Ruger Blackhawk 50th Anniversary **Crap! It Has a Hammer Safety**

[OldWolf]

I was looking over the new 50th Anniversary Ruger Blackhawk on the Ruger website, thinking I'd like one. Then I opened the PDF instruction manual and saw the new HAMMER SPRING SAFETY they designed in to it. There are special instructions on how to drill through the left grip to turn it on/off w/o removing the grip if you want. They even include a special lock to lock the cylinder apart from the frame if you want. :banghead:

I hope Ruger is not going to put this on all their revolvers in the future. That safety sucks and I've lost all interest in the 50th Anni. special.

I checked and none of the other Blackhawks have the safety in '05...so far.

Funny thing is you have to dig into the manual to even know it exists...nothing about it on the web pages.

 

[Brad Johnson]

You should give them credit, at least they didn't drill the grips from the factory. Given that, I'd say it's a non-issue unless you intentionally drill the grips so you can get to the mechanism. Other than that it jus sits there, hidden, doing nothing.

Brad

 

[OldWolf]

Yes, but there is no mention of it on the website. It is only by reading the manual that I discovered this "feature". They know it is nothing to brag about.

 

[Master Blaster]

My new Vaquero has it as well, I chose to ignore it. I suspect all Rugers will have a built in lock ike all of the S&W, Springfield armory, Taurus, do; and most others will soon.

 

[Ohen Cepel]

They hid it under the grip which is better than a rancid whole in the side like S&W did.
However, I would still look into having it removed IF I bought one at all. It is something that I totally do not want and adds another thing to fail.

Many older guns out there looking for a home

 

[usp_fan]

There are alread parts in the works to allow you to retro-fit your new ruger and do away with the lock.

On the upside, I've tried one of the new vaqueros, and the cocking and trigger were far smoother than factory "old vaqueros". I can't see this lock having any impact on the gun other than perception.

--usp_fan

 

[P. Plainsman]

It's by all appearances a superior design to the S&W lock, both cosmetically -- the Ruger lock hides beneath the grip panels -- and functionally -- placement at the bottom of the grip locates the lock safely (?) away from the recoil forces. But one may still regret its arrival.

I'm not too stressed about a lock on a revolver like the New Vaquero, which I'd likely use for plinking, CAS, or similar fun-type activities.

It'll be a different situation when the lock migrates to Ruger's "life and limb" revolvers, such as the GP100 and SP101, which so many rely on for personal defense, or the Super Blackhawk and Redhawk, which many use for serious hunting propositions such as feral hogs.

If the Ruger locks prove to be easily removed, so much the better; I will remove them.

 

[BlkHawk73]

Get used to it. Laws are being passed requiring these features. If a companies handgun is going to be sold in particular states, all manufacturers are going to have to implement locks into thier designs or not be in the marketplace. No market place = no sales = out of business. At least Ruger has the forethought to design a locking system that's hidden. Do like the idea, don't buy 'em. Won't be long before you won't be buying ANY new handguns. Would love to get a poll of who says they wouldn't ever buy a integrally lockable handgun and compare it to what they buy when it's pretty much a standard feature across all makes/models.

 

[Cosmoline]

I really don't mind the new Ruger safety that much. As pointed out, if you don't know about it and don't activate it it's not a problem. If it helps Ruger win a lawsuit brought by some idiot who left his loaded revolver out for his kid to play with, I'm all for it.

 

[Old Fuff]

I share Old Wolf's attitude concerning the lock, but it won't stop me from buying a .357 Blackhawk Commemorative, if or when I get the chance.

If one is willing to give up they’re warrantee, and understands that if the revolver is returned to the factory for servicing it will come back with a fully functionally lock … well there no reason the lock can’t go. Its loss will make no detrimental difference to the gun.

Quite frankly, I think Ruger handled the issue nicely, given the situation. However I sure the next time the Democrats propose a gun-lock law it will require an “accessible lock.â€

 

[Standing Wolf]

It is only by reading the manual that I discovered this "feature". They know it is nothing to brag about.

I think the firearms manufacturing end of the company is a division of the law office. Gutless.

 

[Pointman]

If you don't take the grips off you won't even know it's there. What it does is obstruct the hammer strut so it's not some split spring rebounding hammer junk that messes with the trigger. As a matter of fact the trigger on the New Vaquero I picked up a few weeks ago is quite good for factory. ( and even better after a few evenings in front of the television with snap caps driving the Missus nutz )

If we're going to be stuck with such devices I like the way Ruger has done it.

 

[Yooper]

The real problem is with the lawmakers, not the manufacturers. As long as the presence of the lock does not affect reliability of the firearm, I can ignore it. I would hesitate to disconnect the lock because if the firearm is ever used for self-defense, it has been "modified".

 

[Old Fuff]

You are right about the lawmakers ...

If the lock on a defensive firearm became an issue in the future (which in Arizona is highly unlikely) I'd solve the problem by using or carrying something that was made before locks were ever thought of.

Which is what I do now anyway ...