Vaquero or Blackhawk?

[35 Whelen]

I also prefer the taller hammer spur on the Colt single actions and wouldn't dream of changing the hammer on a New Vaquero.....if I had one. They definitely serve a purpose for me. IMHO, the Bisley or Super Blackhawk hammers are NOT an upgrade for a Blackhawk or Vaquero.

I'm having a hard time taking you seriously. With the pinky tucked under the grip, it looks like Mary Poppins is holding that revolver. Spot o' tea, anyone?

Just ribbin' ya a little!!

35W

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

For what it's worth, I always tuck my pinky under the grip of a SAA. You will notice in that photo it allows a space of about 1/4" to open up between the rear of the trigger guard and the knuckle of the middle finger. That 1/4" of space prevents the trigger guard from smacking the knuckle in recoil.

 

[Steve51]

I like adjustable sights on a revolver.

 

[CraigC]

I'm having a hard time taking you seriously. With the pinky tucked under the grip, it looks like Mary Poppins is holding that revolver. Spot o' tea, anyone?

Just ribbin' ya a little!!

Ha ha!

 

[grter]

I don't like hammers that block the sight picture when they are not cocked. They may look pretty and be more suited to fanning or whatever. I guess it probably depends on individual preferences whether it feels more comfortable than a lower hammer to cock or not but to me it does not seem to make a difference as far as ergonomics are concerned.

It's good to be able to practice sighting and holding your single action steady without having to worry about a cocked action at the range or even at home when unloaded.

It's just more work (cocking hammer to see sight picture) and somthing else to worry about (you better make sure it's unloaded when cocked in the house.)

The Remington New Army has the type of hammer that obstructs the sight picture when uncocked. It looks nice but Ruger's Old Army is more practicle in that you don't need to cock it to look down the sights.

 

[Blacksmoke]

I have been reading this thread with interest as I am facing that same decision. Years ago, I owned an old model Vaquero with a 3.5 inch barrel and regret selling it. This time I am focused on a .44 Special with a 4.625 inch barrel- something that can be easily carried around the farm and in town. 44 years ago, I owned a Blackhawk in .357 mag, 4.625 inch barrel. I do not remember much about it except I hit what I was shooting at without much trouble. Sadly, Ruger no longer offers the Vaquero in .44 Special. So, I guess it is the Blackhawk unless I wait for an older Vaquero to show up. The adjustable sights are a plus when using the wide array of .44 Special ammo now available. The Vaquero is more pleasing aesthetically which does not amount to much when the guns is needed. The Blackhawk will never be a pretty gun but it does mean business.

 

[35 Whelen]

There are a few .44 Special Vaquero s out there but you have to be vigilant. I found a pair a coupe of years ago but waited too long to decide to buy them.

35W

 

[Blacksmoke]

Right you are, Whelen. Have to jump on it when they appear.

 

[BCRider]

I'm sort of thinking that the big partridge style front sight of a Blackhawk or Super Blackhawk is more likely to snag and hook on a holster during a draw. For some using the gun this could be a big issue.

In the case of a carry gun for around the farm I could also see the bigger rear sight sticking out of the holster also getting caught up in cloths and other objects as well if riding in a holster that leaves the rear sight exposed.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

With a properly-designed holster, there is no problem at all with adjustable sights.

I sometimes put a sight track in a holster by making the front and back of two different pieces of leather and adding a welt, forming a groove for the front sight. I cut the holster throat so the rear sight is either inside the holster, or firmly against the top.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

They may look pretty and be more suited to fanning or whatever. It's just more work (cocking hammer to see sight picture) and somthing else to worry about (you better make sure it's unloaded when cocked in the house.)

So I guess Colt has had it wrong for all these years?



By the way, if you try fanning one of these the hammer will tear up your palm. Fanning is mostly only done in the movies with guns that are set up specially for it.

 

[Blacksmoke]

With a properly-designed holster, there is no problem at all with adjustable sights.

I sometimes put a sight track in a holster by making the front and back of two different pieces of leather and adding a welt, forming a groove for the front sight. I cut the holster throat so the rear sight is either inside the holster, or firmly against the top.
-Vern Humphrey


I should think that such a holster would be made commercially. It certainly is a good idea. Are you taking orders?

 

[Blacksmoke]

I'm sort of thinking that the big partridge style front sight of a Blackhawk or Super Blackhawk is more likely to snag and hook on a holster during a draw. For some using the gun this could be a big issue.

In the case of a carry gun for around the farm I could also see the bigger rear sight sticking out of the holster also getting caught up in cloths and other objects as well if riding in a holster that leaves the rear sight exposed

Never had that problem with my Redhawk but then the holster encloses the rear sight- "Milt Sparks" holster.

I agree that all that metal might eliminate carrying a Blackhawk in a pocket.

 

[35 Whelen]

The sight issue is a personal thing. I much prefer the sight picture afforded by adjustable sights, but in the real world of real carry (not CAS or hanging out at the gun range) I personally prefer the sturdiness and simplicity of fixed sights.

When I was a teen I was shooting my Dad's Colt Gov't Model 45 ACP when the rear sight blade from the Bomar rear sight flew off during recoil and hit me square between the eyes.

I bought an H&R 929 for my wife to carry when she goes for walks on our property, which happens to be fraught with rattlesnakes, and carry it she did...a lot. At some point I grabbed it to go shoot a little and noticed the rear sight blade was gone. One of the windage screws has loosened and the rear sight had fallen out.

I bought a 3" Rossi .38 several years ago to carry around the place and it had the rear sight blade missing, due to the same reasons as the H&R.

That is why I personally prefer fixed sights for "business" type handguns.

IMHO the only advantage to adjustable sights is the sight picture. I have a couple of revolvers with adjustable sights, but once they're sighted in I darn sure don't twiddle with them when changing loads, I simply learn where to hold with different loads.

With my SA's I endeavor to have two loads; a practice/plinking load which generally will run 800 - 850 fps and a hunting load that runs 200 or so fps faster. With similarly shaped bullets there's just not enough difference in points of impact at reasonable handgun ranges (<75 yds.) to amount to a hill of beans.

35W

 

[Armor Snail]

Out of those two I would buy a Vaquero.

What I would personally buy though is a Bounty Hunter

 

[Blacksmoke]

Whelen's point is well taken. On the whole, Ruger revolvers hold together but they all require tightening periodically. My old Vaquero would shake loose. The history of combat revolvers is clear enough- fixed sights. I, too, prefer the sight picture of the Blackhawk/Redhawk adjustable sights. I just wish I could appreciate the clunky looking Blackhawk. Perhaps a few dead predators will improve its appearance.

All that being said, I looked at the Uberti Thunderer today. 44 Special, 4.75 inch barrel, case coloring and Birdy grips. Very seductive. A friend owns a Colt Thunderer and lets me hold it on occasion (after I wash and dry my hands). It sure points well and feels great in the hand. Adding those grips to a SA revolver is a nice innovation. Of course, it cannot handle the high pressures of the +P ammo which is an issue for me. I do have a Redhawk which can.

 

[Gary A]

Tough choice for me. I voted Blackhawk, esp since the choice was 5 1/2 inch versions but love the look of the Vaquero. In the real world, I have both Blackhawks and Vaqueros. I have heard of people who have actually removed the Blackhawk rear sight for hard field use, filed down the front sight a bit and use the "ears" of the sight channel as a rear sight. Not precise but certainly sturdy. I have not tried that and likely won't but it serves as a reminder that should I "break" my rear sight (unlikely, I think) the revolver should by no means be unusable. Do like the Vaquero lines better but an alloy grip-framed blued Blachawk is about the best balanced, perfect "packing pistol" I can think of, my favorite being the 4 5/8 inch version.

 

[MartinS]

Made the Blackhawk versus Vaquero choice a little while ago. After the dust settled I was holding on to a New Vaquero 45, 5 1/2 inch, stainless. More like the old Colt, sleeker overall without the target sights, could be carried concealed if need be but the barrel is long enough to see when held and fired close to the hip, don't need to look through the sights if I'm not ready to fire and it is hard for me to miss that hammer with either hand. Put both in your hand before you decide.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I should think that such a holster would be made commercially. It certainly is a good idea. Are you taking orders?

I just do it as a hobby. But holsters are easy to make -- you can get everything you need from www.tandyleatherfactory.com, including enough leather for a dozen holsters for the price of one factory-made holster.

 

[grter]

Made the Blackhawk versus Vaquero choice a little while ago. After the dust settled I was holding on to a New Vaquero 45, 5 1/2 inch, stainless. More like the old Colt, sleeker overall without the target sights, could be carried concealed if need be but the barrel is long enough to see when held and fired close to the hip, don't need to look through the sights if I'm not ready to fire and it is hard for me to miss that hammer with either hand. Put both in your hand before you decide.

Fair enough. My preference for being able to see the sights with the hammer down is not a deal breaker.

Having the hammer block the sight picture is a minor quirk to me and ergonomical preferences may make the higher hammer configuration desirable maybe even better for a lot or possibly most people.

I don't know the answer but as usual it's avantages vs disadvantages. The Colt was designed in an era where firearms were more likely to be used than played with by designers who probably needed and used firearms themselves to be sold to and used by people who needed and used firearms.

I do not think Colt got anything wrong. In my opinion a 5 inch (more or less) barrel
Colt was one practicle, handy package for the reasons stated above by MartinS but not the only option either.