The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

Hello,

I'm just about to submit a variation for a Ruger Old Army in stainless with the imitation ivory grips, but I'm not sure what caliber to submit it as. There seems some disagreement as to whether the old version was .44 and the newer versions .45 or not. Some say yes, some say no. The wiki page says this:-

"Earlier models listed as .44 caliber, later as .45, but all use a .457” round balls or .454” conical bullets of pure lead."

So presumably I list it as a .45 on my variation? Is that right?

Based on looks I think I prefer the 5.5" barrel, but would this effect accuracy to any meaningful degree over 25 yards?

Beautiful looking revolver IMO. Is the revolver with the 7.5" barrel in the bottom pic finished in satin or stainless?





Cheers,

Craig.

What does it say on the revolver and how is it listed on its current certificate/register?

Bloody hell that was a fast reply! I don't know I can't find a picture of one where it shows. There's one listed here as a .45. I'm not actively looking yet, I was going to wait for my certificate to come back.

http://www.gunstar.co.uk/ruger-old-army ... uns/649259

I'd email the seller and ask for confirmation of the calibre and where it is stamped on the revolver and that coincides with the entry on the certificate/register.

I wasn't specifically looking at this one, but I just spoke to him and he says it's .457, so I'll enter it as a .45. There's no markings on the revolver itself.

Do you think I'd notice the difference in barrel length between the 5.5" and 7.5"?

I notice the difference both in sight radius and weight up front.

I hadn't thought of that side of things, so thanks for the heads up. Excluding sight radius for a moment, what about raw accuracy and muzzle velocity? Are they pretty much equal over 25 yards?

dromia wrote:I notice the difference both in sight radius and weight up front.

Not with me because of the reasons stated, not that the short version isn't accurate I just do better with the longer barrel.

I am no longer an A class pistol shot and need all the help I can get.

Understood. Thanks for the info.

The earlier ROA were indeed marked up as .44. The calibre marking will be under the rammer, on the barrel. Ruger changed the calibre designation to .45 because when first introduced, shooters complained about poor accuracy. They were not reading their manuals. There it stated to load the ROA with .457 ball, but the traditionalists loaded their .44 cap 'n ball they way they always had, with .451 or .454 ball....

I had a 7.5", adj sighted, stainless version years ago. Like just about every ex-pistol shooter, this is what we bought! It was good, I liked it, but the cleaning got on my tits. Ten years after selling it, I bought another. This time the 5.5" in stainless. It only came with fixed sights. It's harder to shoot that it's bigger brother, but looks and handles far better to my mind. The choice is really a personal one.

The Old Army was discontinued a few years ago. This seems now to cause people to think that they must be worth far more than they were bought for. The fact is, Ruger discontinued them because they made 3.5 million of them and if treated properly, you'll almost never wear them out!

Great guns, but don't get stiffed by some chancer....