Yosemite Sam
Hunter
Given how long I've been around here I hate to admit I don't know this info, but there ya go.
I'm trying to figure out NM Ruger revolver frame sizes. I currently own a Bisley Single Six, an Accusport Bisley BH in .45 Colt, and a Super Blackhawk Bisley Hunter in .44 mag.
Looking at the BH and SBHH frames they appear identical, except the .45 BH simply says, "Blackhawk", where the .44 mag says, "Super Blackhawk". It is my understanding that these frames are the same size, just have different words engraved on them, and that the "difference" between these guns is the calibers they're offered in and the grip frames. (Why they label some frames Super and some not is one of the great mysteries of [my] life.) The grip frame difference of course goes out the window when you replace either with a Bisley. I haven't broken out the calipers yet, but the frames certainly look the same size.
The Single Six is clearly a much smaller cylinder frame, yet it still accepts the same Bisley grip frame. The grip panels are identical. (OK, again I have not measured this, so it's possible the grip frames are different sizes, at least where they mount to the cyl. frame.)
For years I've heard Ruger owners bemoan the lack of a .44 special or .41 mag built on the "mid frame". Here's where my confusion really starts.
If the BH and SBH are the same size cylinder frame, where does this "mid frame" concept come from? Do they use a different frame specifically for .357s, which sits between the Single Six and the BH frame that's used on .45s? (I'm trying to correspond this to S&W's K, L, and N frames.)
I just handled a .357 BH in the store the other day, and I swear it was the same size frame as my .45 Colt BH. I did not have my gun to do a side x side comparison, though.
But this doesn't make much sense. If all the BH frames are essentially the same size/weight then why the clamor for a .44 special/.41 mag? Is the difference in the cylinder itself? Less material in a .357? This does not jibe with my own experience owning an original Vaquero in .357, which was the same exact platform as a .44 mag gun, but with smaller holes (and therefore even heavier). And yes, I realize a Vaquero and a BH are different, but I'm obviously grasping at straws here trying to understand it all.
So, given all that glop, what am I missing?
-- Sam
I'm trying to figure out NM Ruger revolver frame sizes. I currently own a Bisley Single Six, an Accusport Bisley BH in .45 Colt, and a Super Blackhawk Bisley Hunter in .44 mag.
Looking at the BH and SBHH frames they appear identical, except the .45 BH simply says, "Blackhawk", where the .44 mag says, "Super Blackhawk". It is my understanding that these frames are the same size, just have different words engraved on them, and that the "difference" between these guns is the calibers they're offered in and the grip frames. (Why they label some frames Super and some not is one of the great mysteries of [my] life.) The grip frame difference of course goes out the window when you replace either with a Bisley. I haven't broken out the calipers yet, but the frames certainly look the same size.
The Single Six is clearly a much smaller cylinder frame, yet it still accepts the same Bisley grip frame. The grip panels are identical. (OK, again I have not measured this, so it's possible the grip frames are different sizes, at least where they mount to the cyl. frame.)
For years I've heard Ruger owners bemoan the lack of a .44 special or .41 mag built on the "mid frame". Here's where my confusion really starts.
If the BH and SBH are the same size cylinder frame, where does this "mid frame" concept come from? Do they use a different frame specifically for .357s, which sits between the Single Six and the BH frame that's used on .45s? (I'm trying to correspond this to S&W's K, L, and N frames.)
I just handled a .357 BH in the store the other day, and I swear it was the same size frame as my .45 Colt BH. I did not have my gun to do a side x side comparison, though.
But this doesn't make much sense. If all the BH frames are essentially the same size/weight then why the clamor for a .44 special/.41 mag? Is the difference in the cylinder itself? Less material in a .357? This does not jibe with my own experience owning an original Vaquero in .357, which was the same exact platform as a .44 mag gun, but with smaller holes (and therefore even heavier). And yes, I realize a Vaquero and a BH are different, but I'm obviously grasping at straws here trying to understand it all.
So, given all that glop, what am I missing?
-- Sam