Early NM Ruger Blackhawks

Status
Not open for further replies.
geo57

geo57

Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2003
Messages
610
Location
South Central Nebraska
I recently purchased a New Model Ruger Blackhawk in .45 Colt that was made in 1975. I haven't shot it yet. From what I read these early NM Blackhawks had a thinner transfer bar that some claim were more prone to breakage or light primer strikes than those made in the latter 70's on.

Among you owners of early ( 1974-1978 or so ) NM Blackhawk revolvers that have / had for a long time all original parts, did you have problems with your original transfer bars / reliable ignition ? Approx. how many rounds did yours see before problems arose if you did have some ?

Thanks.
 
I hadn't heard anything about a thinner transfer bar. I have one from your time period, bought used in the early 1980s. Between the 45 Colt and 45 acp cylinders I've lost track of how many thousands of rounds I've put through it. No idea how much the first owner fired it but it had been well used when I got it. Never a hint of light strikes or any other troubles.

Jeff
 
BullRunBear said:
I hadn't heard anything about a thinner transfer bar. I have one from your time period, bought used in the early 1980s. Between the 45 Colt and 45 acp cylinders I've lost track of how many thousands of rounds I've put through it. No idea how much the first owner fired it but it had been well used when I got it. Never a hint of light strikes or any other troubles.

Jeff
Click to expand...

Jeff, I really appreciate your reply. Is there any chance that the original owner changed any parts or did you know him ? The transfer bar on my SBH, same frame but much later production is quite a bit thicker and I have read of early models of those having a thinner and a bit softer transfer bar.
 
I never heard any thing about transfer bar problems on any Ruger BUT the early non transfer bar guns (three screw) were (and still are ) offered transfer bar recalls . I had one that was done and the original parts returned. I notived the transfer bars in stalled into the 1961 gun looked a little thinner than the mid 70s transfer bar Black Hawk I had. Just what I noticed, I doubt Ruger would let anything that was know weak to exist without an upgrade offered tho.
 
Gordon said:
I never heard any thing about transfer bar problems on any Ruger BUT the early non transfer bar guns (three screw) were (and still are ) offered transfer bar recalls . I had one that was done and the original parts returned. I notived the transfer bars in stalled into the 1961 gun looked a little thinner than the mid 70s transfer bar Black Hawk I had. Just what I noticed, I doubt Ruger would let anything that was know weak to exist without an upgrade offered tho.
Click to expand...

Thanks.
 
my 1973 blackhawk has a nice thick transfer bar. i have had no problems with it.

i do have a 357 cal. old model blackhawk that i had converted by ruger. the transfer bar on it lasted 300 cycles before it sheared off the hammer. i put the old parts back in it (except for the hammer strut as the original was badly galled). it runs just fine.

maybe the om transfer bar is what you heard about.

luck,

murf
 
My 1973-vintage .45 LC (purchased new in 1973) has experienced zero ignition or parts failures after the many thousands of shots fired. I’ve not heard of the OP’s cited problem...
 
Hi murf,

What is your '73 BH chambered in ?
As you know Old Model Blackhawk revolvers didn't have a transfer bar until converted. What I am referring to are the transfer bars Ruger used in NM Blackhawks, ( especially in .45 Colt ) that were employed from '74 until about '78 or so where I read that Ruger beefed them up and with them being thicker they lengthened the top step on the hammer to prevent transfer bar pinch.
 
Last edited:
25-20 WCF said:
My 1973-vintage .45 LC (purchased new in 1973) has experienced zero ignition or parts failures after the many thousands of shots fired. I’ve not heard of the OP’s cited problem...
Click to expand...

Thanks to you as well. Is yours a New Model ( with transfer bar ) or the end run of the old model that has been converted ? The reason I ask is that on the Ruger site for serial # production runs the first year given for NM Blackhawk in .45 Colt is 1974.
 
I have two NM Blackhawks from that period, a 1975 44 Mag and a 1974 30 carbine that was converted to 357 Mag sometime in the late 70’s. Both were grandpa’s originally and passed down to me through my dad. They both have seen some extremely stout handloads, (grandpa was a big fan of Elmer Keith) and neither have had any sort of problems to speak of
 
Howdy

Funny you should ask. I happened to have my old 45 Colt/45 ACP Blackhawk that I bought brand-spanky new in 1975 completely torn down for photos for another thread.

This old revolver is completely stock, I have not replaced any parts over the years.

I never noticed before, but you are correct, the transfer bar is thinner than on more recent models.

Here is a photo of the Transfer Bar. The arrow is pointing to the surface that gets struck by the hammer.

pmDJvmubj.jpg




Here is a different view. Again, the arrow is pointing to the surface that gets struck by the hammer. The lighting in this photo reflected the wear area on the Transfer Bar where it has been struck by the hammer over the years.

pmxrIQb1j.jpg




Still another view. Notice how the sides of the upper section are parallel.

pmHzrkIXj.jpg




Here is a photo of the transfer bar with the hammer at full cock. Sorry there is a little bit of grunge in the photo, and the rear sight has some wear on it because I have had this revolver for 45 years.

poDCQUurj.jpg




This is the transfer bar on an 'original model' Vaquero. Sorry I cannot tell you exactly when this one was made because I have two of them. One shipped in 1993, the other one shipped in 2000. I don't know which one this is.

pmLWIxLFj.jpg




This is the transfer bar in a New Vaquero. I bought it new in 2006. Notice there is a thicker section up top where the hammer strikes it.

pnm3Ptd2j.jpg




In this side view you can see how the transfer bar in the New Vaquero is thicker at the top. These photos should give you some idea of the difference in thickness of older and newer transfer bars. Am I going to take them apart again and measure? Absolutely no way. If you have ever taken one of these apart you know what a pain it is to get them back together again.

poelDcnNj.jpg





Does it matter? I have had my Blackhawk for 45 years. I have no idea how many rounds have been through it in all that time, Probably not bazillions because it sat unshot for about 20 years. But probably a couple of thousand. Knock on wood.

Just so you know, transfer bars still break in Rugers. Not often, but guys in CAS who shoot thousands of rounds every year sometimes get broken transfer bars in their New Vaqueros. That is with the latest design of transfer bar with the thicker section at the top. Some guys even go to the extreme of removing the transfer bar and welding up the hammer face so it will strike the firing pin without a transfer bar, just so they won't experince a broken transfer bar disabling a revolver during a match.

Even with the newest transfer bar design, the culprit behind broken transfer bars seems to be 'transfer bar pinch' which has nothing to do with how thick the transfer bar is.
 
Driftwood Johnson said:
Howdy

Funny you should ask. I happened to have my old 45 Colt/45 ACP Blackhawk that I bought brand-spanky new in 1975 completely torn down for photos for another thread.

This old revolver is completely stock, I have not replaced any parts over the years.

I never noticed before, but you are correct, the transfer bar is thinner than on more recent models.

Here is a photo of the Transfer Bar. The arrow is pointing to the surface that gets struck by the hammer.

View attachment 916650




Here is a different view. Again, the arrow is pointing to the surface that gets struck by the hammer. The lighting in this photo reflected the wear area on the Transfer Bar where it has been struck by the hammer over the years.

View attachment 916651




Still another view. Notice how the sides of the upper section are parallel.

View attachment 916652




Here is a photo of the transfer bar with the hammer at full cock. Sorry there is a little bit of grunge in the photo, and the rear sight has some wear on it because I have had this revolver for 45 years.

View attachment 916653




This is the transfer bar on an 'original model' Vaquero. Sorry I cannot tell you exactly when this one was made because I have two of them. One shipped in 1993, the other one shipped in 2000. I don't know which one this is.

View attachment 916654




This is the transfer bar in a New Vaquero. I bought it new in 2006. Notice there is a thicker section up top where the hammer strikes it.

View attachment 916655




In this side view you can see how the transfer bar in the New Vaquero is thicker at the top. These photos should give you some idea of the difference in thickness of older and newer transfer bars. Am I going to take them apart again and measure? Absolutely no way. If you have ever taken one of these apart you know what a pain it is to get them back together again.

View attachment 916656





Does it matter? I have had my Blackhawk for 45 years. I have no idea how many rounds have been through it in all that time, Probably not bazillions because it sat unshot for about 20 years. But probably a couple of thousand. Knock on wood.

Just so you know, transfer bars still break in Rugers. Not often, but guys in CAS who shoot thousands of rounds every year sometimes get broken transfer bars in their New Vaqueros. That is with the latest design of transfer bar with the thicker section at the top. Some guys even go to the extreme of removing the transfer bar and welding up the hammer face so it will strike the firing pin without a transfer bar, just so they won't experince a broken transfer bar disabling a revolver during a match.

Even with the newest transfer bar design, the culprit behind broken transfer bars seems to be 'transfer bar pinch' which has nothing to do with how thick the transfer bar is.
Click to expand...

Excellent info. Thank you. The transfer bar in mine does not appear to be blue as yours does. Maybe mine as been replaced but from all the usual tell tale signs it has been fired & even cycled very little. There is little to no blue wear on the base pin where the cylinder rotates, et al. The former owner who bought it from a friend was unsure if it had been fired by him or not and he himself shot it less than 50 times in the 10 years he had it.
 
Last edited:
Needlenose357 said:
I have two NM Blackhawks from that period, a 1975 44 Mag and a 1974 30 carbine that was converted to 357 Mag sometime in the late 70’s. Both were grandpa’s originally and passed down to me through my dad. They both have seen some extremely stout handloads, (grandpa was a big fan of Elmer Keith) and neither have had any sort of problems to speak of
Click to expand...

Thanks.
 
geo57, I just compared the transfer bar on the 45 Colt Blackhawk to a later New model Vaquero in 45 from the 1990s. They look the same to my aging eyes. Since Ruger takes the use of transfer bars seriously, I assume any problem with them would be very common knowledge. That's a guess on my part.

Jeff
 
geo57 said:
Excellent info. Thank you. The transfer bar in mine does not appear to be blue as yours does. Maybe mine as been replaced but from all the usual tell tale signs it has been fired & even cycled very little. There is little to no blue wear on the base pin where the cylinder rotates, et al. The former owner who bought it from a friend was unsure if it had been fired by him or not and he himself shot it less than 50 times in the 10 years he had it.
Click to expand...

Lots of CAS shooters keep extra transfer bars on hand in case one breaks. They hardly cost anything, Ruger might even send them for free, I don't know.

As I said, the biggest problem is taking the gun apart and putting it back together again. A Colt is so simple I can almost take one (or a replica) apart and reassemble it with my eyes closed. Almost.

Rugers are a different story. I took my old Blackhawk apart for some photos last night for the first time in probably close to 20 years. No idea how I managed to do it back then, there was not any internet and no videos. It probably took me 15 minutes and a little bit of cussing to dismantle it last night. Quite a bit more time and cussing to get it back together again. When I saw your post this morning I decided to take it apart again because there were some details of how the mechanism works that I wanted to understand better after all these years. I did much better this time, only about five minutes to take it down. Then I took a bunch of photos before putting it back together again. Only one misstep reassembling this morning and much less cussing.

There are a couple of videos on the Ruger website that I have watched over the years, and they are useful, but he leaves out a couple of crucial details to make it easier to put together again.






 
I have a first year 41 Mag and I had light primer strikes. I put in a stronger spring and the problem disappeared. I didn't even think it might be due to a thin transfer bar, but I suppose it could be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Arkansas Paul
  • Locked
Quality of New Model Blackhawks from early 90s till now?
Replies
12
Views
1K
murf
murf
Brian Williams
  • Locked
which Ruger??? OM 357 or NM 45 colt
Replies
15
Views
795
targetshootr
T
V
  • Locked
Help with Blackhawk misfire
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
Old Fuff
O
J
  • Locked
Ruger Customer Service is Freaking Awesome!
2
Replies
28
Views
858
Jimfern
J
J
  • Locked
Wider Trigger for Old Model Ruger Blackhawk?
Replies
20
Views
1K
Gordon
Gordon
Back
Top