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

[mavracer]

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.

I really don't need a hardness test to tell swaged lead bullets from hard cast.
Like Craig I know Pietta and Uberti are softer than either Ruger because they are way softer. I can't tell if my ROA is softer than my Blackhawks and I'd really like to have something other than "I heard it on the internet"

 

[[email protected]]

I do know for a fact that the Ruger Blackhawk frames and cylinder is made
from 4140 chrome moly steel. The cylinders were hard around 43 on the
Rockwell Hardness Tester scale. I used to harden the frames up to that as
they were on the soft side around 25. I don't know about the Old Army. You
would think somebody at Ruger would tell you the type of steel it is made of.

Most all my 45 Colt loads were in the 50-55,000 psi range and the gun handled it well. These were tested in the old Hercules lab
so I know the psi were correct. Still have the gun after about 4,000 of these hot loads. Still just as tight as new, actually better
than new. Please don't try this at home.

 

[samcolt1860]

Phil,

How did the brass handle it since the SAAMI max pressure for the cartridge is listed at 14000 PSI?
It's listed at 25000PSI for Ruger guns.

http://www.leverguns.com/articles/saami_pressures.htm

 

[unspellable]

Ruger

All you guys with 50 caliber ROAs better hang 'em up, that frame just can't take it!

Ruger's steel recipe is not "proprietary" information. They have made the information public.

Nobody here is saying run 454 Casull loads in your ROA, least of all me.

Anyone on this forum, excepting perhaps CraigC, will admit that a Ruger SA frame is built like a brick sh*t house.

Frames don't blow up, cylinders do. The reason for limiting other BP revolvers to so called cowboy loads is not because the frame will fail but because they will go loose. RD & probably Kirst too, would be insane to pedal a 45 Colt cylinder that won't take any commercial load. Their lawyer would foam at the mouth.

BTW: My Winchester "cowboy" ammo has the same bullet weight and velocity specs as Winchester's regular 45 Colt load per Winchester's specs. (Not that I have a lot of faith in Winchester's specs, but I digress.)

 

[CraigC]

For the record, I never many ANY statements regarding the relative strength of the Old Army. My point is that we do not know how strong we are and I stated why.

Anyone on this forum, excepting perhaps CraigC, will admit that a Ruger SA frame is built like a brick sh*t house.

They are, I ought to know, I own enough of them. That is not in question. The question is how strong and if you have an answer to that question, provide proof.

Frames don't blow up, cylinders do.

Cylinders blow, frames stretch. Blackhawk and Super Blackhawk cylinders are cut from barstock. The Old Army's cylinder is a casting. That alone proves that no, Old Armies are NOT as strong as Blackhawks.

 

[unspellable]

Ruger

We are NOT talking about the ROA cylinder.

Frames do NOT stretch. That's an urban myth. See post above.

Go back and do a little study in materials science. Then try boning up on firearms design. Find out what the weak points of a revolver really are.

I'm convinced you just want to argue the point. I've explained the points, the metal used came right straight from Ruger. That doesn't seem to satisfy you. You're getting ridiculous. If you expect certified legal patent documents or Ruger's engineering documents from me, it ain't gonna happen, I've got better things to waste my time on. Ruger has made their metallurgy public, go look it up.

God forbid you should find out they run front loaded smokeless powder in the original ROA cylinder in the UK.

The rest of you guys, please forgive me. This has turned into a pissing contest. (Which I will not participate further in.)

 

[Jaymo]

So, I guess I could paper-patch some Lyman Devastator .451 HPs and use 777.

 

[CraigC]

We are NOT talking about the ROA cylinder.

You said the ROA is just as strong as a Blackhawk. That includes the cylinder. I said prove it. Cite a reference, anything. You didn't.

Frames do NOT stretch.

Then I suppose backthrust is also a myth.

Find out what the weak points of a revolver really are.

Yes, I reckon I never read a book on the subject, just learned everything I know from the latest issue of G&A.

I'm convinced you just want to argue the point.

Not at all. You have made some fantastical claims. I'm just asking you to prove it. Why is that so difficult???

This has turned into a pissing contest.

No, it hasn't. You just expect everyone reading this to take your diatribe as gospel. Well, momma didn't raise no fool and I learned a long time ago to never believe everything I read on the internet. I'M NOT SAYING YOU'RE WRONG, I'M ONLY ASKING YOU TO PROVIDE PROOF THAT SUPPORTS YOUR STATEMENTS!!!!! IS THAT CLEAR???????

God forbid you should find out they run front loaded smokeless powder in the original ROA cylinder in the UK.

Ruger tested with Bullseye powder in the beginning. That, all by itself, is meaningless. With folks running Blackhawks at 55,000psi, I'm not at all surprised.

Most all my 45 Colt loads were in the 50-55,000 psi range and the gun handled it well.

Cannot even begin to express what a bad idea this is. That's factory .454 pressure levels and comparable to what is run in custom guns with oversized five-shot cylinders.


EDIT: I just realized that unspellable is an engineer. Which means he is predisposed to being a know-it-all on anything even remotely mechanical in nature. Even if his field is completely unrelated. Now I understand.

 

[mykeal]

Craig C: I'm not disputing anything. Nowhere at any time have I disputed anything you've said.

I'm simply asking you to apply your own requirements to yourself. You repeatedly demand others provide manufacturer's data to support an assertion but refuse to do the same with your own assertion. It's a very simple request, and you are going to great lengths to ignore it. Great enough that you are misrepresenting my posts as supporting your opponent's position.

I understand you have anecdotal data and experience, etc. etc. I haven't made any judgements about either the veracity or value of any of that 'data', nor have I made any judgements about the veracity or value of unspellable's claim. What I have done is point out that you don't have, whether you're willing to admit it or not, the same level of proof you demand of others. That's my issue with your claims.

You demand proof, then provide proof, not anecdotes.

EDIT:

I just realized that unspellable is an engineer. Which means he is predisposed to being a know-it-all on anything even remotely mechanical in nature.

Now you're into name calling and personal attacks. That pretty much answers any questions about your credibility.

 

[CraigC]

If you ask me how I know something, I'll tell you. If I experienced it, I'll provide details. If I read it in a book, hopefully I'll remember which one. Unlike my antagonist here.

It's not a personal attack it's an observation and it has nothing to do with my credibility. Although I do note the heavy condescension in his posts so in that light, you can forgive mine. In my travels, and I deal with "engineers" all the time, I have concluded that the only field with a bigger ego problem than engineering is IT professionals. This readily explains the "you can believe me and I don't have to provide any supporting evidence...I'm an engineer" mentality displayed here.

 

[samcolt1860]

Hey CraigC.

GO AWAY! You are a distraction.

 

[Jaymo]

I have to agree with CraigC on this one. Every engineer I ever met had an attitude of
"I don't have to think, because I have the degree to prove that I'm smarter than everyone else."

So, does this mean I should go ahead and paper patch some HPs and load em up with a chamber full of fffG?

 

[goon]

Might I suggest that finding a used Blackhawk in .45 Colt might be easier? I've seen them for around $325 used in very good condition.

I'm not sure how strong the ROA is but I know a BH is very strong.

 

[Lost Sheep]

Might I suggest that finding a used Blackhawk in .45 Colt might be easier? I've seen them for around $325 used in very good condition.

I'm not sure how strong the ROA is but I know a BH is very strong.

Yeah, I second that notion (post #2, last line)

I think we have gone WAY past the original question, though, Jaymo.

Lost Sheep