How Durable Is The Finish On A Blued New Vaquero?

J

Joe_Pike

New member
I realize it is more durable than I would likely need, but I'm still curious. I just sold a Cimarron Model P in .45 Colt and was thinking about replacing it with a New Vaquero in .357. The reason is I'm trying to pare down the number of calibers that I keep, plus I have an 1982 Marlin 1894c in .357.

I know the stainless Vaqueros are more durable but shiny guns that are not shiny blue kind of bother me. The blued finish seems kind of pedestrian in looks on the Rugers (nothing like a Smith or Colt) but I guess a new set of grips could dress it up. Anyway, which finish do you Ruger guys prefer?
 
The Ruger's blue'ing durability is pretty good. I agree on the "pedestrian" character....it'd be helped enormously by a "CC" treatment on the cylinder frame like Turnbull's, especially "needed" IMO on the fixed sight guns. I'm usually a blue type but am 50/50 stainless since Ruger went all blue on the Vaquero line--meaning the mid frame New Vaquero. Ruger's polished stainless does a good nickel immitation and has grown on me over the past few years.

Oh, and yes - a nice set of custom wood or stag grips (elk included) does help considerably!
 
I've had a couple Ruger Vaqueros, all blued.
I've currently own the faux color case hardened version of a Sheriff model.

IMO,the Ruger blueing is not very "deep" or "rich"...rather flat in appearance, but seems to be as strong as any blueing from any manufacturer.

As others have suggested, you can dress it up with grips (I prefer Eagle Gunfighter Rosewood Checkered) or even run it hard and send it out for reblue someday (from a specialized business)




 
Ruger's blue is adequate in wear and protection if you do your job ie: lined holster, lightly oiled exterior etc. They choose not to spend the time and money on a high polish on an "economy" firearm and you benefit with the final price. Depending on your intended use of the pistol perhaps the extra wampum for a real Colt would be in order. I have and shoot both.
 
I have had a Ruger NV in .357 for about six years of so - it rides in a holster once in a while and it gets shot - I haven't had any blueing wear so far on it. I love mine - rugged - a great SA and fun to shoot. I went with the blue over the shiny as I just like blued ones - and I was worried about reflection, etc. of the shiny one in the sun. I have had absolutely no problems with mine - and I own a number of Rugers - same with them in regards to dependability and blueing wear.
 
More of a personal preference thing. I prefer blued and don't mind a bit of honest wear on my guns. Plenty durable. But.... If you just 'have' to keep it pristine (you know rub it down before you head to bed each night while checking for any imperfection or powder residue) then a SS gun would be more your liking. Also, you can always use the SS finished guns as a mirror to signal a plane if you are ever lost ;) . Kidding aside, both will last a lifetime(s) . Personal preference.
 
Bear in mind, it is not Ruger's bluing that makes the difference, but the polishing of the steel.

A highly polished steel surface produces a very deep shiny blue. Less polishing equals less shine.

Bob Wright
 
And since polishing is a labor intensive operation, a higher polish means a higher price. It all comes down, like a lot of things, to money.

Jim
 
I've had Colts and Ruger's single actions...as a rule, the Rugers hold up better, but any blued steel gun must be wiped down with an oily rag each time it is touched, let along shot. That wipe down takes less than 2 minutes per gun and has never been troublesome to me. For use in wet weather, particularly when carried in a leather holster, and extra layer of oil needs to be added to the finish....don't ask my how I know, I'll cry for the rest of the night.

Best Regards, Rod
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top