Vaquero or Blackhawk?

[CraigC]

First of all, when you say a longer pressure curve, you are making an assumption -- that the powder used will make such a difference.

Secondly, the issue in question is not SAMMI specs (which we are violating if we go to 21K psi in a .45 Colt) but the battering and abuse the revolver takes.

Since there are plenty of revolvers that will easily take 21K psi and even greater in .45 Colt, why subject a SAA to that pressure? If I want to go above 14K psi in .45 Colt, I simply shoot my Colt New Service or my Ruger Blackhawk.

Fact, the shorter .45ACP using faster powders will absolutely build its pressure faster than a longer cartridge like the .45Colt using slower powders. That's Internal Ballistics 101.

You think a 100yr old New Service is stronger than a modern SAA? Why would you "assume" that???

The fact that we are exceeding SAAMI standard pressures in the .45Colt is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the strength of these guns (resistance to exploding and long term durability) is determined by the peak pressure they can handle. Not the pressure curve. Not bullet weight. Not recoil velocity. Maximum peak pressure. The assumptions and generalizations are your own. What have you offered in the form of factual evidence to support your opinion? So far nothing. What we DO have is the work of Dave Scovill and Brian Pearce.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

You think a 100yr old New Service is stronger than a modern SAA? Why would you "assume" that???

The New Service has a larger cylinder diameter (1.69" vs 1.66") and an off-set bolt stop, so the notch is not cut into the thinnest piece of the chamber wall -- that makes it a LOT stronger than an SAA.

 

[CraigC]

They're also made of inferior steels that were not heat treated, which does NOT make them stronger than modern SAA's. No authority that I'm aware of would suggest running a New Service .45Colt over standard pressures. You're the one making assumptions.

The Army Special has a larger cylinder than many mid-frame DA's but nobody in their right mind would rechamber one to .357Mag.

A modern New Service would indeed be "a LOT" stronger than a SAA. Probably closer to the Redhawk or Anaconda.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Colt started heat treating New Service cylinders in 1903.

I limit mine to 21K psi, and haven't had any problems with it.

 

[CraigC]

I limit mine to 21K psi, and haven't had any problems with it.

And those who run the SAA at 21,000psi have had no problems with theirs. Hint, hint....nudge, nudge.

Most recommend against the use of the Keith load in New Service .44Spl's, despite its size. There's a reason for that.

 

[skidder]

I've had both, and still have the Blackhawk. IMO the hammer is too high on the Vaquero and it's way to pretty for Hogue grips. The Blackhawk, on the other hand, looks nothing like what a cowboy gun should look like, so I don't mind messing up an appearance, that really doesn't belong, with the ugly, but comfortable, Hogue grips.

 

[murf]

lets not forget breach (recoil shield) thrust in determining how well a revolver will stand up to increased pressures. the colt, and colt clone, frames were not designed for the 44 magnum level breach thrust. the blackhawk and usfa frames are.

the more pressure, the higher the thrust and the more stress on the frame.

thought i'd throw that into the discussion. cylinder strength is not the only consideration here.

murf

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

IMO the hammer is too high on the Vaquero and it's way to pretty for Hogue grips.

Interesting. The hammer spur on most Blackhawks and the older large frame Vaquero was considerably lower than on a Colt. With the hammer down, you could sight the gun because the sights were visible above the hammer spur.





When the New Vaquero was developed, one of the features was to mimic the hammer of the Colt. The hammer spur pretty well copied the Colt profile, and just like a Colt, with the hammer down you could not see the sights. Why would one need to see the sights if the hammer is down anyway, the sight picture only matters when the hammer is cocked.



Today there are several versions of hammers available for the New Vaquero. The standard hammer still has the high, Colt-like profile, the SASS Vaqueros have a lower profile, and the Bisley Vaquero has a Bisley style hammer.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

lets not forget breach (recoil shield) thrust in determining how well a revolver will stand up to increased pressures. the colt, and colt clone, frames were not designed for the 44 magnum level breach thrust. the blackhawk and usfa frames are.

the more pressure, the higher the thrust and the more stress on the frame.

thought i'd throw that into the discussion. cylinder strength is not the only consideration here.

You are correct. The main weakness of the SAA is the bolt stop notch, which is cut into the thinnest part of the cylinder wall. The remaining metal thickness on a .45 Colt is shockingly thin. If you blow up an SAA, that's where the rupture will start.

But you can damage a revolver without blowing it up -- and the constant battering of high-pressure rounds can stretch the frame, damage the lock work, and so on.

 

[35 Whelen]

As I type this sitting in a mesquite brush blind waiting for evening, my old reliable Uberti sits in my lap. From January 2013 to about April 2014 I used a case (5000) of large pistol primers most of which were fired through this revolver. I'd say 1/2 maybe 2/3 of the loads fired were within SAAMI pressures while the remainder were loads running a 260 gr. SWC anywhere from 950 fps on up to 1050 so. So the revolver has been subjected to some petty serious battering. The wear has not been where most would expect; the frame, the bolt, etc. and end play is pretty much as it was when I fit the .44 Special cylinder a couple of years ago. Where I've found the wear is on the base pin. The constant battering of the base pin against the base pin catch has caused peening at the rear of the notch in the base pin. Simple enough fix, I just turned the raised area down and it's now business as usual.
My plan for the future is to either search for or have made a base pin out of harder steel.

35W

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Any idea of the pressures you're running?

 

[berettaprofessor]

Guys, I've happily watched the discussion, but all I have to add is that I ordered and received a Vaquero and it is beautiful and after I shot it today I have to say that it may indeed be the sweetest shooter I have.

 

[35 Whelen]

Any idea of the pressures you're running?

I don't have any way to test pressures but I'd estimate the hotter hunting loads in the 16-18,000 psi range. I'd have to go back and check my notes to be certain, but I believe I've run some up in the 20,000 psi range using Blue Dot and/or 2400. But these would've been fired sparingly and really only to establish some chronograph numbers for reference.

35W

 

[Cump]

Guys, I've happily watched the discussion, but all I have to add is that I ordered and received a Vaquero and it is beautiful and after I shot it today I have to say that it may indeed be the sweetest shooter I have.

congrats on the vaq!

 

[skidder]

Interesting. The hammer spur on most Blackhawks and the older large frame Vaquero was considerably lower than on a Colt. With the hammer down, you could sight the gun because the sights were visible above the hammer spur.

Interesting how you can see over the hammer on your Ruger Vaqueros. My New Model 357 you cannot. The hammer blocks the sights until it is cocked. I never noticed that until now.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Funny how you never noticed, huh?

Like I said, who needs to see the sights of a single action revolver until the hammer is cocked?

 

[MAUSER88]

My vote is the Vaquero since I own 6 of them!!

 

[skidder]

Funny how you never noticed, huh?

Like I said, who needs to see the sights of a single action revolver until the hammer is cocked?

I wouldn't mind practicing POA without cocking every time.
A bench grinder can easily solve that problem. All for show anyhow, unless you're wild Bill at the range showing off for your buddies. Other than that, the "high" hammer serves absolutely no purpose.

 

[35 Whelen]

I went back and forth between a Vaquero and a Blackhawk for a utility-type carry revolver. I ultimately chose the Vaquero for no other reason than the ruggedness of the fixed sights. The sight picture certainly is not as good as that of a Blackhawk, but I chalked it up to compromise. I bead blasted the top of the frame then cold blued it which worked to reduce glare in the area of the rear sight groove. Ruger could easily made the sights better by providing a little deeper rear sight groove and .100" wide front instead of the .080" one.

The high hammer spur drove me crazy. I felt like I needed a rubber band for a hammer thong on my holster. I finally decided to correct it and fitted and installed a Bisley hammer. Lots of hand work, but worth it.



If I were limiting my revolver use to the range or any other such place where I knew there was no possibility of wrecking a relatively fragile adjustable rear sight, I'd go with the Blackhawk.

35W

 

[skidder]

Good Idea 35 Whelen!

With the Bisley hammer that is the perfect "Vaquero" IMO.
Are you listening Ruger???

 

[LT.Diver]

Life is short. Get both!

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

A bench grinder can easily solve that problem. All for show anyhow, unless you're wild Bill at the range showing off for your buddies. Other than that, the "high" hammer serves absolutely no purpose.

Let's look at a little bit of history. The 'original model' Vaquero was introduced in 1993. As has been stated many times, this model was nothing more than a standard Blackhawk with the adjustable sight removed and the top of the frame recontoured to resemble the Colt Single Action Army, as well as a simple blade front sight instead of the ramp front sight of the Blackhawk. And the grip frame was steel instead of aluminum. I clearly remember the first time I picked up a Vaquero I could tell it was heavier than my old Blackhawk because of the steel grip frame. Just like the Blackhawk, the Vaquero was about 10% larger than a Colt. The cylinder was beefier, and the frame was big enough to house the larger cylinder. The heavier cylinder was why the Vaquero could handle heavy loads that might have damaged a Colt. This version of the Vaquero used the same hammer as the Blackhawk, and if you look at my photos you can see that the hammer spur was shorter and one could see over the hammer spur when the hammer was down and sight the gun.

But lots of Cowboy Action shooters did not like this heavy single action revolver and they made their preferences known to Ruger. So in 2005 Ruger introduced the New Vaquero. The New Vaquero was Ruger's attempt to satisfy the CAS shooters who said they wanted a gun more on the same scale as the old Colt. The frame was scaled down a bit, to be about the same size as a Colt. This meant the cylinder was scaled down too, with less meat around the chambers. And that is why, at least with a large cartridge such as 45 Colt, it is not advised to shoot the same 'Ruger Only' loads that the 'original model' Vaquero could easily digest. Other changes made to the New Vaquero were the taller hammer spur, which we seem to be discussing at length, slimmer grips, a redesigned ejector rod handle, and the cylinder pin was redesigned so it could be removed without removing the ejector housing. And then of course there was the lock, which was the first time that Ruger had built a revolver with a built in lock.

At this time Ruger was on a campaign to reduce the number of SKU numbers they had to keep books on, so the decision was made to drop the larger, 'original model' Vaquero and only produce the New Vaquero. So right away, there was great complaining and gnashing of teeth over the decision to drop the larger frame Vaquero. And besides the lock, one of the chief objections to the New Vaquero was the shape and height of the hammer spur.

Let's take another look at that hammer spur. Here is a photo of a 2nd Gen Colt at top, and a New Vaquero at the bottom. Notice how similar the hammer profiles are.



The reason so many SASS shooters did not like the high hammer spur was because most of them shoot their pistols with two hands, thumbing the hammer with the thumb of the off hand while the strong hand held the gun and operated the trigger. For this style of shooting, the tall hammer spur gets in the way and inhibits fast shooting. Personally, this never bothered me because I shoot all my single action revolvers one handed, including the Colt and New Vaquero in the photo, and a tall hammer spur is natural for me to cock with my thumb.

But Ruger listened and came up with the SASS Vaquero. Among other things, it features a hammer with a lower spur.

http://www.ruger.com/products/vaquero/index.html

Ruger also made the lower profile SASS hammer available as a replacement part, and it became so popular that they could not keep them in stock. Last I heard, the SASS hammer is back in stock.

So if you don't like the tall hammer, put the grinder away and call up Ruger and see if the SASS hammers for the New Vaquero are back in stock.

P.S. The crack about being Wild Bill and showing off at the range was uncalled for. I like the tall hammer spur on a Colt because that is the way they were made.

 

[skidder]

P.S. The crack about being Wild Bill and showing off at the range was uncalled for. I like the tall hammer spur on a Colt because that is the way they were made.

First of all, this was not directed toward you, but a generalization and the practicality of this ridiculous high hammer.

And to clear things up, I was not saying anything bad about the original RUGER Vaqueros with the lower hammers and bigger frames. These I find much more practical.

If one is doing the quick draw while using their palm to rapid fire, this hammer is probably the "cat's pajamas". But for most of us, our thumbs don't reach unless we use the opposite hand for cocking which is not protocol for most revolvers.

Don't be such a "cranky pants". I was actually defending your picture of the discontinued Ruger Vaqueros!!

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I don't have any way to test pressures but I'd estimate the hotter hunting loads in the 16-18,000 psi range. I'd have to go back and check my notes to be certain, but I believe I've run some up in the 20,000 psi range using Blue Dot and/or 2400. But these would've been fired sparingly and really only to establish some chronograph numbers for reference.

Sixteen to eighteen thousand PSI should be well within the capabilities of a well-made modern SAA. But I'd hold it at that limit.

At the same time, a Uberti is not a Colt -- I'd be willing to take a smidgen of risk with a Uberti, but a Colt is just a little too $$$$.

 

[CraigC]

I also prefer the taller hammer spur on the Colt single actions and wouldn't dream of changing the hammer on a New Vaquero.....if I had one. They definitely serve a purpose for me. IMHO, the Bisley or Super Blackhawk hammers are NOT an upgrade for a Blackhawk or Vaquero.




Or the even taller hammer of the topless Colt models.