Researching a Single Action Revolver (.45 Long Colt). Need help/advice.
- Thread starter AraneaeFatalis
- Start date
I like the fixed sighted revolvers myself for the 'look'. That I can fully understand from the O' West to the silver screen.... You will have to find a load that you enjoy shooting and that shoots well from the gun. Then stick with that load and adjust (by filing if necessary) the sights accordingly. A bonus is you'll never knock your sights out of whack if in the field. From your requirements, the New Vaquero in .45 Colt will do the job with the exception of not being able to shoot Ruger Only Loads. You'll have to stick with normal .45 Colt loads. None of these guns are really for concealment, but the shorter barrel will 'help'! I personally like 5 1/2" but then I don't intend to conceal 'em 
. I have a CA Bulldog for that. Blued/Stainless is a personal choice. I like blued myself.
FYI, I like to carry 5 up regardless of safety. Only time I load 6 is during a range session.
Also, single actions are 'addicting' ..... The only DA I own is the Bulldog. The only Semi-Auto is a Ruger Mark II. The rest are single actions and there will be 'more' added..... The bedside gun is a .45 Colt Vaquero....
. I have a CA Bulldog for that. Blued/Stainless is a personal choice. I like blued myself.FYI, I like to carry 5 up regardless of safety. Only time I load 6 is during a range session.
Also, single actions are 'addicting' ..... The only DA I own is the Bulldog. The only Semi-Auto is a Ruger Mark II. The rest are single actions and there will be 'more' added..... The bedside gun is a .45 Colt Vaquero....
Last edited:
pythagorean
Moderator
This one's my Colt Frontier Six Shooter in .44-40, a recent reintroduction model of the Frontier Six Shooter by Colt.
I thought I'd post the pics for visual enjoyment. It has the Black Powder frame and full bull's eye ejector ring.
Accuracy is exceptional and the .44-40 is an original cartridge contemporary with the olden days.
I thought I'd post the pics for visual enjoyment. It has the Black Powder frame and full bull's eye ejector ring.
Accuracy is exceptional and the .44-40 is an original cartridge contemporary with the olden days.
Jbar4Ranch
New member
Yep, very nice indeed - I've owned more .44-40's than any other centerfire caliber in my life. I once had eighteen, and still have an even dozen, although the more I shoot the .38-40, the more I prefer it over its big brother.
AraneaeFatalis
New member
Okay, so I read the replies and it seems the Ruger New Vaquero excels over any other SA Revolver in it class and the only thing that it doesn't really do that I would like is the '4-clicks' hammer. And I'm not sure if I would trust leaving the hammer down between cylinders.. To me it just seems like it could easily roll over onto a primer..
Another thing I really like now about the New Vaquero is about what Jim March said about customizability of the New Vaquero. I have a habit of wanting to customize things I own. So being able to buy more stuff for it is an even bigger plus, as I like to customize. That is one of the reasons I was considering a 1911 at first(aside from it being the best designed handgun in history, but that is another story). I haven't done anything to my Charter Arms Bulldog because I just can't find anything for the old thing, even grips.
I see that the Ruger New Vaquero only comes in Blued and Stainless Steel. I always prefer darker colored guns as opposed to stainless steel, but I've read somewhere that the blued finish isn't as good as the Stainless Steel. Is this correct? And as far as barrel lengths, will I notice any accuracy difference between the 4.62 and the 5.5? I am sure the 5.5 will have better accuracy, but is it noticeable enough that I should sacrifice the easier carry of the 4.62?
Thanks all for the replies, everyone has shed a lot of light on these guns for me.
Another thing I really like now about the New Vaquero is about what Jim March said about customizability of the New Vaquero. I have a habit of wanting to customize things I own. So being able to buy more stuff for it is an even bigger plus, as I like to customize. That is one of the reasons I was considering a 1911 at first(aside from it being the best designed handgun in history, but that is another story). I haven't done anything to my Charter Arms Bulldog because I just can't find anything for the old thing, even grips.
I see that the Ruger New Vaquero only comes in Blued and Stainless Steel. I always prefer darker colored guns as opposed to stainless steel, but I've read somewhere that the blued finish isn't as good as the Stainless Steel. Is this correct? And as far as barrel lengths, will I notice any accuracy difference between the 4.62 and the 5.5? I am sure the 5.5 will have better accuracy, but is it noticeable enough that I should sacrifice the easier carry of the 4.62?
Thanks all for the replies, everyone has shed a lot of light on these guns for me.
Last edited:
pythagorean
Moderator
I think stainless or blue should be what you prefer rather than getting into a debate about what is "better," unless you want a bit of extra rust prevention. Blued sights are easier for me to see. They don't reflect glare like the stainless versions.
Between longer or shorter barrel by 3/4" I'd take the one that balances in your hand better--the one that seems to point more naturally for you.
Between longer or shorter barrel by 3/4" I'd take the one that balances in your hand better--the one that seems to point more naturally for you.
Stainless has two things going for it: rust resistance (obviously) and if it scratches, you can buff it out yourself if need be.
Blue has two advantages of it's own: slightly stronger, and it's less likely to screw up the threads if you swap barrels for a really radical conversion, say, 357Mag to 41Mag, 44-40 or whatever.
Stainless guns can be harder to shoot in strong daylight as you get a lot of glinting off the front and rear sights.
My choice remains right for me: blue.
Barrel length: for daily carry I recommend the 4.68". Ruger barrels tend to "shoot fast". It's very likely that for the same caliber, a Ruger with a 4.68 barrel will spit it's bullets as fast if not faster than any Italian 5.5" barrel. Accuracy will be plenty either way. One of the few reasons to run a 5.5" barrel is if your state has handgun hunting rules that require either a 5" or 5.5" barrel - some do. I want to go after feral pigs with mine eventually, and in most states I can do so with a 4.68" tube.
Blue has two advantages of it's own: slightly stronger, and it's less likely to screw up the threads if you swap barrels for a really radical conversion, say, 357Mag to 41Mag, 44-40 or whatever.
Stainless guns can be harder to shoot in strong daylight as you get a lot of glinting off the front and rear sights.
My choice remains right for me: blue.
Barrel length: for daily carry I recommend the 4.68". Ruger barrels tend to "shoot fast". It's very likely that for the same caliber, a Ruger with a 4.68 barrel will spit it's bullets as fast if not faster than any Italian 5.5" barrel. Accuracy will be plenty either way. One of the few reasons to run a 5.5" barrel is if your state has handgun hunting rules that require either a 5" or 5.5" barrel - some do. I want to go after feral pigs with mine eventually, and in most states I can do so with a 4.68" tube.
"It wasn't fitted very well then. If it turned you'd get a ring. No ring on these."
Not sure I follow you on that. What does a "ring" have to do with the cylinder turning with the hammer down between chambers?
Perhaps you're saying you haven't had it happen. I can't say what your gun has or hasn't done, just saying what 2 or 3 of mine have done. The interferance of the rims of the shells simply wasn't enough to keep the firing pin secure between the rims of the shells when carried that way. The cylinder turned and ended up with the hammer down on a live round. My comment was that it wasn't safe if it had happened on many occasions with no apparent reason, such as the hammer snagging on something.
If someone feels it's a safe way to carry, then they are free to do so, but just be aware that it hasn't been without problems. If it could happen to my guns, it could as well happen with yours. I hadn't ever heard of it when I started doing it. I thought I was pretty clever. It didn't work out well for me. I'm just sayin, it hasn't been without problems. It's easy to say someone elses gun was faulty when something happens that you don't agree with, but the fact remains, the cylinder was not designed to lock in that position, and all that holds it in position when so used is the firing pin between the rims of the shells, the locking bolt isn't locked into anything. So the firing pin was too fat? The rims of the brass was beveled too much, or too large in diameter? I can't think of anything in the guns "fitting" that would have any bearing on the relationship of the firing pin and shell rims. As I said before, the cylinder doesnt lock in position between chambers, other than the firing pin and shell rims interferance. What's to fit in the lockwork of the gun that has any influence on that?
Not sure I follow you on that. What does a "ring" have to do with the cylinder turning with the hammer down between chambers?
Perhaps you're saying you haven't had it happen. I can't say what your gun has or hasn't done, just saying what 2 or 3 of mine have done. The interferance of the rims of the shells simply wasn't enough to keep the firing pin secure between the rims of the shells when carried that way. The cylinder turned and ended up with the hammer down on a live round. My comment was that it wasn't safe if it had happened on many occasions with no apparent reason, such as the hammer snagging on something.
If someone feels it's a safe way to carry, then they are free to do so, but just be aware that it hasn't been without problems. If it could happen to my guns, it could as well happen with yours. I hadn't ever heard of it when I started doing it. I thought I was pretty clever. It didn't work out well for me. I'm just sayin, it hasn't been without problems. It's easy to say someone elses gun was faulty when something happens that you don't agree with, but the fact remains, the cylinder was not designed to lock in that position, and all that holds it in position when so used is the firing pin between the rims of the shells, the locking bolt isn't locked into anything. So the firing pin was too fat? The rims of the brass was beveled too much, or too large in diameter? I can't think of anything in the guns "fitting" that would have any bearing on the relationship of the firing pin and shell rims. As I said before, the cylinder doesnt lock in position between chambers, other than the firing pin and shell rims interferance. What's to fit in the lockwork of the gun that has any influence on that?
Last edited:
Its all about personal preference....
That being said, go with the Ruger. As long as you can live without the 4 clicks sound (and are you really buying a revolver for the sound it makes cocking it?), Ruger is the best choice, overall. Price, American made, strong (durable), safe, and as accurate as you are, and then some.
I have had a 7.5" Blackhawk for over 25 years, and love it. Recently got a 5.5" new Vaquero, and I am having a bit of an "adjustment" to how small it seems. I have never owned an original Colt.
I had a Vaquero (not New Vaquero) in .44 Mag, but for that round, I prefer adjustable sights. Size and weight of the Vaquero is the same as the Blackhawk, which is larger and heavier than the Colt. The New Vaquero is the same size and weight as the Colt.
While the new Vaquero is too light to handle the "Ruger Only" loads made famous in the Blackhawk, its no slouch. All regular .45 Colt ammo will be safe, and if handloading, a 250gr bullet at 1,000fps (max for the Colt SAA) won't hurt the Vaquero, even if it does get to be a handful in the light gun with its small grips! I wouldn't go over that level, though.
Also, since you want fixed sights, you are going to be limited to the "standard" 250gr bullet if you want impact to be close to point of aim. Heavy bullets currently popular for some hunting won't be a good idea in a Vaquero, because of their different point of impact, and because you cannot safely drive them fast enough to get their full benefit. Light bullets at speed will also not print at point of aim, but reduced speed loads should be close enough.
Ruger's trigger is easily tuned, if its not good enough to suit you the way it comes from the factory.
You can spend $1200+ and get a recent production Colt, or USFA (didn't they buy Colt's horse?), or you can spend less than half that for a Ruger that looks nearly the same, and has coil springs and a transfer bar safety system allowing safe carry will all six chambers loaded.
One word of warning, about the early new Vaquero's case hardening. Several reports have shown up on the net about rusting problems with these guns. I live in a dry area, and have had no rust issues. Also, apparently Ruger has changed how they finish their blue guns in the last couple years, as there have been no reports (that I have seen, anyway) about any rusting problems lately. It is possible that the problem was confined to a single batch of production, as it hasn't been reported lately.
I would buy a Ruger (again), because they are a good value for the money, a solid product, and they are American made. SO my money goes to American workers, not just the Americans importing foreign made guns.
That being said, go with the Ruger. As long as you can live without the 4 clicks sound (and are you really buying a revolver for the sound it makes cocking it?), Ruger is the best choice, overall. Price, American made, strong (durable), safe, and as accurate as you are, and then some.
I have had a 7.5" Blackhawk for over 25 years, and love it. Recently got a 5.5" new Vaquero, and I am having a bit of an "adjustment" to how small it seems. I have never owned an original Colt.
I had a Vaquero (not New Vaquero) in .44 Mag, but for that round, I prefer adjustable sights. Size and weight of the Vaquero is the same as the Blackhawk, which is larger and heavier than the Colt. The New Vaquero is the same size and weight as the Colt.
While the new Vaquero is too light to handle the "Ruger Only" loads made famous in the Blackhawk, its no slouch. All regular .45 Colt ammo will be safe, and if handloading, a 250gr bullet at 1,000fps (max for the Colt SAA) won't hurt the Vaquero, even if it does get to be a handful in the light gun with its small grips!
I wouldn't go over that level, though.Also, since you want fixed sights, you are going to be limited to the "standard" 250gr bullet if you want impact to be close to point of aim. Heavy bullets currently popular for some hunting won't be a good idea in a Vaquero, because of their different point of impact, and because you cannot safely drive them fast enough to get their full benefit. Light bullets at speed will also not print at point of aim, but reduced speed loads should be close enough.
Ruger's trigger is easily tuned, if its not good enough to suit you the way it comes from the factory.
You can spend $1200+ and get a recent production Colt, or USFA (didn't they buy Colt's horse?), or you can spend less than half that for a Ruger that looks nearly the same, and has coil springs and a transfer bar safety system allowing safe carry will all six chambers loaded.
One word of warning, about the early new Vaquero's case hardening. Several reports have shown up on the net about rusting problems with these guns. I live in a dry area, and have had no rust issues. Also, apparently Ruger has changed how they finish their blue guns in the last couple years, as there have been no reports (that I have seen, anyway) about any rusting problems lately. It is possible that the problem was confined to a single batch of production, as it hasn't been reported lately.
I would buy a Ruger (again
), because they are a good value for the money, a solid product, and they are American made. SO my money goes to American workers, not just the Americans importing foreign made guns.44 AMP said:
I don't believe USFA has purchased any of Colt's trademarks. They did however purchase the original factory that Colt moved out of, and use it to produce almost exact copies of specific Colt SAA's from different time periods. They even mark original patent dates on their guns, but there are no rampant ponies anywhere to be found.
44 AMP said:
Ruger solved this issue by dropping that finish option from their current offerings. New production Vaqueros feature a fully blued frame instead of the case hardening. Probably better in the long run as the case hardening was fake anyway, and there were reports of rust as well as it coming off pretty easily.
They did buy Colt's pony!
Not the trademark, but the one that was mounted on top of the Colt factory!
A historical icon, and one I am surprised to hear that Colt actually sold. I suppose, after a hundred plus years, for the current owners, its more about the money than the history?
I didn't mean the Colt pony logo/trademark. I meant the statue.
Not the trademark, but the one that was mounted on top of the Colt factory!
A historical icon, and one I am surprised to hear that Colt actually sold. I suppose, after a hundred plus years, for the current owners, its more about the money than the history?
I didn't mean the Colt pony logo/trademark. I meant the statue.
H.W. French
New member
AAAHHH!
Great. Now I want ANOTHER Vaquero. Time to disconnect the internet.
Great. Now I want ANOTHER Vaquero. Time to disconnect the internet.
sharpblade
New member
I chose this one but I do not intend to carry it concealed. The new vaquero.
Last edited:
USFA moved out of the facility. I gather it has a chance of being designated a national park.
http://www.larson.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1112&Itemid=87
However, on the trademark front, USFA has been busy.
USPTO/Tess2 shows USFA as owner of:
Woodsman
New Service
Roper
New Police
Royal Blue
Fitz Special
Among others.
Funny thing about trademarks - you use them or lose them. Don't use them for long enough and someone else can come along and register them. Far as I know the original holder doesn't get compensated if they let it lapse through disuse. "Royal Blue" struck me as odd but, from what I can see on Coltsmfg web site, it isn't used in connection with the SAA. If it was strictly used for the Python, it has been dead for some time.
FWIW, USFA's "Fitz Special" shows as "dead" on USPTO's site - perhaps a nod to 21st century litigation? Too bad, a cut-away trigger guard would have flushed out a bunch of interesting comments.
Not a single mention of the EAA Bounty Hunter even though for the price of a New Vaquero you can get a 4.5" barrel .45 Colt Bounty Hunter, have it tuned by Bob Munden and still have money in your pocket..
The Bounty Hunter has a transfer bar ignition.
The Bounty Hunter's cylinder is larger in both length and diameter than the New Vaquero. (The Bounty Hunter uses the same cylinder for a .44 Magnum.)
The Bounty Hunter does not have an internal lock; the New Vaquero does.
The grip frame of the Bounty Hunter is a duplicate of the Colt SAA; the Vaquero isn't.
No stock Ruger trigger can compare to a Munden Option 1 action job.
There are shootists on the SASS website that own not one, but several Bounty Hunters. They wouldn't be repeat buyers if the revolver was junk.
Both Paco Kelly and John Taffin speak highly of them. Taffin has even visited the factory in Germany.
The Bounty Hunter has a transfer bar ignition.
The Bounty Hunter's cylinder is larger in both length and diameter than the New Vaquero. (The Bounty Hunter uses the same cylinder for a .44 Magnum.)
The Bounty Hunter does not have an internal lock; the New Vaquero does.
The grip frame of the Bounty Hunter is a duplicate of the Colt SAA; the Vaquero isn't.
No stock Ruger trigger can compare to a Munden Option 1 action job.
There are shootists on the SASS website that own not one, but several Bounty Hunters. They wouldn't be repeat buyers if the revolver was junk.
Both Paco Kelly and John Taffin speak highly of them. Taffin has even visited the factory in Germany.
Last edited:
Actually, the process Ruger used to "case harden" the Vaquero wasn't really case hardening but rather case "coloring". This coloring procedure was apparently an economical measure but, as others have noted, proved to be a poor substitute for true case hardening and Ruger no longer uses it.
