Will Ruger switch to flat tops exclusively?

[threescrewheekma]

Howdy folks,

Financial and professional struggles, hopefully in the rearview mirror now, have kept me out of the loop on the newest Rugers until recently. I've noticed quite a few exclusive New Models coming out in the last year, many with flat tops. Will Ruger drop the protective ears for good on the large-frame models across the board? I'd like to see it happen, but if they don't, it sure won't stop me fromm adding more to the herd.

Any thoughts?

Best,

Threescrewheekma

 

[contender]

Welcome to the Forum.
I doubt it. There are several models that should keep the protected ears type of frame. I don't see a major shift in production methods like that. Too expensive.

 

[w5lx]

I'm waiting on the medium framed, flat-top Blackhawk in .45LC. They wouldn't recommend Ruger-Only loads in it but it sure would make a nice carry gun with adjustable sights for standard loadings.

 

[Glupy]

I'm waiting on the medium framed, flat-top Blackhawk in .45LC. They wouldn't recommend Ruger-Only loads in it but it sure would make a nice carry gun with adjustable sights for standard loadings.

And the smaller grip of the New Vaquero/Anniversary models.

Dave

 

[Quarterbore]

I'm waiting on the medium framed, flat-top Blackhawk in .45LC. They wouldn't recommend Ruger-Only loads in it but it sure would make a nice carry gun with adjustable sights for standard loadings.

I want one too, make mine stainless and a 4 5/8-inch and it would make a nice lighterweight packing gun.

I doubt these flattops will remain in production long. I would guess a year or two and then they will be dropped and in a few years guys will want them and have to search the used market for what they want.

 

[Jayhawkhuntclub]

I'm waiting on the medium framed, flat-top Blackhawk in .45LC. They wouldn't recommend Ruger-Only loads in it but it sure would make a nice carry gun with adjustable sights for standard loadings.

That would be a real disappointment to me. I just don't see the value of it. I want a 45 Colt flattop that can shoot Blackhawk loads. If you want a small frame big bore that will shoot medium loads just buy the 44 spl. I want one built on the 44 Mag anniversary frame. I know many will disagree with me, but that's how I feel.

Personally, I think the FT Blackhawk is here to stay at some level. It provides a way to throw out something a little different once in a while and spur sales. I think it will be the "McRib" of Ruger SAs.

 

[Quarterbore]

How about they make both :lol:

Seriously, I have enough heavy steel guns. I am more interested in a lighter 45lc and I have thought that what I should do is just buy a Vaquero. I just like my Blackhawk sights!

 

[Jayhawkhuntclub]

How about they make both :lol:

Seriously, I have enough heavy steel guns. I am more interested in a lighter 45lc and I ave thought that what I should do is just buy a Vaquero. I just like my Blackhawk sights!

Well, the 45 Blackhawk is 36 oz. You're not going to get anything much lighter. In fact the FT versions are heavier due to the steel grip frame. The only benefit would be a slightly smaller package.

But, as for your suggestion, I'm fine with them making both. 8)

 

[Glupy]

Well, the 45 Blackhawk is 36 oz. You're not going to get anything much lighter. In fact the FT versions are heavier due to the steel grip frame. The only benefit would be a slightly smaller package.

Good point.

My 44 Special flat top with the 4 5/8 barrel and a steel frame weighs 6.4 oz more than my 45 Colt with an aluminum frame and a 5 1/2 inch barrel. I just weighed 'em.

The ballistics issue is moot too. My brother loaded some 250 gr 45 Colts that chronoed at 1,260 FPS.

You guys sure know your guns.

Dave

 

[robertkirksey]

Why not keep the Colt size frame for a while but add the protective ears? The evolutionary cycle all over again. This time with the new lockwork. Something else to stimulate the buyers. Robert

 

[bisleyfan41]

I will add that I guess I'm in the minority in not really caring for the flattop (no ears) design. The sights on these NM flattops have the sharpest edges and will cut everything and anything in their path.

When I bought my 41 FT, the inside of the plastic Ruger box was shredded around the sight area. Just being shuffled around in the box during shipment had cut up the box enough that there were several little plastic shavings loose in the box. I know a little file work on the edges would help, but the ears make the guns a little more user-friendly to me.

Oddly enough, I much prefer the looks of the flattop frame.

 

[RonS]

Love the flat tops, they just look right.

 

[batmann]

I wouldn't trade my FT .44 Spl stainless for a similar model in .45 Colt. I wouldn't lose much in weight and I can shoot pretty stout loads in mine. If I need more, I jump to the .44M 50th FT.
The mid-size frame all have the smaller grip size that emulate the Colt SA

 

[Ruger Packer]

I'm waiting on the medium framed, flat-top Blackhawk in .45LC. They wouldn't recommend Ruger-Only loads in it but it sure would make a nice carry gun with adjustable sights for standard loadings.

That would be a real disappointment to me. I just don't see the value of it. I want a 45 Colt flattop that can shoot Blackhawk loads. If you want a small frame big bore that will shoot medium loads just buy the 44 spl. I want one built on the 44 Mag anniversary frame. I know many will disagree with me, but that's how I feel.

Personally, I think the FT Blackhawk is here to stay at some level. It provides a way to throw out something a little different once in a while and spur sales. I think it will be the "McRib" of Ruger SAs.

Ok. Just what is a "Blackhawk load'?? :?

 

[gunman42782]

As much as I like Flattops, I must confess that I like the "protected ears" versions better. I do hope Ruger continues to make both versions.

 

[CraigC]

For starters, there's no reason why the .45Colt "flat-top" couldn't be built on the large .44Mag flat-top platform. Which would be perfectly safe with "Ruger only" loads. You can't assume that the term "flat-top" always refers to the mid-frame.

I would love to see them phase out all the eared models and make them all flat-tops. While they're at it, add the reverse indexing pawl to every model as well as the steel XR3. While we're wishing, introduce an XR3-based grip frame that is longer like the Colt 1860. That would be perfection, IMHO.

 

[robertkirksey]

Ruger Packer, you ask "what is a Blackhawk load?". That must be a tongue-in-cheek question considering you have been on this forum since 30 Aug. '04.

But I will play along. As I understand it, and these numbers are from my sometimes fragile memory, the industry or SAAMI pressure for the .45 Colt is 18000 or so CUP. It has been established that the ".44 Magnum" framed Blackhawk will safely digest loads of 32000 CUP. These are commonly referred to as "Ruger only loads", although of course they are safe in Freedom Arms, Contenders and most rifles.

Basically it boils down to whether or not you have enough quality metal surrounding the cartridge case to contain the pressure it will generate. In a Colt sized frame with it's smaller cylinder the metal at the notches is thin. It has been said the Freedom Arms model 97 will handle "Ruger only" loads due to the fact it has a 5 shot cylinder and the notches are between the cylinder.

But of course a fool could blow up anything. Robert

 

[exile]

My druthers would be a .327 Federal built on the .357 Anniversary small frame model. But since they have seen fit to come out with the overly large and to me, pointless, large frame Blackhawk in this caliber, I guess I will have to content myself with my SP-101 in this caliber. Why did they not listen to Brian Pearce on this issue and come out with this caliber in the small frame flattop?

Still, I do like my .41 magnum flattop with the 6 1/2 inch barrel.

exile

 

[threescrewheekma]

CraigC,

After reading your last post, I realized it's a GOOD thing you're not in charge over the Ruger factory-if you were I'd be an exceptionally poor man from buying Ruger SA left and right!

Best,

TSH

 

[flatgate]

Well, you guys are forgetting why Ruger dropped the Flattops in the first place.

Elmer said the rear sights "wiggled" around too much when elevated. Elmer said the XR-3 grip frame "could possibly" be a wee bit too small for real .44 magnum loads.

Ruger responded with the magnificent Super Blackhawk!!

Here's a few images of one of the prototypes......

The earliest prototypes utilized what we now call the "Long Grip Frame". The model pictured here is the "second" design. Note the rear sight...close, but not quite what was finally utilized.

Thanks to J.F. for the chance to capture images of this incredible Ruger!

flatgate

 

[Rclark]

I like the protected ears version too. Fulfill a useful function. I'd like to see them back on the 'medium' frame in .357 and .44Spec and drop the current large frame .357 BH. The medium frame is perfect for these calibers. For .45 Colt, well I feel the large frame is the best platform for it. Not that I shoot a lot of heavy loads understand, but the .45 Colt can reach it's true potential in the large frame... And the current BH is under 40oz and makes a 'light' revolver for easy pack'n. Win Win.