Question on the New Vaqueros?

So i know awhile back ruger went to mim on the SP101 hammers, personally i think it looks pretty bad and i'm not a fan of it. Anyways im in the market for a new vaquero and prefer to buy new usually, if the gun is still in production. I emailed ruger a few times asking about whether they use MIM parts in the new vaqueros and failed to get a straight answer from them, mainly the reply i received was something along the lines of "we use MIM in all our firearms etc etc"

So failing an answer from them, and while it isnt a big issue to me as I would likely just replace the parts anyway with older ones. Does anyone know if they have? The biggest issue for me would be the hammer, or trigger, not so much functionality but looks?

Thanks for any insight into this, I dont hate mim, just not a fan and prefer investment cast or foged steel for a gun i rely on.

-Adam

The only thing that I will say in answer to your question is...go to a gun shop, take a look at one, hold it and buy with confidence...as you are hunting boogers that do not exist.

Jim Luke said:

The only thing that I will say in answer to your question is...go to a gun shop, take a look at one, hold it and buy with confidence...as you are hunting boogers that do not exist.

Click to expand...

i live in california (for now), and a pretty liberal area at that (just south of Santa Barbara), most of the gunshops that stock firearms have a variety of semi's but no revolvers, i can order one if i want. They have a few older blackhawks and old model vaqueros but i want the smaller frame size of the new. Just asking if they changed any of the parts as i did not get a clear reply from them, not trying to start a debate on which is better or why mim is ok

If you're just after looks, MIM parts are totally acceptable. Just cleaning them up to look the way you want is the way to go. The eye can not tell the difference between a cast or injection molded or forged part once it's been appropriately cleaned up.

The frames are not forged, either. Yet they are significantly stronger than the ceompetitors. Honestly, you're going to have to explain to me how you tell the difference between molded and forged parts after grinding and profiling to figure out exactly what you're saying. Elaborate a little more.

Ruger is a pioneer in injection molding and casting. A good many 1911s from other company's that are cast, are made by ruger. That said, while I am a fan of forged, for the past year I've been running a multinational 1911, cast frame under a federal slide using 100% mim wherever I can, and as of last Sunday, its had 42874 rounds through it;

32,172 rounds of 230 gr ball various makers
7,463 rounds of 185 gr +p
3,239 rounds of cci flying ashtrays.

With all this, not one part has failed. I also have a taurus pt92 with 122,319 rounds through it without a failure, except the time I thought to experiment with promag.

schloss said:

If you're just after looks, MIM parts are totally acceptable. Just cleaning them up to look the way you want is the way to go. The eye can not tell the difference between a cast or injection molded or forged part once it's been appropriately cleaned up.

The frames are not forged, either. Yet they are significantly stronger than the ceompetitors. Honestly, you're going to have to explain to me how you tell the difference between molded and forged parts after grinding and profiling to figure out exactly what you're saying. Elaborate a little more.

Click to expand...

Never said anything about disliking cast if you read the original question, i have no problem with investment cast parts or frames. Ruger is at the top of their business and i have a 10/22, and had for a few years a ruger blackhawk .357 from 1972 i got from a friend as well as a ruger 77/357 never had an issue with them and they final machine cast anyway, what i do have an issue with is MIM triggers and hammers. yes they are extremely easy to tell if your asking about looks, you simply look for either the casting line and indent from the mold as well as the hollowed sections for MIM parts, as far as telling the difference between cast and forged, as long as every surface on the part is not final machined or profiled, a quick glance will tell you wether it is or is not cast. Again i never mentioned their frames were forged or I disliked cast so not sure why you went after me about that, just asking a simple question about wether they have changed the hammer or triggers on the new vaqueros as I do not have a new one to look at and would like to buy one when i have the spare change.

-Adam

sousana said:

Ruger is a pioneer in injection molding and casting. A good many 1911s from other company's that are cast, are made by ruger. That said, while I am a fan of forged, for the past year I've been running a multinational 1911, cast frame under a federal slide using 100% mim wherever I can, and as of last Sunday, its had 42874 rounds through it;

32,172 rounds of 230 gr ball various makers
7,463 rounds of 185 gr +p
3,239 rounds of cci flying ashtrays.

With all this, not one part has failed. I also have a taurus pt92 with 122,319 rounds through it without a failure, except the time I thought to experiment with promag.

Click to expand...

Good to hear, again no problem with cast, infact, no problem with mim if applied right, but personally i do not like it and will change to another piece whether it be forged or cast.

Again asking about whether they have changed the parts, as i do not have a new vaquero to see in hand and would purchase an older one rather than a new one with the parts, ruger would not give me a clear answer so i figured I would try here.

You are making this harder than it needs to be.

For not knowing any better, you could have google searched "Ruger New Vaquero Hammer", then clicked "images". You'll find several pictures in a matter of seconds.

Googling New Vaquero Hammer you also find that the New Vaquero shares the same hammer and trigger as the Big Vaquero, even though the part numbers are slightly different.

Through either of those searches you would find pictures of many New Vaqueros, both at rest and cocked.

Since I'm working from home today, I just called Ruger TWICE, knowing I would get two different customer service people, which I did (Heather, and I didn't get the others name). Off the top of their head they both answered "Have you switched over to the injection molded hammers or triggers for New Vaqueros?" the same. "Not yet". Heather said they ARE working on it, but it's not ready for roll out. She also confirmed that the outward appearance of the hammer and trigger when at rest will be no different than it ever has been.

I have a MIM SP-101 (and 4 other cast SP's), I just took a bit of elbow grease and removed the unsightly injection point "ring", then used an engravers point in the dremmel to stipple the weight reducing recesses. I applied some engraving enamel to the stippling, then polished the hammer all around. At rest, it looks like a polished hammer. At full cock, it shows off the blackened accents. Trigger looks identical.

Other than the opportunity to make material saving recesses, which changes the appearance, I'm really baffled at folks misunderstanding of the differences between MIM and IC parts. Frankly, if it weren't for the difference in appearance, the MIM part is a higher quality part than the Investment Cast part in terms of both metallurgy and dimensional control. Since cowboy action shooters that dominate the Vaquero market would refuse recessed hammers, I'll make the assumption that we won't see much change in the way they look, even when they do start MIM'ing the Ruger SA parts. Maybe around the base of the hammer, but certainly not the hammer "neck gusset" recess like the SP-101. ALTHOUGH, I would actually be interested in faster lock time in my Vaqueros, and lightening that neck WOULD do that for me.

Varminterror said:

You are making this harder than it needs to be.

For not knowing any better, you could have google searched "Ruger New Vaquero Hammer", then clicked "images". You'll find several pictures in a matter of seconds.

Googling New Vaquero Hammer you also find that the New Vaquero shares the same hammer and trigger as the Big Vaquero, even though the part numbers are slightly different.

Through either of those searches you would find pictures of many New Vaqueros, both at rest and cocked.

Since I'm working from home today, I just called Ruger TWICE, knowing I would get two different customer service people, which I did (Heather, and I didn't get the others name). Off the top of their head they both answered "Have you switched over to the injection molded hammers or triggers for New Vaqueros?" the same. "Not yet". Heather said they ARE working on it, but it's not ready for roll out. She also confirmed that the outward appearance of the hammer and trigger when at rest will be no different than it ever has been.

I have a MIM SP-101 (and 4 other cast SP's), I just took a bit of elbow grease and removed the unsightly injection point "ring", then used an engravers point in the dremmel to stipple the weight reducing recesses. I applied some engraving enamel to the stippling, then polished the hammer all around. At rest, it looks like a polished hammer. At full cock, it shows off the blackened accents. Trigger looks identical.

Other than the opportunity to make material saving recesses, which changes the appearance, I'm really baffled at folks misunderstanding of the differences between MIM and IC parts. Frankly, if it weren't for the difference in appearance, the MIM part is a higher quality part than the Investment Cast part in terms of both metallurgy and dimensional control. Since cowboy action shooters that dominate the Vaquero market would refuse recessed hammers, I'll make the assumption that we won't see much change in the way they look, even when they do start MIM'ing the Ruger SA parts. Maybe around the base of the hammer, but certainly not the hammer "neck gusset" recess like the SP-101. ALTHOUGH, I would actually be interested in faster lock time in my Vaqueros, and lightening that neck WOULD do that for me.

Click to expand...

I don't see how i made this any harder? All i asked was if anyone knew if the newer ruger vaqueros (read current prodcution as of 2014) were implementing mim hammers and or triggers like they have on the SP101.

Instead I was reprimanded for not liking mim or wanting to replace it (hey aren't there guys that don't like investment cast and rugers out there as well)

everyone is welcome to prefer something else, I even stated i have no problem with mim in proper applications, but id rather have a final machined investment cast parts as I personally trust them and have used them and would rather not have mim hammers or trigger, I am in college, but have been shooting and hunting all my life and owned many firearms, as well as reloading, gunsmithing and futher. I sold off what i had and narrowed it down to the basics for practicality, I dont have alot of money so Id rather spend once and cry once.

Thanks for the info thats what I was looking for, obviously I can search pictures and i did, I looked around for quite some time browsing threads and search before i asked this, but they have been making the new vaqueros since the mid 2000's so the pictures on google images would be anywhere from there on till now and most are older, I am looking on having to order one, so I was curious about current production if they were implementing them, which a simple picture would have confirmed it but when they wouldnt clarify on which parts where on the current production new vaqueros than i was confused, and figured I would ask here as there seems to be alot of people with the inside news on what ruger is doing. MIM and IC from my undestanding are completely different operations, i dont like it, its money i have saved up and if i dont want to buy it than I won't. The cost savings do not get passed on to the consumer, it simply increases what they make off the product while offering you a lesser quality piece at the same or higher price than before.

thats my take on it atleast, Have a good day,

-Adam

Odd to see someone in college, i.e. early 20's, that misunderstands what MIM means in terms of end product quality. I can forgive old codgers that dislike change, or misunderstand that cast steel or injected metal is somehow related to "pot metal" that earned a poor reputation 50yrs ago, but you're obviously not old enough to have those direct experiences or biases. Must be drinking some of the old fella's koolaid though.

Absolutely NO reason to favor cast and machined parts for hammers and triggers over MIM and fitted parts. You're just being foolish to disregard MIM hammers and triggers. There ARE parts that I'd not prefer to have MIM, but hammers and triggers are not one of them. As an engineer that has worked in tool design/production, and product development, I can say with confidence that I favor MIM hammers AS A SHOOTER, even if I don't love how the material-saving recesses look.

I also don't agree with your naïve understanding of production cost relative to consumer cost. MIM and other production improvements help manufacturers keep SALE costs down, because their MANUAL LABOR COST is increasing faster than national inflation rates in recent years. MIM costs will ALWAYS decline, whereas the hand-moving casting, machining, and fitting manual labor costs will ALWAYS increase. Production innovation has to stay a step ahead, because materials prices and labor costs will always increase over time.

Frankly, it's a moot point for the New Vaquero anyway. I have a 2005 Ruger catalog that lists stainless Vaqueros as $589 MSRP. Factor for inflation, that's $721, compared to the 2014 MSRP of $739. None too far off. That's also a price for the Vaquero, not New Vaquero, which came out at a slightly higher price than the old Vaquero since it was an "enhanced model" (Old vaq's were priced ~$10 cheaper than blackhawks at the time, which were cheaper by about the same than the SBH's. The New Vaq's came out at about the same price as the SBH's - new and improved, as it were). In other words, even though the price has risen over $150 in 9yrs, a minimum wage worker has to flip the same number of burgers to earn enough to buy one.

Varminterror said:

Odd to see someone in college, i.e. early 20's, that misunderstands what MIM means in terms of end product quality. I can forgive old codgers that dislike change, or misunderstand that cast steel or injected metal is somehow related to "pot metal" that earned a poor reputation 50yrs ago, but you're obviously not old enough to have those direct experiences or biases. Must be drinking some of the old fella's koolaid though.

Absolutely NO reason to favor cast and machined parts for hammers and triggers over MIM and fitted parts. You're just being foolish to disregard MIM hammers and triggers. There ARE parts that I'd not prefer to have MIM, but hammers and triggers are not one of them. As an engineer that has worked in tool design/production, and product development, I can say with confidence that I favor MIM hammers AS A SHOOTER, even if I don't love how the material-saving recesses look.

I also don't agree with your naïve understanding of production cost relative to consumer cost. MIM and other production improvements help manufacturers keep SALE costs down, because their MANUAL LABOR COST is increasing faster than national inflation rates in recent years. MIM costs will ALWAYS decline, whereas the hand-moving casting, machining, and fitting manual labor costs will ALWAYS increase. Production innovation has to stay a step ahead, because materials prices and labor costs will always increase over time.

Frankly, it's a moot point for the New Vaquero anyway. I have a 2005 Ruger catalog that lists stainless Vaqueros as $589 MSRP. Factor for inflation, that's $721, compared to the 2014 MSRP of $739. None too far off. That's also a price for the Vaquero, not New Vaquero, which came out at a slightly higher price than the old Vaquero since it was an "enhanced model" (Old vaq's were priced ~$10 cheaper than blackhawks at the time, which were cheaper by about the same than the SBH's. The New Vaq's came out at about the same price as the SBH's - new and improved, as it were). In other words, even though the price has risen over $150 in 9yrs, a minimum wage worker has to flip the same number of burgers to earn enough to buy one.

Click to expand...

This will be my last post on this thread since clearly you feel the need to be antagonistic towards me.

Odd or not, I never related to mim or cast to pot metal, Infact i clearly repeated over and over that i like rugers investment casting. I have many experiences with mim, most gun manufactures use it now. Personally i do not like it

By all means, if you believe that there is no reason to favor cast or forged parts, well lucky you, they implement in most any gun, you could go as far as to replace all your hammers and triggers with MIM and im sure you would be fine. There are plenty of older guns out there for me to purchase that have better quality than most of the new stuff.

I don't believe that my understanding economy is naive though you may think so. If you think cost cutting measures that benefit the producer more so than the end user are good, than by all means go buy a new remington 870 express, hows that painted on finish? Cost cutting measures are just that cost cutting but on the producers side in terms of labor and quality, I have found new in box smith and wessons for less than current production models. Mim may help costs decline but that is because of the removal of quality control, sure that may be good for the manufacturer to line their pockets and keep yours full, but its cheaper for a company to send out a sub par product and have it break on the user and have them return it, than it is to implement quality control and hand fitting of parts.

They are pushing the bottom limit, to make the cheapest end product, for the lowest price, to the lowest bidder, that sir is free market economy.

MIM may last the average shooters useage of that gun, but lets say for example a normal part is found to last 20,000 rounds. Now the company finds over time the average person who buys there product only shoots the firearm 5,000 rounds in the lifetime of that product. Well now the old part is overbuilt, here comes MIM, it has 98% of the strength of forge no? Well for the average user who wishes to buy the cheapest gun they can buy that works, that is fine, for the person who looks to buy one firearm of a type that they can rely on and hope to get that 20,000 rounds out of it because that is all they have, then now he must repair his gun an average of 4x.

That is my issue with mim, it is built to the lowest end product that works for the average person. I dont like it, i like when quality standards were higher, look at some of the .22s even the really cheap single shots for that time period, and the quality is usually much higher than the plastic molded junk you see now a days for the same price bracket, quality standards have fallen, people are used to it, and thats the problem.

again,

have a good day, i look forward to browsing more of this forum in the future.

-Adam

I own 5 pairs of New Vaqueros and know of no MIM parts in them.

There is another option some choose, though clearly not the OP...actually the reverse... putting the standard (stock) Vaquero/Blackhawk hammer in the New Vaquero. Like a lot of folks who have converted their NVs, I am not a devotee of the longhorn NV hammer, and so I equipped two of my three NVs with SBH hammers (a fourth, a Mantado, already came with a SBH profile hammer. The one unconverted regular NV is undecided/may yet be on the for sale list). I like the SBHs a lot functionally but one of the now converted NVs I've (almost) decided I want the more traditional "western/cowboy" looking hammer without going back to the overly (to me) long/high/backswept NV spur,...and have thought of reverting to the Vaquero/BH shorter spur as a decent compromise--and use the SBH on future project. This is an approach a lot have taken who can't abide the more extreme backsweep of the stock NV, but also don't want--or can't find--either the SBH or Bisley piece.

To me and a lot of others I've heard, the perfect hammer is the Colt SAA, which none of the Rugers seem to match exactly. One of those puzzlements. While Ruger was at it in 1956--and then over the next six decades--while emulating the SAA in most other ways (on the surface), why didn't they just adopt the Colt hammer?!

Slips73,, Welcome to the Forum!
I have followed your post since it started.
You asked a question, and no one was able to offer a simple answer, until Varmniterror mentioned he had called Ruger to ask that simple question.
There is your answer.

You have every right to want something the way you want it. Fully understood.

However, one aspect you fail to grasp is the ever changing market that any & all businesses must grasp to be successful.
In the real world, any manufactured item has costs. Costs rise each year. To keep prices to where people can afford an item, and be competitive in the marketplace, any company must figure out ways to save costs, so to be able to continue in business.
A little history.
Bill Ruger developed less expensive methods of manufacturing guns in 1948 & 1949. When he introduced the original Standard Auto pistol, his manufacturing methods cut expenses from the "normal" way guns were built to the point that his guns sold at retail for less than the costs to make a Colt or a High Standard.
Where are those two companies now?
PLEASE understand that I am NOT attacking you or your desires.
If you purchase a New Vaquero, and it's parts are not what you wish, you can buy older parts & replace them easily enough. And you can sell the hammer & trigger easily as well.
I bring ALL of this up to hopefully allow you to stop & think about this Forum.
Yes, you had some people open the "discussion" again on MIM parts. Do not let this be the guide to what this Forum is about. There is a lot here to learn, to help Ruger owners, & it is a good place.
Unfortunately, many folks have pet peeves about certain subjects.
For some it can be verbage, such as "clips vs mags" or "weapon vs firearm"!
Others it can be the discussion on the best "bear load" for XYZ gun.
There are many subjects that seem to create a lot of "discussion" often heated, between very good folks.
Please understand this & NOT let it guide your visits here.

Lastly, I'll try & put this in perspective.
On another gun board, a longtime member, respected, & a huge help to many, posted a "goodbye" message. He is dying. He is in Hospice care. Tons of replies from all of the folks, most not really knowing what to say. Yet, one of this gentleman's last wishes was for folks to refrain from using the word "weapon" where the term "firearm" is more appropriate. Many didn't know this was a pet peeve of his. (Anti-gunners call all firearms weapons, yet, most of the firearms out there have never been used as a weapon.) To his end, he was fighting in his own way to hopefully change things just a little.
This, from a dying man.
It's all in how you look at things.
So, relax, buy you a New Vaquero, and if the hammer & trigger aren't to your liking, replace them.

And continue to enjoy this Forum!

Hmm I was aware that the large framed single action revolvers used mostly the same parts (like the blackhawks and super blackhawks) But I always took the smaller vaquero (new vaquero) as being different in dimensions, i do like the colst style hammers better than the excessively upswept hammers on the NV.

thanks for that tip I will keep that in mind, so regardless of what the hammers are when i purchase them, i know if i really dont like it, i can change it.

do you know if the grip frames are interchangeable as well?

I like the birdshead, as well as the hunter frame i think it is.

-Adam

also, i think this is the colt hammer no?

http://www.brownells.com/handgun-parts/trigger-group-parts/hammers/ruger-colt-style-hammer-new-vaquero-trigger-kit-prod25444.aspx

gak said:

There is another option some choose, though clearly not the OP...actually the reverse... putting the standard (stock) Vaquero/Blackhawk hammer in the New Vaquero. Like a lot of folks who have converted their NVs, I am not a devotee of the longhorn NV hammer, and so I equipped two of my three NVs with SBH hammers (a fourth, a Mantado, already came with a SBH profile hammer. The one unconverted regular NV is undecided/may yet be on the for sale list). I like the SBHs a lot functionally but one of the now converted NVs I've (almost) decided I want the more traditional "western/cowboy" looking hammer without going back to the overly (to me) long/high/backswept NV spur,...and have thought of reverting to the Vaquero/BH shorter spur as a decent compromise--and use the SBH on future project. This is an approach a lot have taken who can't abide the more extreme backsweep of the stock NV, but also don't want--or can't find--either the SBH or Bisley piece.

To me and a lot of others I've heard, the perfect hammer is the Colt SAA, which none of the Rugers seem to match exactly. One of those puzzlements. While Ruger was at it in 1956--and then over the next six decades--while emulating the SAA in most other ways (on the surface), why didn't they just adopt the Colt hammer?!

Click to expand...

Thanks for the response i appreciate it, I totally understand the market costs of businesses, some firearm companies barely made it through the mid 1900's if i recall from my research because of changing costs of labor and production, look at the winchesters pre and post 64 in terms of cost, it became too expensive to produce to that scale of quality for the same pricepoint.

I should have been more clear and concise rather than hastly defending my distate for mim, it is not that i dont understand market processes, and that businesses must change to survive (or else they would not be able to produce guns for a feasable price-point)

my point was just that i dont like it, the parts, not the companies, and I was simply curious if ruger had changed the parts too MIM or not, and didnt wish for it to get out of hand. It is just a personal thing for me and i tried to put it out there that i dont care about it being on the gun, it usually wont stop me from purchasing a firearm if i really want one unless there is a better option for a little more money, my 10/22 has lots of mim parts in it but its been flawless aside from some mag issues for well over 5,000 rounds, grew up shooting that firearm and my father passed it on to me.

I love ruger products and come this summer i hope to get a new vaquero or NM blackhawk in .45 colt

and to one of the above, Im actually under 20, this is something i have been researching for a firearm as a gift for my birthday from my father (only way to get a handgun in this state under 21) i had a blackhawk from 1973 in .357 mag, and a S&W 38/44 but i sold both and saved funds for calibers and guns i prefer over the .38 special and .357. So not new to handguns either, but just a personal distate for the look of the mim parts, and maybe a bit of naïve nostalgia thrown in there for the old methods of manufacturing.

again thanks for the response, and i hope to enjoy this forum further

-Adam

contender said:

Slips73,, Welcome to the Forum!
I have followed your post since it started.
You asked a question, and no one was able to offer a simple answer, until Varmniterror mentioned he had called Ruger to ask that simple question.
There is your answer.

You have every right to want something the way you want it. Fully understood.

However, one aspect you fail to grasp is the ever changing market that any & all businesses must grasp to be successful.
In the real world, any manufactured item has costs. Costs rise each year. To keep prices to where people can afford an item, and be competitive in the marketplace, any company must figure out ways to save costs, so to be able to continue in business.
A little history.
Bill Ruger developed less expensive methods of manufacturing guns in 1948 & 1949. When he introduced the original Standard Auto pistol, his manufacturing methods cut expenses from the "normal" way guns were built to the point that his guns sold at retail for less than the costs to make a Colt or a High Standard.
Where are those two companies now?
PLEASE understand that I am NOT attacking you or your desires.
If you purchase a New Vaquero, and it's parts are not what you wish, you can buy older parts & replace them easily enough. And you can sell the hammer & trigger easily as well.
I bring ALL of this up to hopefully allow you to stop & think about this Forum.
Yes, you had some people open the "discussion" again on MIM parts. Do not let this be the guide to what this Forum is about. There is a lot here to learn, to help Ruger owners, & it is a good place.
Unfortunately, many folks have pet peeves about certain subjects.
For some it can be verbage, such as "clips vs mags" or "weapon vs firearm"!
Others it can be the discussion on the best "bear load" for XYZ gun.
There are many subjects that seem to create a lot of "discussion" often heated, between very good folks.
Please understand this & NOT let it guide your visits here.

Lastly, I'll try & put this in perspective.
On another gun board, a longtime member, respected, & a huge help to many, posted a "goodbye" message. He is dying. He is in Hospice care. Tons of replies from all of the folks, most not really knowing what to say. Yet, one of this gentleman's last wishes was for folks to refrain from using the word "weapon" where the term "firearm" is more appropriate. Many didn't know this was a pet peeve of his. (Anti-gunners call all firearms weapons, yet, most of the firearms out there have never been used as a weapon.) To his end, he was fighting in his own way to hopefully change things just a little.
This, from a dying man.
It's all in how you look at things.
So, relax, buy you a New Vaquero, and if the hammer & trigger aren't to your liking, replace them.

And continue to enjoy this Forum!

Click to expand...

Slips73, hopefully I understood you well enough to where you know what I was trying to say. By your last post, I believe so.
Many of us prefer older guns & such, because they were built in a time period where more pride was put into a job & the resulting product. Unfortunately, due to economics & changing attitudes, much has been lost over the decades of ALL manufacturing. I can only think of one company that is currently in business that seems to have serious pride in it's product to where they have a complete no BS warranty. Dillon. But, even Dillon occasionally has issues with an item, and has to spend $$$ to straighten it out. One note here, Dillon is a privately owned company, and it's founder is still at the helm. (Kinda like it used to be at Ruger.) Add in the fact that many companies offer a progressive reloading set-up, none seem to be serious competitors to Dillon. What will the future hold for them? Nobody knows. But, if history repeats itself, once Mike Dillon is gone, and/or the company goes "public" (read, has to report to stockholders,) things could change there too.
Bill Ruger used stamped frame halves to build the Standard auto, vs machining them. Cheaper by far, and many scoffed at him for it. Time proved him right. And his mantra was to overbuild his products as much as he could. Now, Ruger is the top firearm manufacturer in the country. But, we have seen changes, and to stay on top, changes in products are going to happen.
I can fully appreciate your PERSONAL dislike of MIM parts, (we do not want another debate here,) as I tend to prefer the older stuff too. But I do believe that MIM is what we will see a lot more of as time passes. (Hint, buy your parts now, as they will get more expensive as time passes.)
So, you are younger,,, so what? We do not care. In fact, we preach a lot about getting MORE younger folks into shooting. I applaud you for getting so involved and studying your desires. I will ask that you have patience & acceptance for many of us old pharts who may not understand the youth as much as we should.

Again, welcome to our Forum!

Llol, for 1911s alllone, I have enouggh spares for 25 commplete builds and enough to repair another 350 minus slide/frame.

I tryto maintain at least enoough rebuild parts foor each weapon at 5, but with 45 years on the 1911, one tends to have an over abundace. Plus, years back, when a local 1911 smith retired, I bought his entire inventort of parts, plus a goooodly amount of kings and wilsoon bulllet proof parts.

I to am old school and prefer forged, but I have learned that good mim is just as dependable, the same as I've come to love that aluminiom contraption called the beretta 92, of which I own 37 varients.

Slips73 said:

Hmm I was aware that the large framed single action revolvers used mostly the same parts (like the blackhawks and super blackhawks) But I always took the smaller vaquero (new vaquero) as being different in dimensions, i do like the colst style hammers better than the excessively upswept hammers on the NV.

thanks for that tip I will keep that in mind, so regardless of what the hammers are when i purchase them, i know if i really dont like it, i can change it.

do you know if the grip frames are interchangeable as well?

I like the birdshead, as well as the hunter frame i think it is.

-Adam

also, i think this is the colt hammer no?

http://www.brownells.com/handgun-parts/trigger-group-parts/hammers/ruger-colt-style-hammer-new-vaquero-trigger-kit-prod25444.aspx

Click to expand...

Adam,

Welcome to the forum.

As briefly as I can w/o much detail unless you want it:

1. All single action hammers are made the same from earliest to current production, (cast in simplest terms w/o getting into a discussion.)
Basically Hammers all interchange between mid and large frames (& triggers among all 3 frame sizes, not including Bearcats)(with slight manufacturing tolerances so the safety transfer bar fit needs a simply verification for proper function after installation.)
Single six are small frames and use smaller hammers.

2. In general, All Ruger SA grip frames have the same screw pattern and will interchange except the bearcat. Even from OM to NM with minor modifications. (again due to final hand fitting/polishing, the flush fit to frame and 'ears' around the hammer base varies slightly.)

3. The Colt style hammer you referenced (And I've used) are so little different from Rugers standard style, they are not worth the money. Actually, they are closer to Rugers hammer shape than to Colt hammers!

I also prefer the standard Blackhawk/original large frame Vaq hammer on my New Vaqueros:



Hope that helps,