Really Ruger? Even you guys?

Keep it civil
lonerider
Joined a 650cc Club
Posts: 1027
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 1:28 am
My Bike: vs1400

Re: Really Ruger? Even you guys?

Post by lonerider »

Jump could be an OK guy (sometimes). After all, he DID meet up with R2COBB at the Waffle House and they wound up shaking hands and getting their picture taken of the occasion. :cheers:

Tbeck
Joined a 1200cc Club
Posts: 7697
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2016 10:58 am
My Bike: Concours 1400

Re: Really Ruger? Even you guys?

Post by Tbeck »

You gotta know or tell the rest of the story. Yes R2 met him, and that's as far as it went. That's R2's statement on the meeting. I got nothing against jump, he just got caught.

User avatar
MadCow
Site Admin
Posts: 6300
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2014 1:36 pm
My Bike: 2023 Pan America Special

Re: Really Ruger? Even you guys?

Post by MadCow »

Tbeck wrote:Yep ole jump shot 357 in a 38 revolver :lmao: musta learned it in the imaginary spec ops school he attended :x

I was the one who called him on that...shit hit the proverbial fan after that...the meltdown was priceless...I went through like 3 bags of popcorn in 2 days.
-DBTO

User avatar
Prodigal_Sun
Joined a 250cc Club
Posts: 582
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2016 1:42 pm
My Bike: 03 FXDWG
Location: Grand Rapids, MI

Re: Really Ruger? Even you guys?

Post by Prodigal_Sun »

jeffcoslacker wrote:
Forge wrote:
jeffcoslacker wrote:Speaking of Ruger and revolvers, you guys know I have the black powder mental defect that makes me be drawn to guns that take forever to load and shoot. But when you speak of the Ruger Old Army, you are talking about the bad boy of them all. I LOVE them. I WANT another one. I held a stainless 1976 bicentennial model earlier today at a gun shop, and I suppose I was like a 35 year old woman holding a baby...my hormones were surging, I felt my biological clock saying if I don't have another one now, it may never happen... [emoji2]

Well they wanted too much for the one they had. It was solid enough, that goes without saying...they are, after all, essentially indestructible. The only thing that ever happens to them is the bore wears out and there's no rifling left, after many decades of continuous use...but who the hell has that kinda time to applying to loading and firing? Rare to see that happen...but it looked rode hard and put up wet. Stainless is hard to screw up, but it had some pitting and some probably permanent gack in the recesses...nope, not gonna buy it.

But I found this one....VERY nice...in my range, money-wise and travel-wise...waiting for a reply. Gonna piss myself... :lmao:

Image
That Old Army is a beauty! They remind me of the 1858 Remington Army with Ruger’s added beefiness!

That's exactly what they are. Old man Ruger was a cap and ball buff, and wanted to build the best BP pistol you could have. AND he wanted it to be based on an antique design, sharing the same dimensions and operating principles, so that it would always stay classified that way for the purposes of gun laws. So it IS an 1858 Remmy far as the gov't is concerned.
Speaking of the gubmint, I remember seeing on another thread about blackpowder someone was confused about what was considered loaded/unloaded. I've done research into the laws, I don't recall exactly where I saw this out of the thousands of pages of regulations out there between all the federal, state, and local ordinances, but somewhere I read that a blackpowder rifle is considered loaded only if it has ball powder, AND caps in place. If it has the ball and powder, but no cap, it's not loaded. There was no mention of pistols. I'd imagine the risk of someone getting ahold of it and mistaking it for a regular cap gun was a concern? Since the cylinders in a lot of the pistols are easily changeable, I'd say having one loaded with ball and powder and having the caps nearby would be considered a "safe condition" :HatTip: though there's a reasonable argument to be had for it having the cylinder in place and the caps somewhere inaccessible for it not to be technically "loaded"
:evil: [emoji56]

I have a lot of opinions, some of them professional, some of them educated, most of them I just pulled out of my @$$

Some of my best stupidity is largely self-inflicted. :roll:
Image

jeffcoslacker
Back on the Road
Posts: 3650
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 6:13 am
My Bike: Kugelblitz-Kriegshammer 2200

Re: Really Ruger? Even you guys?

Post by jeffcoslacker »

Prodigal_Sun wrote:
jeffcoslacker wrote:
Forge wrote:
jeffcoslacker wrote:Speaking of Ruger and revolvers, you guys know I have the black powder mental defect that makes me be drawn to guns that take forever to load and shoot. But when you speak of the Ruger Old Army, you are talking about the bad boy of them all. I LOVE them. I WANT another one. I held a stainless 1976 bicentennial model earlier today at a gun shop, and I suppose I was like a 35 year old woman holding a baby...my hormones were surging, I felt my biological clock saying if I don't have another one now, it may never happen... [emoji2]

Well they wanted too much for the one they had. It was solid enough, that goes without saying...they are, after all, essentially indestructible. The only thing that ever happens to them is the bore wears out and there's no rifling left, after many decades of continuous use...but who the hell has that kinda time to applying to loading and firing? Rare to see that happen...but it looked rode hard and put up wet. Stainless is hard to screw up, but it had some pitting and some probably permanent gack in the recesses...nope, not gonna buy it.

But I found this one....VERY nice...in my range, money-wise and travel-wise...waiting for a reply. Gonna piss myself... :lmao:

Image
That Old Army is a beauty! They remind me of the 1858 Remington Army with Ruger’s added beefiness!

That's exactly what they are. Old man Ruger was a cap and ball buff, and wanted to build the best BP pistol you could have. AND he wanted it to be based on an antique design, sharing the same dimensions and operating principles, so that it would always stay classified that way for the purposes of gun laws. So it IS an 1858 Remmy far as the gov't is concerned.
Speaking of the gubmint, I remember seeing on another thread about blackpowder someone was confused about what was considered loaded/unloaded. I've done research into the laws, I don't recall exactly where I saw this out of the thousands of pages of regulations out there between all the federal, state, and local ordinances, but somewhere I read that a blackpowder rifle is considered loaded only if it has ball powder, AND caps in place. If it has the ball and powder, but no cap, it's not loaded. There was no mention of pistols. I'd imagine the risk of someone getting ahold of it and mistaking it for a regular cap gun was a concern? Since the cylinders in a lot of the pistols are easily changeable, I'd say having one loaded with ball and powder and having the caps nearby would be considered a "safe condition" :HatTip: though there's a reasonable argument to be had for it having the cylinder in place and the caps somewhere inaccessible for it not to be technically "loaded"
I don't know. But with the Remmy-style revolvers you can drop out a spent cylinder and slam in a fresh loaded one in about as fast as you can drop a mag and insert a full one in a semi-auto, once you get the hang of it. Of course they say don't ever cap your cylinder until it's in the gun, but that's not how we won wars with these things, dammit :blink: [emoji2] People carried several spares, loaded and capped and ready to rock. That was the major innovation there...the ability to reload quickly by changing out cylinders by hand quick and easily.

wally w
Passed the Circle Test
Posts: 325
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2016 2:42 pm
My Bike: 1987 VS700

Re: Really Ruger? Even you guys?

Post by wally w »

When I was 8 years old or so my Dad gave me a single shot Savage .22 had a barrel 15-20ft long or seemed so at the time. I was hitting squirrels in the eye from some distance. I'd rather have any motorcycle than any gun I just don't get the attraction.

Post Reply