Colt vs. Ruger Single Actions

[Jeff Higgins]

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:



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.



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.



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.

[Seahawk]

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.

[id10t]

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.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by Seahawk

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.

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

Originally Posted by id10t

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.

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.



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.

[jyl]

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?

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by jyl

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.

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by id10t

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.

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?

[fred cook]

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"!

[oldE]

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?

[flatbutt]

IMHO that semi Damascus effect is nice.

[id10t]

Originally Posted by oldE

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?

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

[craigster59]

Originally Posted by flatbutt

IMHO that semi Damascus effect is nice.

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

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by id10t

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

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.

[flipper35]

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?

[oldE]

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

[flipper35]

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.

[tabs]

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..

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by flipper35

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?

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...

Originally Posted by tabs

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..

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.

[Superman]

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

[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.