First model Blackhawk-how similar to SAA?

[andyo5]

I am considering buying a 1st model Blackhawk, the one without transfer bar and with screws instead of pins; and am wondering how similar the action is to the Single Action Army.
What do you think?

 

[Rclark]

If you are talking a .357 Old Model, then very close with addition of adjustable sights. If you are talking Old Model .44Mag then you have moved up to the 'Large' frame Ruger Single Action which the same the as the BHs of today (there are a few exceptions of course like the .44Spec and the New Vaqueros which are back on the medium frame like the OM .357).

Sorry I see you were talking 'actions'. The Rugers used coil springs instead of the o' SAA flat springs so different in that respect. Still had to half cock to load just like the SAA. I'll leave it at that as the only 'old model action' I am familiar with is on my Old Army.... And I like it! Wish all my Rugers still used it (without the Transfer Bar).

 

[Ale-8(1)]

From the standpoint of function they are essentially identical. The internal bits and pieces are similar but not identical/interchangable. The "handling characteristics" are very much the same although I find most Rugers feel a little beefier than the Colt SAA because the Ruger is just built a little heavier, although the early .357's are essentially the same size as the SAA's. And of course, the Blackhawks have adjustable sights which not all SAA's had, as well as a frame-mounted rebounding firing pin in place of the Colt's hammer-mounted pin.

As RC mentions, the load/unload procedure is the same between the two models.

Try one. I think you'll like it.



PS I really like my Ruger Old Model in .45 Long Colt.

 

[Rclark]

I bet you do like your .45 Colt OM BH . Didn't those come with 'oversize' throats though ... like .454? Seems like I remember something about that.

Try one. I think you'll like it.

If I ever run into one ... at a reasonable price I know I will... but it would have to be .45 Colt which there probably isn't to many around.

 

[6gun]

I am considering buying a 1st model Blackhawk, the one without transfer bar and with screws instead of pins; and am wondering how similar the action is to the Single Action Army.
What do you think?

Other than it has the tranfer bar and no screws, the new model Vaquero is most like the old single action army Colt, size and weight wise, it was redesigned to be more Colt like.

 

[BIgMuddy]

I bet you do like your .45 Colt OM BH . Didn't those come with 'oversize' throats though ... like .454? Seems like I remember something about that.

Mine were small and had to be opened up to .4525

Dan

 

[Ale-8(1)]

Yeah, that was the usual situation. I've had several, and every one had WAY undersized throats . . . some as small as .447" or so, New Models as well as Old Models.

And yes, I had them opened up to .4525" as Dan mentions and they were just fine. I took the forcing cones to eleven degrees at the same time, and it's all good.

Hope you can come up with a nice .45 Long Colt Blackhawk of the three-screw variety RC. They are truly wonderful. They are, in fact, my favorite Rugers.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

One interesting difference between a Three Screw Ruger and a Colt is the screw heads are on opposite sides of the frame.



Ruger Three Screw 357 Magnum Blackhawk.

Second Gen Colts

There are also more parts inside a Ruger than a Colt. This is because the flat leaf springs used in a Colt usually bear directly on the parts they propel. The wire compression springs in a Ruger need a plunger to exert force on a part. The spring sits in a hole with the plunger above the spring in the same hole.




Here are all the parts of a Flat Top 44 Mag Blackhawk.

Here are all the parts inside a 2nd Gen Colt.

Lastly, the Colt bolt and the Ruger cylinder stop, even though they perform the same function, are very different parts. The Colt part is a complicated machined part that is expensive to make. It has two legs one of which bears against the hammer cam and actually bends and springs back to shape every time the hammer falls. The analogous Ruger part is a simple stamping, it probably costs pennies to make.

 

[andyo5]

Thank for the great replies. Actually, I was talking more about the function of the gun (loading/unloading procedure, etc) more than the individual parts. Do I understand correctly that the new Vaquero functions like a SAA, but with a transfer bar?
One thing I like about the SAA is the fact that the cylinder clicks into the correct position for loading/unloading, whereas on my New Model BH it does not. You must rotate the cylinder to the position and hold it there while ejecting the case. That's a pain in the rump and I often miss one or more. You can't go back if you accidentally skip over a chamber, you must rotate all the way around again.
What I don't like about the SAA is the cantilevered hand spring, which is delicate and breaks after a time. Uberti replaced this part with a coil spring and plunger, which is unlikely to ever fail. Sounds like the OMBH had the same feature.

 

[CraigC]

Function is identical. The action operates just like a Colt SAA. It feels a bit different and sounds different but it operates the same.

I've been shooting traditional single actions for 26yrs and have only ever had one spring break. That was the hand spring on a friend's high mileage Frontier Scout.

Due to the Ruger's aluminum grip frame, the balance is much different between the two. Overall weight will be similar with a SAA being ever so slightly heavier but the Ruger will have more of a muzzle forward feel. While the SAA will balance what most consider to be perfect.

The New Vaquero has the reverse indexing pawl so that the chambers line up at the click but otherwise, they operate just like any other New Model single action.

 

[Rclark]

Do I understand correctly that the new Vaquero functions like a SAA, but with a transfer bar?

No. There is no half cock. Works just like a New Model Ruger except, as mentioned above, the chamber lines up with the loading gate now. And same size as an SAA, but the lockwork is completely different.

Thanks for the heads up on throat size on the OM. Not sure where I got the idea, but it always seems that was why the .45 Colt had a bad rep for accuracy during those years unless you used an oversize bullet. I live and learn . Now I will keep an 'eye' out .

 

[NewportNewsMike]

Thank for the great replies. Actually, I was talking more about the function of the gun (loading/unloading procedure, etc) more than the individual parts. Do I understand correctly that the new Vaquero functions like a SAA, but with a transfer bar?

If we are talking about the actual loading and un-loading procedure, the answer would be NO.

The SAA requires putting the gun's hammer at half-cock to be able to rotate the cylinder for loading / unloading. Once loaded the hammer is brought to full-cock, then GENTLY lowered to the fired position by pulling the trigger while controlling the hammer to restrict fall.

The Vaquero / New Vaquero / New Model Blackhawks / New Model Super Blackhawks do not have a half-cock position for the hammer. To load these models, leaving the hammer in the resting position, open the loading gate to allow the cylinder to rotate for loading / unloading. Once loading / un-loading is complete, you close the loading gate for normal operation. No hammer movement is required for loading / un-loading.

Editted to add: rclark types faster than I do !

 

[Kanook]

But, you can install a custom half cock kit

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

The SAA requires putting the gun's hammer at half-cock to be able to rotate the cylinder for loading / unloading. Once loaded the hammer is brought to full-cock, then GENTLY lowered to the fired position by pulling the trigger while controlling the hammer to restrict fall.

Howdy Again

Please note that both traditional single action revolvers such as a Colt, and a Three Screw Blackhawk should NEVER be loaded with six rounds. Always lower the hammer on an empty chamber. Too many accidents have happened over the years when fully loaded single action revolvers were dropped or their hammers otherwise struck. The thin, weak 'safety notch' on the hammers of these guns will shear off if hit with enough force, and the firing pin will strike a primer under the hammer with enough force to discharge the gun. That is why Ruger developed the current New Model design with the transfer bar. Completely safe to fully load with six rounds.

 

[Rancher Will]

I have owned both. In 1942, living and working on a ranch, I bought my Colt .44-40 Single action, carried and used it until I enlisted in the USAF in 1950. When I became a civilian again I bought my Ruger .44 Mag Blackhawk that I have carried and used for over 50 years.

My Colt was a little lighter in weight and fired a 200 Gr cast bullet with a five inch barrel as I recall. My Ruger has a 6-1/2 inch barrel and fires a 250 gr cast bullet highr velocity. Both were (are) deadly on anything that I hit with them. I believe the Ruger is the stronger of the two, although I had no problem with the Colt. My Colt was well used before I owned it and it seemed to be looser, perhaps because it had been well used.

Both were well balanced and handy to use. Both were safe to carry and use on horseback. I have always been opposed to carry of any auto (semiauto) or double action revolver on horseback if you intend to ever have occasion to shoot from horseback. I know of a number of accidents by shooters of these types of guns when on horseback, even by mounted police. I know that there were times when I drew and fired quickly from horseback with both my Colt and Ruger when I almost certainly would have had an accidental second shot fired had I been carrying a double action. When you fire from hoseback in action you natuarlly hard grip the gun to hold it while controling the horse and the single action will not accidently fire a second shot without deliberatly cocking it.

If you practice fast draw with either the Colt or Ruger, with accuracy, you can be just as fast and accurate as with any double action revolver. I know since I have and do use both types and practice and use both. I carried my S&W Model 29 on duty for over 40 years as LEO when not on horseback and my Ruger Blackhawk on and off duty on horseback. I still carry and use both types while retired and working as a rancher.

I sent my Blackhawk back to Ruger years ago to have it modified for carry of six cartridges safely. Before Ruger offered the modification I carried it loaded with 5 rounds, just as I did always with the Colt.

Both the Colt and the Ruger factory grips are fairly good but I had the same problem with both. For my hands, both grips gave a punishing bruise to my second finger every time the revolver recoiled back and up. Also, for me, I had to concentrate on holding the revolver every shot with both the Colt and Ruger when quick draw and fire to keep the shots tightly where I looked. (This was also true with my Smith's.) It slowed me down slightly and the shots were not tight on target as I would have liked.

I solved this problem with my Smith's and Ruger Blackhawk by getting sets of Herrets Hand Fitted Jordan Trooper Grips. For decades now with all of my revolvers, my second finger does not take punishment and the revolvers point just where I am looking when I draw and touch the trigger without my thinking anything except concentrating on the the point (not just target) where I want the bullet to hit. At close range I don't even look at the revolver before firing. I often wish that I had been able to put these grips on my old Colt.

I do not own a Colt but I would feel safe with one today. I would select the Ruger over the Colt however if I were making a choice again.