Ruger Grips = yuck for me

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
May 25, 2007
Messages
616
Location
Wyoming
I can't believe that I'm the only person that doesn't care for the grips/ grip frame arangment on Ruger Blackhawks, old model or new, What, if any thing have some of you done to change the profile, size or frame configuration to make this revolver more user friendly?
 
I've changed grip to something more pleasant to the eyes and changed a few to Bisley configurations which I prefer. Otherwise, I'm fine with them just as they are.
 
Personally I don't have a problem, except with the .44 Super Blackhawk with a square-back trigger guard. What exactly is it that you don't like?
 
Thanx for the generalized responces, 1st off the physical size of the grips/ frame is too small in relation for my hand size, to actually 'grip this particular firearm and have all of my firing hand on it I have to roll the pistol up to the point where the front sight is out of line (higher) than the rear, forcing me to dip my wrist downwards to aquire good site alingment, while this can be done, it limits the potential of this pistol to milder recoiling cartridges as holding the black hawk like this with full power 158 .357s is painful and not repetable to any great degree .2ndly, what Im asking is, has some one had this same difficulty, and what did you do to correct it, different grip frame, any particular grip mfg that makes a larger longer grip for this handgun etc.
Oh yea, I already own several double actions, just don't see the practicality of having something I can't or dont want to fire
 
Your hands aren't too big and you're not the first person to have this issue. Few people have small enough hands to get all their digits on a standard Navy/SAA grip frame, which your Blackhawk is based on. Simply, bluntly and probably perceived as rudely stated, you're doing it wrong. Tuck that pinky under like God and Sam Colt intended. ;)

Strong%2001b.jpg
 
If the standard Blackhawk grips just don't work for you, maybe try a custom grip maker like Herretts or Hogue. They make several different styles that may be better suited to your hand or to your gripping style. Only drawback is that they are somewhat expensive, may require the gun for a proper fit, and will probably take a while to make.
 
Ruger has made that revolver for so 62 years . Most work for many folks. Its a problem you need to figure out. Try some of the many aftermarket grips OR Try a ruger bisley to see how it feels in your hand. Go to rugers site and the distributor models and mouse between the bisley and the model on ether side of it. That grip frame my work better for you, There are kits to let your change to it on your frame. Some very strong rounds can be fired so long as you don't try to hold on to it tightly and let it roll in your hand. Hold it between with thumb and middle finger, just lay your other two around the grip and shoot it. DON'T try to choke the handgun and let it roll up in your hand. Or try to find a brisley to try. Many like that grip frame better for control and basic size. I used a black hawk 44 for a few years when a young'n.
Its all just a head game. Many guys shoot hot 44 or 45 loads in the old ruger blackhawk and deal with it. Not really any different with different semi-auto pistols.
 
I really don't like it either, the way my little pinky fit's the bottom of the pistol Just like the picture above. But i deal with it. That's why i have only 16 of them. Good thing it doesn't fit my paw.lol
 
You could swap out your gripframe with a Ruger Superblackhawk Hunter's.

The Single Action 2 finger grip feels weird at first but once you get used to it you will see the advantage of the pinky down below when you cock the hammer with your thumb....
 
I don't mind the Blackhawk angle at all, but the stock Ruger grips don't fill my big meathooks. Schofield's feel "just right" for me.

There's a Used Convertible Blackhawk that's got my eye at the LGS, and it has a gorgeous ( I think Stag) set of nice, fat grips. Just melts into my hand.

There are 2 stock Blackhawks next to the slicked-up one, they feel nothing alike. You aren't alone.

I'm too stupid to hold a Glock too, ;) some guns just aren't shaped for some hands.
 
I can't believe that I'm the only person that doesn't care for the grips/ grip frame arangment on Ruger Blackhawks, old model or new, What, if any thing have some of you done to change the profile, size or frame configuration to make this revolver more user friendly?
I don't like them either.
 
All grip frames in heavy recoil hunting calibers should have the single action grip frame design. :D My first experience with the .44 magnum was a guy at our range (early 70s) with a new Super Blackhawk and a TC Contender in .44. WOW, the Blackhawk just rolled back in the hand absorbing all that recoil while the Contender HURT!

CraigC's post is the correct way to grip a single action revolver. :D Most of my revolvers are SAs, though a several are cap and ball revolvers.
 
I had a NM Blackhawk that I changed the grips on.
But it was still a bit too big for my hand, so I traded it for a new Uberti.

45after.jpg

1873_cattleman_nm_brass_lg.jpg
 
In Colt’s day men were physically smaller on average, and their hands matched the rest of their stature. As a result they could get 3 fingers around the handle. This is the correct way to hold the piece, but if one has big hands there isn’t any other choice but to stick the little pinkie under the butt.

That is not to say that there weren’t some big guys in the Old West, and some of them addressed the problem by having an 1860 Army backstrap, stocks and trigger guard fitted to their S.A.A.

In more modern times I’ve seen custom stocks on Ruger’s that wrap around and extend down below the grip frame, and in affect duplicate the 1860 solution.

Herrett’s makes a stock along this line with a filler in back of the trigger guard. Remove that and even the largest paw should have enough handle to hold on too. Any good stock maker should be able to do the same thing on a Bisley-Blackhawk.

I have yet to meet a revolver where custom stocks couldn’t fix a gripping issue. ;)
 
That is not to say that there weren’t some big guys in the Old West, and some of them addressed the problem by having an 1860 Army backstrap, stocks and trigger guard fitted to their S.A.A.

In more modern times I’ve seen custom stocks on Ruger’s that wrap around and extend down below the grip frame, and in affect duplicate the 1860 solution.

The 1860 size grip frame and stock does fit my hand much better than the standard SAA grip frame. That's coming from a guy with below average sized hands.
 
Hogue Monogrip. It's made of soft rubber and fills in the space behind the square trigger guard on the Super Blackhawk, and extends below the bottom of the frame to make room for the pinky to grip. I have big hands, too, and while a pinky below the frame works fine and is comfortable to shoot with my snubbies, no way for a full house .44 mag load for more than a few rounds. By the way, expensive? No, MSR about $22.00.
 
The 1860 size grip frame and stock does fit my hand much better than the standard SAA grip frame. That's coming from a guy with below average sized hands.

Apparently you aren't the only one, as the conversion is perhaps more popular now then it was during the latter 19th century.

Colt's first model 1872 "Open Top" (Serial No. 1) had the Navy sized handle, but most of the production after that had the larger 1860 Army set-up. But when they introduced the later 1873 SAA they'd returned to the Navy pattern. I don't anyone now knows exactly why.
 
Colt's first model 1872 "Open Top" (Serial No. 1) had the Navy sized handle, but most of the production after that had the larger 1860 Army set-up. But when they introduced the later 1873 SAA they'd returned to the Navy pattern. I don't anyone now knows exactly why.
No idea why they stuck with the Navy grip for the SAA. As much as I love a good SAA, `51 Navy or Ruger XR3, the 1860 Army grip frame is much more comfortable. A dream sixgun for me would be a 5½" or 7½" .44Spl Colt New Frontier or USFA Flat Top Target fitted with the Army grip frame and one-piece ivories.
 
In more modern times I’ve seen custom stocks on Ruger’s that wrap around and extend down below the grip frame,

I have a pair of finger groove grips I picked up at a gun show for cheap on my .357 Blackhawk, but I don't have a pic on this computer to upload and can't find the threads where I've uploaded it. They're zebra wood, I think, white with dark grain stripes.

The Navy is the best pointing revolver ever made, period, that that's why Colt put the grip on the '73.

2hd9ni0.jpg

The original grip's are perfect.........for a child.

But, would you say that to Bill Hickok's face? :D
 
The Navy is the best pointing revolver ever made, period, that that's why Colt put the grip on the '73.
Yes but the 1860 Army has all the same fine handling qualities with room for your pinky! :p
 
The Navy is the best pointing revolver ever made, period, that that's why Colt put the grip on the '73.

Actually no.

In 1860 Colt was looking to get an Army contract, which would represent big bucks. They showed the officers at Springfield Armory some prototype samples of what would become the 1860 model that had the "Navy handle." They looked and said, "Make the handle longer," so Colt did. Clearly at the time the military prefered the longer length.

In 1872, again looking for military buiness, Colt came up with an open-top revolver that wasn't based on a cap & ball conversion, and production serial number 1 had the shorter handle, but it was quickly changed to the 1860 pattern.

But in 1873, when again they had designed a whole new revolver, with the single most purpose being to get it adopted as the standard army sidearm, they went back to the Navy pattern again.

On the question of which is the more natural "pointer" between the 1851 and 1860 models, some agree with you while others don't.

Unquestionably, the longer (1860) pattern is better for those that have large hands.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top