357 single action ?
- Thread starter rebs
- Start date
Actually...Freedom Arms has Colt beat. Bigtime. Not even close. The model '97 in six-shot .357 is a dream...esp. with a second cylinder cut to .38Spl match-grade chambers. That right there is the best basic carry SA wheelgun ever made, period, bar none. Only a full custom comes close.
Power Custom hammers for the New Model action Rugers retain transfer bar compatibility last I heard, unless they've now come out with fully no-transfer-bar variant hammers for the New Model action (1973 forward, medium and large frames).
The Old Model Ruger action designed without a transfer bar in mind turns into a total abortion if you add the later transfer bar retrofit kit. "Nasty" doesn't even begin to describe that mess. "Abomination" comes closer.
The New Model action however can achieve a very nice trigger feel despite the transfer bar that it was designed for still in place. My "Maurice" heavily modded New Model action (originally a 2005-era New Vaquero) has a trigger that has been modified about as much as is plausible for a "street carry" gun - lighter springs, hand-fitted parts, SuperBlackhawk hammer swap, transfer bar pinch eliminated by filing on the hammer with a diamond file (which was hours of serious work!). I did all the work on that trigger personally and I'm not a pro gunsmith. I've had very experienced shooters tell me it's the best handgun trigger they've ever felt, period, bar none.
So I would hesitate to call the New Model transfer bar setup "nasty". I'm quite fond of it and see no need to eliminate it.
Many people have tried out the Old Model transfer bar conversion guns, almost puked at the feel and assumed the New Model was the same. It ain't.
I've never held a Freedom Arms whose grip and balance were the same as a SAA.
Well if you take the time to research you just may learn something.
http://powercustom.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=12&products_id=1119
Rugers rock.
Colts rock and roll
Well if you take the time to research you just may learn something.
http://powercustom.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=12&products_id=1119
Rugers rock.
Colts rock and roll
Last edited:
Driftwood Johnson
New member
Howdy
I put Power Custom half cock hammers in some Rugers about ten years ago. They needed the transfer bar to be present for the gun to fire. However I just checked Power Custom and yup, they are making a hammer now that does not have the relief for the transfer bar. Looks like you remove the transfer bar for this hammer, which means going to an empty chamber under the hammer, just like a Three Screw Ruger.
I put Power Custom half cock hammers in some Rugers about ten years ago. They needed the transfer bar to be present for the gun to fire. However I just checked Power Custom and yup, they are making a hammer now that does not have the relief for the transfer bar. Looks like you remove the transfer bar for this hammer, which means going to an empty chamber under the hammer, just like a Three Screw Ruger.
Driftwood Johnson
New member
Actually, Rollin White never sold his patent to Smith and Wesson. They wanted to buy it, but he thought he could make more money by retaining the patent in his own name. Instead, he licensed S&W to use his patent, collecting a royalty, I believe the royalty was 50 cents, for every revolver S&W produced.
I'll be damned.
I had never read the original Rollin White patent! I knew he had developed the through-bore cylinder, how S&W used it first and then the SAA or something like it from Colt was inevitable once the patent ran out in 1872 (actually they did open-top factory conversions to centerfire first, in 1872 while developing the SAA).
Now, reading the patent, the bit about "closing the magazine to protect the cartridges" suggests he was using paper cartridges at first. That would explain why he didn't need an ejection cycle like Maurice has! But what the hell did he use as a primer and firing pin? Primer powder at the rear of a paper cartridge, and a long-arse firing pin? That...couldn't have been very reliable, could it?
I still think Maurice is more similar to the Mauser MG 213 which used a mechanical shell rammer and mechanical stripped (both gas operated) and stripped rounds from the top of a conventional magazine or belt feed setup:
Maurice's gas-operated ejection cycle operates independently of the magazine and in fact I started with the gas ejection cycle as a necessary prelude to mag feeding. The first test of a brass-based gas trap worked great in .38spl but blew about 12ft downrange the first time I shot 357 through it
. Upgraded to steel to solve that problem, but of course scrapped all that once I converted the gun to 9mmPara so the shells could slip past the gun's guts (mainly the pawl, which is still slightly clearanced!) since the .357 shell was too fat. I considered custom-narrowing some .357 shells so they would barely headspace but discarded that idea without trying it as just too wrong . I wanted standard ammo to run. Mag feeding let me ditch the original ejector rod and housing completely and run the gas line much cleaner to the original ejector rod position in the frame.
9mmPara had the benefit as well of being shorter so I could fit more in the mags.
I had never read the original Rollin White patent! I knew he had developed the through-bore cylinder, how S&W used it first and then the SAA or something like it from Colt was inevitable once the patent ran out in 1872 (actually they did open-top factory conversions to centerfire first, in 1872 while developing the SAA).
Now, reading the patent, the bit about "closing the magazine to protect the cartridges" suggests he was using paper cartridges at first. That would explain why he didn't need an ejection cycle like Maurice has! But what the hell did he use as a primer and firing pin? Primer powder at the rear of a paper cartridge, and a long-arse firing pin? That...couldn't have been very reliable, could it?
I still think Maurice is more similar to the Mauser MG 213 which used a mechanical shell rammer and mechanical stripped (both gas operated) and stripped rounds from the top of a conventional magazine or belt feed setup:
Maurice's gas-operated ejection cycle operates independently of the magazine and in fact I started with the gas ejection cycle as a necessary prelude to mag feeding. The first test of a brass-based gas trap worked great in .38spl but blew about 12ft downrange the first time I shot 357 through it
. Upgraded to steel to solve that problem, but of course scrapped all that once I converted the gun to 9mmPara so the shells could slip past the gun's guts (mainly the pawl, which is still slightly clearanced!) since the .357 shell was too fat. I considered custom-narrowing some .357 shells so they would barely headspace but discarded that idea without trying it as just too wrong . I wanted standard ammo to run. Mag feeding let me ditch the original ejector rod and housing completely and run the gas line much cleaner to the original ejector rod position in the frame.9mmPara had the benefit as well of being shorter so I could fit more in the mags.
silvermane_1
New member
well i'm not into SA wheelguns, however the Ruger's SA line is probably the best value out there.
Recently had an opportunity to take a good look at a 2014 make Uberti Cattleman and it's a good gun, although the type of action is old which has some disadvantages (it's not drop safe after you inevitably modify it, and the springs will wear out and break eventually even though they're not expensive to replace at all). Internally it looked good, but then again I am not Driftwood, so
Ruger is more modern and obviously better, especially more modern internally (and it can be carried safely with six), although doesn't have that charm of a replica 1873 Colt. If it's for cowboy action shooting you'll have to load 5 anyway, and both are going to serve you really well.
I'd say try them out if you can.
Ruger is more modern and obviously better, especially more modern internally (and it can be carried safely with six), although doesn't have that charm of a replica 1873 Colt. If it's for cowboy action shooting you'll have to load 5 anyway, and both are going to serve you really well.
I'd say try them out if you can.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
I still maintain that the term "color case hardening" is a misnomer. It implies that the reason for the process is to attain a mottled, colored finish. In reality, it was (and still is) just "case hardening," and the purpose is to harden the steel. The mottled colors are simply a by-product of the traditional process. With today's industrial processes, the steel can be hardened more uniformly and more consistently in ovens, so some companies now use a chemical process to mimic the colors created by the charcoal/bone case hardening process.Driftwood Johnson said:
The chemical process doesn't harden the steel, so it should not be referred to as "color case hardening." In fact, I think some of the manufacturers just call it "color case" finish, omitting the reference to hardening.
/end of nit-picky rant
Jim Watson
New member
It would be instructive to do some slightly destructive testing on the different blotchy colored guns.
Run a Rockwell superficial hardness test on a spot, then grind a divot to remove the coloration and any surface hardened zone, then test again.
Run a Rockwell superficial hardness test on a spot, then grind a divot to remove the coloration and any surface hardened zone, then test again.
Driftwood Johnson
New member
You will net no argument from me. I used the term color case hardening in quotes, when describing the finish Uberti puts on their frames, to denote that it is not real Case Hardening. And Uberti advertises their finish as Color Case-Hardened, despite the fact that it is not real Case Hardening.
So take up your rant with them.
I know the difference.
Are you volunteering to provide the test samples?
I'm not.
S
Why a .357?
I picked one, a sweet 4 5/8" , Stainless Ruger Vaquero.
What's your criteria?
Mine took a lot of reasoning to set it's edges.
Caliber was hardest, although I love the 45 basically all the 45 left. Was just one caliber and basically 2 weights. With the 357 there were dozens the 38 also 9mm. Loads from barrel
I carry it in a shoulder holster patterned wfter a length was purely looks and portability. I only own one other stainles And I liked it's look.
I located a 1880s style dress sholder rig ( no straps show) it holds the revolver securely and has a plain brown finish. Up.
Keep. In mind some as errors won't ok a S/A for CCW,
due to the calibers versatility I find the .38 Special +p shoots very well and has real killing power.44 I back it up with a nickel Model 36 S&W
If you wànt power fo r from a long barrel or maybe a 5 1/2" The Vaquero is built on à Colt sized frame a Blackhawks frame is larger in fact the whole gun is,
I. Handle my revolver a lot so I like the smaller Vaquero šiże.
Decide at least as far as I did
Why a .357?
I picked one, a sweet 4 5/8" , Stainless Ruger Vaquero.
What's your criteria?
Mine took a lot of reasoning to set it's edges.
Caliber was hardest, although I love the 45 basically all the 45 left. Was just one caliber and basically 2 weights. With the 357 there were dozens the 38 also 9mm. Loads from barrel
I carry it in a shoulder holster patterned wfter a length was purely looks and portability. I only own one other stainles And I liked it's look.
I located a 1880s style dress sholder rig ( no straps show) it holds the revolver securely and has a plain brown finish. Up.
Keep. In mind some as errors won't ok a S/A for CCW,
due to the calibers versatility I find the .38 Special +p shoots very well and has real killing power.44 I back it up with a nickel Model 36 S&W
If you wànt power fo r from a long barrel or maybe a 5 1/2" The Vaquero is built on à Colt sized frame a Blackhawks frame is larger in fact the whole gun is,
I. Handle my revolver a lot so I like the smaller Vaquero šiże.
Decide at least as far as I did
Last edited:
Jim Watson
New member
No, my current project is trying to round up a Glock to blow up shooting "out of battery."
I don't like the way a Ruger operates. I can't afford a Colt and wouldn't want a transfer bar anyway. The Uberti is the best for me personally and as for breaking springs I have never broken a spring in a SA clone and I've been shooting C&B revolvers since 1969. Which BTW have the same action as the cartridge guns.
Driftwood Johnson
New member
Well, my first Uberti C&B revolver that I bought way back in 1968 suffered a broken spring shortly after I bought it. Probably either a broken hand spring or a broken trigger/bolt spring. It was so long ago I don't remember which spring it was, and I didn't know anything back then about repairing guns. I took it to a local gunshop and they fixed it for me.
Here is a photo of a broken trigger/bolt spring, and a broken bolt, both from a couple of 2nd Gen Colts. The trigger/bolt spring is one of the most common springs that break in any Colt style lockwork. The broken bolt is a bit more unusual.
