Vaquero Sheriff's model....

I was able to score a nice Ruger Sheriff's model on Gun Broker. This one is stainless with a 3-3/4" barrel and is chambered in .44 special. I believe the grips are laminated rosewood grips and they have a very narrow "Gunfighter" profile. I think they are similar to some of the ones that came on the Montado version that Ruger offered a couple of years ago.

I am not sure if this a special edition that Ruger did for Lipsey's or maybe Talo. I am hoping maybe Jason from Lipsey's can help out with the identification of this baby....

mic214 said:

I was able to score a nice Ruger Sheriff's model on Gun Broker. This one is stainless with a 3-3/4" barrel and is chambered in .44 special. I believe the grips are laminated rosewood grips and they have a very narrow "Gunfighter" profile. I think they are similar to some of the ones that came on the Montado version that Ruger offered a couple of years ago.

I am not sure if this a special edition that Ruger did for Lipsey's or maybe Talo. I am hoping maybe Jason from Lipsey's can help out with the identification of this baby....

Click to expand...

These were by Lipsey's.
Ruger erred in the cylinder frame rollmark of all of these by calling it a Vaquero, but it actually the smaller New Vaquero frame.
Apparently only 503 were produced.
Note the pic below shows the gun with black checkered grips, but that is probably a picture of the concept gun, and not from actual production.
http://www.lipseysguns.com/post/Ruger-New-Vaquero-44-Special-Stainless-Steel.aspx

Chet15

That's what I was figuring too. I have another Ruger .44 special with a 4-5/8" barrel that is also marked "Vaquero", but it has the smaller frame. I know that one is from Lipsey's:

Both of those are nice. Either would be my carry gun. Gotta start looking for one.

Nice looking shooter!

Very nice shootin' iron!

Thanks!

I am a big fan of the .44 special (Thanks to Skeeter Skelton!) and I love single actions. The seem to go really well together......

I have a stainless and two blue sheriff models all three have hard black rubber grips. I believe those are aftermarket from the Ruger shop.

My blue Sheriffs model came with black grips.
Albeit I changed the grips to Ivory, the hammer, swapped to a Colt ejector, Belt Mtn Colt-style base pin, and radiused the ugly web behind trigger.




Note: the "Vaquero" marking on all 44 Spl midsize Vaqueros in lieu of "New Vaquero" is not a Ruger mistake, and it continues.

Ruger's logic is simple, the "New" of the New Vaquero's name is to identify the new addition of the Reverse Indexing Pawl System (RIPS)
to original Vaqueros. Therefore, it only refers to Vaquero cartridge chamberings that were originally made w/o the new (RIPS).

Since there were no former 44 Spl chambered Vaqueros w/o the RIP System, the 44 special chambered "Vaquero" is not
a "New" version of a previous .44 Spl Vaquero. Therefore the .44 Spl can't be a "New Vaquero", it's just a Vaquero, and they are only stamped "Vaquero".

Ruger's logic is also consistent with the "Single Ten", "Single Nine", Single Seven, etc. These are what we all consider New Models because of the
transfer bar action, but none of them are stamped "New Model" on their frames because their non-six shot cylinder configurations were never made
in the Old Model 3 screw Single Sixes. The 32 H&R Single Six is stamped New Model because just like the New Model .22 Single Sixes,
it is a new updated version of a six shot old model.

There was a mistake made on a few of the "New Vaquero" 3 3/4" Birdshead 44 Mags: they are mistakingly stamped 44 SPECIAL:

Hondo44,

That is a great looking pistol.

Thanks for the info on the "Vaquero" vs. "New Vaquero". I knew it had something to do with these .44 special models not being made before in the larger original models, but I did not know the exact details of why.

Bisley hammers can be fit right in there.

Hondo44, I'll be the dissenter here. I understand your logic or defense of what may have been their logic, but not your buying into it as legitimate. However, the "New Vaquero" moniker as I believe you actually state was supposed to denote the frame size and "new" indexing system, is or should be irrespective of caliber. i believe that it does not--certainly should not--matter one whit whether it is a caliber (cartridge) that was formerly available on the original, "old" frame. Cartridges come and go. It's the frame that reigns supreme. There's been discussion here about the prospects--apparently with at least a little "something" to them if one member's reference to discussion with Lipseys (I believe) and/or Ruger directly has any traction--for a .41 Mag fixed sight on the mid-frame. I would fully expect, certainly hope, that would get back on track and be labeled "New Vaquero." The same would/should be true of a future mid frame .32-20 fixed sight and so on.

The .44 Special anomaly has done nothing to do but confuse. Until then, as distasteful as the moniker "New Vaquero" has been to many from the get go, yours truly included, most folk had at least gotten on board with the mid-frame/new indexing logic behind it. I think Ruger got the .44 Sp wrong. They either over-thought it, someone unfortunately in charge or influential came out of a management systems motivational seminar with a twisted idea,...or they just plain fell asleep on that one and the new frame stamping supervisor didn't get the memo on the mid frame that had (otherwise) been in effect from back in 2005.

gak,

That's OK, dissention is good, keeps us thinking about it and discussing it.

Let's start with what I did post: "Ruger's logic is simple, the "New" of the New Vaquero's name is to identify the new addition of the Reverse Indexing Pawl System (RIPS) to original Vaqueros. Therefore, it only refers to Vaquero cartridge chamberings that were originally made w/o the new (RIPS)." Nothing about frame size.

You posted: " However, the "New Vaquero" moniker as I believe you actually state was supposed to denote the frame size and "new" indexing system, is or should be irrespective of caliber. i believe that it does not--certainly should not--matter one whit whether it is a caliber (cartridge) that was formerly available on the original, "old" frame. Cartridges come and go. It's the frame that reigns supreme." Only partly correct; I said the indexing system not the frame size.

So I see only denial of the logic that makes my case. But I don't see any logic to back up your dissention, only an assumption and assertions that Ruger made a mistake (which it keeps on making?)

More proof that supports my logic:
I have a question: Why is the recently introduced 44 Mag, which is built on the large frame same as the original, stamped New Vaquero?

Because there was an original Vaquero chambered in 44 Mag but the 'new' version has the RIPS design.

I don't believe we'll see a 41 Mag Vaquero introduced, but if we do, either on the mid or large frame, it'll be stamped Vaquero, not New Vaquero. If not, I may agree with you, but if it is, it'll just be additional confirmation of my logic.

Hondo44 said:

Why is the recently introduced 44 Mag, which is built on the large frame same as the original, stamped New Vaquero?

Click to expand...

Well . . . because RUGER, of course.

:wink:

That's not a Lipseys 44 Sheriff. It's a rerelease that came out last year I sold a bunch of them. The Lipseys had 510 prefix internal locks and plastic grips. The rerelease had a 512 prefix no internal lock and laminate grips

Hondo44,
Good points but, to your question, all I can say is I don't know...so I'll just echo what Ale-88 just said
"Well...because RUGER, of course"!

Here's a quote from a gentleman on another (non Ruger-specific) forum dating a year ago upon Ruger's announcement... that is typical, I believe, of the confusion Ruger's labeling system creates, particularly as regards the re-intro of the .44 Mag.

"I saw an article about this gun a couple of weeks ago and was very confused because the rollmark on the frame appeared to say "Ruger New Vaquero" and it was generally accepted that the medium sized New Vaquero frame would not handle .44 Magnum pressures."

As a long time .44 Mag Vaquero owner, despite Ruger's messing up in reverse--ha--regarding the RIPS equipped TALO .44 Birdshead, all is I can say is I want one,...incorrect labeling and all!

And I agree...because Ruger! But there's a method to their seemingly madness.

It seems that confusion tends to beget frustration and assumptions when it should inspire more research and deductive reasoning for the deeper explanation.

Hondo44, - 10-4

needsmostuff said:

Bisley hammers can be fit right in there.

Click to expand...

Very nice!
As can SBH (Montado) hammers....(left .357 Montado, right its twin .44 Special Sheriff)
I removed photo til I can make reduction work. (Update, best it wants to do other than tiny option. Let me know if too big and I'll remove).


By the way, elk grips courtesy Sack Peterson--some seconds he had..I actually liked the gouge of missing bark partially exposing part of the backstrap!...and some fabulous American hollys by the Private.

Beautiful