New Revolver...Vaquero vs Cattleman

[Guest Jamie]

I know a guy who shot SASS for years.He owns all brands of Colt copies and said if he had to do it all over again he would just buy a pair of Vaqueros.He said regardless of how "well made" the copies claim to be they all break parts after an appreciable amount of shooting but the Vaqueros seem to last forever.

That has to do with the fact that the Colts and Colt clones use what is basically 19th century technology on the inside. They have flat springs instead of coil springs, and one or two small parts are very dependent on two surfaces being both hard, smooth and well-lubricated in order not to wear each other appreciably. ( The leg of the cylinder bolt, which is actually also a flat spring, and the stud on the hammer are the two that come to mind )

Screw up either the finish or the heat treatment of those parts, or let it run dry any length of time, and they'll wear out in a matter of very few shots. And over time, they'll wear out any way.

Ruger did away with that stuff. The Vaquero, Blackhawk and Super Blackhawk are all entirely different, modern guns on the inside, no matter what they may look like on the outside. And that's why they outlast even the best Colts or copies.

Buy a Ruger, and you get a modern design that looks like a "cowboy" gun. Buy a Colt or one of it's clones, and what you get is a modern-made rendition of a 136 year-old design.

I should add that I'm not knocking either one, only pointing out that a person should choose based on what they want out of the thing; for it to be "correct" and as close to the original as possible, or to be extremely durable and reliable but to forgo "traditional" a bit.

Edited September 2, 2009 by Jamie

[Warbird]

I have a pair of the Ruger Bisley Vaqueros in 45 LC. They have thousands of rounds through them and nary ever a problem. They are tough as nails and personally I like the way the Bisley points better than the SAA. But the regular Vaquero is a well made gun.

Ruger did indeed do it right by building a modern gun on the inside with the appearance of a 19th century gun.

For whatever reason I prefer the old style fixed sights and appearance of the vaquero line. Never have been much on the Blackhawk, but it is a fine shooting gun. The Lipsey deal is a good one right now.

[SHbicycle]

got a uberti in 1988 and have only had 2 parts brake the bolt and the hand. I have had a blachhawk and a vaqueros and that is all I will say about them. If you want a colt without paying all the money get a uberti.

[gregintenn]

That has to do with the fact that the Colts and Colt clones use what is basically 19th century technology on the inside. They have flat springs instead of coil springs, and one or two small parts are very dependent on two surfaces being both hard, smooth and well-lubricated in order not to wear each other appreciably. ( The leg of the cylinder bolt, which is actually also a flat spring, and the stud on the hammer are the two that come to mind )

Screw up either the finish or the heat treatment of those parts, or let it run dry any length of time, and they'll wear out in a matter of very few shots. And over time, they'll wear out any way.

Ruger did away with that stuff. The Vaquero, Blackhawk and Super Blackhawk are all entirely different, modern guns on the inside, no matter what they may look like on the outside. And that's why they outlast even the best Colts or copies.

Buy a Ruger, and you get a modern design that looks like a "cowboy" gun. Buy a Colt or one of it's clones, and what you get is a modern-made rendition of a 136 year-old design.

I should add that I'm not knocking either one, only pointing out that a person should choose based on what they want out of the thing; for it to be "correct" and as close to the original as possible, or to be extremely durable and reliable but to forgo "traditional" a bit.

I couldn't agree more.

[Guest Jamie]

got a uberti in 1988 and have only had 2 parts brake the bolt and the hand. I have had a blachhawk and a vaqueros and that is all I will say about them. If you want a colt without paying all the money get a uberti.

That sounds rather ominous...

If you've found a flaw in Ruger's single action guns, or just something you don't care for, by all means, tell us about it.

[Oh Shoot]

... I have had a blachhawk and a vaqueros and that is all I will say about them. If you want a colt without paying all the money get a uberti.

That sounds rather ominous...

If you've found a flaw in Ruger's single action guns, or just something you don't care for, by all means, tell us about it.

got a uberti in 1988 and have only had 2 parts brake the bolt and the hand.

Also, I must say that any gun I own that "only had 2 parts brake", would likely NOT be a gun I recommended. How many rounds are we talking about through it in those years?

- OS

[Guest Jamie]

Also, I must say that any gun I own that "only had 2 parts brake", would likely NOT be a gun I recommended. How many rounds are we talking about through it in those years?

- OS

I must confess that I have had the transfer bar on a Ruger Super Single Six break...

It only took a little over 250,000 rounds for it to snap at the narrow part of the piece.

Ruger actually sent me the part, and I fitted it myself. Shot the gun another couple of years after that, before I sold it. I was shocked that they didn't demand that I send the gun in for them to repair.

An Uberti Cattleman in .45 Colt that I owned wore through the leg of the cylinder bolt in less than 100 rounds though. The reason for that was that the stud/cam on the side of the hammer ( the part that lowers the bolt ) was a bit rough, and the bolt it's self was too soft.

I happened to have a replacement bolt in my parts box, so a little buffing to the cam to smooth it down, and fitting the new bolt in place, and it was good as new. Shot several hundred more trouble-free rounds through it before it too was sold.

By the way... the whole reason I had a spare bolt for the gun to begin with was that I knew when I bought it that those were "consumable" parts, and that sooner or later I'd need a new one. It's just part of the whole Colt SAA design, and one that people have to expect and accept.

Didn't quite plan on needing one that soon though....

[res308]

The New Vaquero, built on the smaller frame, is not appreciably stronger than a Colt or colt clone. They are NOT to be used with "Ruger-Only" loads.

The older, original Vaqueros are a different story. They're built on the older, larger frame, and can handle the stouter loads.

Correct, the older version is what I was talking about. I had actually forgotten about the new model on the smaller frame. Now, you might rather have the Super Blackhawk if you're intending to actually hunt with it. By "if you're going into bear country" I meant with the Vaquero as a backup for defense.

Maybe loaded with Buffalo Bore Heavy 45 Colt +P.

[Oh Shoot]

I must confess that I have had the transfer bar on a Ruger Super Single Six break...

It only took a little over 250,000 rounds for it to snap at the narrow part of the piece....

I don't believe I'd diss any gun for a part failure at a quarter of a million rounds!

But the Uberti at 100 rounds is quite a different echelon of (non)durability.

Thanks for fleshing out your comments with more info...

- OS

[Guest clsutton21]

Another main difference between Ruger and the other's is probably weight. I know mine feels like a brick, but it's a car and house gun. I know the S&W version of my gun in double action weighs half as much.

[Oh Shoot]

Another main difference between Ruger and the other's is probably weight. I know mine feels like a brick, but it's a car and house gun. I know the S&W version of my gun in double action weighs half as much.

Yah, my Blackhawk .357 weighs 2.5 lbs unloaded. And it has the short 4 5/8" barrel.

- OS

[Guest clsutton21]

Yah, my Blackhawk .357 weighs 2.5 lbs unloaded. And it has the short 4 5/8" barrel.

- OS

Mine is 6.5" =D

[I_Like_Pie]

Mine is 6.5" =D

Well if we are talking amongst men...

[Guest clsutton21]

Well if we are talking amongst men...

[SHbicycle]

I put about a 100 rounds are more a week from 88 to 2003. Good gun and will put the lead were I want it and if I was just shooting .22 out of it i think it would have not broken at all.

[Guest Jamie]

I don't believe I'd diss any gun for a part failure at a quarter of a million rounds!

But the Uberti at 100 rounds is quite a different echelon of (non)durability.

Thanks for fleshing out your comments with more info...

- OS

Ah, I was just being a little sarcastic about the Ruger, thus the "it ONLY took..."

Unfortunately, I got interrupted a few times while typing up the post, and forgot to put a smilie at the end. Didn't figure it was worth the bother to go back and add one, once I caught it.

In all total, counting the magnum ammo that had been run through the gun, it was likely close to or over 300,000 rounds through it when it quit. And no, I don't think that's bad reliability at all.

As for the Uberti, yeah, that was pretty pathetic. But then, that was 12 or 13 years ago, and they did have trouble with soft internal parts at that time. And it really isn't any big deal if a person knows how the gun works and has a few spare parts on hand.

I have to say though, reliability aside, the gun was very accurate. The first 5 rounds I ever fired through it made one ragged clover-shaped hole at 25 yards, shooting free handed. And it never shot any worse than that the whole time I owned it.

By the way, I don't recall the exact number of shots fired through it when it quit working, but I still had 30 rounds on the cartridge belt from the first 100 rounds. I don't remember if there were any more left in the box or not.

It's safe to say that it gave up the ghost at somewhere between 60 and 70 rounds though.

Edited September 3, 2009 by Jamie

[Guest Jamie]

I put about a 100 rounds are more a week from 88 to 2003. Good gun and will put the lead were I want it and if I was just shooting .22 out of it i think it would have not broken at all.

Are you talking about an Uberti here? 'Cause if so, it likely wouldn't have made any difference if you were shooting .22lr or .357 mag, since it's the action being worked and the parts rubbing together that case the wear. Recoil and cartridge pressure have very little to do with the hand or bolt legs wearing out or breaking.

Matter of fact, you can cause the same wear with nothing more than dry firing with snap caps. It's just the nature of the design.

I'm still curious to hear what it was that apparently offended you about the Rugers though.... Did they call you names or something?

[Angus]

Wow, this thread has been awesome for me!! Thanks for all the input, I am now looking for an older Vaquero, or the Blackhawk...damn decisions

[Guest Jamie]

Wow, this thread has been awesome for me!! Thanks for all the input, I am now looking for an older Vaquero, or the Blackhawk...damn decisions

Hey 'Gus... You wanted a .45, right?

Might I suggest one of these then:

New Model Blackhawk® Convertible

Two cylinders, so you can shoot either .45 Colt or .45 ACP.

[Oh Shoot]

Hey 'Gus... You wanted a .45, right?

Might I suggest one of these then:

New Model Blackhawk® Convertible

Two cylinders, so you can shoot either .45 Colt or .45 ACP.

Yeah, versatility and cheaper shooting is main reason I got the Blackhawk .357/9mm.

The Rugerites say that the 9mm is less accurate than the .357, which logically would be, since the every so slightly less diameter of the 9mm in the .357/.38 barrel, but at 15 yards and in, which are the only distances I shot it so far, I can't tell any diff.

With the .45 there may be no diff; I assume that .45 colt and .45 acp use the same diameter bullet?

- OS

[USMCJG]

Yeah, versatility and cheaper shooting is main reason I got the Blackhawk .357/9mm.

The Rugerites say that the 9mm is less accurate than the .357, which logically would be, since the every so slightly less diameter of the 9mm in the .357/.38 barrel, but at 15 yards and in, which are the only distances I shot it so far, I can't tell any diff.

With the .45 there may be no diff; I assume that .45 colt and .45 acp use the same diameter bullet?

- OS

Usually .451 for .45ACP, .452 for .45 Colt.

[Oh Shoot]

Usually .451 for .45ACP, .452 for .45 Colt.

Ah, thanks.

Well, that's same diff as between .357/.38 and 9mm, .001, so the .45 ACP might be ever so slightly less accurate. But you'd have to be a heckuva shot or using bench to notice the diff, IMHO.

- OS

[Guest Jamie]

OhShoot...

It's usually .355 for 9mm and .357 for, well, .357 and .38 spl.

So that's a difference of .002.

My Hodgdon reloading manual calls for a bullet size of .355 to .358 for the .357/.38s though, so it looks like a person could effectively make the difference zero, if their gun was happy with .355 bullets.

[Oh Shoot]

OhShoot...

It's usually .355 for 9mm and .357 for, well, .357 and .38 spl.

So that's a difference of .002.

My Hodgdon reloading manual calls for a bullet size of .355 to .358 for the .357/.38s though, so it looks like a person could effectively make the difference zero, if their gun was happy with .355 bullets.

Ah, thanks...I had just looked it up on Wiki or somewhere, where I found the .001 diff. (I don't reload, so I don't have these factoids handy in memory).

I shot the Blackhawk some today and couldn't find any significant (or at least, consistent) differences between .357/.38 and 9mm accuracy, at 10 and 15 yards, and even used a monopod to steady things to take as much of me out of it as possible.

I did find that the cowboy loads I got from Georgia Arms to be the wildcard, though, even with 4 5/8 barrel. They are better than from 2" barrel, but still behave like bottle rockets compared to normal power factory loads.

I love this Blackhawk, though, truly do.

- OS

[Mike.357]

I can't believe I did not shoot it today