So recently I picked up a pretty pair of case-colored New Vaqueros from another member. One in 4 5/8" (Ruger, mind you), the second in 5.5". I've had a few days to do some drills with them and have come to what, to me as an experienced but non SAA-type shooter, was a surprising preference. I really feel that I like the longer barreled 5.5" version better.
Now I have been doing a bit of dry drills with them, point shooting, etc. I was really surprised I was feeling better with the 5.5" longer barrel. In general, I'm a fan of short/mid barrels for quick handling - 3.5"/4" N frames, 2.5" to 4" K frames, etc. I was surprised by this and it was against my first instincts. My working theory now that I have looked at the weapon and analyzed it is that with the conventional grip, the SAA-type has much more length and weight behind the cylinder (center of mass), and the corresponding extra barrel length/weight out front helps balance it better in the 5.5" vs. the 4 3/4" (or 4 5/8" in the Ruger). In other words, your grip point is an inch or so displaced rearward from the center mass of the gun, that an extra inch or so out front in barrel length vs. a DA revolver is needed to make it balance as evenly.
Looking round, it has always seemed the 5.5" outsold the shorter variants in any maker, but I didn't know if that was because of historical appeal or practical appeal. I'm beginning to think it's practical.
So what say we all? What do you people who have been wielding these for ages say? I want to exclude Bisleys, as that changes the game too much for apples-to-apples comparison.
Ruger porn:
Now I have been doing a bit of dry drills with them, point shooting, etc. I was really surprised I was feeling better with the 5.5" longer barrel. In general, I'm a fan of short/mid barrels for quick handling - 3.5"/4" N frames, 2.5" to 4" K frames, etc. I was surprised by this and it was against my first instincts. My working theory now that I have looked at the weapon and analyzed it is that with the conventional grip, the SAA-type has much more length and weight behind the cylinder (center of mass), and the corresponding extra barrel length/weight out front helps balance it better in the 5.5" vs. the 4 3/4" (or 4 5/8" in the Ruger). In other words, your grip point is an inch or so displaced rearward from the center mass of the gun, that an extra inch or so out front in barrel length vs. a DA revolver is needed to make it balance as evenly.
Looking round, it has always seemed the 5.5" outsold the shorter variants in any maker, but I didn't know if that was because of historical appeal or practical appeal. I'm beginning to think it's practical.
So what say we all? What do you people who have been wielding these for ages say? I want to exclude Bisleys, as that changes the game too much for apples-to-apples comparison.
Ruger porn:
Last edited:
