New Vaquero Strength.

[dougader]

Handloader mag did a piece on loading for the NV and Brian Pearce suggested keeping the loads under 20k psi.

As to Grebe's question about a 5 shot 45 Colt on the NV frame, maybe Hamilton Bowen could answer the question better. I know Bowen has done a 44 magnum 5 shot conversion on a Ruger New Vaquero (Its on his website under "projects" IIRC)... so maybe the same 80% pressure rule would hold true... but I'd ask Bowen or someone else who might have performed similar work to see how it holds up.

 

[dougader]

Nope, its under Ruger, Single Actions, Bigbore caliber conversions:

http://www.bowenclassicarms.com/NEW/RugSAbigbore.htm

 

[Greebe]

Ahh and look he has a smaller frame (50th Aniv .357) with a 5 shot .45Colt cylinder. Just what I was thinking about.

I think that is the road I want to travel.

Greebe

 

[TiteGroups]

My only point being I would not load the new vaquero to the "Ruger Only" 36,000+Psi loads. There is less meat in the cylinder on that particular model in .45 Colt than on any other "Blackhawk" type revolver. The cylinder is smaller in overall diameter, which leaves less room for six holes. I just think it should be clear to readers of this forum, (not necessarily contributors) who may assume since it is Ruger, it can handle the "R.O." loads. I think it would be a great idea to offer a .45Acp conversion cylinder for the NV, as long as it was up to the task. I have one for my BH.

 

[dougader]

No argument, there. I agree 45 COlt NV's should be loaded to 45 Colt specs in the Colt/Colt clone category. My NV "Montado" only sees 250 grain lead rnfp at about 800-900 fps.

 

[GaryA]

My only point being I would not load the new vaquero to the "Ruger Only" 36,000+Psi loads.

And, again, you are 100% on the money on that.

 

[CraigC]

Wow, there's a hell of a lot of misinformation in this thread. People who simply don't know really shouldn't respond. There are a lot of safety concerns with this subject and erroneous information in the wrong hands adds up to potential catastrophic failure. I'll try to sift through it all.

My only point being I would not load the new vaquero to the "Ruger Only" 36,000+Psi loads.

Nor would I, nor would I do so with any other Ruger single action .45Colt (intentionally leaving out the big double actions). That's because "Ruger only" data is in the 32,000psi range, maximum.
http://www.customsixguns.com/writings/d ... e_myth.htm

If a Federal 45 shell case is good for 8,000 psi and you put it in a cylinder that is rated for 14,000 is the cylinder now strong enough for 20,000 psi?

Who says the Federal .45 case is only good for 8000psi??? Ross Seyfried reported years ago that the Federal .45Colt was the best case on the market in that chambering. It was the case of choice when Dick Casull and John Linebaugh were doing their thing, which involved loads up to and exceeding 50,000psi. The cartridge case is only a gasket. Pressure is contained by the chamber, not the case.

Ruger also says no more than 25,000 in the blackhawk

This is completely wrong. Ruger has only and will only ever recommend SAAMI-spec factory ammunition in their guns. PERIOD. That means 14,000psi for the .45Colt, no matter what gun it is.

How much and for how long is questionable.

Not really. Loads in the 20-22,000psi range have been available in print to those who know where to look for years. Long before the New Vaquero. These are safe for late model Colt's, USFA replicas, late model S&W N-frames and the New Vaquero. These have been in print recently in an article by Brian Pearce in an article in Handloader on the New Vaquero .45Colt.

 

[Texas Jack Black]

My post said IF a Federal case will hold 8,000 before bursting how is that misinformation I clearly said IF . The question was if a case had a 8,000 number and if a cylinder wall was 14,000 do we now have a cylinder that will contain 20,000?? Does the case strength add to to overall cylinder strength ??


As to the 25,000 number I also have owned and shot Rugers and many other firearms and have called Ruger and talked to many individuals over the years and the off the record reply was the 25,000 number. Strictly hear say but after shooting Rugers for over 35 years shooting 25,000 pressure loads I can say that a load that gererates 25,000 PSi in all my big bore Rugers is safe in my guns.

There is so much information out there and we all need to decide what is or is not credible information.
The 14,000 number IMO is outdated and most shooters know this .

.

 

[TiteGroups]

Here is one for you Craig. If the Ruger chambered the 44 magnum old vaqueros, at SAAMI of 36,000psi, why could you not load the .45LC to the same pressure levels. It would seem only .010" less in cylinder wall thickness. Maybe that's it? I would think the shape of the pressure curve would be more of a factor than max. pressure differential of 10% anyhow. Area under the curve. Not having expertise in materials strength or metallurgy. Thanks.

 

[c.r.]

Here is one for you Craig. If the Ruger chambered the 44 magnum old vaqueros, at SAAMI of 36,000psi, why could you not load the .45LC to the same pressure levels. It would seem only .010" less in cylinder wall thickness. Maybe that's it? I would think the shape of the pressure curve would be more of a factor than max. pressure differential of 10% anyhow. Area under the curve. Not having expertise in materials strength or metallurgy. Thanks.

Howdy TiteGroups and welcome to the forum.

You've asked a very good question. John Linebaugh has some great articles on the strength of a Ruger BH in 45Colt compared to the SBH 44 mag.

Here's a link to his articles.
http://www.customsixguns.com/writings.htm
The 45 Colt - Disolving the Myth. Discovering the Potential has some good information about 45 Colt pressures and safety in the Ruger BH

just be aware that some of the stuff he mentions is about a 5-shot 45Colt, however most of it is about a regular 6-shot Ruger BH

 

[JimMarch1]

You can't load a 45LC gun to 44Mag pressures because you have less cylinder beef to work with (thinner walls). That's the bad news.

The good news is, because the 45LC has more case capacity you can get about as much work done (bullet energy). Sometimes a tad more with careful loading...despite lower pressures. That's why Linebaugh was attracted to the 45LC as his starting point, as was Dick Casull.

Linebaugh did a great job documenting his early work in 45LC at the link C.R. provided. Linebaugh's work on the 475 and 500 are a direct extension of that research. Go read.

By the time those gents were experimenting, the 45LC brass available was of the modern solid-head design. When Elmer Keith was starting out, his available 45LC brass was the old "balloon head" type, and the brass would fail before the cylinder. 44Spl brass was available solid-head (like all our modern brass) so Elmer switched to the 44Spl early on (1920s) both to get more cylinder beef and better brass.

(Solid-head brass is also why 45LC leverguns exist now and did NOT in either Elmer's day or the real Old West period prior. Levergun extractors would rip right through balloon-head rims.)

 

[Greebe]

Here is a cross section for you of Balloon head brass. Standard solid head on the left and balloon on the right.

You can definitely see how case head separations would have happened.

Greebe

 

[Sonnytoo]

Here is a cross section for you of Balloon head brass. Standard solid head on the left and balloon on the right.

You can definitely see how case head separations would have happened.

Greebe

Hey Greebe, thanks for that photo.
Sonnytoo

 

[CraigC]

Here is one for you Craig. If the Ruger chambered the 44 magnum old vaqueros, at SAAMI of 36,000psi, why could you not load the .45LC to the same pressure levels. It would seem only .010" less in cylinder wall thickness. Maybe that's it? I would think the shape of the pressure curve would be more of a factor than max. pressure differential of 10% anyhow. Area under the curve. Not having expertise in materials strength or metallurgy. Thanks.

Yes, read the link I provided in my first post.

When Elmer Keith was starting out, his available 45LC brass was the old "balloon head" type, and the brass would fail before the cylinder. 44Spl brass was available solid-head (like all our modern brass) so Elmer switched to the 44Spl early on (1920s) both to get more cylinder beef and better brass.

Maybe I'm misreading but Keith switched to the .44Spl long before the advent of solid head brass, in either chambering. He migrated to the .44Spl for his heavy loads because the guns were stronger but continued to use balloonhead brass for his heavy .44Spl loads. Also after grenading a .45 loaded with a 300gr .45/70 bullet and a caseful of black powder. He blamed the case and thus began the myth of the weak .45Colt case. When solid head brass came out he simply dropped the powder charge in his favorite .44Spl load from 18.5gr to 17.5gr of 2400.

 

[c.r.]

Maybe I'm misreading but Keith switched to the .44Spl long before the advent of solid head brass, in either chambering. He migrated to the .44Spl for his heavy loads because the guns were stronger but continued to use balloonhead brass for his heavy .44Spl loads. When solid head brass came out he simply dropped the powder charge in his favorite .44Spl load from 18.5gr to 17.5gr of 2400.

It is my understanding as well that Keith made the switch to the 44 spec prior to 44 spec. solid head brass being available. meaning he shot both the 45Colt and the 44 spcl using balloon head cases.

IMO, this leads me to believe the "exploded" 45Colt wasn't soley the result of weak cases, but instead a combination of thinner cylinder walls and the balloon head case. The 44 spcl using similar balloonhead cases handled Keith's hotter loads just fine. Why? thicker cylinder walls.

jmho,
c.r.

 

[TiteGroups]

Thanks for the links c.r. Nice to see that info in print. Ruger must have done similar pressure test with the N.V. Couldn't ask for better pics showing difference between solid and balloon head cases. Thanks.

 

[dougader]

I think that's right. Linebaugh says in his writings that the brass is simply a gasket to hold the gases inside the cylinder. The weak point is the cylinder, and if that lets go then all of it goes. That balloon head "gasket" just made things worse in the 45 Colts of the day with the thin cylinder walls.

So a switch to 44 Special with thicker case walls was his only easy fix back then.

There is the argument about the smaller frame size of a 44 special for a handy little 6 shot, but unless you add an aluminum gripframe a lot of that handiness is lost in the extra weight.

I like the Lispeys 4 Special Blackhawk a lot, but I also like the Ruger Blackhawk with the aluminum frame as it weighs in at a very respectable 36 ounces in the 4-5/8" barreled offering.

But I get about the same weight in the 45 Colt Montado NV with the 3-3/4 inch barrel, too, and for anything less than heavy "Ruger" loads the 45 Colt with a 250-260 grain at 900 fps does just fine.

 

[c.r.]

I like the Lispeys 4 Special Blackhawk a lot, but I also like the Ruger Blackhawk with the aluminum frame as it weighs in at a very respectable 36 ounces in the 4-5/8" barreled offering.

IMO, It is awfully hard to beat the 4-5/8" blued BH in 45Colt when it comes to weight. Even when considering customs and freedom arms. I think this model is overlooked all too often for a trail gun. often folks want the stainless to avoid corrosion.

I honestly think this can be considered one of the best packing pistols available.......reasonable cost, light weight, and available in a powerful cartridge.

Even a 4-1/4" freedom arms mdl 97 w/adj sights comes in at 36.32oz (44 spec) and 35.52 (45 Colt). i have an o.m. BH converted to 44spec that has an aluminum grip frame and ERH, along with a 4" barrel. I don't know the weight but i'm sure it's at least a little bit less than the factory 45 Colt BH. But it can't shoot 300+ grain bullets at 1200+fps, and it cost a bit more.

~c.r.

 

[45Colt_Man]

Check these out.

http://www.gunblast.com/Ruger-NewVaquero.htm

http://www.gunblast.com/Ruger-NewVaquero2.htm

The SAMMI specs for .45 Colt are in CUP not PSI. Hodgdon #26 gives standard .45 Colt data up to 16,200 CUP.

Dana

 

[Texas Jack Black]

We also need to remember that SAAMI tested the 45 Colt Cartridge using an old 1st Gen Colt that may have been an iron framed gun back around 1920 .BUT, you need to research and decide on your own what is or is not safe .
I do however find it quite puzzling .that many ,powder companies list loads in the 25-30,000 for the Colt cartridge in some guns yet we still hear some say use only 14,000 .because the 45 Colt cartridge is only good for 14,000
Keith blew up his gun when? Was he using an old gun made of what? and was the bullet a 45/70 slug weighing over 300 grains?
SAAMI should revisit the 45 Colt and come up with a realistic number.