Confusion over Ruger SA

[Lance0812]

I've decided to step up to big bore single action and I'll concede Rugers probably offer the most gun for the money.
However...
In comparing the Blackhawk vs the Vaquero, I think I've learned the following:
The BH is built stronger.
The BH has adjustable sights.

So my question is: Why should I spend extra money for the Vaquero?

(Note: whichever I get, the primary use will be making big holes in feral paper.)

 

[flatgate]

Whoa! I sense some confusion.

The Ruger Vaquero is simply a Blackhawk with old school, Colt SAA sights.
Virtually NO difference in strength.

Now, the Ruger New Vaquero, which is what is currently cataloged, is indeed a different firearm. The New Vaquero was designed to accommodate the thousands of Cowboy Action Shooters whom enjoy the many interesting "shooting scenarios" utilized at their "shoots". It's in NO WAY the same, robust, darn near will handle anything gun the Vaquero is.

So, if you are a "paper puncher" I'd certainly recommend a revolver with adjustable sights. If you are NOT interested in "high performance cartridges" then Ruger's New Vaquero, or Ruger's "mid sized cylinder frame" Blackhawks may be of interest.

One certainly needs to get a very acute knowledge of the differences between the Medium Framed Blackhawks and New Vaqueros compared with the Vaqueros, full sized Blackhawks and Super Blackhawks.

Information Overload is very possible. Take your time and study the guns.

Of course, you are at the right place for very experienced shooters to answer any/all of your questions.

JMHO,

flatgate

 

[gak]

First of all, the "Vaquero" you must be mentioning (if current or recent catalog sale) is actually the slightly smaller (aka mid) frame New Vaquero introduced 2005-ish--to replace the original (old/large-frame) Vaquero. For a reason unbeknownst to most of us, *even* Ruger is calling the newer, smaller (mid) frame model just "Vaquero" now in their literature, when it still says (because it is) "New Vaquero" on the frame. (The mid-frame .44 Special is the only NV to date that says just Vaquero on the frame).

Only in .45 is "strength" a real issue if you plan on shooting heavy and especially what's termed "Ruger only" loads intended for the NM Blackhawk's "magnum" frame. The original or old Vaquero (mentioned in the above post), discontinued for the more Colt-sized "New Vaquero" some six years ago, was basically a fixed sight, large-frame Blackhawk--same basic gun--so there is zero strength issue there.

Secondly, if shooting .357, the New Vaquero is more than adequate for most shooters' needs. It's a mostly matter of there being plenty of beef between the cylinder bores. The larger-framed Blackhawk amd old Vaquero just had more beef elsewhere too that many find unnecessary for that caliber.

Thirdly, the added cost of the New Vaqueros notwithstanding, it's a matter of your use and taste. I like the smoother lines of the Vaquero (old or New) line--and mine are mostly camp/trail/woods bumming use --where minute-of-critter accuracy is more than adequate--and not for a lot of formal target or hunting. If your intended purpose is this latter use, and/or you're shooting heavy .45s, the adjustable sighted Blackhawk is for you--or again the old Vaquero also of course. If not, you're carrying around extra weight for little to no reason--IM0. The recent years' 50th Anniversary .357 (and .44 Special) flattop Blackhawks are built on the same smaller frame as the New Vaquero, harken back to Ruger's single action origins in the 1950s, and represent a nice, handier size for those shooting the .357 and .44 Special calibers. The .44 Magnum has been only made in the larger frame original/old Vaquero and Blackhawk/Super Blackhawk, with the exception of the 50th Anniversary .44 Magnum flattop--which is a hybrid of the larger "magnum class" Blackhawk/old Vaquero cylinder frame and smaller grip-frame of the new mid-frame .357 and .44 Special flattops and New Vaquero.

One last thing, the mid-frames have an "updated" cyllinder indexing system perfectly aligning the chamber with the loading/unloading gate without stopping short or over-running, unlike the Blackhawk/old Vaquero line. While you can install a "free spin pawl" on either model which doesn't automatically stop at all (ie, place it where you want it), the mid-frame's system is an improvement for most.

While there are a lot of hammer swaps out there, most old/large-frame Vaqueros have a shorter spur, with most New Vaqueros being longer and more up (and back) swept. It's one way to spot *most* Vaqueros vs New Vaqueros at first sight. Also, other than the aforementioned .44 Specials, all of the smaller-framed Vaqueros (to date) say New Vaquero on the frame.

So, in summary, in my mind it's not a matter of "better" or "worse" but what your intended use is and aesthetic tastes run to--and your budget +/- $75-100, depending.

 

[Rclark]

Why should I spend extra money for the { New } Vaquero?

Not trying to confuse the issue, but I've been wondering why the 'fixed' sight revolver costs $100 more than the 'adjustable' sight revolver . Just checked the price the other day... $512 for a Blued New Vaquero. Recently bought my .44Spec BH for $406 at the same place ... Catalog reflects higher list price too if I remember correctly.

For you use of just punching paper, I'd get the BH with adjustable sights. You'll be more satisfied I think. Then get a .45 Colt New Vaquero down the road when you want to feel a bit of history in your hands for plinking and feel the aggravation when you have to apply Kentucky Windage to hit the target .

 

[slowrider]

Old model Super Blackhawk is the most the satisfying 44 Mag SA for me to shoot at the range, especially if you like to work up different loads. Old model because the trigger is better, the finish is better and I like to hear all those clicks.

 

[GaryA]

In regards to carrying and/or woods-bumming, I think it worth noting that while the New Vaquero is indeed slightly smaller than the larger Blackhawk, it is not lighter but in fact heavier than a same-barreled Blackhawk. A 4 5/8 inch New Vaquero in .45 Colt weighs around 40 ounces versus the approximately 37 ounces of a blued Blackhawk .45 with the same barrel length and its aluminum alloy grip-frame.

 

[gak]

In regards to carrying and/or woods-bumming, I think it worth noting that while the New Vaquero is indeed slightly smaller than the larger Blackhawk, it is not lighter but in fact heavier than a same-barreled Blackhawk. A 4 5/8 inch New Vaquero in .45 Colt weighs around 40 ounces versus the approximately 37 ounces of a blued Blackhawk .45 with the same barrel length and its aluminum alloy grip-frame.

GaryA, you're right in terms of empirical measurement comparing because of the aluminum on the large-frame BHs. This has been well chronicled. Preferring the fixed sight models, however, I've found my 4-5/8" .44 Sp NV to be that much handier of size and balance than my .44 Mag Vaquero--comparing apples to apples. Weights are close enough between those two (though naturally a few oz less on the NV comparing steel-to-steel), but there is still enough of a difference. I still enjoy my .44 mag a lot. So my primary choice--just for me--is preferring the fixed sight of the NV/V over the BHs--and overally package size of the mid-frames.

If you're looking for the lightest gun overall for woods bummin', you're correct that the 4-5/8" large frame BH is the way to go, then the same in .44 Mag, and so on.

 

[gak]

In regards to carrying and/or woods-bumming, I think it worth noting that while the New Vaquero is indeed slightly smaller than the larger Blackhawk, it is not lighter but in fact heavier than a same-barreled Blackhawk. A 4 5/8 inch New Vaquero in .45 Colt weighs around 40 ounces versus the approximately 37 ounces of a blued Blackhawk .45 with the same barrel length and its aluminum alloy grip-frame.

GaryA, you're right in terms of empirical measurement comparing because of the aluminum on the large-frame BHs. This has been well chronicled. Preferring the fixed sight models, however, I've found my 4-5/8" .44 Sp NV to be that much handier of size and balance than my .44 Mag Vaquero--comparing apples to apples. Weights are close enough between those two (though naturally a few oz less on the NV comparing steel-to-steel), but there is still enough of a difference. I still enjoy my .44 mag a lot. So my primary choice--just for me--is preferring the fixed sight of the NV/V over the BHs--and overally package size of the mid-frames.

If you're looking for the lightest gun overall for woods bummin', you're correct that the 4-5/8" large frame .45 BH is the way to go, then the same in .44 Mag, and so on.

 

[GaryA]

Gak, you make good points and I certainly wasn't intending to dispute your view regarding the attractiveness of the Vaqueros in general. Just wanted to note the weight difference. There is a balance difference also and some prefer one over the other in that regard, too. I'm even starting to wonder if an alloy-grip-framed New Vaquero wouldn't have some merit for some applications.

 

[Lance0812]

Thanks for the replies, guys.
I'm leaning toward .357 caliber and I'm headed to a gun show tomorrow, so any advice on what to look for/how to test (assuming I can find a used NV or BH) will be much appreciated.

 

[Hugh]

Thanks for the replies, guys.
I'm leaning toward .357 caliber and I'm headed to a gun show tomorrow, so any advice on what to look for/how to test (assuming I can find a used NV or BH) will be much appreciated.

Well that said, I'm very happy with my New Model Blackhawk, 6-1/2" blue .357 Magnum. Weight, balance, and it doesn't look new. There are of course my Sixes, but we aren't talking about them here and now. It would be nice to have a Vaquero (not New Vaquero) .357 Magnum 5-1/2" either color case/blue, or stainless.

I do have a case color/blue Vaquero, 5-1/2", .44 Magnum which I really like as well.

 

[gak]

Thanks for the replies, guys.
I'm leaning toward .357 caliber and I'm headed to a gun show tomorrow, so any advice on what to look for/how to test (assuming I can find a used NV or BH) will be much appreciated.

Ultimately, I believe your selection will be be.a visceral one. Keeping GaryA's weight points between various models in mind, consider that any .357 will be a heavier piece than its big bore (.44, .45) counterparts...all those smallish holes--seven of 'em--leave that much more metal. So, IMO, stick with a barrel length 5.5" or shorter if you're planning to carry it around as a general duty piece. The barrel's the only factor (on any particular model) you can control. The 4-5/8" os likely the shortest you will encounter (there have been soecial 3-3/4" Vaquero/NV models), identified by the ejector rod housing being approximately equal that of the barrel...the 5.5" jutting beyond noticeably. The 6.5" is unique to the large-frame BH, has long been considered by many to be "the .357 Blackhawk length." Even with aluminum components, however, the 6.5" is still a hefty piece. You'll be happier IMO with the 4-5/8 or 5.5" if planning to carry it around a lot. Strictly target use - not so much an issue.

Otherwise, determine first whether adjustable or fixed ("cowboy"/smooth topstrap etc) sight is more to your liking, style wise as well as use of the gun and related sighting needs/preferences. Handle a regular (large-frame) BH and Vaquero and (if you can find one)--and one of the 50th Anniversary .357 (flattop) and a .357 New Vaquero (fixed sight). The "flattops" (versus regular large-frame BHs) can be identified readily by a lack of any protective "ears" as often described - sort of a misnomer, but it's more a raised portion of the sight platform toward the rear of the topstrap - to protect the rear sight on the regular BH. OTOH, the "flattop" model is just that...the same--flat--all the way back.

IF you end up preferring the smoother "cowboy" lines of the fixed sight Vaquero or New Vaquero, IMO you will be better served with the NV model--in the .357 caliber. The larger Vaquero model is a real hunk of metal!

Good luck!