Finally got the Blackhawk .45LC!

[charleym3]

I think it's good natured. I publicly corrected someone for referring to Ruger GP revolvers as Round and Square Butt, and he flipped out. Pretty humorous really. It's just sharing information. Keep it coming.
I have a couple NMBlackhawks in 45Colt with 45ACP cylinders. I also have two New Vaqueros. I'd like to take the Blackhawks to cannon level just for fun, however, it is very important for me to know that all post 1973 Ruger single action 45 Colt revolvers are not created equal so that I don't blow up the New Vaqueros. (a 1911 let go in my hand long time ago) So yeah it's all good information to me. Great thread.

 

[CraigC]

That is incorrect. The cylinder on a Redhawk is noticably thicker than on a Blackhawk.

According to Bowen in his book, The Custom Revolver, the Redhawk is stronger than the large frame single actions in that it will handle more pressure but that it will shoot loose quicker.

As far as what to call which model? Well, it might depend with whom you're discussing the subject. If you're going to be calling Ajax, you might consider using their terms ...

Ajax has it all screwed up too. It's sad when even the gripmakers can get something so simple so wrong. They refer to the New Vaquero as the "new model Vaquero". "New Model" (note capitalization) is Ruger's designation for all single actions produced post 1973. So the original large frame Vaquero is indeed the New Model Vaquero. "Old Model" is Ruger's official designation for those single actions produced up to 1973 with the traditional half-cock, Colt-style action. So it is erroneous to call any New Model single action, like the Vaquero, "Old Model". The New Vaquero, introduced in 2005, is the New Model New Vaquero. Note the deliberate use of capitalization.

In short, Ruger screwed up big time with their nominclature. They should've come up with an entirely new name for the New Vaquero, especially since they already had used "New Model" and "Old Model" nomenclature. It has been made far worse by shooters who insist on adding extra terms to differentiate two different guns with two different names, effectively confusing two very different eras of single action production.

It's Vaquero and New Vaquero, simple. The Vaquero is safe for "Ruger-only" loads, the New Vaquero is not.

 

[Gun 4 Fun]

Interesting, He should tell people on the phone with him, the same thing writes in his books.

 

[thomas44]

I can't imagine a swing-out cylinder system being stronger than a pin going all the way through the frame and cylinder of a revolver. I would think that's where a revolver would take alot of strain-not so much the cylinder walls themselves, but hey I don't know ! Just thinking out loud...

 

[CraigC]

Interesting, He should tell people on the phone with him, the same thing writes in his books.

In his book, he really didn't seem to put much importance on the difference, as far as shooting loose. I have yet to hear or read about a Redhawk being shot loose anyway so I'd imagine that anybody that did so, had surely gotten their money's worth. But for sure, the Redhawk can handle more pressure with its massive cylinder. Just under custom five-shot levels, enough to preclude any practical advantage the .454 might have.

 

[Gun 4 Fun]

+1 Craig

Actually, the Redhawk isn't all that much different in regards to the way the cylinder is held in place when closed. Locked at the front and rear with a center pin that doesn't rotate in the rear, and the latch at the front of the crane.

When I talked with Mister Bowen, he did say that for the heavy five holers, the single action would stay tight a little longer than a double, but these guns fire loads loaded way above those for conventional revolvers. As far as factory guns go, the Redhawk is heavier than a Blackhawk, which helps absorb or subdue the recoil impulse of heavy loads, as well as being physically stronger in the cylinder wall area, which is generally the weakest link in a revolver.

This is not just my opinion, it's what he told me on the phone, when I contacted him about making a 5 hole cylinder for one of my model 25 Smiths. That is another story, but before I get a slew of posts telling me that , that would be a bad idea, I wanted a five hole cylinder to allow me to fire loads listed for the Blackhawk, not those listed for the Blackhawk 5 holers.
It doesn't matter since no one makes cylinders for Smiths for such a purpose, and he wasn't interested in trying to do so.

 

[CraigC]

I doubt most folks would want to do enough shooting with a Redhawk to wear one out anyway. Especially in a five-shot .475 or .500. The one I had whooped me in its .44Mag chambering. I find the Bisley to be far more comfortable under recoil.

 

[Gun 4 Fun]

Here is what Bowen has on his web sight-

Please note: We recommend the Super Redhawk (stainless .44 model only) be used for .475 Linebaugh conversions due to heavy recoil.

Looks like he agrees with you about recoil! I know I wouldn't want to fire my .475 very much if I had to do it in a Redhawk or standard Blackhawk.

 

[sandbag]

The Vaquero

came out after Ruger went to the transfer bar system,hence,no "old"Vaquero.
It's just Vaquero and New Vaquero.
I have a Vaquero in .44 Magnum and it's on a Blackhawk frame-they made a .45 Colt Vaquero prior to 2005 on the same frame.
The New Vaquero in.45 Colt(I have one) can handle up to about 20,000 PSI.
Buffalo Bore warns on their site about not using their +P Heavy 45 Colt in any post-2005 Vaquero,in other words,the New Vaquero,which is really a Colt SAA clone with a transfer bar system.They do have high performance rounds for the New Vaquero and other SAA's which operate at sub +P pressures,making them suitable for any post-war SAA type revolvers.