RNVB-445-SPL Lipsey's Bisley 44 Specials

Rclark said:

The Reverse Indexing Pawl System is what makes them New Vaqueros

Click to expand...

Seems to me my 'Vaquero' .44 Special has the new indexing system... Not marked 'New Vaquero'.... :roll: . Ie. The Reverse Indexing Pawl isn't the whole story as you alluded to in a previous post! Again confusing if you don't have an 'in' with the company.

Click to expand...

Yours does! And the Reverse Indexing Pawl is the whole story as I stated in a previous post. But it is only confusing if you don't consider all issues and Ruger logic: :roll: , i.e.:

The RIPS is also part of the 44 Spl Vaquero. But since there was no other 44 Spl, it can't be a "NEW" anything, it's an original model! Not mismarked.

chet15 said:

The New Vaquero has the smaller cylinder frame. That is the biggest difference and the reason Ruger calls it an entirely different series, regardless of how Ruger rollmarked them, because they have been in error with their rollmarks. The entire gun starts with the cylinder frame, and its just parts after that.
Here's the other difference. Prefixes 55 through 59 are the old style Vaquero on the large frame. Prefixes 510 through 513 are the New Vaquero mid frame.
Chet15

Click to expand...

Chet,

I have to respectfully disagree. Although originally all New Vaqueros were mid-frames, once Ruger made the 44 Mag on the large frame and labeled it New Vaquero, your logic went out the window. The only common denominator left is the RIPS.

I offer the NM Flat Top Blackhawk has a precedent: they're made on the mid-frame except the 41 and 44 Mags which are large frames. Consistent with the singular name, "New Vaquero" for both mid and large frames, the mid and large frame Flat Tops are not differentiated by different names either.

The 3 digit prefix denotes New Vaquero mid frames. The 2 digit denoted the original large frames and this where I agree that frame size denotes the prefix # and follows different logic than the names, hence the 44 Mag NV still has a 2 digit prefix. Maybe that's a Ruger error like the 'V' in the NM Flat Top Blackhawk catalog #!

Also as you know the first 500 44 Mag Anniv NM Flat Top Blackhawks (large frame) were listed with an 89 Prefix but never produced until the prefix was changed to 870; looks like they caught the "mistake" before starting production at 870-00001.

Another mistake you know well but perhaps some members haven't seen, 16 I believe of the 1st batch of 200 44 Mag New Vaqueros, stamped New Vaquero, but also 44 Special!

This has been confusing to a lot of people for a while now, understandably. Even the main distributors, and thus many LGSs, got it all wrong, thanks mostly to incorrect or incomplete factory-provided information--or more likely non information--from the beginning. When the current crop of the special distribution stainless .44 Mag "New Vaqueros" with the RIPS first came on the market, almost all of the internet listings' spec pages listed them as Mid Frames. "Someone(s)" early on in the information chain just assumed the smaller frame as it said New Vaquero on it, -- and didn't stop to question would Ruger ever market a Mid Frame SA in .44 Mag? (The answer, informally at least, is "no."). The anomalous .44 Special "Vaquero" (I have a pair of) aside, it had to be the RIPS alone that drove the labeling decision. I pointed this out to the main distributor, but it took a few verification calls to Ruger--where some personnel also got it wrong--to corroborate, and I reported it back to the distributor "NOT a mid frame!" I have not looked recently, but some of that misinformation may still be out there on spec sheets.

Bravo gak!

You're among the minority, but the correct minority, using good old common sense and logic on this issue. And it's true, it can be confusing, but mostly to casual observers, who want to jump to a conclusion. It takes some consideration of all the variables and patterns Ruger has followed for their model designations.

And as your experience illustrated, we expect too much of Ruger's phone clerks to know the answers to Ruger's not so simple model naming (as well as technical questions). They don't know, they lack Ruger historical background, and it's not their fault. They aren't trained for the trivial questions collectors can throw at them. They're probably only graded on the # of customer calls they field per hour.

They should be reading this forum if they get a lot of questions like we ask or be studying their products. It's no different from most new car salesmen, even at the dealers. They don't know the answers to tech questions about the cars they are selling.

Hondo44 said:

Bravo gak!

You're among the minority, but the correct minority, using good old common sense and logic on this issue. And it's true, it can be confusing, but mostly to casual observers, who want to jump to a conclusion. It takes some consideration of all the variables and patterns Ruger has followed for their model designations.

And as your experience illustrated, we expect too much of Ruger's phone clerks to know the answers to Ruger's not so simple model naming (as well as technical questions). They don't know, they lack Ruger historical background, and it's not their fault. They aren't trained for the trivial questions collectors can throw at them. They're probably only graded on the # of customer calls they field per hour.

They should be reading this forum if they get a lot of questions like we ask or be studying their products. It's no different from most new car salesmen, even at the dealers. They don't know the answers to tech questions about the cars they are selling.

Click to expand...

Jim, don't get me wrong I was thrown at first as well! But I quickly questioned it. After the 44 Special "Vaquero" naming snafu, I figured anything was possible!

gak,

The 44 Spl fits the pattern however:

There is no predecessor 'Vaquero' for the 44 Spl. It's the first vaquero style revolver in that caliber. Therefore it can't be a "new" version of anything even though it has the RIP System, it's an original model in 44 Spl cal introduced with the RIPS, hence it's just a "Vaquero" and marked as such.

Hondo44 said:

gak,

The 44 Spl fits the pattern however:

There is no predecessor 'Vaquero' for the 44 Spl. It's the first vaquero style revolver in that caliber. Therefore it can't be a "new" version of anything even though it has the RIP System, it's an original model in 44 Spl cal introduced with the RIPS, hence it's just a "Vaquero" and marked as such.

Click to expand...

L Lipsey's Bisley 44 Specials
Moderators: flatgate, Moderators

Post a reply
Subject:
Re: RNVB-445-SPL Lipsey's Bisley 44 Specials
Message body:
Enter your message here, it may contain no more than 60000 characters.

Smilies
:shock: :? 8) :lol: :x :evil: :twisted: :roll: :wink: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :mrgreen:
Font size:

Tip: Styles can be applied quickly to selected text.
Font colour

Hondo44 said:

gak,

The 44 Spl fits the pattern however:

There is no predecessor 'Vaquero' for the 44 Spl. It's the first vaquero style revolver in that caliber. Therefore it can't be a "new" version of anything even though it has the RIP System, it's an original model in 44 Spl cal introduced with the RIPS, hence it's just a "Vaquero" and marked as such.

Click to expand...

Jim, you're probably going to have to take back some of the nice things you said about me when I say that I have never fully bought into that reasoning either. While I reluctantly acknowledge (realize) their apparent logic regarding RIPS, evidenced in the aforementioned newer .44 Mags--and again only if they stick to the scheme now (see my preference below)...I refer to what I believe was a goof with the 44 Special naming again--I have always felt that the frame size should dictate the New Vaquero vs. just Vaquero labeling. I think whether a caliber had been available before in a particular frame is a minor aspect, way too much nuance, and should be immaterial, just as ideally whether it has RIPS or not is a mechanical detail, ...To differentiate instead perhaps an R in the serial number or stamped on the underside of the frame--or some such distinction is in order.

There's just too much history of the large frame Vaquero and medium frame New Vaquero. A large Vaquero is a large Vaquero, no "New" (enough) about it to change the name. If Ruger came out with a .38-40/10mm convertible (yea!) in a midframe, complete and inherently but immaterially with RIPS, to me it would be a "New Vaquero," and regardless whether those calibers were available in the "old" Vaquero platform before. People of all stripes have referred to "...on the New Vaquero frame...." for so long, to me as a naming convention it has become de facto law.
With that said, hope you still like me at least a little--however misinformed, ha!

gak,

No worries at all among friends! Maybe better friends than typical because we can disagree and still be friends!

I won't debate my position, you've listened to it all and I feel you follow my logic. Not necessary to agree with it. And I understand yours. And I don't necessarily agree with what Ruger has done. I just think it's Ruger's line of thinking and has consistency IMO. As Ruger comes out with more models and calibers hopefully, it remains to be seen if the consistency as I understand it, holds true.

There's so many misnomers down thru history, I just wouldn't want an incorrect understanding of the term "New Vaquero" perpetuated, whether mine or yours doesn't matter which, and whether in the majority or the minority of users's opinions.

I don't need to take back anything good I said about you and don't feel you're misinformed. There's not enough information available from Ruger to be misinformed about. At this point all we have is cognizant reasoning, i.e., "flying by the seat of our pants". (smile)

Jim

A fine looking gun:

https://www.lipseys.com/itemdetail?itemno=RUKBNV-455-I