Ruger Old Army vs Remington 1858

[fourbore]

I like to ask how these two compare right out of the box. I have a Ruger now. Are there any significant differences between how the two perform. Does the 1858 hold a little more powder? I am thinking about one of the Remington repros with adjustable sights. The image is a Navy Arms model.

 

[Idaholewis]

I like to ask how these two compare right out of the box. I have a Ruger now. Are there any significant differences between how the two perform. Does the 1858 hold a little more powder? I am thinking about one of the Remington repros with adjustable sights. The image is a Navy Arms model.

Nice looking Wheel Gun I’ve never Fired one. My Closest Friend here Bought a Ruger Old Army NIB at some kind of Auction/Estate Sale here close by a Few years ago. He wanted to get together with me and Shoot it, But we never have got around to it. It’s a Blued Model. I did some Research on Tearing it down and Cleaning it, I sent him a Video Link of the Process, That’s the last time I’ve heard him mention that Gun

 

[michiganmuzzy]

I believe that the Old Army was inspired by the '58 but built on the Blackhawk design. The 58 has a max load of 40 or 45grV i think(maybe .50?). While the ROA has no max. You can have the cylinder bored both deeper and larger (to .50) and shoot as much powder as you can load. I found that accuracy is similar between the two if you have adjustable sights on both. Both heavy guns but The ROA feels heavier. I havent weigh them. The 58 comes in brass frame, stainless, and steel. The Ruger came in steel or stainless with a rare brass frame im told but never seen. Their is a scope mount adapter for the blackhawk that Ive seen modified to go on the ROA once. Ive never seen a 58 with a scope. ROA came in 5.5" and 7.5". 58 comes in 5.5", 8", 12", and the carbine that i think has a 16" barrel. IMHO the Ruger is a better gun. But for cool factor the 58 wins hands down. The 58 got me into shooting MLs.

 

[fourbore]

Do you know, if the Ruger is not modified, which holds more powder? I am pretty sure the Ruger does not hold 40 grains. I want to compare both guns stock.

 

[Matthew323]

The problem with max loads is that they rarely, IF EVER, shoot as accurately as less powerful loads.

Of course, if you are hunting grizzly bears, then you probably want a max load. But, for deer hunting, at revolver ranges, a moderate load of black powder over a lead ball will kill a deer DEADER THAN A DOORKNOB!!!

 

[MSalyards]

40 gr. Wow! I shoot my 58 all day long with 18 gr of Kik 2f and it shoots 1 hole.

 

[michiganmuzzy]

Do you know, if the Ruger is not modified, which holds more powder? I am pretty sure the Ruger does not hold 40 grains. I want to compare both guns stock.

The 58 will hold 40 grV 3f under a round ball (147grn?). Ive only been able to get 30 under a conical 220 grain in my ruger. Like Bruce and MSalyard said accuracy aint there at max loads. 25grains of t7 3f is my hunting load for best power and accuracy. 20grains gives me better accuracy and murders squirrels at 40 yds easily.

 

[michiganmuzzy]

If (when) I get another bp revolver I think im going to get the 5.5" sheriffs model 1858.

 

[fourbore]

I dont have any saved targets with the Ruger Old Army shooting with cap and ball and I dont remember. And I cannot remember the max charge. I though it was a little weak for a 45. I put on a conversion cylinder and now shooting 240 gr bullets in 45 long colt. That load will almost eek out 2" for 6 shots at 25 yards. That is real good for me. I had to swap out the front sight blade to zero that gun with that load. I am now satisfied with the power level. Not going back to cap and ball due to the front sight. That is ok.

I am planning to get another 44 or 45 in a cap and ball. I prefer a little more horse power than the Old Army put out. The 1858 maybe jst the ticket with honest 40 grain load. I could buy another Old Army. I would have two cylinders. One spare to mess with.

Can anyone give me a idea what to expect with a max load vs the best load in an 1858? Any range, give me a sense of what you call good and bad.

And the people who modify the Ruger cylinder to hold more powder, how poorly do those end up shooting? And will a modified ruger hold 40 grains with a conical bullet?

I am asking a lot and appreciate whatever I can get. I guess, no rush. I had a fairly long wish list.

 

[michiganmuzzy]

I am going to need to get a chronograph. I have read threads saying 1150-1250fps with 35grn T7 and a 220 conical out of an unmodded ROA. That seems like its not lacking in power to me. Especially if accuracy isnt lost.

 

[michiganmuzzy]

Check out this link.

http://www.clementscustomguns.com/rugeroldarmy.html

 

[fourbore]

What I am asking, is if the 1858 will hold 40 grains, or a little less with a conical (if is has the proper twists) what is the accuracy. I believe 20 gr is more accurate,
but what is the penalty for max loading. For someone who has tried it both ways.

Same question for Ruger, what is the penalty? Michigan, how bad did that 35 gr of 777 shoot?

 

[brucebuilds]

What I am asking, is if the 1858 will hold 40 grains, or a little less with a conical (if is has the proper twists) what is the accuracy. I believe 20 gr is more accurate,
but what is the penalty for max loading. For someone who has tried it both ways.

Same question for Ruger, what is the penalty? Michigan, how bad did that 35 gr of 777 shoot?

I routinely shoot 45 grains of triple 7 in my Ruger Old Army’s, with a round ball. I think it would hold another couple grains if I wanted it to. And understand it takes a bit of compression to seat the ball deep enough for the cylinder to rotate. At 20 paces that load will print into about an inch, offhand. With a rest I’m certain it would stack balls on top of each other. I also shoot 40 grains of triple 7 under a Kaido 220 gr. Lead bullet. It isn’t as accurate as round ball but for a “ social” load it’s more than acceptable.

 

[michiganmuzzy]

What I am asking, is if the 1858 will hold 40 grains, or a little less with a conical (if is has the proper twists) what is the accuracy. I believe 20 gr is more accurate,
but what is the penalty for max loading. For someone who has tried it both ways.

Same question for Ruger, what is the penalty? Michigan, how bad did that 35 gr of 777 shoot?

From beer cans to paper plates is the onlyest way to describe the accuracy change for me. I never measure them targets.

 

[Certus]

I live in the UK and following a ban on breech loading pistols in 1997 I turned to muzzle loading revolvers. Among these was a Ruger Old Army in stainless steel with fully adjustable sights. Although I'm happy shooting traditional black powder through the Ruger and the other Uberti revolvers I own, they could not be used on most indoor ranges due to ventilation issues. As the Ruger could already be considered to be a modern revolver, I had it converted and proofed to use smokeless powder. The conversion consisted of machining of the rear of the existing cylinder and making provision for 209 Shotgun Primers as the ignition source. A backplate was also needed to house the captive firing pin and allowing for removal of the cylinder and on-gun loading in exactly the same manner as the original gun.
I use 4.3grns of Herco and an Alox lubricated .457 pure lead ball with no wad or filler non being required.
The beauty of this conversion is that it allows the use of either black powder outdoors or smokeless powder when outdoor condition aren't ideal. Shotgun primers are more reliable, easier to fit than percussion caps and cost far less to purchase.

I also own a Uberti replica Remington 1858 NMA which has likewise been converted to use smokeless or conventional black powder.
I find the Ruger a bit too heavy for single handed precision shooting so use the Remington for more formal target shooting and the Ruger for less formal shooting. Both are great, but the Ruger is far more rugged and has the advantage of using modern coil springs instead of the weaker flat springs fitted to the Uberti. However, the Ruger is no longer made meaning sourcing spares can be difficult, whereas Uberti spares are readily available.

Brian

 

[wmdbowman]

Great looking revolvers. Gotta have that top strap on there.
Last one I shot was an original 36 cal. Navy

 

[Certus]

Great looking revolvers. Gotta have that top strap on there.
Last one I shot was an original 36 cal. Navy

I'm lucky enough to also own an original Remington New Model Navy revolver dating to 1864 which is in good enough condition to shoot, but would need to be registered on my UK Firearms Certificate first for this to be legal.

Brian

 

[brucebuilds]

I live in the UK and following a ban on breech loading pistols in 1997 I turned to muzzle loading revolvers. Among these was a Ruger Old Army in stainless steel with fully adjustable sights. Although I'm happy shooting traditional black powder through the Ruger and the other Uberti revolvers I own, they could not be used on most indoor ranges due to ventilation issues. As the Ruger could already be considered to be a modern revolver, I had it converted and proofed to use smokeless powder. The conversion consisted of machining of the rear of the existing cylinder and making provision for 209 Shotgun Primers as the ignition source. A backplate was also needed to house the captive firing pin and allowing for removal of the cylinder and on-gun loading in exactly the same manner as the original gun.
I use 4.3grns of Herco and an Alox lubricated .457 pure lead ball with no wad or filler non being required.
The beauty of this conversion is that it allows the use of either black powder outdoors or smokeless powder when outdoor condition aren't ideal. Shotgun primers are more reliable, easier to fit than percussion caps and cost far less to purchase.

I also own a Uberti replica Remington 1858 NMA which has likewise been converted to use smokeless or conventional black powder.
I find the Ruger a bit too heavy for single handed precision shooting so use the Remington for more formal target shooting and the Ruger for less formal shooting. Both are great, but the Ruger is far more rugged and has the advantage of using modern coil springs instead of the weaker flat springs fitted to the Uberti. However, the Ruger is no longer made meaning sourcing spares can be difficult, whereas Uberti spares are readily available.

Brian

I would love to have more information on the machining process that converted your Ruger to shotgun primers. Is there possibly a website that shows how this was done?

 

[Idaholewis]

I live in the UK and following a ban on breech loading pistols in 1997 I turned to muzzle loading revolvers. Among these was a Ruger Old Army in stainless steel with fully adjustable sights. Although I'm happy shooting traditional black powder through the Ruger and the other Uberti revolvers I own, they could not be used on most indoor ranges due to ventilation issues. As the Ruger could already be considered to be a modern revolver, I had it converted and proofed to use smokeless powder. The conversion consisted of machining of the rear of the existing cylinder and making provision for 209 Shotgun Primers as the ignition source. A backplate was also needed to house the captive firing pin and allowing for removal of the cylinder and on-gun loading in exactly the same manner as the original gun.
I use 4.3grns of Herco and an Alox lubricated .457 pure lead ball with no wad or filler non being required.
The beauty of this conversion is that it allows the use of either black powder outdoors or smokeless powder when outdoor condition aren't ideal. Shotgun primers are more reliable, easier to fit than percussion caps and cost far less to purchase.

I also own a Uberti replica Remington 1858 NMA which has likewise been converted to use smokeless or conventional black powder.
I find the Ruger a bit too heavy for single handed precision shooting so use the Remington for more formal target shooting and the Ruger for less formal shooting. Both are great, but the Ruger is far more rugged and has the advantage of using modern coil springs instead of the weaker flat springs fitted to the Uberti. However, the Ruger is no longer made meaning sourcing spares can be difficult, whereas Uberti spares are readily available.

Brian

Those are NICE!!

 

[wmdbowman]

The original looks to be in excellent condition. what a find!
It's a shame about the UK government and guns. The Canadians and the Aussies have also felt a bit of the sting. All goes back to British rule.