Colt vs. Ruger Single Actions
 

My good friend Superman and I got into a bit of a discussion last night over dinner and a few beers. Supe was interested in the differences between the Colt and Ruger single actions. Madcorgi was in attendance as well, but my lovely wife was distracting him with conversation regarding other matters. So, for Supe's edification (and because some of the rest of you might be interested), here goes. A very basic primer on Colt vs. Ruger.

A picture is worth a thousand words, so here is several thousand's worth. First, a basic side view. The Colt has hard rubber grips, the Ruger wood. Notice that, other than that, they are almost indistinguishable:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1551647269.JPG

Next up, the most important difference between the two. Both are at full cock, showing their different hammer and firing pin designs. On the left is the Ruger, with its frame mounted firing pin. On the right is the Colt, with its hammer mounted firing pin. Notice the shiny vertical "bar" on the Ruger, partially hiding the firing pin that is in the frame. This is what they call the "transfer bar", in that it transfers the blow of the hammer to the firing pin. This bar is held up when the trigger is fully to the rear, as in firing the gun. When the hammer is at rest, and the trigger is forward, this bar drops down well below the firing pin into the frame, so it cannot transfer the blow of the hammer to the firing pin. The nose of the hammer then rests safely against the frame, unable to fire the gun.

Notice the Colt, on the other hand, has no such transfer bar. There is a simple hole through the frame through which the hammer mounted firing pin strikes the primer. When the hammer is lowered all the way down to its resting position, the firing pin is sitting right up against the primer. Any blow to the hammer will fire the gun.

Dropping a single action inevitably results in it landing on the heel of the grip and the hammer spur, with the barrel point right up at the poor guy that just dropped it. That is just how they are balanced, each and every one of them. Like a cat landing on its feet each and every time.

Needless to say, you don't want to be the guy who just dropped a single action Colt with a round under the hammer. So we carry them with an empty chamber in that position, rendering them a five shooter. Well, Ruger fixed all of that with their modern transfer bar system. Rugers are entirely safe to carry with six rounds in them.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1551647269.jpg

Next up shows another, less important difference. It shows both of them in their loading/unloading position. The Colt must have the hammer pulled to half cocked to free the cylinder so it spins freely and can be loaded and unloaded. The Colt has four notches in the hammer, so it clicks four times when pulling it back to full cock. The second click is the half cocked position.

The Ruger frees the cylinder to spin by simply opening the loading gate. The hammer stays all the way down in the rest position. There is only one notch, or one click on the Ruger hammer - fully cocked.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1551647269.JPG

Internally, the differences are few. The Ruger uses a coil hammer spring, where the Colt has the old style single leaf flat spring. Some say the Ruger is "more rugged" but, in over 40 years with Colts and tens of thousands of rounds through them, I have yet to break anything. Some say the Rugers are more accurate, but I have not found that to be the case. What I can say is that the fit and finish on the Colt is definitely superior. I guess it better be, at roughly three times the cost of the Ruger.

So, there you have it. I like my Colts, but I obviously have a Ruger (or several) as well. If I were to recommend a single action today, it would be the Ruger, based solely on price and availability. Both are also available in adjustable sight versions (Colt New Frontier and Ruger Blackhawk), so if that's what you want, they are available. They are all great guns, that will serve you well.

I have a Ruger .45 Colt Vaquero because of your posts...

I'd like to thank you for that.

Just over 1500 rounds putting down various rebellions.

Best.

Never been a big fan of SA revolvers or lever guns, but have been considering one of the inexpensive Frontier 22 SA revolvers for just as a plinker.

Heh Heh... I don't feel the least bit guilty...

I've never handed anyone one of my Colts or Rugers who didn't fall in love after a cylinder or two of fun. They make great plinkers, and even if that is all you ever do with them, they are worthwhile to have around. The relaxed pace of operating them, with their painstakingly slow loading and unloading process, kind of adds to the relaxation of a plinking session. You go through a lot less ammo, and find yourself slowing down a bit to make sure every round counts, just because they are so slow to reload.

Beyond that, IMHO, they are the best sidearms for the outdoorsman or hunter. The smaller ones, like the Colt and Ruger shown above, are a joy to carry when backpacking, day hiking, fishing, and just generally bumming around the outdoors. Small and light, but packing a pretty serious wallop in either .45 Colt of .44 mag.

As hunting guns, the heavier framed, longer barreled examples excel over everything else, at least as far as I'm concerned. And I've killed a lot of big game with revolvers over the years. The single actions' grip shapes just seem to absorb the really heavy recoil developed by serious hunting loads better than double action grips.

Here is probably my "most travelled" pure hunting revolver. It's the long out of production Interarms Virginian Dragoon, this one in .44 magnum. It's too big and heavy for a general woods bumming gun, so I only carry it when hunting. I'll load it with one or the other of my favorite handloads, shooting either the 300 grain LBT (Lead Bullet Technologies) "LFN" (long flat nose) or the RCBS .44-250K "Keith" type semi-wadcutter, depending on what I'm hunting.

The grip on this gun is much larger than that on the Colt or Ruger. It really helps in absorbing the recoil of those 300 grain loads. The gun is also robust enough to shoot those loads as much as I want, unlike, say, a M29 S&W, where they need to be shot in moderation.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1551659703.JPG

This is another favorite, and relatively new to the stable. It's a Ruger "Bisley" model in .45 Colt. It's built on the Super Blackhawk sized frame, so it can take heavier loads than the smaller Blackhawk or Vaquero. I use the .45 caliber version of the LBT LFN bullet in this one. I can actually safely exceed the velocities of not only my 300 grain .44 mag load, but also the velocities of my 250 grain .44 mag load.

That's where its "Bisley" grip shape really shines. Some might find the recoil generated by a 300 grain bullet exceeding 1,300 fps at the muzzle to be a bit on the obnoxious side. This grip design really helps with that. It's much better than either a traditional single action shape, and especially a traditional double action shape. It actually makes it fairly comfortable to shoot long strings with these heavy loads, although I try not to have to do that all that often.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1551659703.JPG

Here's something I wonder about.

I have a Ruger Single Six 7". Had it since I was a little boy. Long barrel, good sights, should be accurate, no?

Well, it is okay but I am considerably more accurate with my Glock G19.

My theory is that the single action mechanism and grip causes my hand to shift slightly with each shot, unlike the semi-auto.

Possible that's correct?

Yes, getting a consistent grip on a single action is very difficult. To make matters worse, the long, heavy hammer fall serves to highlight any inconsistencies in your grip. This is a very common problem with single actions. It's not you.

These were originally purely fighting guns. Up close and personal. Rudimentary sights with a grip shape meant more for instinctive shooting than for any serious target work. They can be challenging, compared to modern autos and even double actions that allow for a more consistent grip, and have a much shorter, lighter hammer fall. It's worth the effort, though.

LOL...yet you clicked on a Higgy thread....Nostatic had to leave 'cause of him ;)

I don't know why I don't have a Ruger SA...can someone explain that?

A little of this and a little of that...........
 

Here's one that I picked up a few years ago. It is a Model 1877 Colt that has been converted to .22 rimfire from .38 Colt and has had an SAA style grip added along with ivory stocks. It is a SA/DA action (like the original). It still loads and ejects like an SAA, has sights like an SAA and even has a "plow handle" grip like an SAA! But, having been originally a Colt Lightning, it is about 10-15% smaller than a "real" SAA! And, it is a "hoot to shoot"!

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1551702034.jpg

OK, here's where I show off my incredible depth of ignorance.
I notice the blueing on the first two revolvers shown is not uniform. I understand that blueing is a chemical process and the final effect can depend upon a number of factors which may include surface preparation, strength of solution and temperature.
My question is : is the mottled effect desired on certain pieces?

IMHO that semi Damascus effect is nice.

The mottled effect that looks like an oil spill on water is actually color case hardening, not rust blueing. Involves heating and oil quenching.

For real differences, see https://www.africahunting.com/threads/color-case-hardening-vs-blueing.39031/


Personally, while I love nice wood and deep blue, I'm a "blank paint over parkerized metal" kinda guy

It's known as "case coloring" and Doug Turnbull is known to be one of the best...
https://www.turnbullrestoration.com

That link has a good overview of the differences.

The traditional method of "color case hardening" is known as "bone pack" hardening. Steels come in a broad variety of carbon content, with the "high carbon" steels being capable of what we call "through hardening" - heat treating results in the same, uniform hardness throughout the piece. "Low carbon" steels need to have some form of carburizing agent introduced to make them harden. In this case, that agent is bone meal. These pieces are literally packed in bone meal, then put into the heat treating oven. The carbon from the bone meal allows the piece to surface harden.

What we wind up with is a piece that is very hard on the outside, yet still malleable on the inside. Think hard boiled egg, but in steel. The vibrant colors are a result of the uneven nature of the carbon reaction on the surface of the steel. Every one will be different.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1551718327.JPG

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1551718327.JPG

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1551718327.JPG

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1551718327.JPG

Jeff, you drunk old coot, everyone knows the Colt is made that way because when you get held up and are told to drop the gun you drop it on the hammer with the barrel facing your attacker, taking them out. I have links to prove it!

Did that need to be in green? :D

Ok thanks. So the differences in shading comes from variations in carbon content in the steel in the case hardening process. I didn't know bone was used. Thirty years ago I saw a documentary about firearm manufacturing in Afghanistan. It was all hand work with files and chisels. To case harden, they would pack the components in cork fragments and bury the package in the coals for a period of time.
I remember watching the smith remove the parts from the cork and assemble something that looked like a 1911 (but I am guessing ) .They fired that piece as well as a knock off of an AK 47 they had made.

Best
Les

One of the shows on not long ago showed them quenching in a pretty high salt content brine with a wetting agent of some sort. Don't remember what they were quenching, but it looked similar to color case hardening when they were done.

There are also chemical processes that create Case Hardening...

Shiloh Sharps uses a chem process unless you order Bone Charcoal hardening
CPA who recreates the 44.5 Stevens uses chemical to get the Stevens case look.
The Japanese Parker's for Winchester used Chemical..

Then there is the cheapo way and that is to use an Acetylene Torch to to flame heat...and get the effect, but that has greenish tones..

Case is skin deep and leaving it out in the sun will cause it to fade..

Hey, Rooster Cockburn was a drunk old coot. I'll take that as a compliment. ;)

Besides, you guys should know by now I just make all this schitt up so I can laugh my ass off at you. If you are really lucky, maybe someone will fire up his googleator and expose me for what I am and save all of you from my nefarious scheme. Whatever that may be... In the meantime, I'm gonna go grab a bottle of Scotch and play with some single actions...

The Ruger shown above used one of the chemical processes. The colors just aren't "right", and they got a lot of complaints. They switched to bluing the frames after about the first year of production on this model. This is the "New Vaquero", built on the smaller, Colt sized frame.

The first generation Vaqueros were built on the Super Blackhawk sized frames and are much larger. Some prefer the early large frame, some like the later small frame. Both are great guns, but the smaller frame is not available in .44 mag, nor will the .45 Colt versions take the really heavy loads.

I really appreciate the schooling, Jeff. Vaqero it is, I think. Now....SS or blued? Hmmm....

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1551809412.jpg

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1551809412.jpg

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:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1551809676.jpg

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1551809676.jpg

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.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1551810470.jpg

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.

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

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.

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...

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1551934228.jpg

The other question is 5.50 v. 4.62

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.

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:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1551936468.JPG

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.

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.

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.

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:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1551982132.jpg

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1551982132.jpg

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.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1551982132.jpg

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.

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.

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

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1551987056.jpg

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.

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