Author Topic: Ruger?  (Read 604 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dan Chamberlain

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 406
Ruger?
« on: May 01, 2004, 02:10:41 PM »
The Bearcat would make a dandy .31!

Dan C

Offline The Shrink

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 557
Ruger?
« Reply #1 on: May 02, 2004, 08:53:58 AM »
Actually, I think the Bearcat would make a dandy .17!
Wayne the Shrink

There is no 'right' that requires me to work for you or you to work for me!

Offline Gatofeo

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 448
  • Gender: Male
Ruger?
« Reply #2 on: May 02, 2004, 10:43:10 AM »
Ack!
A .17-caliber cap and ball revolver? Where will the .17 madness end? :roll:

Dan, you're not alone in postulating a .31 caliber Bearcat cap and ball. A number of people have suggested it in the past few years I"ve been haunting firearms message boards.
Seems like a good deal to me. The .31 would be ideal for rabbits, grouse and similar table fare. I'm told it's accurate too. I have a .31 repro of the Colt 1849 but it's a piece of junk, roughly made inside and out in the early 1970s in Italy.
A few years ago, I loaded it carefully and benchrested it at 25 yards just to see what it would do. Two of its five shots missed entirely the 4X4-FOOT plywood backing for the target. This was a new sheet of plywood I'd just erected, so I know it missed entirely. Not one ball hit paper ... sheesh.
But that's not to slight ALL .31 calibers, just mine. I keep getting the itch to buy a well-made .31 and wring it out.
The Bearcat in .31 would be a cutie, all right. Made in stainless steel, with some way to adjust the sights for windage and elevation without the cumbersome Patridge sights would be a plus.
A front sight that elevates by turning a screw would be good. A rear sight adjustable only for windage would complement it. This way, sights would kept fairly small and unobtrusive, unlike modern Patridge sights on a cap and ball.
And while we're at it, why stick to .31 on the Bearcat? Why not a .34-caliber? This might fit in its cylinder. Some of the old, original Paterson Colts were made in .34 caliber; I believe that Sam Colt made a few 1851 Navies in .34 caliber as an experiment, too.
That way, the 17-ers could be placated with, "It's really just a .17 --- doubled!"  :grin:
"A hit with a .22 is better than a miss with a .44."

Offline tryit

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 68
Ruger?
« Reply #3 on: May 04, 2004, 03:48:15 PM »
Gatofeo, I can recommend the Uberti pocket model in .31. Little guns this size take some work to squeeze the best accuracy out of them. I cut a new forcing cone, lapped the bore, installed a new front sight, reduced the hammer spring force, bushed the cylinder lock pin, and reduced the edge on the cylinder face. Except for lapping the bore there is no real problem accomplishing the rest. I did later open the cylinders up about .002 of a inch to get a better fit in the bore I lapped (a little too much) but lapping is not necessary to get a accurate gun. I am playing with the new steel frame Remy but there are a lot of rough spots on the casting and the steel is really soft. Tryit.