Sighted in the New Revolver Today
 

First off, the gun:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1216692284.jpg

It's a Ruger New Vaquero; essentially the fixed sight version of the New Blackhawk. The "New" designation actually represents a return to the old, or the original Blackhawk. It is a significantly smaller gun than the Super Blackhawk, or any of the Blackhawks of the last 40 years. It is almost exactly the same size, weight, and balance of a Colt Peacemaker.

The round sitting next to it is my current "standard" .45 Colt load. It consists of an RCBS .45-255 bullet cast from wheel weights, weighing an actual 265 grains. Lubed with SPG, it sits over 16 grains of 2400, and is sparked by a CCI #350 primer. It just breaks 900 fps in my other two .45 Colts.

Here are both the best, and the worst targets fired at 25 yards from a rest. There are six rounds through each; you have to look closely for the "missing" two in the "best" target.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1216692723.jpg

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1216692755.jpg

Here is the same bullet, over 38 grains of FFFg black powder:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1216692836.jpg

And, finally, burning up the rest of my ammo (so I can reload the whole lot) with some offhand shooting, again at 25 yards:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1216692911.jpg

I think I have a keeper.:D

This is an honest question because I really don't know. How do you adjust the sights? Say for example you know your gun is shooting low and to the left or right?

QUOTE: "How do you adjust the sights?"
__________________

With a 'fixed sight' weapon ...you don't (unless you take a file to the front sight blade and/or the rear notch.) And one would be foolish to do that!

Best to experiment with different ammunition/reloads and see which the weapon digests/groups with best.

Look at his 25 yd. 'offhand' target ...no adjustment necessary here.

Jeff,

I thought wheel weights were an alloy, a bit harder than pure lead.
If that were the case, wouldn't that tend to erode the rifleing lands faster?

Good groups, by the way.

Les

Nice shooting!

I think it's just important to "know your gun". My Glock tends to put the groups down and to the left of a "perfect" sight picture. Knowing this, I can compensate by either changing the sight picture slightly or changing the aim point slightly up and to the right - if I'm using heavier loads, then it's a bit more up and to the right. A lot of it takes "feel" to get right but practice, practice, practice. . .

You can always get one of those laser dot projector things too and just set it for the "correct" impact point by sighting it in too. I've heard of guys doing that, but I don't particularly like those things - I prefer no electronic junk on or around my hardware.

ditto on the weights.

???

"Adjusting" the sights on a fixed sight revolver is really quite simple. It is done with a file for elevation, and either a barrel vise and hammer handle or a large pair of vise grips for windage.

All Peacemaker style revolvers are supplied with a front sight that is way too tall. This is intentional, so that there will always be enough meat to file down to raise point of impact as required with the desired load. This particular gun shot about 3" low when I first started. Notice the profile of my front sight, compared to the out-of-the-box profile shown in the photo below.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1216732607.jpg

Colts were always supplied with the barrel screwed less than all the way in. They all shoot left, in addition to low, when new. The idea is to screw the barrel just a bit further in to adjust windage. Since it screws in with a normal right hand thread, it turns counter clockwise (left) from the shooter's perspective, moving point of impact right. We are only talking a degree or two of rotation here; hardly enough to even really notice.

The Ruger barrel, unfortunately, is not set up this way. It's bottomed out. The only recourse, if windage is off, is to bend the front sight. That's what the big vise grips are for. This is actually accepted practice with the Colts as well, as most folks don't have a barrel vise, and if they did, no way to bring it to the range and securely mount it to a bench.

This all sounds pretty primitive (almost cave man) to modern shooters weaned on adjustable sights, I'm sure. Once a gun like this is sighted in for the load of choice, however, it's going to take something extraordinary to knock it out of whack. It's far more robust and dependable than fragile adjustable sights.

About the wheel weights: Typical alloy is 98% lead and 2% antimony. They are somewhere around 12 on the Brinell hardness scale. Pure lead is somewhere around 7-8 (I think) and Lyman's #2 alloy is around 16. Lots of folks use Linotype, which runs over 20. This is all still quite soft compared to jacketed bullets. Plus, wheel weights are generally free. Tire shops give them away to avoid disposal fees. All it takes it your time, a good mold, and a little bit of care to turn out outstanding bullets.

Nice pistol and good shooting!

Ruger doesn't make collectable firearms...it makes shooting firearms! Jeff?
Fantastic groups! :D

I'm no expert but I suspect you're jerking the trigger.

Yeah tell that to my Ruger collector friend who spent $2800 on a Hawkeye. Or the guy that just dropped 4k on one.

Ruger collecting has been around for awhile, but it isn't as established as Colt, Winchester or Smith. Also you can get more bang for the buck by collecting Rugers than anyof the others listed.

Yup; original Hawkeyes, Bearcats, Flat Tops, first gen Mark I's, three screw Blackhawks/Supers, .44 carbines, early #1's... all starting to attract collector interest. There is a lot of variety in any given Ruger line. A representative collection of single actions, for example, could have several dozen with no two the same. And it is a very cheap way to collect, for those without the means to amass a collection of the more traditional collectables. They will be worth something by the time the grand kids get their mitts on 'em.

Possible, but I do try to think "squeeze on". My background is more rifle shooting than pistol, so I try to apply the same principles - slow, measured breathing (don't hold your breath), steady sight picture, increasing pressure slowly until the gun discharges while exhaling, etc. I know I need more range time. I can get decent groups - not as good as Jeff H's, but okay. At least it's consistent.

Hell, at 25 yards I can't even SEE the target, much less get groups like Jeff's. :D I can shoot really tight groups at CQB distances (15 yards or less) but anything beyond that is a roll of the dice--or rifle range, take yer pick.

I will say that I had a Glock 22 for years and never shot it very well. IMHO the trigger (out of the box) sucks big time and does NOT lend itself to consistent groupings.

U did read that Jeffy was using a REST..didn't U?

Mine does too.

I'm told that is a common issue with Glocks, and actually caused by the trigger pull and grip shape. In other words, if the gun were clamped in a rest, it would not shoot low or left.

I know that when I smoothed out my trigger pull (polished the mating surfaces on the connector bar) and made a conscious effort to pull straight back with tip of forefinger (rather than "squeezing"), the "low and left" goes away.

But it comes back if I lose concentration.

You do know what "offhand" means, don't you?

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1216692911.jpg

Why yes I do....and the first 3 targets were from a "REST"

Go get 'em, Tabby. It is always fun to discuss with the reading impaired!:D

Nice gun and nice shooting!!