Blackhawk vs. Vaquero?

D

DealHunter

New member
I've picked up a few Ruger SA revolvers over time (several SSixes, Bearcat, SBHs, etc) and really like them but my only Blackhawk so far is a .30 Carbine.

I was thinking of getting a .357 SA for fun and woods packing and want something in stainless. So far I've been considering a 4.62 Stainless BH or either barrel length Vaquero.

A convertible stainless in .357/9mm would be fun but I can't seem to find one; on the flip side I really like my stainless bearcat (Vaquero is similar) and like the look/feel of the Vaquero as well.

Do I give anything up with the Vaquero vs. the BH in .357? Would the adjustable sights make a big difference on something larger than a .22? Also not sure about Bisley vs. regular grip frame.

Anyone owning one or both who might weigh in would be appreciated! :)

Edit: Note this is the New Vaquero not the old one
 
Last edited:
Personally, I would go with the standard grip frame BH.
I have a couple of them in .357 & .44!
I have a .44 Mag Bisley Vaquero 4 5/8" Stainless and to be honest I had a very hard time with the stainless front blade disappearing in the fixed sight notch. I ended up dovetailing the barrel and installing a blue front sight blade, fixed that problem, but the gun is regulated for one .44 Mag load and that's all I shoot in it if I want to be dead on (Adjustable sights have none of these problems) The Bisley grip frame is great for hot loaded .44 & .45's just not required for .357 unless you like the looks.
 
Win-Win either way!

Slight edge to the BH for targets or hunting. Slight edge to the NV for the cool factor.
 
The fixed sighted Vaquero will be limited on what loads it will shoot to point of aim, with a 357 for me I'd prefer adjustable. I find the mid frame sized 357s more to my suiting too but that's personal preference.
 
The adjustable sights of the Blackhawk are far superior to the fixed, "trench" sight of the Vaquero. No comparison, and with adjustable sights you can dial in the gun for any ammo you choose.

My vote goes to the standard grip frame. I've never been comfortable with the Bisley.
 
Shot Cowboy Action for more than a decade. Used the Vaqueros.

But now I only own a BH in .45 Colt.

Enough said.
 
I have found what many have , the fixed sights will shot to point of aim with a limited number of loads . I have found the load they like and then regulated the sights to that load . I like the bisley/blackhawk and have several
 
I have both a super Blackhawk and a bisley vaquero both in .44 mag. I also had the problem of not being able to see the sights on the vaquero. I had a patridge front and a smith and Wesson rear site installed (along with some other work). After that was done, the Blackhawk sits in the safe. I absolutely love that bisley as modified. Pre modification, I couldn't hit a barn if I was standing inside it.
 
The difference in sights is generally well covered and documented. It is a major difference, but I find that at close distances it hasn't been much of an issue for me personally.

The difference in frame size is the other major difference in my opinion. I have smaller hands and the New Vaquero fits me much better than the Blackhawk. Try to handle them and see for yourself before buying.

Also, a stainless Blackhawk is all-steel, while a blued Blackhawk generally has an aluminum grip frame (there may be exceptions, I'm not sure). They will balance differently. Again - try to handle first.

Finally, the Blackhawk will take stouter loads, although a New Vaquero should take any factory load fine. The Blackhawk cylinder is very beefy and overbuilt for .357.


A lot of the Blackhawk comments above don't apply to the 50th Anniversary Blackhawk, which is built on the New Vaquero sized frame but has adjustable sights. These are also around if you look hard enough.


[EDIT: I have a blued NMBH and a stainless NV, both .357 and both 4 5/8". That is my basis for comparison.]
 
Personal preference.

The frame size on the Blackhawk just does not do anything for me. The looks and balance are all wrong. Same with the older Vaquero's. To my eye the new Vaquero comes closest to capturing the Colt in look and feel. To me that is worth more than adjustable sights and the ability to load hotter.
 
For reloading, the BH is that standard. Yes, when you start shooting it, you'll want to start loading. I would recommend a 45LC or 44Spl, as you can use heavier bullets in mild loads that are fun and effective.
 
I'm with tubeshooter and jmr40. I don't care for the current production Blackhawk in .357. It just seems ill proportioned to me.

I use .357 New Vaqueros in cowboy action shooting. They are excellent guns but the fixed sights took some getting used to after many years of shooting DA revolvers with adjustable sights. Still, if you work up a load that shoots to point of aim, and/or file your sights, you can hit your targets just fine. If you want something that will let you change loads from time to time, you may need the adjustable sights.

I really like the 50th Anniversary "Flattop" Blackhawks and I see them for sale from time to time (even unfired safe queens) for about the same price as a New Vaquero. I wish Ruger would just put them into the catalog. You can buy the same gun in .44 Special and I think in .45 Colt now.

I have a Bisley Blackhawk in .44 Special. It's a nice gun, handles a lot like a DA revolver. The "feel" of a handgun is a very subjective thing.
 
Although the Blackhawk frame does not fit my hand as well as the New Vaquero frame, the Blackhawk is still a mighty fine firearm. I want to make that clear.

Mine isn't going anywhere anytime soon.



The Blackhawk may seem ill-proportioned for .357, but that frame size was never intended for .357 originally. On the plus side, you get additional toughness compared to the NV and a better fit for individuals with larger hands.
 
Howdy

I bought my first Blackhawk in 1975, a 45 Colt/45ACP convertible.

BlackhawkConvertible02_zpsac3ff932.jpg


I also had a couple of modern Smiths at the time, a Model 17-3 and a Model 19-3. So I was very used to shooting with adjustable sights. At that time, the only fixed sight revolver I owned was a Colt Police Positive Special.

But over the years I have acquired many fixed sight revolvers, both Double Action and Single Action, Colts, Rugers, and S&W. To tell you the truth, at this point I am probably much more comfortable shooting fixed sight revolvers than I am shooting adjustable sights. I have never had a problem with the idea that a fixed sight revolver is only regulated to shoot a specific load. A great deal can be allowed for by just changing where you hold on the target, once you know where the particular gun tends to shoot. Today, fixed or adjustable sights, I don't give it a second thought. If I want the gun, I buy it.

P.S. I will add one caveat. Adjustable sights can be adjusted to mask bad trigger technique. When I buy a used double action revolver, invariably the rear sight has been set off center to the right. I can only assume this is because the previous owner was a righty and he was pushing his shots to the left with too much finger on the trigger. I hear complaints all the time about fixed sight revolvers shooting off to the left. Usually it is the fault of the shooter, not the gun. A fixed sight revolver will make a shooter use better trigger technique.
 
I have both the Vaquero and a BH in 45 Colt.
The Vaquero shoots to point of aim with 250gr ammo. I can easily chew out the bullseye with that one.
And, with the windage screw slightly adjusted after the first range session, I can do the same with the BH.
Both are rock-solid revolvers and fun to shoot.

Oddly enough, with the black on black sights of the BH, I find those sights more difficult to see than the front sight/top strap groove of the Vaquero.

Both are awesome revolvers and fun to shoot, so maybe see which you prefer best (grip, finish, barrel length, etc.) and go for it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top