Blackhawk or Vaquero
- Thread starter 0ne3
- Start date
- Status
It depends on how bad you need adjustable sights. The New Model Vaquero comes very close to matching the size, proportions, weight, and balance of the original Colt SAA. The modern Blackhawk and original Vaquero are built on a larger frame. That and the larger cylinder just don't look or feel right in my hands. The balance and look is just all wrong, the guns are top heavy. The original Blackhawks were on a smaller frame, but those don't show up often.
I must also confess to not have kept up closely so this may have changed, but MOST of the Blackhawks have, or at least had an aluminum alloy grip frame and the Vaquero's are all steel. On some guns aluminum is just fine. But it just doesn't seem right on this gun.
I may be the only person that is bothered by these things. Having the adjustable sights is important enough for a lot of guys to overlook, or never notice what I consider huge negatives. I'd buy the Vaquero, but that may not be the right choice for you.
I must also confess to not have kept up closely so this may have changed, but MOST of the Blackhawks have, or at least had an aluminum alloy grip frame and the Vaquero's are all steel. On some guns aluminum is just fine. But it just doesn't seem right on this gun.
I may be the only person that is bothered by these things. Having the adjustable sights is important enough for a lot of guys to overlook, or never notice what I consider huge negatives. I'd buy the Vaquero, but that may not be the right choice for you.
Gun Master
Member
Owned a Ruger Blackhawk 71/2 " .357 Magnum with 9mm convertible cylinder back in the 1970-1980's.
Wish I owned a Ruger Blackhawk 71/2 " .357 Magnum with 9mm convertible cylinder now !
Maybe the Vaquero is a good gun ? Dunno ? But, it appears to be a Colt Wannabe, with makeup and lipstick.
Love the Blackhawk ! Might like the Vaquero too !
Wish I owned a Ruger Blackhawk 71/2 " .357 Magnum with 9mm convertible cylinder now !
Maybe the Vaquero is a good gun ? Dunno ? But, it appears to be a Colt Wannabe, with makeup and lipstick.
Love the Blackhawk ! Might like the Vaquero too !
Jim Watson
Member
Blackhawk with adjustable sights for anything but CAS.
Gun Master
Member
But, I don't own a pony !
Just keep on truckin' through the woods.
Just keep on truckin' through the woods.
Gun Master
Member
Really like it,but prefer longer barrel.
22250Rem
Member
View attachment 758192 Blackhawk or Vaquero is a tough choice........ I like 'em both. But wound up going the Blackhawk route for the adjustable sights. Shortly after I decided that the adjustable sights were a "must have" this .357 showed up at the LGS. Then the Blackhawk became a "must have". Some folks prefer the grips on the Vaquero and they have a good point; but I put a set of Pachmayr grips on the Blackhawk and it suits me fine. If it looks familiar it's because Armored Farmer owns a twin to this one, right down to the Pachmayr grips, that he already posted a picture of earlier in this thread. I gotta say that he's got good taste in guns, and grips..... LOL.
Last edited:
greyling22
Member
When Ruger decides to make a stainless 357 blackhawk in the small vaquero frame I'm in. In the meantime it still boggles my mind that Ruger makes the current 357 mag Blackhawks in the large frame only. But Ruger makes several decisions like that that just don't understand. (Why don't the 22lr pistols come with stainless mags?! Maybe it doesn't bother a lot of folks, but here in humid East Texas, all my blued stuff keeps trying to rust on me.)
Crunchy Frog
Member
You are in luck. See the link to the Lipsey's convertible Flattop .357 in my earlier reply on this thread. The Flattops are built on the smaller New Vaquero frame and its available in stainless.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,883
Wow, talk about missing be boat....
I might argue the opposite - since makeup and lipstick are only aesthetic effects and don't drive any functional improvement of the product, I might say the Colt is the bearer of the blush in this comparison. Both run well, but one is more durable, and more affordable. You may have missed the fact the Vaqueros and New Vaqueros are nothing more than an exterior profile "melt job" on the BH and SBH frames. The only functional difference is the sights (and the RIP, for some comparisons). So if a guy loves the SBH or BH, then it's almost a default setting to at least like the Vaq and New Vaq.
To the OP's question, I shoot both quite frequently, but the sights are almost irrelevant for me, as I personally don't use Blackhawks or Super Blackhawks much without optics. They're incredibly functional, and I shoot an SBH orders of magnitude more frequently than I do a Vaquero or New Vaquero, but usually with a scope or red dot.
Functionally, within the two available frame size classes for each, the BH, SBH, New Vaq, and Vaq are all identical, save the RIP. Most of my Ruger revolvers all have free spin panels anyway, so I can say the RIP is as much of a detriment as it is an enhancement for my loading sequence. Structurally, again, within frame class, the durability and strength for these models are exactly the same as well - the action parts are interchangeable.
Emotionally, I derive a much greater, whimsical satisfaction when shooting with the New Vaq's and Vaq's. It's really no more difficult to hunt with a 7.5" Vaq than it is a 7.5" SBH, but it sure is satisfying taking game with the old style "fixies."
greyling22
Member
Yeah, I looked for one, came up empty, and have no need or desire for a 9mm cylinder anyway. I guess I'll just keep waiting. It was a really good suggestion though, and I appreciate it.
Crunchy Frog
Member
I have long thought that Ruger should have made the Anniversary Model .357 a regular catalog item. I can handload .38 Special cartridges for less than the cost of the cheapest 9mm factory ammo so the convertible cylinder adds no value for me.
knot4reel
Member
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2016
- Messages
- 115
The only added value I could see for a reloader would be that a convertable model might be easier to sell if you decided to do so. For a non reloader it's a gun that shoots three different cals in a fairly easy to find ammo.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
My handloads cost me about $8/50rds and 9mm is only slightly higher than that. Plus the time I don't spend at the reloading bench is time I can spend doing something else. Money is not our only valuable commodity.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,883
A guy can make more money - making more time is pretty complicated.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
No but we can buy it, by occasionally buying ammo instead of handloading it. 
To show what a throw-back I am, I wish Ruger had made a 3-screw "Vaquero". I actually found a beat up 44 FT and a 3-Screw 357 and sent them to a gunsmith I used back then to have the top straps modified to a "fixed sight" configuration. After initially accepting the job he later boxed them up and sent them back to me, saying he didn't want the hassle.
I satisfied my desire for a fixed sighted SA by going back to where I started years ago with a Colt SAA. (smile)
Dave
I satisfied my desire for a fixed sighted SA by going back to where I started years ago with a Colt SAA. (smile)
Dave
hot chili powder
Member
I've owned a Ruger Super Blackhawk in 44mag......great gun very accurate, sold it long ago....dumb, but oh well. Now have a Ruger/Talo 44 mag Vaquero and love the classic look, birdshead grip and 3.75" barrel.....fixed sights no problem for my eyes yet, really fun to shoot and 44 mag makes big holes in paper so easy to see, just sayin'.
zb338
Member
I have an old Vaquero and I had to file the front sight down to get it to shoot
where I wanted it to shoot. That's a pain and you can make a mistake. Adjustable
sights are the greatest.
Zeke
where I wanted it to shoot. That's a pain and you can make a mistake. Adjustable
sights are the greatest.
Zeke
Driftwood Johnson
Member
Howdy
Many years ago, long before the Vaquero was created, trickshooter Joe Bowman (the Straight Shooter) had a pair of Three Screw Blackhawks custom altered to resemble a pair of Colts. He had 357 Mag Blackhawks rebarreled for 45, and had the cylinders reamed to 45 because at that time 357 Mag was the only caliber the Blackhawk was available in. He then had the adjustable sights removed, and the frame welded up to resemble a Colt. He also had the hammers modified for fanning. I had the chance to watch Joe perform shortly before he died. He was truly amazing to watch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Bowman_(marksman)
AJumbo
Member
I have both, so I say, BOTH. My stable of Ruger SAs includes a "200th year" Blackhawk in .357, 4 5/8"; a Bisley Vaquero .45 Colt, 5 1/2"; and an Old Army percussion .45, 7 1/2". They all fill a niche. I have toyed with the idea of "Bisleying" the Old Army, but I have better things to do with my money, and those OAs are getting scarce.
Driftwood Johnson
Member
Howdy Again
Regarding the choice between a Blackhawk and a Vaquero, personally I believe most folks put a whole lot more store in adjustable sights than they deserve. Beyond sighting them in the first time, most shooters do not adjust them again. Most just keep the sights set without adjusting them. I own lots of revolvers with fixed sights. I own lots of revolvers with adjustable sights too. Perhaps there are some shooters who shoot many different loads, and have the need to be continually adjusting the sights for the load. I am not one of them. Once I adjust the sights on a Blackhawk or S&W, I never touch the sights again. Just don't need to.
Regarding filing down the front sight on a Vaquero: be real careful. Once you have filed it down, it's tough to add metal again. Be real sure you have settled on your favorite load. In truth, I only once filed down the front sight on a Vaquero, my first one. After that, I just did not see the need.
My first Blackhawk, 45 Colt/45ACP convertible. Bought it brand-spanky new in 1975. Pretty sure I only adjusted the sights once back then, never touched them again.
My first Vaquero, 45 Colt, the old large frame style. Bought it around 2000 when I first started Cowboy Shooting. If you look carefully, you can see I flattened the front sight slightly. If you are going to do this, go slowly. Bring a lot of ammo with you and take a little bit off the sight every few cylinders full until you have it regulated where you want it. Be sure to wrap the muzzle with tape to protect it when, not if, the file slips.
A pair of Stainless 'original model' Vaqueros. 45 Colt. Looks like I filed down the front sight on the top one, not the bottom one.
A pair of 357 Mag New Vaqueros. I bought these in 2006, soon after the New Vaquero was first available. Note that Ruger was still doing the fake 'case colors' at this time. No modification to the sights.
Three Screw Blackhawks. Left to right, 44 Mag Flat Top, 1958; 357 Mag Blackhawk, 1962, 357 Mag Flat Top, 1962. Only adjusted the sights on each of them once. Have not touched the sights since.
My latest Ruger, a 45 Colt New Vaquero. Made in 2013, I picked it up used a couple of months ago. Notice the fake case colors are no longer done. Sorry, the photos are not great.
Ruger has done away with the lock, it used to be at the base of the hammer spring strut. Interestingly enough they are still using the original grips, with the dimple for drilling a hole for the lock key. No reason not too, you can't see the dimple from the outside.
Size comparison of the 45 Colt New Vaquero and a Colt Single Action Army chambered for 45 Colt. For some reason the standard barrel length for Ruger has always been 4 5/8" for Colt it has always been 4 3/4". Even so, the Ruger is slightly heavier than the Colt. 2 pounds 9 ounces vs 2 pounds 7 ounces. I can tell difference in heft when I pick them up. For some reason the New Vaquero has always had very thin grip panels. Noticeably quite thinner than a Colt or Uberti.
Cylinders. Ruger on the left, Colt on the right. The Ruger cylinder is slightly larger in diameter, 1.673 vs 1.650. Also, there is slightly more metal beween chambers. About .043 vs about .041 at the smallest section. However, like all Ruger single actions, the locking slot for the bolt is slightly off from centerline, so there will be a little bit more metal between the bottom of the slot and an adjacent chamber. For what it's worth, when a cylinder blows up, the rupture usually starts at the locking slot because that is the thinnest and weakest part of the cylinder.
That is correct. Blackhawks have aluminum grip frames, Vaqueros have steel grip frames. That gives Vaqueros a little but more heft. In fact, when I bought that first Vaquero back around 2000 as I hefted it I was surprised. I could tell it was heavier than my old 45 Blackhawk, even though they were the same caliber and same barrel length.
Uuuummm...........excuse me, but that statement about 'tiny hard to see rear notch' on the Vaquero is simply not true. While the overall size of the rear sight blade of a Blackhawk is large, the actual notch is about the same size on a Blackhawk and a Vaquero. And the rear sight notch on a Vaquero is larger than the rear sight notch on a 2nd Gen Colt. I have really, really, poor eyesight, always have. I have no trouble at all seeing the rear sight on a Vaquero or a Colt.
Colt on the left, New Vaquero on the right.
Better photo of the rear sight of a Vaquero.
Blackhawk rear sight.
You want a tiny, hard to see rear sight, try a 1st Gen Colt rear sight.
Regarding the choice between a Blackhawk and a Vaquero, personally I believe most folks put a whole lot more store in adjustable sights than they deserve. Beyond sighting them in the first time, most shooters do not adjust them again. Most just keep the sights set without adjusting them. I own lots of revolvers with fixed sights. I own lots of revolvers with adjustable sights too. Perhaps there are some shooters who shoot many different loads, and have the need to be continually adjusting the sights for the load. I am not one of them. Once I adjust the sights on a Blackhawk or S&W, I never touch the sights again. Just don't need to.
Regarding filing down the front sight on a Vaquero: be real careful. Once you have filed it down, it's tough to add metal again. Be real sure you have settled on your favorite load. In truth, I only once filed down the front sight on a Vaquero, my first one. After that, I just did not see the need.
My first Blackhawk, 45 Colt/45ACP convertible. Bought it brand-spanky new in 1975. Pretty sure I only adjusted the sights once back then, never touched them again.
My first Vaquero, 45 Colt, the old large frame style. Bought it around 2000 when I first started Cowboy Shooting. If you look carefully, you can see I flattened the front sight slightly. If you are going to do this, go slowly. Bring a lot of ammo with you and take a little bit off the sight every few cylinders full until you have it regulated where you want it. Be sure to wrap the muzzle with tape to protect it when, not if, the file slips.
A pair of Stainless 'original model' Vaqueros. 45 Colt. Looks like I filed down the front sight on the top one, not the bottom one.
A pair of 357 Mag New Vaqueros. I bought these in 2006, soon after the New Vaquero was first available. Note that Ruger was still doing the fake 'case colors' at this time. No modification to the sights.
Three Screw Blackhawks. Left to right, 44 Mag Flat Top, 1958; 357 Mag Blackhawk, 1962, 357 Mag Flat Top, 1962. Only adjusted the sights on each of them once. Have not touched the sights since.
My latest Ruger, a 45 Colt New Vaquero. Made in 2013, I picked it up used a couple of months ago. Notice the fake case colors are no longer done. Sorry, the photos are not great.
Ruger has done away with the lock, it used to be at the base of the hammer spring strut. Interestingly enough they are still using the original grips, with the dimple for drilling a hole for the lock key. No reason not too, you can't see the dimple from the outside.
Size comparison of the 45 Colt New Vaquero and a Colt Single Action Army chambered for 45 Colt. For some reason the standard barrel length for Ruger has always been 4 5/8" for Colt it has always been 4 3/4". Even so, the Ruger is slightly heavier than the Colt. 2 pounds 9 ounces vs 2 pounds 7 ounces. I can tell difference in heft when I pick them up. For some reason the New Vaquero has always had very thin grip panels. Noticeably quite thinner than a Colt or Uberti.
Cylinders. Ruger on the left, Colt on the right. The Ruger cylinder is slightly larger in diameter, 1.673 vs 1.650. Also, there is slightly more metal beween chambers. About .043 vs about .041 at the smallest section. However, like all Ruger single actions, the locking slot for the bolt is slightly off from centerline, so there will be a little bit more metal between the bottom of the slot and an adjacent chamber. For what it's worth, when a cylinder blows up, the rupture usually starts at the locking slot because that is the thinnest and weakest part of the cylinder.
That is correct. Blackhawks have aluminum grip frames, Vaqueros have steel grip frames. That gives Vaqueros a little but more heft. In fact, when I bought that first Vaquero back around 2000 as I hefted it I was surprised. I could tell it was heavier than my old 45 Blackhawk, even though they were the same caliber and same barrel length.
Uuuummm...........excuse me, but that statement about 'tiny hard to see rear notch' on the Vaquero is simply not true. While the overall size of the rear sight blade of a Blackhawk is large, the actual notch is about the same size on a Blackhawk and a Vaquero. And the rear sight notch on a Vaquero is larger than the rear sight notch on a 2nd Gen Colt. I have really, really, poor eyesight, always have. I have no trouble at all seeing the rear sight on a Vaquero or a Colt.
Colt on the left, New Vaquero on the right.
Better photo of the rear sight of a Vaquero.
Blackhawk rear sight.
You want a tiny, hard to see rear sight, try a 1st Gen Colt rear sight.
Last edited:
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
IMHO, the great advantage to adjustable sights is not the adjustability but the infinitely superior sight picture.
BobWright
Member
My choice is obviously the Blackhawk/Super Blackhawk.
You got that Wright, my friend! Notice this sight, from Gary Reeder, its flat across the top of the blade, so the line of the front sight makes an even line across the top:
Further, its ribbed which eliminates glare or highlights.
This Millett sight is a fine sight, and is similar to the Bowen sight currently offered. My objection to it is that it overhangs the hammer a trifle:
Bob Wright
You got that Wright, my friend! Notice this sight, from Gary Reeder, its flat across the top of the blade, so the line of the front sight makes an even line across the top:
Further, its ribbed which eliminates glare or highlights.
This Millett sight is a fine sight, and is similar to the Bowen sight currently offered. My objection to it is that it overhangs the hammer a trifle:
Bob Wright
- Status
