New Vaquero Internal Lock "Be-Gone"!!!

Help Support Ruger Forum:

Greebe

Single-Sixer
Joined
Dec 20, 2006
Messages
313
Location
Way Up North
I was thinking about the New Vaquero Internal Lock system. I am planing on buying a New Vaquero and I don't like the idea of the lock. I know someone here said that they were tested to not fail, but what if they did and they you couldn't operate your firearm.

That is the first mod I plan on doing to it, before turning it into a short barreled sheriffs style.

I will probably just make a replacement piece for it in my shop. I might sell a few if I can get around the lawyer part.

Do you guys think that there would be any assumed liability for making and selling something like this? It doesn't seem like it would be any different than selling a new grip frame that omitted the lock. It's not a safety that is being disabled and as far as I know locks are not a requirement.

I know that there are people who offer the Marlin cross bolt safety fillers that disables the actual safety, and I know that Steve Young does this with the safeties on the Rossie M92's. Somehow they all get away with it with no problems.

Let me know your thoughts.

Greebe
 

tek4260

Buckeye
Joined
May 31, 2008
Messages
1,883
Location
carroll county ms
You wouldn't get in trouble, unless someone used a gun equipped with your part in a crime, or an accidental shooting. Then it wouldn't be too far of a stretch for someone to say something like.... Since Greebe sold the owner a part that disabled the safety..... and ol Joe Bob could still be with us if Greebe hadn't marketed a part that intentionally disabled a proven safety device. That could be a liability issue in civil court.


With that being said, let me know when you have some made. I'd like to purchase a couple. :D
 

Greebe

Single-Sixer
Joined
Dec 20, 2006
Messages
313
Location
Way Up North
Yeah maybe, but the problem with that argument is that it is not a safety, its just a lock. So it is not going to keep you from accidentally shooting anyone after you load it and intend to shoot. I know that lawyers like to put a spin on things but do you think that would be valid?

One way I guess that something could come back around is if someone was dumb enough to leave the gun loaded around their kids and one of they accidentally shot someone. But then again they assumed the liability to install such a device. Also they are the idiots that left the loaded gun with their kids.

I'm sure I could get sued for just about anything that I would sell these days. Just takes the right idiot with the right lawyer.

Greebe
 

JHRosier

Single-Sixer
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
116
Location
New England, USA
Greebe,
I would certainly be interested in such a device for much the same reasons as you are.
If you are concerned about liability, you might consider making it as an unfinished part with a small tab of material blocking the travel of the strut, such as a "pemanent lock.'
If someone should choose to file away the tab and render the gun permanently useful, it would not be your fault.
You could even include a picture of the "locking tab" and instuct the user to never file it away and render the gun useful. :wink:

Jack
 

Greebe

Single-Sixer
Joined
Dec 20, 2006
Messages
313
Location
Way Up North
Haha... That's pretty funny. Sounds like that might work. It would kind of be like the 80% receivers that aren't considered guns. It could be a replacement "lock" in kit form even.

Nice thinking. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Thanks
Greebe
 

J Miller

Blackhawk
Joined
Sep 30, 2000
Messages
977
Location
Not in IL anymore ... :)
Greebe,

Just my opinion but how would 99.99% of the people in the world know there is or is not a lock under the grip? There is no stampings on the gun, no external visual holes or rotating widgets.
I've yet to hear of anyone actually drilling a hole through their grip to use the lock. Unless that hole is drilled how would a person, bad guy, neighbor, cop, DA, or anyone otherwise know?
That is the fallacy of key locks. With the exception of S&W's very obvious one, and Taurus screw in the hammer, there is no real way to know if there is a lock in there or not.

These are not safety devices to prevent NDs, they are function prevention devices that require partial disassembly of the gun to make use possible. I'll wager 99.99% of those who buy their New Vaqueros will never pull the grips off to even look at the lock.

I am one who would be and is open to purchasing a lock replacement device. I've already set the precedent some years ago when I replaced the rebounding hammer action on my Win 94 AE and wrote a tech article about on Beartooth forum. And I've installed a Clyde Ludwig safety replacement on my Marlin 1894, so I've already jumped in the fire.

Joe
 

pisgah

Buckeye
Joined
Apr 17, 2006
Messages
1,633
Location
Upstate SC
There is potential liability in every single human endeavor. Remember -- you can, quite literally, be sued by anyone for anything, and if it gets in front of a jury all bets are off. But, you know, that's what liability insurance is for...
 

Mtn Biker

Bearcat
Joined
Nov 7, 2009
Messages
51
Location
NW New Mexico
I also would be interested in a "Main Spring Measurement Plate" so I could check my main spring operation. I realize it is not intended to be left in the gun and only to be used for testing purposes. Do you get my drift? :wink: :wink:

VL
 

flatgate

Hawkeye
Joined
Jun 18, 2001
Messages
6,784
Location
Star Valley, WY
I could care less about the lock. My "beef" is the whimpy mainsprings present on the 50th Anniv. .357's and .44's and the New Vaquero. Sure, those guys having a blast (pun intended) at the C.A.S. matches could care less. Me? I'm with Ross Seyfried and like "strong" mainsprings! 23#, 24# and 25#. I believe Ruger's "whimpy" style checks in at 17#????

Unfortunately the "lock/mainspring seat" design precludes any "easy swaps" and we shooters have to use some ingenuity.......

I leave it there and not go on....

flatgate
 

s4s4u

Buckeye
Joined
Dec 16, 2006
Messages
1,891
Location
MN, USA
A couple of drops of red locktite will freeze the lock mechanism. Just make certain you park it in the unlocked position ;-)
 

JimMarch1

Blackhawk
Joined
Feb 19, 2007
Messages
525
Location
Tucson, AZ, USA
I have EMail confirmation from Wes Fargo that his hammer overtravel stop for the NewVaq is a replacement for the lock body, for $35:

http://cas-town.com/WestFargoGunsmith/parts.html

A hammer overtravel stop extends the life of the gun and is one of the key steps needed to beef it up for "fanning" and fast-draw. By itself it's not quite enough...most people seriously into that sort of thing also use a hand-fitted cylinder bolt and disable the transfer bar safety.

However: because I've had a lock-equipped NewVaq357 since mid-2003, and because I rely on it as daily CCW, I've been actively looking for ANY reports of a Ruger lock failure. I've found none to date, unlike both S&W and Taurus.

If you buy a Ruger with the lock, pop the grip panels off, use the factory-supplied key to make sure the lock was shipped in the fully unlocked position. Put the grips on and don't worry about it again.

If you can't do that, then by all means talk to Wes. I plan on doing his overtravel stop fairly soon, but NOT because I don't like the lock. It's because I want a hammer overtravel stop.

WARNING: you need to carefully adjust any such stop and then use blue locktite on it to make sure it doesn't slip.
 

Driftwood Johnson

Blackhawk
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
699
Location
Land of the Pilgrims
Howdy

With all due respect, you have no experience with the New Vaquero lock, but you want to get rid of it. I agree with J Miller. Ruger has done the best job possible on including a non intrusive internal lock. It ain't like a Smith, with a big keyhole on the side of the gun. Unless you drill out the hole in the plastic grips, you are not even aware there is a lock under there. I have two of them, Mrs Johnson shoots them in CAS, and they are totally reliable, with the lock in the 'off' position. I don't think I even know where the keys are, in case I ever wanted to use the lock.

And you most certainly would be liable for altering the lock under the right circumstances. It does not have to be a 'safety' per se. Say somebody's kid picked up a revolver that had the lock removed and accidentally shot somebody. The lawyers would most certainly go after the person that provided such a device that changed the internal design of the gun, making it impossible to make it childproof.
 

Yosemite Sam

Hunter
Joined
Mar 18, 2002
Messages
2,113
Location
Cape Cod, MA, USA
Driftwood Johnson":3tya1l44 said:
...
And you most certainly would be liable for altering the lock under the right circumstances. It does not have to be a 'safety' per se. Say somebody's kid picked up a revolver that had the lock removed and accidentally shot somebody. The lawyers would most certainly go after the person that provided such a device that changed the internal design of the gun, making it impossible to make it childproof.
If you've got that kind of prosecutor around, he's going to go for you as the gun's owner in the first place. Just owning and making it available makes you fair game.

And again, the real problem, as Flatgate says, is not whether I know the lock is there or not. It's the 17lb mainspring that they force you into with the short strut and lock combo. If they'd make a heavier spring available I'd be happy, but even Wolff doesn't have that (yet).

-- Sam
 

Tweety Bird

Single-Sixer
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
458
Location
Donut Center, CO
Last Saturday I bought a brand-new Blackhawk stainless .357. New in the box, never been fired. It doesn't have the lock. My wife's Single-Six has it, but this Blackhawk doesn't. I thought all new Ruger SAs had this lock. Anybody know anything about this? (Frankly, I don't care whether it has it or not.)
 

contender

Ruger Guru
Joined
Sep 18, 2002
Messages
21,212
Location
Lake Lure NC USA
Tweety Bird,, it may be a gun that was old stock & left over as they haven't been out long enough to have sold all of them,, OR,,, it could be a "clean-up" gun of older guns left in the Ruger warehouse that have been surfacing a lot lately! I bet it's a clean-up gun!
 

Tweety Bird

Single-Sixer
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
458
Location
Donut Center, CO
Flatgate, that might be right, I sure don't know. The S/N shows it was built in 2009, and the date on the envelope containing the empty cartridge is August, 2009.

Funny since the instruction manual that came with my Blackhawk explains the use and function of the internal lock, yet the parts breakdown doesn't have the lock in either the parts list or the illustrations.

Would the Blackhawk mainspring and other parts fit a Vaquero? In other words, could someone with a Vaquero use the "lockless" parts from a Blackhawk? Just thinkin' here (and yes, it hurts).
 

s4s4u

Buckeye
Joined
Dec 16, 2006
Messages
1,891
Location
MN, USA
flatgate":24u22s26 said:
I don't think the stainless grip frames have made the transition to the lock style..........

flatgate

What he said. Get 'em while you can.
 
Top