect it to shoot holes in holes consistantly. i now do the same type of loading with my 1871 1872 open top uberti .38 special. i use a .380 roundball trimmed to .357 and it is very very accurate in that open top. the ruger old armys are simple, rugged and easy to shoot and very reliable. i see mine even has a tapered throat or free bore that helps it shoot better. have fun with your ruger but dont kill your self with it, you cant replace eyes or hands or fingers.

[M-Tecs]

I only tried blackhorn 209 in my ROA once in the standard cylinder (not 45 colt). I had to duplex with real BP to get eliminate the FTF's and accuracy was not close to BP. I like blackhorn 209 but it did not work well for me in the ROA.

Same here http://www.frontiermuzzleloading.com/t5017-bh-209-in-ruger-old-army-incomplete-ignition

[rodwha]

Triple 7 isn't corrosive. It gives very similar performance to BH 209, though I've read it smokes more like BP and is a little less consistent with higher deviations.

I, too, have those capsules for my Ruger and am wondering how it can best be used. Less smoke would be worthwhile in the field I believe.

[oldred]

Triple 7 isn't corrosive.


777 isn't corrosive??????? Surely you jest?

[Multigunner]

Testing a cylinder as described reminds me of old British books on proof testing shotgun barrels before the shotgun was manufactured. They didn't want to blow up a completed high value double after putting all that work into it so barrels were proofed before being installed.
They did the same for bolt action smokeless powder rifle barrels using sacrifical receivers until wartime production pressures and increasing confidence in barrel manufacture shifted the method to proofing barrel and action at the same time.

[gtgeorge]

Darwin gives out awards for those that want to try to do things that scream out to not be done. Smokeless as a substitute is one of those screaming out and waiting to give out a bright red Darwin Award. I personally would pass on the Widow's gun collection though as I would venture to say that experiments would have been done there as well. :groner:

[rodwha]

I misspoke. Triple 7 is nothing like BP or Pyrodex. In a test where the three were poured on pieces of steel and lit, and then set in a humid garage for 4 days showed that T7 didn't harm the steel whereas the others had. It can go days without issue it would seem, but I cannot say that it is non corrosive.

I'll see if I can find it and post a link.

[rodwha]

http://1858remington.com/discuss/index.php?topic=7457.0

I believe it is on page 5 where I find him and get him to cross post.

From his backyard testing it clearly shows that Triple 7 isn't corrosive like what we think of. I'd still clean my guns the same day, but have read of, and tried with positive results, that spraying down with Ballistol will keep corrosion issues at bay until you have the time to properly clean it.

[johnson1942]

triple 7 may not be corrosive but that crud ring is something i just wont deal with. when i said black horn 209 in a ruger old army i ment the 45 long colt case and 38 special case, not the precussion cylinders. real black is for those.

[rodwha]

I've not noticed the crud ring in my .50 cal Lyman sidelock. In some discussions some believe it's due to a hotter ignition and/or larger powder charge. I have only used 70 grns of 3F and a percussion cap. But I usually use Olde Eynsford through my rifle. Maybe I haven't fired enough T7 to notice it.

[wired]

Ive got three old armies. Two are the late SS Vaquero style . The most recent acquisition is a 1973 blued model that was perfect except for one really rusted cylinder hole that was so bad that I was able to buy the gun for $150. I figured on buying a classicballistx cylinder for it and I didnt mind losing the frame if it came down to it so I strapped my shooters stand down and strapped the gun to the stand, got the long string out and stuffed the remaining 5 good cylinders with 8 grains of unique powder, 3 felt wads per cylinder to take up the space and a 255 Hornady bullet in each hole and magnum primers with small hole nipples. My standard weak cowboy load. 5 booms and no signs of damage. Just saying. I dont advise anyone do this in their hand but it didnt damage my '73 in the slightest.

Hell of a first post huh.

[Fishman]

Safe testing methods on a gun that needed repair anyway. I'd say it was a great first post.

[SniderBoomer]

Welcome to the 'I Farted In The Lift Too' club.

Such talk is not popular. I can see why.

[shdwlkr]

Personally I stay with the manufacturer says is safe in their firearms. Yes yours may have held up one time or several but if it fails and you send it in to Ruger I wonder what they will say.......
Ruger said the ROA could handle 4f powder and I have never gone that beyond 3f myself and see no reason to walk on the wild side as someone just might get the idea to try your experiment in another firearm and have really nasty results.

[Char-Gar]

I bet firing that thing with smokeless would sure as shootin void the warrantee! :-|

These kinds of posts are the reason I avoid public shooting ranges.

[shdwlkr]

char-gar
I have seen much worse and chose very carefully where I go to shoot for that reason and others too