Vaquero help?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I hope your talking about bourbon, I havent got all your codes figured out yet on this forum.

Some of them sound ... kinda....you know... If its not code Wellers


Tuner, extensive knowledge of manufacturing and marketing what? So help me if you say pencil sharpeners or Frisbees I'm gonna pop like a tick!

Now I, not being in marketing with any of the firearms companies, don't have any pie charts. But when you say Ruger didn't care about a couple million handloaders, that whether you believe it or not sustained Blackhawk sales for a couple decades.

And then claim that he tooled up for the what, quarter million maybe cowboy shooters, because they asked and he listened.

Never mind that half of them ARE the ignored handloaders.

Is Bunk.

Ruger built the first Vaquero to be stronger than the Colt and clones. If he did it because of surplus frames , that were stronger for handloaders,or because he remembered how well it worked out with the Blackhawk and the handloaders, is imaterial.

Ruger was dominating the market with the big Vaquero, it was stronger and as long as it wasn't your great aunt shooting it, it wasn't too heavy. Marketing for other companies went after the Vaquero , the only place they could ,with the complaint that it was too heavy, or it didnt have the heft of a Colt.

Gun writers had more to do with convincing any body that a smaller frame size was necessary, than week end cowboys.

With your background in marketing you must have noticed how trade journals, are used to shape opinion, and create markets where there were none.

You guys want to know what happened to Colt, Rugers genius marketing strategy was to take what ever product Colt had and build it cheaper.

Woodsman/Ruger standard automatic, I cant remember if the Colt frontier scout or the single six was out first but they were head to head, all Colt double actions/all Ruger double actions. SAs everything, they even went after the Rifles with the Mini 14!

All he had to do is sit there with a grin and say "I'm just tryingto make a gun that the working man can afford" While nickle and diming Colt every step of the way.

I'll be damned I'm on the other thread! :)
 
Last edited:
Manufacturing and marketing is manufacturing and marketing...no matter what the product is. If there's a market for it...they'll make it. If the sales fall...they drop it.

I was in the manufacturing end. I saw product lines come and go.

The NM Blackhawk was already there for the hot-rod handloaders and had been for years.

Why introduce a whole new line into a market already covered by essentially the same gun? That would be competing with oneself. The Vaquero was aimed at a whole different segment of the market. Those who hunted liked the Blackhawk for its adjustable sights. Vaquero buyers wanted the guns because some of the CASS classes and stages didn't allow adjustable sights. (They've got some odd rules, hey?)

Although the writers lit the fire, the shooters were the defining reason for the New Vaquero...and very likely heavily influenced by the fast-draw competitors who wanted to shave ounces from their guns. Rugers because the design allowed for hard, fast hammer action without chewing up the hands and ratchets and because the coil springs didn't break the way that the original leaf springs did. Ruger's marketing people that board of directors aren't dumb enough to pour a couple million dollars into a venture on the word of a few gun writers. They researched the market first. Bet on it.

Finally...Ruger is well aware of the handoaders who stoke their .45 Blackhawks and Vaqueros with ammunition loaded to nearly double the industry standard. They're also doubtless aware that there are many handloaders who push the envelope, and handloaders who make mistakes. They have no control over that...so they're not going to say: "Yeah! Sure! Stuff the case full and go have a ball!"

Not gonna happen. That would be like Chevrolet condoning pushing a Corvette to 150 mph on the interstate.

Because...it would only be a matter of time before some fool sued for losing his fingers and eyes..and the lawyers would turn their words against them and win big bucks.

And...If you don't think a Blackhawk can be blown to Helen Gone...you're kidding yourself.
 
heh heh No.

Ruger...I know that you want to believe badly that the reason for the Vaquero was so that insane handloaders could set of pseudo nuclear events from .45 Colt single actions...but logic and reality simply don't support it.

If that was the case...why did they drop it? If the market was there then, it would still be there today. The logical conclusion is that was never the market for it. Besides, they also included a .44 Magnum Vaquero in the lineup. It didn't do nearly as well as the ones in the Cowboy calibers.

People who stoke up the .45 Colt cartridge generally do it for hunting. A revolver with adjustable sights is more suited to that task. The Blackhawks have that venue well covered, and have for years. Why would Ruger compete with themselves for the same market with a gun that's not as well-suited as the one that's already established and successful?

They wouldn't.

The reason for the Vaquero's introduction was the Cowboy movement. The reason for its demise was the New Vaquero. Again...Why would they compete with themselves for the same market with two different guns when one is more suited to the task and is selling as fast as they can make'em?

They wouldn't.

The Vaquero, with its fixed sights, wasn't particularly well-suited to the game fields, and the New Vaquero had knocked it from its spot in the Cowboy Action stages due to the size and balance. It was neither fish nor fowl...so it was dropped.

Lastly...Not all the half-million or so reloaders in the country have an interest in the .45 Colt cartridge or single-action revolvers. They make up a small percentage of the total.
Why would Ruger commit resources and manpower to a relatively tiny segment of the market when the Blackhawk already has it covered?

They wouldn't.

Pencils! Very well.

If you made and sold red and blue pencils, and you discovered that the blue ones were outselling the red ones a hundred to one...would you continue to make red pencils for one percent of your total sales...or would you focus on blue pencils and tell your red pencil customers that you don't carry them any more...and that they can probably find some red pencils at Wal-Mart?

Marketing 101. Produce what sells. Drop what doesn't.
 
You just cant track can you. The blue and red story was already told to me by denis like the night before last ,only it was widgets.

Thats it you made widgets. I'm going to stop asking what it was since you refuse to say, it must be something that you think doesn't equate well. And that answers my question.
 
The nomenclature used concerning the evolution of Ruger and, more specifically, the Blackhawks and the Vaqueros confuses the s.....stuff out of me.

Now RCModel, let me be for a minute.

Leaving the Super, the Red, and the other "Hawks" out, I say this.

The 3 screws began with what I refer to the 1st Gen Blackhawks. These began in 1953. With the Flat tops included. Don't get picky on specific dates.

In 1972, the 1st Gen Vaquero appeared along with the 2nd Gen Blackhawk. Both were on a larger frame than the original Blackhawk and said to be 10% larger than a Colt.

In 2004, the "new" Vaquero was introduced. I refer to that as the 2nd Gen Vaquero. Back to the same size as the 3 screw and a Colt. This size also refers to the "new" Flat top Blackhawk 357 which I refer to as the 3rd Gen Blackhawk. The grip panels will fit the 50th Anniversary 44 Flattop but the frame is bigger.

SASS has been the 800 pound Gorilla in some cases but I personally believe the 2nd Gen Blackhawk and the 1st Gen Vaquero died from unpopularity. They were tanks. And they felt like tanks. When Ruger announced the 2nd Gen Vaquero, "land" cowboys and cowgirls and "mounted" cowboys and cowgirls were plain giddy. A $450.00 minature tank in stainless steel gave them what they had been hollerin' for. Due to attrition and drop outs, I have no idea the actual number of cowpersons. They are near badge number 100,000. Almost every country. And growin'. Passel of people folks.

"Hell, I was there".:evil:
 
Doesn't matter how "it" equates. Manufacturing and marketing all operate under the same rules, whether you're making widgets or DeLoreans. Demand drives the market. No company will continue to manufacture something that doesn't generate enough sales revenue to justify it. Not if they want to remain solvent.

And it seems like you're the one having trouble tracking. You still haven't come up with an answer to the basic question.

To wit:

"If the market is there for the big Vaquero...why did Ruger drop it from the catalog? You don't do that with a big seller.

If...as you insist...it was for the hot-rod handloaders...why did the market so suddenly change? If it was there before, it stands to reason that it would still be there.

Oh, wait! It is still there. The NM Blackhawk has it covered...just like it always did.
 
Im sorry you've re worded , retacked, and paraphrased until I could not remember what the question was. I kind a hung up on your obscure point about the 45 colt, well actually I'm just trying to find it.

But I have you officialy in the economists column on the chart, pris is still on the line, I'm makin a bar graph.


With the flat refusal to answer my question(s), and insistance that yours are more relevent, I've kinda lost interest sorry.:(
 
Last edited:
Red cent , your right it was starin me right in the face. The whiskey crack was a reference to your signature. Still a crack,( but better than what I thought you were sayin)
 
Last edited:
Dances with Wolves was released in 1990, Tombstone was released in 1993, and the Vaquero was released in 1993 as well. From my memory, CAS was just getting pretty popular. I'd agree with Tuner that Ruger simply saw the cowboy market growing and by using the same frames and cylinders they already had could provide a cowboy looking gun much cheaper than the Colts. The competition grew from Uberti, Beretta, Cimmaron etc. and Ruger saw a need to make theirs more Colt-like (more genuine if you will) to keep up in the real market for cowboy guns which was the action shooting crowd (that's why the sell them in matched pairs). The hunting crowd and handloading crowd still had the Blackhawks afterall. Me, I love my old 5.5" Stainless Vaq I've had since '95. It's a do-all gun I can load hot or cold.
 
Yep. Really pretty obvious what Ruger's thinking was with the Vaqueros...given that the translation for "Vaquero" is cowboy. Well...Obvious at least to those who have thought the matter through, anyway.

Or was that just a coincidence?

Or maybe it was targeted at real cowboys who happen to handload...

Or was it handloaders who happen to be real cowboys...

Or maybe it was Blackhawk shooters who just wanted the challenge of learning to hit their targets using Kentucky windage because they were bored and adjustable sights just made it too easy...
 
Actually, RugerMcmarlin, the question came up because of a noticeble shift in your usual mild tongue-in-cheek ranting ;).

As an addicted user (forums, forums), I thought the last toddy may have tilted the bubble ever so slighlty. Nothing to do with stupid people:evil: whatsoever..
 
I apologize Red Cent, I'm just smart enough to tell when folks are making fun of me.I haven't been able to guess their motive even once.

Its fairly futile for me to try to, kind of like having a position, then spending the rest of your life defending it. I may have to find another hobby, this isn't relaxing, and if I needed the frustration, I would have become a math teacher.

Its like a bunch of kids poking sticks at a lion at the zoo. Only, when the lion roars,
he's told he should do it in a kinder, gentler way, or they aren't going to let him be poked anymore.

Hows that, back to my regular tongue in cheek? :)

FWIW, I haven't had a drink in 15 years, maybe its made me bitter.
 
Last edited:
Ruger made a lot more Vaqueros than there are cowboy action shooters out there. It filled a market spot.

Ruger frames are cast and a Blackhawk frame is not suitable to make a Vaquero out of. It was easier to make a new frame, put on a different front sight and add a steel gripframe and ejector rod housing. Presto, the Vaquero. The other parts are the same.

The New Vaquero came out of shooter demand. It is smaller and lighter. Fits my hand better for faster handling. Looks like Ruger is selling a lot of them. I want one in the 44 Special. Already have the Flat Top.
 
Ironhead...The Vaquero is nothing more than a Blackhawk with fixed sights. Same frame. Same cylinder. Same lockwork, and they're all cast.

I guess I wasn't asking Ruger McM those questions as much as I was tryin' to get him to ask himself a few. So, I'll try the same with you...but first, a flat statement about marketing.

If...as a few seem to believe...the Vaquero's target was the hot-rod handloaders...why did it seem to evaporate with the introduction of the New Vaquero? Did all those handloaders die?

No.

The Vaquero was dropped because the target market scrambled for the New Vaqueros, and the dealers who took the old ones in trade found that they couldn't give the flippin' things away. Word got to the distributors which in turn got to Ruger...and they in turn cut their losses by halting production and turning their attention to the New Vaquero and their old standby...the Blackhawk.

That's how the market works. No demand and it goes the way of the Dodo bird. Sometimes overnight.

The NM Blackhawk based Vaquero is a good, strong revolver...but it's neither fish nor fowl. A few die-hards will hunt with it, but the majority who hunt with a single-action revolver will opt for the Blackhawk's fixed sights. Aside from that feature...it's the same gun.

No company will discontinue a hot seller. If there's a strong market for it, they'll find a way to produce it if they have to hire more help and go on overtime.
 
Man, I got tears running out of my eyes! when you started out with "Ironhead", I thought sure you were talking to me.

oh god thats the best laugh I had in I don't know when.:):)


Answer: The reason the market for the hot handloaded suitable 1st Model Vaquero, dried up immediately upon the introduction of the newer smaller and less appropriate New Model Vaquero. Is because we knew the 6 or 8 Million cowboy action shooters would sell theirs and buy the little one.
 
Last edited:
1911 Tuner: Thats what I was saying. Many of the parts are the same on the Blackhawk and the Vaquero. The frame is the same size but is not the same casting. The demand for a fixed sight SA was from the cowboy shooters. The New Vaquero is just a little more refined.
 
Ironhead...

That wouldn't make any sense from a manufacturing or a business standpoint.

Why would Ruger use different castings and/or material for the same frame just so they could finish machine it for different sights?

Vaquero and NM Blackhawk. Same gun/Different sights.

Smith & Wesson Model 13 and Model 19. Same gun/Different sights.

Model 57 and Model 58. Same gun/different sights.

Model 586 and Model 581. Same gun/Different sights.
 
RedCent, in your post of #31, 53-73 for the 3 screws, Flattop inclusive? was that the XR3 grip frame? Then they quit, in 72 and made the 2nd model Black hawk, or New Model,and the 1st model Vaquero? I mean 1st gen Vaquero, 2nd gen Blackhawk? In 72 or 73, they made the frames 10% bigger than the ColtSAA or the 3 screw Blackhawk? Why! Can you think of any reason, that they would make it Bigger? Were they claiming it was stronger than the SAA?What would be the advantage in that!? There must have been a reason. They had to know, they were going to go to the same size as the Colt 35 years later. Maybe they just had to drive Colt out of the market of their own damn pistol first. I'm gonna check on that intro date with the 1st Vaquero, not sure its right. Your right tho, its all so confusing.
 
Its like a bunch of kids poking sticks at a lion at the zoo. Only, when the lion roars,
he's told he should do it in a kinder, gentler way, or they aren't going to let him be poked anymore."

Last time I was at the zoo nobody poked this 600 pound old boy. He roared, letting the trainer know he was done with dinner and would like to go back to his yard. We were 10 feet away, and a 3 year old started crying and peed on himself.
;)

Lot of gunsmiths used those Rugers for their conversions. Linebaugh, Bowen, Reeder, etc.

I thought the idea of the .45 was that it used the same frame as the 44 Magnum
Blackhawk, and, with the combination of 45 and 44's on the same frame, plus the gun being the most popular starting point for a conversion, they had a pretty good market.

BFR has to be the elephant in the room no one wants to talk about. 17-4 stainless versions, from 500-900 dollars, and twice the quality of the Rugers.

Also, the BFR's, and the increase in the 5 shot, larger caliber guns, diluted the
buyer pool for the Rugers.

That, and what about all those Italian copies of SAA's? Cheaper cowboy guns, and,
Ruger wanted, and has gone to a higher price point. I really wonder how you folks swallow the 700 dollar price tag for one, when a BFR is a couple hundred, or less, more.?

I just see a lot of pieces of what was once pretty much an all Ruger pie falling apart, and, competition being the culprit.
 
Law of the jungle. Or like my Economics teacher says its all supply and demand. Guess in a way its kind a fitting to see Ruger get run out of the same market they ran Colt out of. And with Colt repros too.

I dont know about the frames changes to this then to that I thought I was paying attention at the time?

I have never fired one of the BFRs. I damn near bought one. once had a good price and a weird caliber so I passed. Your sold on them though?
 
BFR is supposed to be using 17-4 stainless in the entire gun now, and, they use ruger parts for their internals, IIRC.

Out here they are so rare they cost about even with a Freedom Arms on the used market. While BFR's are twice the gun a Ruger is, if I can get a FA for the same price, I'm grabbing the FA. To be real, the BFR has a transfer bar, and is safe with all cylinders loaded, something FA tells you they are not, only 4, empty under the hammer.

I was broke when CDNN sold a bunch for 500 dollars each, perhaps the steal of the century. The problem with BFR is they are hard to find, and, they offer some weird configurations, and, calibers. I like the short cylinder versions.

By the way, I shot Jack Huntington's custom BFR:
EdsRugervs.jpg
In .500 JRH, gun on the right.

Great trigger, fantastic gun. Turns out from the BFR custom shop it cost nearly 1800 dollars, but, I think it's stronger then a FA, and shoots just as well, and, it's safe with 5, not the 4 the FA's are.

So, yes, I'm sold on the BFR's, but, at this point I have specific things I'm looking for, and, last time I checked, BFR didn't have it. I'm after a short cylinder 45 Colt that can take heavy loads. Ruger doesn't cover that foot anymore, either. On the otherhand, used .454 Casulls, FA 83's, are just about the same price as the BFRs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

ArchAngelCD
  • Locked
Ruger Vaquero .45 Colt
Replies
16
Views
1K
ArchAngelCD
ArchAngelCD
W
  • Locked
Ruger Sheriff 45LC
Replies
17
Views
1K
wheelyfun66
W
T
  • Locked
Vaquero 44mag reloading inquiry
Replies
16
Views
881
Cosmoline
C
S
  • Locked
Ruger Vaquero questions
Replies
6
Views
837
Werewolf
W
A
  • Locked
Bisley Vaquero trigger help
Replies
4
Views
453
JoeHatley
J
Back
Top