[Timthinker]

Many blackpowder enthusiasts believe that the Ruger Old Army (ROA) is the finest muzzleloading revolver currently in production. This claim rests on the metallurgy and internal components used to manufacture this remarkable gun. But the ROA has been "king of the hill" for 35 years, a lengthy period of time. So what, if any, caplock revolver will emerge to challenge the Ruger as the premier muzzleloading revolver? To date, I have never received a satisfactory answer to this question. I assume that some of our members have thought about this matter as well, and I would like to read their ideas on this topic. Thanks in advance.


Timthinker

[Bad Flynch]

Both Hege and Pedersoli make target grade '58 Remington revolvers that will outshoot the Ruger in the right hands, but they are seldom seen here. The Pedersolis, which can be had occasionally, are virtually hand made and have Lothar-Walther barrels. Hege waffles around, sometimes I hear, with quality.

I have one of the more expensive Piettas, a '58 Remington target revolver sold by DGW for over $600. It is a gem and has gain-twist rifling. I can't fault it a bit.

[ArmedBear]

There's no such thing as a muzzleloading revolver.:) It's like an RKO Radio Picture. What's a radio picture?

Well, that's not true. The Pepperbox is a muzzleloading revolver.

[Timthinker]

While the revolvers Bad Flynch mentioned are fine products indeed, I do not see them as commercial successors to the ROA. Perhaps I should rephrase my question. Do any of our members believe a successor to the Ruger will appear in the next few years? Or, would it prove cost ineffective for another manufacturer to attempt a successor to the ROA? Like it or not, economics does play a major role in such marketing decisions.


Timthinker

[mykeal]

In my opinion, and I don't yet own one, there is no likely successor to the ROA in the near or distant future. The reason is economics - no manufacturer will invest in the tooling and engineering NR costs because the ROI will not be large enough.

[Zeke/PA]

I have eleven quality handguns in my arsenal and my Old Army is by far the most accurate.
I really can't see anything down the road to replace the ROA in the shooting fraternity.
I routinely take squirrels out to 20 yards with the pistol and I once shot a huge whitetail doe that ventured within 15 yards of my treestand.
Zeke

[hamourkiller]

Colt Walker?

[Old Fuff]

When considering new products, gun makers like most manufacturers do market studies to see what the prospects are. In the case of cap & ball revolvers most of the present market rests with those that are interested in shooting duplicates of 19th century revolvers. It is unlikely that any other substantial manufacturer is going to spend any money developing and marketing another "modern" revolver along the lines of Ruger's Old Army.

On the other hand I expect smaller companies and custom shop/gunsmiths may make more accurate guns on 19th century patterns, particularly the ever-popular Remington New Army. It would seem for example, that United States Fire Arms Mfg. Co. of Hartford, CT. may be about to do something in this direction.

Today few people realize that original Colt Navies were able to interlock shots into one ragged hole slightly larger then a quarter, at 25 yards. This is (pardon the pun) an accuracy standard worth shooting for.

[DrLaw]

Ruger NEW Army! :D:p:neener::rolleyes:

The Doc is out now. :cool:

[Old Fuff]

Doc, ya' got'ta understand that I'm 2000 miles away from my reference library, which can make things difficult, because my brain isn't what it used to be. :uhoh:

But I did find an old 2003 Ruger catalog. It's a bit moldy and worn, but it does say...

Ruger Old Army!

The Old Fuff is now out... Way out... :D

[PTK]

I believe the USFA 1858 will be the finest black powder revolver in production once it gets going.

[Old Fuff]

I doubt that anyone has doubts about the future USFA's Remington revolvers. But top cosmetics and workmanship don't always equal superior accuracy. While we can hope, we'll still have to wait and see...

[mykeal]

Old Fuff - Doc knows that. He was hoping (wishing?) that the gun that supersedes the ROA would perhaps be a Ruger New Army. I think.

PTK, and Old Fuff too - USFA's Remington will without a doubt be a fine weapon. I expect it to be very high quality and accurate as well. And expensive, very expensive; for that reason it will not be significant competition in the marketplace for the ROA. For it to supersede the ROA it needs to deliver sales numbers to match or exceed the ROA, and I just don't think it will do that for price reasons alone. Other than that, it will certainly be as good as or better than an ROA. I think.

[Old Fuff]

I don’t think that Ruger is likely to do much more with the Old Army model, other then perhaps redesign it to take current large-frame Blackhawk lockwork. This wouldn’t be necessary because of safety issues, but rather to reduce manufacturing costs. As it stands now, the Old Army uses internals that are unique to that model, and undoubtedly a pain in the backside to make and keep in stock. Making it “in common” with the Blackhawk line of cartridge revolvers would make sense.

Maximum accuracy in any revolver largely depends on concentricity between the chambers and bore. In a cap & ball revolver you can add to that chamber diameters that are matched to the bore. Concentricity between the bore and chambers is best achieved by line boring the chambers. While this would be difficult, if not impossible to do with Colt open-top models, it could be done with Remington style revolvers if expense wasn’t an issue.

Besides the obvious, the most telling consequence caused by the USFA offering may be to get the Italian makers to put out a premium line, with more attention to important but now overlooked details. It all depends on if there is a viable market.

[GunTech]

Ruger is really the only example I can think of that is not a copy of some 19th century design. With such being the case, you are srtuck with upgraded but ultimately 19th century engineering. Better steels and manufacturing maybe, but the same basic gun.

This is quite unlike BP hunting rifles, where their has been a whole series of 'modern' BP designs.

The Only rival I can think of is dead. For a short time, a Swiss gentleman was making modern copies of the Beaumont Adams percussion revolver, which is a double action design. They were in the $2k range, and he only made a few.

I'm not sure this classifies as the successor to the ROA, but I wanted one quite badly.

http://www.collectiblefirearms.com/New%20Pictures%207/app_0025x.jpg

[Timthinker]

Old Fluff has raised a good point about the ROA. Ruger might create a Ruger NEW Army revolver by adopting the lockwork of their Blackhawk series. This change might reduce the cost of producing this caplock design in the longrun, but I am uncertain about the initial costs of this modification. It might very well prove untenable given the current sales figures for this particular model. But standardizing the ROA's lockwork with the Blackhawk design is one of the few realistic upgrades that is conceivable even if unlikely in the near future.

The proposed USFA 1858 Remington also appeals to me, but I have two reservations about it. First, I wonder if it will adopt a modern lockwork design like the Ruger. If not, my vote will remain with the ROA. Second, I wonder if this new Remington will feature adjustable sights. Again, if it does not, I would favor a Ruger with this feature. Thanks again for the observations.


Timthinker

[4v50 Gary]

How about an updated Lemat or a Ruger Old Army with a 20 Ga barrel slung beneath the regular barrel? Le Ruger Rebel?

[ArmedBear]

Tim, there already are revolvers that will outshoot the ROA and have done so in international competition. That doesn't mean they "supercede" it, since they're not mass-market priced. But the R&S design, for example, is every bit as capable of inherent accuracy as the Ruger, and can be tuned to best-in-class performance, as Pedersoli's competition offering has demonstrated.

"Modern lockwork" IOW a coil mainspring? Overrated. Do the top CAS competitors all use Vaqueros? No way, no how.

Modern steel matters more than a coil spring. All those SAA's that get beaten to hell most weekends have the same lockwork as a BP revolver. My SAA clone with good springs has amazing trigger feel and excellent practical accuracy, limited only by the sights.

So I question a lot of your premises. Do you write for Ruger's catalogs?

As far as I can remember, I haven't seen an ROA in person since the early '80s. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with them. They're fine guns. But the marketplace isn't exactly clamoring for another BP revolver that doesn't have a 19th-century appearance.

My state requires single-shots during BP season. If I could carry a revolver, a stainless ROA would be a top choice except for its heft. But as it stands, I've never been too interested in one, not because it isn't a good gun, but because due to limited practical use, I'm more interested in a vintage design if I'm shooting BP. Ditto for most of the market, apparently, since there are whole companies that have become successful selling quality replicas since the ROA was introduced.

I think that "supercede" is a word that doesn't happen too much in BP, except for the inline hunting rifles made for those who never wanted to shoot BP in the first place. Quality, though, does matter and people do want it and will pay for it.

I guess "supercede" without a lot of qualifiers implies a critical mass of acceptance, too. The 870 superceded the Model 12 as the pump gun in American hunting, as the 390 overtook the 1100 and the 1100 overtook the Auto 5 before it. That doesn't even mean it's better.

The ROA may dominate certain competitions, so something could supercede it in that arena. But it doesn't have mass market dominance.

(For the record, I'm a happy owner of multiple Rugers, and I'll be buying more. I have nothing against Ruger, their revolvers in general, or the ROA in particular.)

[Old Fuff]

Understand, the Old Fuff doesn't advocate any changes to the lockwork in current Ruger Old Army revolvers, but at some point the company might.

The tooling costs would be relatively modest, and for the most part only involve modifications to the frame and hammer. Whenever possible, gun manufacturers prefer to have as many common parts in their products as possible. This is especially true of models that only see limited production.

Without question, revolvers such as clones of the Remington New Army can be set up to be as accurate - or more so - then the run-of-the-mill Ruger. However at the present time such handguns are far more expensive then the Ruger, and for that reason their use and popularity will always be limited.

What might be more likely is small companies or individual gunsmiths that specialize in rebuilding standard Remington-style revolvers into gilt-edge shooters. In terms of price they might well be competitive with the foreign target-grade guns.

ArmedBear is correct in saying that there is little market demand of any consequence for "improved" cap & ball revolvers, as most buyers are happy with them as they are, and have modest expectations concerning accuracy. Therefore any better mousetrap will likely be a custom or semi-custom product.

[Timthinker]

Wow! I never dreamed this thread would become so popular. Thanks guys. I would like to clearify my reasoning for championing the ROA as the best BP revolver available. Granted, other BP revolvers can be manufactured that will outperform the Ruger, but at what price and availability? These pieces seem more like specialized products than mass produced ones, at least in my estimation of things. Also, I have found from personal experience that my ROA, before I foolishly sold it, proved more accurate than other BP revolvers. This experience is shared by a great many others as well. In addition, I never experienced any difficulties with the Ruger lockwork, but I certainly did with other Italian repos.

In my opinion, no other BP revolver really supercedes the Ruger when it is judged on price, durability, and accuracy. One can "make a better mousetrap", but not without spending far more than the current cost of the ROA. Given this criteria, I hope the reasons for my advocacy of this gun are clear. Perhaps I should write for the Ruger company. Maybe they will reward me with a "new toy". Thanks again guys for making me clearify my position.


Timthinker

[Timthinker]

Before anyone asks, I used the funds from my sale of the ROA to purchase a Ruger Vaquero chambered for the .45 Colt. It is a sweet thing, but I often wish I would have kept the ROA and saved my pennies for the .45 at a later date. Oh, the price of impatience.


Timthinker

[rifle]

In my humble opinion and considering the current market place with replicas of original revolvers being steadfast I've come to realize a new gun doesn't need to be made. The guns we have now in the form of Uberti and Pietta ect.ect. would open a new market if......the guns were put together properly with a good grade steel.
The guns we shoot now are sub grade. If they made some 1851 and 1860 Colts and 1858 Remingtons with some close tolerances and good ordinance grade steel that would consistantly shoot ,at least, 2 inch groups at 25 yards I'd be buying one instead of the Ruger.
If our replicas didn't come with under sized chambers compared to the bores and misalignment everywhere they could shoot much better and be even more popular.
If the cylinders of our replicas were hard enough to not be deformed by the bolts they would be more popular. If the parts weren't loose as a caboose that would be a plus. Either the screws are too small or the holes in the parts are too big. ha ha ha
Anywhooo.....I think if someone came out with replicas of the old cap&ballers that were put together with some precision and made of good carbon ordanance grade steel and had accuracy potential they'd sell like pancakes at Aunt Jemimma's house.
The Italian replica manufacturers are making progress slowly but surely with tightening tolerances and putting the guns together well but.....they are too slow about it. I'm tired of waiting and while I'm waiting I'm reaming my chambers and aligning my chambers to the grooves of the barrels and doing trigger jobs and bottoming arbors and the whole bit. They say that's part of the fun. Kitchen table gunsmithing.
I'd like the fun of buying a cap&baller and taking it out of the box and going to the targets and start shooting tight consistant groups right off the bat. I'd like to have a gun come out of the box that doesn't need the bolt spring lightened before cycling the action for fear of the bolt deforming the cylinder notches of a cylinder made of steel the consistancy of jello. I'd like to look down the barrel of a Colt clone and see smooth instead of tool chatter.
Maybe Ruger should just make a good sound Colt 1860 Army that stays together and shoots two inch groups at 25 yards all day long. A gun that lasts more than a couple of years. Kind of like the originals. If the Italians can't do it I know good old Ruger can. Come on Ruger. Give me a good 1860 Colt Army 44. Please. Maybe even a Walker or a Remington.

[Old Fuff]

Well I have some good news and bad... :uhoh: :)

USFA is about to build the kind of revolver you want... I think. :)

But I expect the street price will be around one thousand bucks... :uhoh:

[DrLaw]

Actually, I was just joking around with the name. Old vs. New, what will supercede the old - something 'new' :neener:

Well, I tried. :banghead:

The Doc is out now. :cool:

[ArmedBear]

Maybe Ruger should just make a good sound Colt 1860 Army that stays together and shoots two inch groups at 25 yards all day long. A gun that lasts more than a couple of years. Kind of like the originals. If the Italians can't do it I know good old Ruger can. Come on Ruger. Give me a good 1860 Colt Army 44. Please. Maybe even a Walker or a Remington.

I've had similar thoughts for about 25 years. A Remington copy, anyway. They can keep the 1860, if I'm paying extra for accuracy.

So now USFA is going to do that. If it's not $1500, I'll have to get one.:)

Another modern look-and-feel BP revolver might do quite well in the UK for legal reasons. But here in the US, I think it would be about as popular as 16" AR uppers chambered for .44-40 Black Powder Only.:D

[sundance44s]

I`m sure hopeing the USFA price will be around 600 bucks for the 1858 Remmie ....and 1000 bucks for the 1875 Remmie ...In any case , my collection of the Eyetilian copys will be for sale , just as soon as I can get my hot little hands on an American made Remmie . I won`t need but one of each .. Hurry Up USFA ! I want one like me ..Born in the USA !

[ArmedBear]

I`m sure hopeing the USFA price will be around 600 bucks for the 1858 Remmie

The accurized Pietta costs more than that. But we can hope.:)

[Old Fuff]

Guys...

Do you really think that USFA can produce a Remington New Army, with the kind of materials, workmanship and finish you want, and do so paying U.S. labor rates and overhead, and still retail it for $600.?

[ArmedBear]

No. I sure don't.

I rather expect that $600 will be the extra charge, on top of the gun's price, if you want a color-casehardened hammer.:uhoh:

[Old Fuff]

So this begs a question... :scrutiny:

Will they give up some quality in materials and workmanship to meet a lower price point, or go all-out and charge whatever is necessary?

Looking at the company's history I expect the latter, but if the revolver is made this way it can't cost a whole lot less then a Single Action Army with the same degree of materials, workmanship and finish.

There is that old saying..., you get what you pay for. ;)

[ArmedBear]

There is that old saying..., you get what you pay for.

To a degree...

I really don't think that an upgrade to smooth wood grips is worth $250 (fancy walnut $300, checkered add $200), a CCH finish on the hammer is worth $115, nor a "historic letter" $50. Consecutive serial numbers on one order for a pair of guns that cost $1245 each + options that should be included, $100 extra per gun?

Like Porsche, USFA makes a top-notch product, but really gets you when you want any "options."

[Old Fuff]

I see your point... :what:

I was addressing the relative cost of producing a top-quality-in-all-respects Remington New Army replica, in the United States. The only similar revolver in present production I could compare it to would be a Single Action Army.

I presume that the wood stocks you mentioned are of the individually fitted one-piece kind. If so I see U.S. labor costs coming into play.

To a degree we see the same situation as those folks that want a Colt Government Model .45 pistol, that's made the way it was during the Great Depression, but selling for $600 to $800. In today's economy it can't be done - at least in the United States.

[sundance44s]

They do make a Colt Peacemaker for that 600 dollar price range ..I think it`s called a USFA Rodeo or something , so we can hope . If not I can live without the 1875 Remmie ..The 1858 with conversion cylinder will do . Something else I haven`t heard anything on yet ..who will be makeing the conversion cylinders to fit ..or will one of these I have fit . We`ll see.

[ArmedBear]

Fuff-

I bought a Uberti Cattleman Millenium in .357 as a field/snake gun and desert plinker. Shoots great now that I put in some American springs. Solid gun, though beadblasted. For once, I wanted to get a gun I would take out in the rocks and dirt without remorse.:)

I paid $265 for the whole damn gun, brand new, including one-piece walnut grips that were fitted very nicely and I actually would feel remorseful about damaging. (Springs were an extra $20 or so.) The hammer is nicely CCH'ed. I guess Uberti finishes them all that way, and unlike USFA didn't see fit to set up a different production line for lower-end hammers, even for their budget utility gun.

It's certainly not a USFA, and the innards aren't polished or anything, but the quality is surprisingly good, and fit -- both metal and wood -- is flawless. Do Europeans really work THAT cheap?

[Old Fuff]

Do Europeans really work THAT cheap?

Apparently.... :scrutiny:

Actually I think there are other factors besides wages.

I am aware of the "functional but not pretty" lines of SAA clones. They are good buys for a utility gun, and an even better one if you plan to strip the finish to age it. They have everything you need, and nothing more.

But if I understand right, what USFA is planing in the way of a Remington reproduction is a deluxe gun, not a utility model. Also I think their $600 line of SAA's is about to take a jump - if it hasn't already.

[ArmedBear]

They have everything you need, and nothing more.


...except that mine came well-fitted one-piece walnut grips, and the whole thing cost as much as USFA wants for swapping out their standard hard rubber grips for one-piece walnut grips.

Granted, the finish on the USFA grips is higher-end. However, by USFA standards, I bought grips and a hammer, and got the rest of the gun for free.

I was not suggesting that USFA was going to make a utility 1858, only that their "upgrades" should be standard at their price point, and either way, the upgrades are overpriced.

Therefore, their deluxe 1858 is unlikely to be a penny below a grand, and it seems likely that they'd charge extra for finishing the hammer.

I'd pay for USFA quality, though I have yet to buy one of their guns, sorely tempted though I've been. I understand the value of that quality, and the cost of gunsmithing, as well. But some of their options pricing would make me feel like a real sucker.

[Old Fuff]

I don't disagree with your observations, including the ones concerning USFA. Perhaps they are like some car makers that make most of their profit selling options and accesories...

And I think that the "plain-Jane" revolvers represent excellent values, especially for someone who can do a little tune-up work themselves.

But the issues you are bringing up may help explain why others beside USFA aren't interested in bringing out a top-quality cap & ball revolver that would be manufactured in this country.

[ArmedBear]

And I think that the "plain-Jane" revolvers represent excellent values, especially for someone who can do a little tune-up work themselves.

I think USFA's "plain Janes" are a good value, too, actually. The USFA Cowboy is a straight-up "pay for quality" gun for a decent price, polished blue, too.

So maybe I shouldn't bitch. If someone wants a fine safe queen, let them charge him for it, and make their profit. Especially if that allows them to offer me a fine "shooter" for a better price.:)

WRT others making higher-end cap and ball guns, I think that the overwhelming number of them are shot casually, and a quality replica like a newer Uberti will last a long time that way. CAS may be changing that, a bit. For the first time since the 1870s, a lot of people are really beating on BP revolvers and expecting them to perform. That exposes weaknesses that nobody had ever noticed.:)

USFA might be blazing a trail here. Who knows?

Also of note: Uberti's 1858 frames are now forged. So clearly someone out there wants 'em made stronger, whether that's for conversions or competition, or both.

[Timthinker]

I am afraid I must agree with you gentlemen concerning the price of the USFA 1858 Remington. I believe it will cost considerably more than the ROA if judged by other USFA products. This is not to say that USFA does not make quality pieces, but they may price themselves out of my budget. I trust when the 1858 becomes available that one of our senior members will purchase one and present their opinions on it.

My gut feeling is that the "new" caplock Remington will produce tighter groupings than many of the other Italian repos. At least I certainly hope it does for the price. Again, if I could purchase one of these newer Remingtons for $200 more than the Ruger, I would jump at the opportunity. Unfortunately, I think this is very wishful thinking on my part.

During the discussions sofar, I neglected to bring up a point that I hope is untrue. I have heard unsubstantiated rumors that Ruger may reduce the number of ROAs produced and concentrate on other firearms. Do any of our members have any info on this situation? I hope that it is untrue since I wish to purchase a replacement Old Army for the one I foolishly sold. Thanks for your insight guys.


Timthinker

[Old Fuff]

Ruger run their various models in batches, and they try to anticipate how many will be needed before they plan to run the next batch. Obviously some model/cartridge combinations are run in greater numbers, because of their popularity and market demand. The Old Army is one with relatively light demand, so a production run may last longer then something else. Also most of the parts in the Old Army are unique to that particular revolver, where other models contain a number of common parts – which make production easier and more economical.

What this boils down to is that during or early after a run, most of the finishes, sights (fixed or adjustable) and barrel lengths will be available. Later you may not have such a wide selection until another batch comes along. Ultimately the number that will be made within a certain time period will depend on how the orders are coming in from their distributors.

[4v50 Gary]

Old Fuff is right about Ruger & their production scheduling. Marketing tries to predict what will sell and looks at the current inventory. They then draw up a production schedule and that's what is produced during the course of the year.

S&W uses the Japanese inventory system. What they sell today, they'll produce tomorrow.

[ArmedBear]

So what in God's name does MARLIN use to determine when to do a run?

A ouija board?

[Old Fuff]

They and some others use the "Old Fuff's flip a coin" system... :neener:

All I can say is that the bean-counters rule the companies now, and it often shows...

[ArmedBear]

They're not counting very well, when there are current-production guns that many of us want to buy, but aren't available (1894C, Gold Label, etc.). That's doubly true when these seem to be higher-profit guns than their similar cousins (336W, for example).

[rifle]

I thought I heard somewhere that Hartford Armory(distributed thru Taylors) was to make a cap&ball Remington. Was it in one of my dreams maybe? If people want top notch Remington cap&ballers why not try the Pietta "Shooters" model or the Pedersoli model. I've owned the Pietta "Remington Delux" for years since it was sold for $310. I won't sell it. I dig that progressive rifling. It's too good of a gun to part with. Dixie's was selling them for $300 that had some rust on them. I think those are $450 now last I inquired.
I guess no US companies have the nuts to attempt a Colt cap&baller anymore. I guess they are hard to build.
Persomally if USFA is planning to sell high end cap&ball Remies for the BIG money I'll shy away and tune up a Pietta or Uberti.

[English Bob]

The USAF guns look superb, part of the attraction is the antique finishes they do, way cooler than anny Itallian attempts. Being 100% US made they will not be cheap but the quality should out shine most Euro attempts.

Sadly we will probably not see them over here unless we go to the trouble of importing them personally. I'm just pleased to see a US manufactured 1858 being made finally.

Good on 'em!

[sundance44s]

I`m thinking the fact is the USFA Remington 1858 is still and will always be a cap & ball pistol to start with ..So like in Rugers ROA it`s lower in price than Rugers cartridge pistols . The Remington and the Ruger price still gets ya when ya add on the price of a conversion cylinder . So would a cap & baller be worth a 1,200 dollar price tag . I`m thinking the 1875 they make will be the one on the high end . Just my thoughts .