Gunblast review of New Vaquero

[Jim March]

http://gunblast.com/Ruger-NewVaquero.htm

Good stuff. Several things confirmed: cylinder "beef" is WAY less than previous New Model Ruger SAs; this cannot possibly take "45LC+P" fodder. Strength appears to be a hair better than a Colt SAA, about on par with a USFA Rodeo which is good for the size class.

Also: I've heard reports Ruger has gone to a process where all six cylinder bores are done one at a time with a single reamer, aiding uniformity instead of the previous "six at once with six different reamers" process. This gun shows the results, in spades.

 

[tc300mag1]

Good review i can see the beef on the cylinder is way lower so no hotrodding that on e... Wonder if they fixed the will chamber a 454 casull round in them ... My Vaquero bought new this year and my uncles will fit a 454 in each chamer

 

[Crownvicman]

Wow, looks good. I hope I can see one up close soon.

 

[Jim March]

Look at the overall length measurements. NO WAY will a 454 chamber in the New Vaq. In fact, it's so short a lot of the 300grain and up 45LC+Ps probably won't fit - Quinn barely got a 265 Keith-type in there. So I think we're good in that department.

Should still be strong enough for something like a 200grain Cor-Bon JHP @1,100fps, or other non+P jacketed defense-grade loads like the Speer Gold Dot 250 or Winchester Silvertip.

 

[MrMurphy]

If I ever get one, standard pressure antipersonnel and target loads would be the only thing through it, so...... I like it.

 

[Jim Watson]

I like it.
If they keep the price to Big Vaquero level, they will run Uberti right up a tree.

 

[mec]

With the cylinder diameter the same as the USFA, it is a wise decision to avoid the bugger chomper loads listed for the big Rugers and TCs.

hardly an awe inspiring increase in diameter

When we were checking out the USFA Pre-War, we found that a 1910 colt cylinder would fit and function but was substantially smaller in the cross section. The USFA shows a bit of Italian ancestry by haveing the same cylinder measurement as an old Uberti .45 we had on hand.

 

[Jim March]

Even that sort of modest enhancement over Colt cylinder wall thickness is worth having. Esp. if we're talking about Ruger metallurgy over Uberti's.

But that's not enough for "45LC+P". What it is, is a modest increase in safety for sane handloaders whose gear throws a *slightly* heavy charge once in a while.

 

[mountaindrew]

Now with that much metal, the .357 model should be able to take pretty heavy charges right? The cylendr walls would be pretty thick with the smaller bore. I will consider this, as I will be looking for a .357 wheelgun to go with my new .357 1894. The main things turning me off from the rugers have all been fixed, mainly the grip and the extra weight.

 

[ScottsGT]

But it still has all that legal crap stamped into the barrel.
Until they remove that garbage, I'll go elsewhere. That's one of the main reasons I sold my first Ruger. There is more to a gun than just function!

 

[P. Plainsman]

It's a respectable position to take, ScottsGT. I used to justify Ruger's annoying barrel safety manual by saying, "well, at least they don't have a d*mn lock like S&W." Now they do, albeit less conspicuously.

Me, I'm gonna get one of these New Vaqs. Ruger seems to have done so much stuff right on this one that they deserve to be rewarded.

With that said, a Vaquero is (for me) a fun gun. It will annoy me more if/when Ruger starts to add the locks to its defensive revolvers like the SP101 and GP100.

 

[Jim March]

Scott: get one in stainless, get some fine-grit metal polish paper, start rubbing .

 

[JNewell]

start rubbing

So then the barrel will be reeeeeally thin, to match the cylinder???

Just kidding...sorta...

 

[Jim March]

People do Rugerbarrelmanualectomies all the time with no ill effect.

It ain't THAT deep.

 

[MICHAEL T]

Run a line of JB Weld over that writing and then file smooth Better yet advise them thet lost a customer because of their silly writing.