Crazy $'s on BP revolvers, tips for deals, ideas for bolts & chainfire prevention

I just saw a stainless, Vaquero sighted, 5.5 inch barrel ROA go on a major auction site a few days ago for OVER $700.00. Insane. You can put together an AR15 for that! A similar stainless 5.5 inch barrel Uberti or Pietta Remington can be bought new for about $380.00 but even that's insane. The smart thing to do is to buy a used stainless Remy for about the going rate of $175.00 (seen a lot of the stainless Remys going at that price) and then cut the barrel and loading lever down to make it a 5.5 inch barrel.
Re-dovetail the lever latch and front sight on the shorter barrel.

Theres no comparison between the ROA and a bubba'd and hack sawed spaghetti Remington. :rolleyes:

It might be time to consider supporting domestic industry instead of imported arms, if that means you can only purchase one American made firearm as opposed to two cheap imported ones so be it. Or else your only source of boom sticks may be a country that decides they dont want to make your toys anymore.

I think Ruger corporate heads made a big mistake discontinuing the ROA since CAS and SASS is growing and the demand for ROA's is increasing, artificially driving ROA prices up because they are discontinued.

I'm inclined to agree with you, as far as artificialy high pricing is concerned, but it was the stingy consumer who wanted Mcdonalds fast and Walmart cheap that spelled the end for the ROA IMHO.
 
Last edited:
If Ruger made copies of Colt's and Remingtons that would be one thing. Personally I wouldn't have a ROA. I'll spend my money with the Italians.
 
I'd like to see Ruger build a smaller cap and ball pistol, perhaps based on the Single-Six .22 frame and designed to use a roundball size commonly available as buckshot for economical and fun plinking.
 
If Ruger made copies of Colt's and Remingtons that would be one thing. Personally I wouldn't have a ROA. I'll spend my money with the Italians.

I agree. I'm sure the Ruger "Old" Army is a very nice and well-built revolver in its own right, but it doesn't represent anything historical.
 
Ah, the Ruger Old Army. I, too, was a non-believer. The ROA has no history, I always said. Not exactly true - it has a history of its own. Mine was made in the early 70's so it's practically Civil War era.
Seriously, do not count out the ROA until you try it. It is, hands down, the best made cap and ball revolver out there. I like the larger .457 chamber mouths for cold weather shooting, and the adjustable sights, even if I never use them. The gun never, ever jams, for any reason (caps, fouling, etc). I have many repros and several originals - the ROA is a great addition to any collection.
Try it - you'll like it.
You're gonna like your ROA - I guarantee it.
Bet you can't shoot just one.
Nobody doesn't like ROA...
And any other commercials you can think of.
 
Rifleman 1776 wrote:
There are so many misstatements in your long treatise it would take all day to respond in detail. Your contention that bp revolvers were slow sellers in the 70s and 80s could not be more off the mark. They were hot sellers. This was the time of a great surge in muzzle loading and historical reenactment interest. I owned a gun shop at the time that specialized in muzzle loading firearms. Revolvers were very popular, especially as entry level guns for aspiring muzzle loading enthusiasts. Granted, many (most?) of the imports, and they all were, did not exhibit very good quality. But they sold very well.


No need to be rude and impolite Rifleman1776 (you were). I know what black powder revolvers I saw selling and what they were selling for in the 70's, 80's and 90's. I never said BP revolvers didn't sell. I did say that back then they sold to a niche group of people like myself and did not generally interest the majority of the shooting public who were more interested in cartridge revolvers at that time. And that is true according to my experiences and is my opinion, and my opinion is unchanged because it is based on what I saw and experienced. Since the recent advent of CAS and SASS that has drastically changed. There was nothing “misstated” about my statement. That was my experience where I lived and my opinion. Your experience may have differed. But that does not make what I saw and experienced and my subsequent opinion any less valid than your opinion.


Rifleman 1776 wrote:

Your suggestion to restore that rusty gun with a Dremel is a formula for ruination. There are many other better ways. I suggest you get some expert advice and experience then rethink your position.


You are incorrect in stating that my suggestion of using a dremel to aid in restoring a rusty revolver would be "ruination". You neglected to mention WHAT attachment would be used on a dremel. You just said..."Your suggestion to restore that rusty gun with a Dremel is a formula for ruination".

There are many different kinds attachments tips for a dremel motor. Not all of those tips are just grinding stones or metal cutting tips and cutoff wheels. A small wire wheel and buffing wheel in a dremel is an invaluable tool for getting rust out of hard to reach spots. There is nothing "ruinatious" about that and I have used that combination many times in restoring rusty guns. I wouldn’t recommend using a dremel motor with a cutting or grinding tip on small critical areas such as the cylinder stops because there is too much danger of slipping and messing up the small area of the slot. But I have found dremel motors with different attachments to be valuable tools for many other gun repairs, and using a dremel motor with a mini wire wheel or a mini buffing wheel attachment I do not consider a formula for ruination. Do you consider a dentist’s drill to be a “formula for ruination” to your teeth? That’s what a dremel motor is, basically an electrical version of an air powered dental drill. It really depends on the tip in the dental drill or dremel motor and what that tip is being used for.

If you feel otherwise, that is your opinion and you are entitled to your opinion. But just because I might disagree with your opinion, I would not be rude, impolite and call your opinion a “misstatement”, a “long treatise” or attempt to denigrate you by telling you to get “some expert advice and experiences and then rethink your position”. I see no need to be rude and impolite and make assumptions regarding someone's experience just because I might disagree with someone else’s opinion.

Regarding your last statement of ….” I suggest you get some expert advice and experience then rethink your position.”

You do not know what experience I have. Actually I have extensive experience with black powder firearms and firearms in general over the last 40+ years. So your suggestion that I get some “experience “ is an inaccurate assumption on your part.

I do not believe either myself, you, nor anyone else is a firearms “expert”. There is no such thing as a firearms “expert” just as there is no such thing as an “expert” lawyer or doctor. That’s why they are called “Law practices” or “Practitioners of medicine”. They recognize that they are not expert but just “practice” their profession to the best of their ability. When someone starts getting the big head and thinking of themselves as “expert” in any given field, they will quickly find out that they don’t know everything in that field and that there is always someone else who will know some aspect of that field that they did not know as much about.

A wise man realizes that he can never be an “expert” at everything there is in the firearms field because it is just too vast. Metallurgy, ballistics, mechanics, mathematics, artisan skill, design, engineering, the list goes on and on. It is impossible for one person to be an “expert” and to know everything there is to know in all those fields. Even such luminaries as John Browning, Samuel Colt, Hiram Maxim, Eugene Stoner, could not know everything and be “expert” in all the many various aspects there are in the field of firearms. So there are no real “experts”. What there are, is people who know nothing about firearms, and then those who have varying degrees of knowledge and experience.

So because of what I just explained, I don’t think of myself nor anyone else as a firearms “expert”, but I do have 40+ years of “experience” and regarding what you told me to get some “expert advice and experience and rethink your position”, I do not feel is necessary, because I am confident in what I DO know and in what experience I do have. If there is something I DON’T know and need to know, then I will seek the advice of another non “expert” firearms “practitioner” who does know that particular specific area I need advice on. But I won't listen to someone else if they are rude and impolite to me for no good reason.

You do not win friends and influence people by being rude and impolite to people for no reason. Regarding that, "I suggest you “rethink your position” of why you feel it necessary to be rude and impolite to someone when it is unnecessary and that person has not attacked nor been previously rude to you.

This is supposed to be a firearms community where we can meet and make friends and share what experiences and knowledge we have as well as to further our education in the firearms field. Opinions may differ, but there is no excuse for personal attacks, rudeness and being impolite
 
Last edited:
No one forced you to read it Junkman 01. Another rude impolite person. Lots of good people here, some not so much. There's always the "ignore" list to avoid "headaches". As I see who the impolite and rude ones are, I'm going to start using it myself. I'm here to have a good time, learn and share experiences, not put up with impolite rude people when I don't have to. You and one other person just earned my ignore list Junkman 01. Rude away, I won't see those posts anymore. I have no intention of engaging in the title of Glenn Beck's book. It's a waste of time and not productive.
 
Last edited:
Since the Ruger Old Army is no longer manufactured, buying a used one is not helping an American manufacturer. That was only done by the original purchaser before the ROA went out of production. Since I can't buy a new ROA to help an American manufacturer, I don't feel guilty for buying an Italian BP revolver. Would I like a Ruger Old Army in stainless with the 5.5 inch barrel with the Vaquero style fixed sights? Sure, and I always would like to help out an American manufacturer such as Ruger. But in this case I can't since they don't manufacture it anymore. The used ROA's like I described are going for over $700.00 as I saw a used one go for recently at auction. My alternative solution for that is below.

Is it bubba'd or a nicely done modification? You be the judge.

Here's my modified Pietta 1858 Remington. It started life as a stainless, adjustable sights, 7 & 1/2 inch barrel, target model. It now has a shortened 5 & 5/8th's barrel and correspondingly shorter loading lever. A dovetail slot in line with the barrel has been added to the shortened barrel for the front sight attachment. The end of the shortened loading lever has been re-slotted for the spring loaded lever latch and the other end of the latch has been reattached to the bottom of the shortened barrel. The barrel muzzle has been nicely crowned ( they don't come crowned from the factory). I timed, tuned and honed the action.

An R&D conversion cylinder allows me to shoot .45 colt long cartridges or to use the original BP cylinder if I want. It is of good quality and I like it very much. It's not the stainless ROA with the 5.5 barrel and the fixed Vaquero style sights with the .457 sized cylinders and coil springs throughout....but it ain't bad. And sometimes "ain't bad" is good enough. For me at least. To get the same equivalent setup with the ROA I would have to pay over $700.00 for the ROA, then pay another $289.00 for the ROA conversion cylinder. That would be a total of approx $1000.00 (before taxes) for the equivalent setup I only have $520.00 invested in. Would I prefer a stainless ROA like I described? Sure. But this setup cost me half as much.

If someone doesn't care about having the $289.00 conversion cylinder, they can pick up a BP cylinder only used stainless 1858 Pietta Remy at auction for about $175.00 if they shop a bit. (That's what I've seen some go for). Then do their own mods like mine. Then they'd only have $175.00 and a little of their own time invested. Not too shabby compared to over $700.00 for a stainless, 5.5 inch barrel, fixed Vaquero style sights, ROA.

2966262460099763970S600x600Q85.jpg


2290370470099763970S600x600Q85.jpg


2822957140099763970S600x600Q85.jpg
 
Last edited:
Since the Ruger Old Army is no longer manufactured, buying a used one is not helping an American manufacturer. That was only done by the original purchaser before the ROA went out of production. Since I can't buy a new ROA to help an American manufacturer, I don't feel guilty for buying an Italian BP revolver. Would I like a Ruger Old Army in stainless with the 5.5 inch barrel with the Vaquero style fixed sights? Sure, and I always would like to help out an American manufacturer such as Ruger. But in this case I can't since they don't manufacture it anymore.
ahuh they made the gun for 30 years and in all that time, when they were relatively inexpensive on the used market or new you chose not to purchase one. Obviously you chose not to support Ruger on the old army venture.

See my comments on consumers wanting Walmart cheap.

Many others have kicked the tires and hummed and hawed about the revolver. They chose the spaghetti revolvers (for various reasons not just economy). And now the gun is gone. More and more domestic firearms manufactures go under as people choose to save a few bucks for a sub par product. Marlins gone, Winchesters gone and others will follow as people choose to have 2 imports for the cost of one domestic firearm.

I dont understand how people hated the gun while it was made, and clamour for it when its gone. Or some are irritated that its out of their reach on the used market, when they could have bought a new one for less if they saved up for one and bought it while it was being manufactured.

20-20 hindsight.

Simple solution, lobby Ruger to make the gun again if you want one. But no amount of "dremeling" will ever make a "uberti remmy" an old army in finish quality, reliability or strength.
 
Last edited:
Some shooters don't like the looks of the ROA but I think it can hold its own with any gun. I do like the look of the 3rd Generation Colts the best (the 3rd one down has a fit and finish as good as the ROA, and it's just as reliable).
I like 'em all.

Colt016.jpg


One of my latest - it's an actual gun (2mm pinfire)
DSCF3111.jpg

DSCF3115.jpg

DSCF3117.jpg
 
Many others have kicked the tires and hummed and hawed about the revolver. They chose the spaghetti revolvers (for various reasons not just economy). And now the gun is gone. More and more domestic firearms manufactures go under as people choose to save a few bucks for a sub par product. Marlins gone, Winchesters gone and others will follow as people choose to have 2 imports for the cost of one domestic firearm.

IF American manufacturers made what we wanted at a decent price we would buy American. They don't so we buy Italian and Chinese. I'm not going to buy a gun I don't like just because it's American made and shoots bp. The Italian and Chinese know what we want and supply them at affordable prices.
 
If you could get an 1873 Colt made like the originals with the hammer mounted firing pin for 500 or so or a winchester 92 without a hammer block safety for about the same price I'd buy American. They cant and wont make guns like the originals for any price. The Italians can and will. Nuff said. This thread has been hijacked enough.
 
hickstick 10 wrote:
ahuh they made the gun for 30 years and in all that time, when they were relatively inexpensive on the used market or new you chose not to purchase one. Obviously you chose not to support Ruger on the old army venture.

What makes you assume that I never owned a Ruger Old Army hickstick?
I never said I never owned one. I simply said I would like to have the stainless, 5.5. inch barrel, Vaquero style fixed sights version that Ruger was making for CAS/SASS at the end of the ROA production, but that their costs since being discontinued have inflated so high that I chose not to purchase a used one. That particular ROA, stainless, 5.5 inch barrel, Vaquero style fixed sight model I never owned. The fact is, once back in the early 80's I did buy a new non stainless, blue, standard long barrel (only barrel that was available back then) Ruger Old Army, brand new from a local dealer, but had to sell it to pay for some transmission work I needed done.

I currently own six Ruger 10/22's. Two of which I bought brand new from Wal-Mart and the other four I bought used. I've also owned a Ruger Blackhawk which I bought new. So I've supported Ruger through the years. But if I hadn't, would that make me a bad person because I hadn't bought brand new Ruger products? Did Bill Ruger supporting the assault weapons ban make him a bad person and justify shooters not buying Ruger products?

hickstick 10 wrote:
Marlins gone, Winchesters gone and others will follow as people choose to have 2 imports for the cost of one domestic firearm.

Over the years I've also bought a new Marlin mdl 1895 in 45-70 caliber as well as a new 30-30 mdl 1892 Winchester. (Correction, that was a mdl 1894 Winchester)

hickstick 10 wrote:
I dont understand how people hated the gun while it was made, and clamour for it when its gone. Or some are irritated that its out of their reach on the used market, when they could have bought a new one for less if they saved up for one and bought it while it was being manufactured.

If I had hated the ROA I would never have purchased a new blue one back in the '80's. Unfortunately by the time I became aware of the existence of the stainless, 5.5 inch barrel, Vaquero style fixed sights version, they were already out of production and prices inflated accordingly. Ruger did not make that particular model for very long and when they did, they made an even more limited amount in the 5.5 inch barrel length.

hickstick 10 wrote:
But no amount of "dremeling" will ever make a "uberti remmy" an old army in finish quality, reliability or strength.

No dremel tooling was done on my Pietta Remy. None was necessary. I never said a Remy was equal to the ROA. I just said that for the price difference, it was good enough for me. There's nothing wrong with my sharing my experience with an alternative is there?

The problem with making assumptions without adequate information is those assumptions can often be incorrect.

Good Lord. I posted a few experiences, some thoughts on some ideas and my alternatives to expensive purchases regarding BP revolvers. But it seems like some people do not appreciate that and just want to argue for the sake of arguing. Some folks want to argue over things as insignificant as whether I should use the word "many" instead of the word "most". Some make unfounded assumptions without adequate information to form those assumptions. Others are rude for no valid reason.

Why don't we argue about something important, like whether the word "ain't" or the word "isn't" is more valid. :rolleyes: For Pete's sake. Are we intelligent adults here? Arguing for the sake of arguing is not productive. Can we get back on track with intelligent discourse and have some fun and informative information instead of useless arguments over nothing? Sheez.
 
Last edited:
What hijacking? part of the OP's issues in his posts is the cost of BP arms.

Bill Akins wrote:
Over the years I've also bought a new Marlin mdl 1895 in 45-70 caliber as well as a new 30-30 mdl 1892 Winchester.

that 1892 in 30-30 get sold for transmission work to? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
The other idea I have had that goes back 30 years (to a wooden mockup I built) is a chain fire prevention plate that would obviate the need to use greased wads or grease over the projectile.

This idea is not as progressive as you might think. Colt's first experimental revolvers had shields over the front.
DSCF6263.jpg


The idea was quickly abandoned, and probably due largely to the obvious problem of difficulty in reloading. Colt must have found that the disadvantages outweighed any advantage, and this before any of his first production Patersons were manufactured.
 
Back
Top