Vaquero vs New Vaquero

I should know this, but have gone "blank" as I think on it. In a nutshell, what is different between these two guns other than the frames being somewhat different? Thanks!

Amistad

Go here for you answer ... rather than retype it.

Gunblast New Vaquero
Gunblast New Vaquero Revisted

In a Nutshell : Large Frame (Vaquero) vs. Medium Frame (New Vaquero) .

Many thanks!

Amistad

flatgate

Two beauties! Thank you!

Amistad

To me the differences are in how they heft. I like the Vaqueros but the New Vaqueros (in 45 Colt) are as perfect as a revolver can be - must be divinely inspired.

I really can't think of much that a 255 gr bullet jogging along at 900 fps can't do. It's mighty good on paper and I've even used it on the 400 yard Dinger (40"W x 36"T) and produced some impressive 100 yard groups with it. Heck, it'll out-shoot some of my 22 rifles at that range. At archery ranges and a good angle I'd have no issue pulling the trigger on any critter in this state. A 270 - 325 grain bullet it mighty impressive on everything I've shot with it... and it'll out penetrate my 270 in milk jugs by a good margin.

My New Vaquero in 45LC is the finest handgun I have owned. I love it so much I CC it pretty darn often. Another fine Rugerforum member put a Bisely hammer in it before I got it. Sometime before spring I am going to get some American Holly and make some new handles. Great gun!

Me? Oh, boy, I'll take a Blackhawk any day......



Again, it's whatever "blows up 'yer skirt"....

flatgate

Flatgate...nice brass

Perhaps this image will help...

Many New Vaqueros, but not my Sheriff's Model .44 Special for example, also have a crescent shaped pads on the ejector rods that the Original Vaqueros lacked. The grips are also flatter in their profile than the Original Vaquero's.

Best Regards,
ADP3

One not mentioned (except in Gunblast thx to Rclark's link) is another major difference and one that truly affects the "feel" of the NV is that it has the earliest, pre-1962 3 screw Old Model size grip frame, the XR3. It's 3/16" closer to the trigger guard than the original Vaquero and almost identical to a Colt SAA. This can be clearly seen in flatgate's photos.

...sort of like the "blonds, brunettes or redheads" quandary we all face from time to time....

...so many guns.....so little time....

Hi I'm sorry if this has already been covered but I've been searching and cant find it. What is the weight difference in ounces between the Old Vaquero and the New Vaquero, with the same barrel length?

I've been wondering: now that the 45 Colt is available in a medium frame, are there any reports that the :uninformed" have been loading "Ruger-only" loads for them? I imagine it has happened somewhere to someone at least once...

I really like the size of the New Vaquero, but for some reason I can't get used to the hammer. I know the higher pitch is easier to thumb, but it looks funny to me.

Lee Martin said:

I really like the size of the New Vaquero, but for some reason I can't get used to the hammer. I know the higher pitch is easier to thumb, but it looks funny to me.

Click to expand...

+1...fortunately an easy fix via either a Super Blackhawk (SBH) or similar Montado hammer--or standard large frame Blackhawk/Vaquero (same as midframe BH/Flattop) hammer.

I really like the size of the New Vaquero, but for some reason I can't get used to the hammer. I know the higher pitch is easier to thumb, but it looks funny to me.

Click to expand...

Howdy

It ain't supposed to be easier to thumb. It is supposed to resemble the hammer spur on a Colt. Many of the features of the New Vaquero bring it closer to what a Colt looks like. The overall size and weight are closer to the original Colt specifications than the larger 'original model' Vaquero. Frankly, I always thought the hammer on a Blackhawk and the 'original model' Vaquero looked 'funny'. I always thought it was 'funny' that you could sight a Ruger with the hammer down. With a Colt, the hammer spur is tall enough that it obscures the sights when it is down. Why in the world would you want to see the sights unless you were ready to shoot, with the hammer cocked?

Frankly, most guys in Cowboy Action Shooting like the lower hammer better. Most find it easier to thumb. Then again, most of those guys are shooting mouse fart loads and shooting with two hands. When there is no recoil, it is easier to thumb the hammer with the thumb of the hand that is not pulling the trigger.

But if you shoot rounds that have some recoil to them, and allow the grip to rotate in your hand like it is supposed to, the longer hammer spur is easier to grab when the gun has rotated back.



P.S. Another feature of the New Vaquero is the short cylinder pin. Ruger designed the Blackhawk and 'original model' Vaquero with a longer cylinder pin. It cannot be removed from the gun without removing the ejector housing. With the New Vaquero and its shorter pin, if you want to remove the pin, it pulls right out. And if the pin latch is not adjusted properly, and you shoot heavy recoiling loads, it is possible for the pin to creep forward and jump right out of the gun, just like with a Colt.

Driftwood Johnson said:

I really like the size of the New Vaquero, but for some reason I can't get used to the hammer. I know the higher pitch is easier to thumb, but it looks funny to me.

Click to expand...

Howdy

It ain't supposed to be easier to thumb. It is supposed to resemble the hammer spur on a Colt. Many of the features of the New Vaquero bring it closer to what a Colt looks like. The overall size and weight are closer to the original Colt specifications than the larger 'original model' Vaquero. Frankly, I always thought the hammer on a Blackhawk and the 'original model' Vaquero looked 'funny'. I always thought it was 'funny' that you could sight a Ruger with the hammer down. With a Colt, the hammer spur is tall enough that it obscures the sights when it is down. Why in the world would you want to see the sights unless you were ready to shoot, with the hammer cocked?

Frankly, most guys in Cowboy Action Shooting like the lower hammer better. Most find it easier to thumb. Then again, most of those guys are shooting mouse fart loads and shooting with two hands. When there is no recoil, it is easier to thumb the hammer with the thumb of the hand that is not pulling the trigger.

But if you shoot rounds that have some recoil to them, and allow the grip to rotate in your hand like it is supposed to, the longer hammer spur is easier to grab when the gun has rotated back.

Click to expand...

Driftwood, your pics show exactly what bothers lots of folks--including me--about the NV's stock hammer. It's the *exaggerated* swept back aspect. I've never had a problem with my Colt and others I've handled, and for the life of me don't know why if they were making it "like a Colt"--which they did in most other regards, why they didn't just do it exactly AS a Colt.

An SBH went on one NV and a Montado hammer on the other the second they were brought home. Much better, but I admit I'd like a traditional Colt hammer better on either one, "just because.". I too think the regular BH/Vaquero hammer looks a little stubby, but operationally it's an improvement over the NV, IMO. Everyone's different.

Gak and Driftwood, I agree with both of you on everything both of you said. The NV hammer is better than the old but Ruger just didbn't get it quite right looking to match the classic Colt excellent proportion. Had to get rid of the ugly web behind the trigger as well.

My 44 FT cure was a Montado hammer:




My NV cure was the hammer from my FT (shown w/hammer spring tension relieved). It must be cocked to line up the sights: