Colt vs. Ruger Single Actions

[id10t]

And an excellent example of the SAA just hit the market today...

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/801661328


Note - this seller is one of the top for a reason. All of her auctions have great photos, etc.

[Superman]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

Aesthetically, blued and case colored wins hands down. Functionally, especially here in the PNW, stainless wins hands down. Since the Rugers are now 100% blued, with no case colored frames, I would say the stainless version would be the way to go. Maybe even with adjustable sights.

I was under the impression the Vaquero has fixed sights. It has also been suggested to me that adjustable sights might not be an important feature.

[jyl]

For some reason, I was recently mulling over the sci-fi storyline where our hero is transported to the age of the dinosaurs and has to survive in a Jurassic time of primitive forests and swamps with land, sea and air hunting dinosaurs everywhere. I wondered what handgun our hero should have, and I concluded he'd want a SA. Reasons: reliable, can pack a big cartridge, and neither capacity nor rapid firing would matter.

[flipper35]

Jeff, I am glad you have a sense of humor.

These always look good blued and if it isn't out in the elements a lot that is what I would get. My daughter is big on the case hardened look also. She would buy every spoon that way if she could.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by Superman

I was under the impression the Vaquero has fixed sights. It has also been suggested to me that adjustable sights might not be an important feature.

O.k., maybe it's time for a quick "Ruger vs. Ruger" show and tell.

The Ruger Vaquero is indeed a fixed sight gun, a very close replica of the Colt Peacemaker. Ruger introduced it to answer the calls of Cowboy Action Shooters who wanted a quality, American made gun, without spending "Colt money". Their only choices at the time were the lower quality imported Colt "clones", that just didn't hold up to all of their shooting.

The Vaquero is simply the fixed sight version of the adjustable sight Blackhawk. Here is the same Vaquero once again, this time shown with the Ruger Blackhawk. Both are in .45 Colt. The Blackhawk is, of course, stainless steel.

[Jeff Higgins]

This might be a good time to go over the differences in size that I mentioned a few posts back. My stainless Blackhawk is actually on the full sized "Super Blackhawk" frame, which is substantially larger than the Colt or the New Vaquero. The differences are pretty apparent when you look at their respective cylinders:





The Blackhawk/Super Blackhawk cylinder is both bigger in diameter and longer. This is what allows the Blackhawk to handle substantially heavier loads than the smaller Vaquero or Colt.

Having two different firearms in the same caliber that are safe with substantially different loads can be a problem. God forbid the heavy load winds up in the smaller gun - it would blow the top of the cylinder and top strap right off the thing, likely injuring the shooter. Not good...

What we do, then, to ensure that cannot happen is we take advantage of the longer cylinder on the beefier gun. Here are my three .45 Colt loads. Left to right, the 300 grain LBT loaded to 1,300+ fps, in the middle the RCBS .45-270 SAA, which was designed by Dave Scovill for use in Peacemakers. At 270 grains, it's as heavy as we can go while still having it shoot reasonably close elevation-wise to their fixed sights. I load it to just over 900 fps, and it's safe in all of my guns. On the right is the Lyman 250 grain round nose flat point, which is a slight improvement over the original bullet. It's loaded over 40 grains of FFFg black powder for just over 900 fps, duplicating the original Frankford Arsenal load. It's safe even in original 19th century Colts.



You'll notice the 300 grain load is a good deal longer than the other two. It sticks out the front of the Vaquero or Colt cylinders, so they cannot rotate to line up with the barrel into the firing position. They just can't be shot in the smaller guns, which makes me feel much better. Veral Smith is "LBT", he cuts the molds. He will put the crimp groove wherever you want, so this is how we take care of this important safety issue.

[tabs]

Originally Posted by id10t

And an excellent example of the SAA just hit the market today...

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/801661328


Note - this seller is one of the top for a reason. All of her auctions have great photos, etc.

The Ivory grips are of a later vintage, as the Colt medallion embedded in them is circa 1926 to 1941.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by id10t

And an excellent example of the SAA just hit the market today...

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/801661328


Note - this seller is one of the top for a reason. All of her auctions have great photos, etc.

There are two distinctly different classes of Colts - collectors and shooters. This one would fall into the former.

The newest "Third Generation" Colts being made today are superior as shooters to the older guns. The dimensions used in both the cylinders and the barrels are much more conducive to accurate shooting. Cylinder throats on the .45 calibers are consistently .454" diameter, and barrels have .450" bores with .458" grooves. These diameters, and their relationships to one another, are critical for accurate shooting.

Older Colts are notorious for widely varying cylinder throat diameters on the same gun. I've seen older Colts with cylinder throats as small as .454" to as large as .460" and everything in between on the same gun. Bore and groove diameters vary widely from gun to gun as well. Pretty darn sloppy manufacturing, really.

Their saving grace back then was black powder and really soft lead bullets, with hollow bases. The black powder would "bump up" these hollow based bullets to fill oversized cylinder throats, but then they would also swage back down to fit the smaller bore. Accuracy was acceptable as a close range fighting gun.

We expect better today, and Colt delivers. Modern smokeless powders will not "bump up" even soft lead bullets. Throw modern jacketed bullets into the mix, and off-sized throats and barrels just don't work.

So, if a guy wants a "shooter", just buy a new one. They still make them. They are "only" about $1,500 brand new, which a lot of guys will spend on fancy 1911's anyway. The new ones, IMHO, are the best they have ever made.

[tabs]

Originally Posted by jeff higgins

there are two distinctly different classes of colts - collectors and shooters. This one would fall into the former.

The newest "third generation" colts being made today are superior as shooters to the older guns. The dimensions used in both the cylinders and the barrels are much more conducive to accurate shooting. Cylinder throats on the .45 calibers are consistently .454" diameter, and barrels have .450" bores with .458" grooves. These diameters, and their relationships to one another, are critical for accurate shooting.

Older colts are notorious for widely varying cylinder throat diameters on the same gun. I've seen older colts with cylinder throats as small as .454" to as large as .460" and everything in between on the same gun. Bore and groove diameters vary widely from gun to gun as well. Pretty darn sloppy manufacturing, really.

Their saving grace back then was black powder and really soft lead bullets, with hollow bases. The black powder would "bump up" these hollow based bullets to fill oversized cylinder throats, but then they would also swage back down to fit the smaller bore. Accuracy was acceptable as a close range fighting gun.

We expect better today, and colt delivers. Modern smokeless powders will not "bump up" even soft lead bullets. Throw modern jacketed bullets into the mix, and off-sized throats and barrels just don't work.

So, if a guy wants a "shooter", just buy a new one. They still make them. They are "only" about $1,500 brand new, which a lot of guys will spend on fancy 1911's anyway. The new ones, imho, are the best they have ever made.

roger that.

[Superman]

I was just doing some reading and it seems Dr. Higgins is correct about firearms for a change. Vaqueros are smaller, but I think I don't think I need the bigger-framed gun. That's the Super Blackhawk and the Bisley, right? .45 Colt is not considered small, right?

I don't like bling, but I may get the SS Vaquero. In the photos, the blued one looks like black powder coat to me. I'll have to look at them.

[craigster59]

Originally Posted by Superman

I was just doing some reading and it seems Dr. Higgins is correct about firearms for a change. Vaqueros are smaller, but I think I don't think I need the bigger-framed gun. That's the Super Blackhawk and the Bisley, right? .45 Colt is not considered small, right?

I don't like bling, but I may get the SS Vaquero. In the photos, the blued one looks like black powder coat to me. I'll have to look at them.

Save up your money for a nice holster. And all the best cowboys have Chinese eyes...

[Superman]

The other question is 5.50 v. 4.62

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by Superman

I was just doing some reading and it seems Dr. Higgins is correct about firearms for a change. Vaqueros are smaller, but I think I don't think I need the bigger-framed gun. That's the Super Blackhawk and the Bisley, right? .45 Colt is not considered small, right?

Both sizes of Ruger are available in .45 Colt, even though the .45 Colt would never be considered a "small" round. It's all about how "hot" of a round the particular gun will safely accept.

The "standard" .45 Colt load is really about all anyone could ever need from a handgun. My "Colt safe / Vaquero safe" load, consisting of either the 250 grain or 270 grain bullets previously shown, will shoot all the way through our biggest North American game, at least on broadside shots. They will go all the way through deer sized game lengthwise, end to end.

What more would a guy really need? I've pretty much given up on the big boomers as pretty much unnecessary. The heavy .44 mag or .45 Colt loads just dig a deeper hole in the ground on the other side of the animal. They don't buy you a thing.

So, yeah - a "small" framed .45 Colt loaded with "standard" .45 Colt loads is everything you need. Maybe if there is a really big, really pissed off griz in your future, one of the bigger boomers might make you feel a little better. That would probably all be in your head, though.

Originally Posted by Superman

I don't like bling, but I may get the SS Vaquero. In the photos, the blued one looks like black powder coat to me. I'll have to look at them.

Ruger bluing is really pretty "utilitarian", to be polite. The guns are not polished in the least, and the bluing is really dull. Their stainless guns are much more pleasing to the eye.

That said, the highly polished stainless steel example I have shown was a special order item from Lipsey's. Ruger's standard stainless finish is a brushed finish. I really like it. Here is an example, my Super Blackhawk in .44 mag. Its 3.75" barrel is a special order from Talo, but the finish is standard Ruger brushed stainless:

[Superman]

Your advice over the years, and now in this thread, is very much appreciated. SS Vaquero it is. The final decision then becomes 5.5 v 4.62. Six v half-dozen, I think. I will see what Cabelas can show me from their glass case.

[flatbutt]

Tangent alert: I'm curious about the bore axis on wheels guns vs pistols. The examples poster here look to have higher bore axes than a pistol. Coupled with what looks like a smaller grip area do the wheels guns require a different grip? I cup and saucer my G19.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by Superman

Your advice over the years, and now in this thread, is very much appreciated. SS Vaquero it is. The final decision then becomes 5.5 v 4.62. Six v half-dozen, I think. I will see what Cabelas can show me from their glass case.

I prefer the 4.62" barrel. It's just far easier to pack around, especially if you wear it in a hip holster and are planning to do so in your car or truck. It won't ride up and jab you in the ribs as much. It really doesn't give up anything in accuracy, velocity, or "shootability" either. To me, the longer barrels are best left to the dedicated hunting guns.

Originally Posted by flatbutt

Tangent alert: I'm curious about the bore axis on wheels guns vs pistols. The examples poster here look to have higher bore axes than a pistol. Coupled with what looks like a smaller grip area do the wheels guns require a different grip? I cup and saucer my G19.

They do have a much higher bore axis than most pistols. Coupled with the rounded back side of the grip, this high axis makes it roll back in the hand upon firing. Doing so really helps with heavy recoil.

I'm not sure what "cup and saucer" is, but I simply hold them in my right hand, then wrap my left around the front of my right. I push away with my right and pull towards me with my left. I put my left index finger on the front of the trigger guard. We cock them with our left thumb, not our right:





Some folks wrap their right pinky under the grip. This is supposed to help if you have large hands. I have really large hands, but I still prefer to have my pinky on the front strap of the grip.



You will notice that the right middle finger is well below and away from the trigger guard. If you want your pinky on the front strap, your middle finger is going to be right behind the trigger guard, in that radius. Some folks don't like how it gets hammered under recoil in this position. I have a big, permanent callous on the first knuckle of that finger from years and years of getting whacked by these trigger guards. I actually had to file and sand the back of the trigger guard on that little .44 mag shown above - it peeled half my knuckle off the first day I fired it. I often wrap my knuckle with tape before shooting these things.

[flipper35]

I prefer having my hand way up on the grip also. Small price to pay for better control, or what feels like better control. Cowboy loads probably wouldn't matter.

[flatbutt]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

I prefer the 4.62" barrel.
I'm not sure what "cup and saucer" is, but I simply hold them in my right hand, then wrap my left around the front of my right. I push away with my right and pull towards me with my left. I put my left index finger on the front of the trigger guard. We cock them with our left thumb, not our right:

.

Because of the nerve damage to my right arm I cannot extend it fully so I use this grip:

[jyl]

The barrel could be in line with the bottom of the cylinder, which would allow a radically lower bore axis. Tricky for iron sights but not for optical. If revolvers were developed today without history and habit as constraints, I think they'd look pretty different.

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by craigster59

Save up your money for a nice holster. And all the best cowboys have Chinese eyes...

Does Tabby stand a chance...that rig could adorn his dragon azz jeans