New Vaquero vs. Blackhawk

D

dayman

New member
I've decided that I'd like to get a SA. Since I already have 2 .357's (sp101, gp100) another one would simplify future buying/reloading.

I know that the Blackhawk is slightly bigger, and has adjustable sights.
Are there any other major differences?
Aside from being closer in size to the SAA and clones, is there any upside in the New Vaquero over the BH?

Since I've never had a SA at all, I imagine I'll become accustomed to whichever size I buy.
If (or rather when) I buy a second SA it will probably be a SBH in .44 mag. I've always wanted a .44, and a SA seems like a pretty good platform for my purchases.
The only reason I wouldn't buy a SBH to start is the fact that I already have .357's, and until I actually get set up to re-load .38spl is much more affordable to practice with.
Is there also a size difference between the BH and SBH?
Would it be easier to transition from a BH to a SBH, or is there not enough difference to be a concern?

On a related note - though I've never considered myself particularly "brand loyal" - I've noticed that 4 of my 5 current handguns are Rugers, and of the 5 on my "wishlist" 3 more are also Rugers.
They must be doing something right.
 
OK...the situation is trickier than you'd expect :).

FIRST question to ask is, are you going to get into SASS (Single Action Shooting Society) or any other "cowboy action shooting"? If so you're going to want to shoot light loads in 38Spl, 44Spl or 45LC, with the "top competitors" mostly headed towards 38. The rules also favor fixed-sight variants like the NewVaq.

SECOND, if you're not doing SASS or similar, are you setting it up as a fun gun, as a personal defense class piece, or do you want to get into "Big Boomer" territory? Or some mix?

THIRD, are you going to be a "strong side thumber" or an "off-hand cocker"?

Let's talk cocking stroke first and you can follow along well enough with an unloaded DA/SA wheelgun as you read:

In the opening sequence of most of the Gunblast videos Jeff Quinn shoots a Blackhawk with "off-hand cocking":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdl626Ni-Mw

He is a southpaw so his cocking hand is his right. You can see what he's doing very clearly. This variant of the off-hand cock is tuned for heavy loads; I think this gun is a 44Mag or better horsepower, not exactly sure the caliber but it's a boomer.

His cocking stroke features three thumb motions: up to the hammer, back to cock, thumb back down before firing. It is the slowest of the SA cocking strokes available that still make sense. The SASS version of the off-hand cock used by the top competitors is the "two stroke" cock: thumb goes up to the hammer, and then at the end of the cocking stroke falls to a point BEHIND the gun, across the back of the grip. This is a faster system but is recoil-limited - works great with the "mousephart" (read: very light) loads mandated in SASS but with a big boomer like Jeff was shooting it would be chaos or worse.

My cocking stroke is strong-side-thumb: I shoot with both thumbs off to the same side like most people shoot a Glock or 1911. I bring my strong-side thumb up, cock it, and at the end of the cocking stroke slide my thumb off to the side where it lands on the supporting-side thumb and I'm ready to fire. It's kind of a "two and a half stroke" cock, halfway in speed between the SASS flavor off-hand cock and the "big boomer" off-hand cock favored by Jeff Quinn.

I carry my NewVaq in 9mmPara+P as my daily carry (heavily, MASSIVELY modified!) and the recoil levels are probably a bit too high to make a SASS-type off-hand cock comfortable. Not by much though. My style of cocking works with bigger recoil levels and I've tested it with very high end 357Magnum which is what my gun used to be. I get another advantage: my cocking stroke is the same shooting one-handed or two and I think in a combat gun (even one used as a possible defense gun against angry critters in the woods) this is an advantage over all of the off-hand cocking strokes.

One reason off-hand cocking took off in SASS is that the hammers on the post-WW2 Colt SAAs and the subsequent clones tended to be high-slung. With the large-frame Blackhawk and the "Old Vaquero" built on the large frames this trend is even worse and those were the guns SASS was founded on. With strong-side cocking the thumb pad often has to "drag down" the hammer with friction instead of pushing it down from above. For me with fairly big hands this was still true with a New Vaquero so I swapped in the lower hammer from a SuperBlackhawk soon after buying mine in 2005. This mod used to be banned in SASS but it is now legal and Ruger offers a few variants of the NewVaq with the Super/Montado type hammer already grafted in. If not it isn't a hard swap to do yourself. The even lower Bisley hammer can be fitted too but that is still banned by SASS rules.

Besides Bisley variants the other "low hammer" setup factory by Ruger is the SuperBlackhawk with either a 4.68" or 5.5" barrel - those come with the fairly small XR3-RED grip frame instead of the even larger "Super" grip.

SO: where are you going here and which power level and cocking stroke type are you gravitating towards? I can help further from there.

As an aside, when I said mine was "modified"...

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/03/03/maurice-frankenruger-magazine-fed-revolver/
 
Just to add to the confusion, Ruger makes a standard Blackhawk in .44Spl.
The difference between the Blackhawk and SuperBH is noticeable, but how much so depends on how it fits you.
The Vaquero and BH are very similar in size, but not quite in shape.
Again, it depends on how they feel to you.
You could buy one of each and decide later.
 
Quote:

Are there any other major differences?

Yeah, obvious ones.
What is the intended use for th B.H.?
Different from what you use the Vaquero for?
 
I chose the Blackhawk because I like the versatility of shooting a wider range of loads. I also like having adjustable sights. However, though I have never fired a New Vaquero, I do like the "feel" and balance of it and the fact that the sights won't get out of adjustment under normal circumstances. And, most of the loads you are going to want to shoot are going to be safe in the New Vaquero. For me though. a 350 grain at 1100 fps is a stress reliever after a bad day at work. Not good medicine for a New Vaquero.
 
I believe in your case (if your not doing any games with it) that a Blackhawk would be best to start off with due to the adjustable sights. You could adjust your sights to what ever load you want to set it up for, really the only decision is what barrel length do you want to get?:D I have both Vaquero's and Blackhawks and love them both but If I had to keep just one it would be the Blackhawks due to the sights. I'm also a fan of the 4 5/8 barrels but a good 5 1/2 is a good all around length.
 
There are Blackhawk variants built on the mid-sized frame and are identical in strength to a New Vaquero. Put another way...they're basically adjustable-sight NewVaqs.

The first of these was the 2005-era 50th Anniversary 357 Flattop Blackhawk. All others since have been "flattop" where the sights are concerned, but not all "flattops" are mid-frame - there have also been some flattop large-frame variants in 44Magnum and 41Magnum so far.

All of the 44Special SAs have been mid-frame, both fixed-sight (some or all mis-marked "Vaquero" and not "New Vaquero"!!!) and there have been limited special-edition runs of 45LC and 45LC/45ACP convertibles on the mid-frame flattop.

In the large-frames you can run 45LC+P pressures as high as 33k and get 44Magnum power levels that way (in terms of bullet energy even though the pressure is less). In the mid-frames you're limited to 20k-22k and power levels about like a 45ACP+P. BUT with thicker cylinder walls, in 357 you can run a mid-frame all day long at the "heavy 357" pressure level of 43.5k, so in terms of raw bullet energy the mid-frame in 357 stomps the mid-frame in 45LC.
 
here's a good link explaining grip sizes.

One thing I'll add and this is subjective but there's quite a bit of difference between the balance of the two a standard blue NMBH has the same size frame as a SBH but the grip frame is alloy so it'll feel more front heavy than a New Vaquero will as the NV has a lighter mid size frame and a steel grip frame.
As Jim said the 2005 50th anniversary 357 is the only (to my knowledge) mid frame Blackhawk 357 and it has a steel grip frame. IMHO the steel grip frame/ mid frame guns balance best.
 
As Jim said the 2005 50th anniversary 357 is the only (to my knowledge) mid frame Blackhawk 357 and it has a steel grip frame.
Click to expand...

That is very much NOT what I said. There are also 44Spl, 45LC and 45LC/45ACP variants of the mid-frame Blackhawk flattop.
 
Since I've never had a SA at all, I imagine I'll become accustomed to whichever size I buy.
Click to expand...

You will. The trouble is that once you do, a different size just won't feel "right". ;)

Since you've never had one, I don't know how much you know about them, so I'll try to keep this on a very basic level. People can and do get as much into SA guns and their modifications as anything, but I don't think you are ready for that, yet...

Modern single action revolvers begin (and for many, end) with Colt. The Colt 1873 Single Action Army (SAA) aka Colt model P, aka Peacemaker, is the standard against which all others are judged.

Size, shape, weight, and method of operation, the Colt is the standard. And it does matter, a huge amount to some, a little to others.

I'm a Ruger guy. :D With the Colt system of operation, you bring the hammer to the half cock position, to free the cylinder to spin, allowing for loading and unloading. When the hammer is down, the firing pin is resting on a chamber.

They are NOT safe to carry with the hammer down on a live round!!!!!!
A blow to the hammer (dropped, etc) can, and often does fire the gun!!!
The safe way to carry an SAA is to load one, skip one, load 4, bring the hammer to full cock, and lower it on the empty chamber.

The Ruger Blackhawk worked the same way. Until 1973. Ruger redesigned the lockwork of their SA guns, and all guns using the new system are properly called "New Model" guns. And they say exactly that on the left side of the frame below the cylinder window. "New Model Blackhawk".

It gets a little confusing with the names, because people usually drop that part in conversations, just saying "Blackhawk". There are different frame and grip size guns sold as the "Blackhawk" since Ruger began making them in the 50s.

In the New Model Ruger system, there is no half cock on the hammer. Opening the loading gate frees the cylinder. The firing pin never rests on a loaded round. The hammer never hits the firing pin. It uses a transfer bar, so the gun can only fire when the hammer falls from the trigger being pulled (and held). They are safe to carry fully loaded with 6 rounds.

If you are looking at a Ruger made after 73, it uses this system. All Vaqueros, and New Vaqueros use the transfer bar system.

The common New Model Blackhawk is built on the large (.44 size) frame. There is a "hump" on the top of the frame where the rear sight is mounted. there is a "flattop" version, but lets skip those, for now.

The VAQUERO is, a (new model) Blackhawk, but the topstrap has the same shape as the Colt SAA (no "hump, smooth rounded top, fixed sight). SAME SIZE FRAME (bigger than a Colt).

Vaqueros were made in a number of calibers, in both blued and stainless.

Ruger dropped the Vaquero, and replaced it with the "New Vaquero". Again, it says exactly that, on the gun, but is confusing in conversations.

The New Vaquero is the same size, and shape as the Colt SAA, but uses the Ruger "new model" lockwork. Safe to carry with 6.

I got my first Blackhawk in 83, still have it, and it has had several brothers and cousins move in over the years. Super, Vaqueros, and a New Vaquero, so I have a little personal experience to draw on.

There is no "wrong", for what you want, lets figure out what's most "right" for what you want. If you are a historical purist, or play games, you are going to lean one way, if you aren't you might go another. If you want both, there is a path for that, too.

Be warned, SA guns are a lot of fun, and tend to breed...;)



These are both .45 Colt. Top is the New Vaquero with 5.5" barrel. Bottom is a SS Vaquero with the 4 & 5/8(?) barrel. Note how they are virtually the same size overall.

If you start out with a Colt SAA (or anything that size) and learn it well, then the Ruger (new model) Blackhawk and the Vaquero will feel "big", heavy, and maybe clumsy.

If you take the path I did, 30+ years ago, starting with a .45 Blackhawk 7.5", and learning it fairly well, then Colt size guns are always going to feel a bit "small".
 
If I was buying one SA today for non-SASS uses, I'd get the regular catalog blued Blackhawk large-frame in 45LC with a second cylinder in 45ACP, probably with the 4.68" barrel for easy packing. That variant has an aluminum grip frame and ejector rod to keep the weight down, it can cope with major-power 45LC+P loads to rival the 44Magnum and as a 45ACP it can shoot relatively cheap practice ammo and use very good personal defense loads that can be thumbed into the loading gate from a semi-auto magazine used as a speedloader of sorts :). I would upgrade the sights and switch the hammer to either the SuperBlackhawk or Bisley profile almost immediately and call it good.

If I wanted to build another magazine-fed abomination I'd start with the 357/9mm factory convertible and handload "9mm" ammo that used .357" width slugs to match the barrel spec. That would be the cheap and fast way to get another "Maurice".

OR possibly use the 9-shot .22Magnum Single Six and inject fresh rounds in TWO tubes at once at two injection points to the left of the hammer. Now that would rock! You could have four rounds in a short siamesed carry mag topping off eight in the cylinder for 12 on tap and then the reload would be at least a double-seven for fourteen.
 
To clear a few things up:

The used market in these parts is pretty limited, so whatever I buy will be new.

Also, as I've been extremely happy with Ruger in the past, It's almost certainly going to be a Ruger.

I have no plans - as of yet - for it to be anything other than a range toy. If I'm being honest, a big part of the draw is simply thinking they look cool.

I will probably wind up carrying it in the woods from time to time, but I already have a GP100 and SP101 that function pretty well for "woods guns".

I imagine I'll mostly be shooting the same practice .38spls I put through my DA's, but I'd certainly like to be able to shoot mags.
NOthing terribly hot though, as I do intend on getting a .44mag at some point (after I'm set up to reload) for when I want a "boomer".

Adjustable sights seem like a pretty big plus, so I'm leaning towards the Blackhawk.

I guess what I'm wondering is - aside from being closer in size to a SAA - is there anything that makes the Vaquero "better" than the Blackhawk. Like, do they typically have better triggers, or nicer finishes, etc...

I suppose I should just go to some stores and see which feels better.
 
For a first time SA buyer, I would go with the BH due to it's adjustable sights. Nothing is more iritating than having to use Kentucky windage all the time on a fixed sighted revolver.

The New Vaquero size is better for the .357 cartridge as the BH is way overkill. The New Vaquero cylinder will index properly for loading shells unlike the BH (nice feature).
 
Last edited:
Well day man . . . . are you throughly confused yet? :D

Everyone has offered some great points and great information . . .

I have a 5 1/2" Ruger NV in .357 - I love it. I was brought up on SA shooting - mostly BP cap and ball revolvers with what most would call "primitive sights" - so for me, the sights on the NV are no issue. It's a great revolver.

In my mind, Ruger makes a good handgun - I own a number of 'em but also also own Colts and Smiths so I'm not what you'd call biased. Either way you go, you'll get a good revolver to shoot.

Even if you don't shoot SASS, that's not a reason to rule out a NV. Once you get used to the sight picture, you'd do fine for everything from punching cans to popping bunnies. If you're more of a target shooter or hunter - then maybe you want something with adjustable sights.

If you go to a LGS and sit the two side by side - handle 'em, point 'em, etc. - they maybe that will make up your mind . . and then maybe not. If you're like me . . . I'd buy one of them and then later on wonder if I should have bought the other one since it also was nice.

I don't shoot .357 out of mine - I'm old and don't like the recoil but I do reload 38 special and shoot a lot of 'em out of my NV. I don't load "hot" but still enjoy plinking with it and it's a great shooter and accurate. Either way you go, you'll be able to play around with different loads and bullets if you reload. I cast all of mine and use WC, SWC and RN. All shoot well out of mine.

None of what I have said is going to be of any help but in the end, it's going to depend on what you want and what you'll be using it for. If you get the .357, you'll have the option of both 38 spl and .357 and it will handle those loads, be reliable and rugged. If you go with the NV, you'll have fixed sights - if you don't, you'll have adjustable sights. Both give you six rounds. Both have the same spent casing ejector design. Both will break down the same (removing cylinder) for cleaning, Either way you go, you'll enjoy it!
 
Lemme toss one more thing into the mix :).

Starting with the first New Vaqueros of 2004 and continuing with ALL the mid-frame guns made from that point forward, Ruger built the cylinders differently than past practice. The large-frame Vaqueros (which stopped once the NewVaq shipped) and all the large-frames had cylinders built on machines that had six bit/reamer sets going at once for each chamber. This past practice led to slight (and sometimes not-so-slight variations between chambers, which is a Bad Thing[tm].

The NewVaq and the other mid-frames had cylinders with each chamber done one at a time by the same bit/reamer set. With each chamber cut with the same tooling the uniformity went up and the cylinders were otherwise dimensionally better on average. This was a Good Thing[tm].

In 2007 this new cylinder process got expanded to the large-frame series guns. You can ID large-frames that were built that way by the "lawyer's warning label" ("read the manual" and the like) on the barrel - if it is under-barrel it has the new cylinder process, side-barrel it has the old.

At some point this also got transferred to the small-frame SAs (Single Six). I don't know exactly when or how to ID those.

Upshot is, I would want to buy either brand new or at least be able to ID it as having the new cylinder process.

---

Now, since you say this is a range toy, I would honestly consider a Single Six with dual cylinders for .22Magnum and .22LR.

You also need to be aware of the "distributor special run" guns and where to find 'em:

http://www.ruger.com/index.html

Click "Single Action Revolvers" and then in each category look for "Distributor Exclusives". There's some cool stuff in there :). To score one contact the distributor for that gun, they'll tell you how to get one through your local dealer. Prices are a tad higher for these special runs but not too bad a premium and a lot of people think the average quality is a hair higher.

What else...

The polished stainless guns are actually the ones you can keep looking pretty the easiest - they can be hand-polished to remove small scratches with the same stuff you use to polish high-end car rims.
 
Now, since you say this is a range toy, I would honestly consider a Single Six with dual cylinders for .22Magnum and .22LR.
Click to expand...
I almost 'hesitate' anymore on recommending a .22 anything due to the 'going on 2 years' of .22LR cartridge shortage... Nice revolvers though!

the sights on the NV are no issue.
Click to expand...
Well on all three of my Vaqueros they are no longer an issue as I had the barrels turned so they shoot straight. Then file front to bring up for my particular load.... Once regulated, then yes ... no issue :) .
 
That is very much NOT what I said. There are also 44Spl, 45LC and 45LC/45ACP variants of the mid-frame Blackhawk flattop.
Click to expand...

Come back off the ledge Jim and reread my post.
"the 2005 50th anniversary 357 is the only (to my knowledge) mid frame Blackhawk 357"

A 44special, 45 Colt or 45 Colt/ACP convertable is not a 357 Blackhawk.
But I do guess I should have stated beside the original 3 Screw 357s.
 
AH, OK, I figured out what you were saying.

:)

But I think there HAVE been 357 mid-frame Blackhawks in the distributor special runs.
 
But I think there HAVE been 357 mid-frame Blackhawks in the distributor special runs.
Click to expand...
That I'd like to see (I haven't seen any)... I would be in the market for a 5 1/2" (blued) if it ever came available :) . and really I'd like to see the large frame BH dropped and the medium frame flattop .357 take it's place as there is just no reason for the .357 to be on the large platform (other than the obvious Ie. Ruger can just have 'one' frame for all calibers... economy of resources in their mind) . That's IMHO of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top