Ruger Vaquero Old style New style

[bouncer50]

Why did Ruger change to the new style different frame and cylinder size and what else. I as i understand the old style grips will not fit the newer models.

[roberts1]

Im not sure why but I have one of each and the frame on the new vaquero is smaller maybe more in line with the size of a colt.

[Char-Gar]

Ruger went back to their original Blackhawk frame before they upsized it to the New Model Blackhawk. The original and "New Vaquero) is about he same size as the Colt SA and therefore popular with the Cowboy Action shooting crowd. The original Blackhawks have always been a popular item on the used market and many lamented the change to a larger frame and cylinder.

[Tar Heel]

I am not quite sure if Char-Gar is spot on with his evaluation but a very good description can be found at the link specified below. The original Vaquero is built on a Blackhawk frame and is very robust. The New Vaquero is a smaller frame and closer to the Colt frame in size and pressure tolerances. Do NOT use Blackhawk style loads (high pressure) in the New Vaquero since it is NOT designed to take that.

I believe Ruger wanted to approximate the weight and feel of the original Colt revolvers like the Italians have already. It's called market share and Ruger wants it. I like my original Vaquero even after having felt the New Vaquero.

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

[jmort]

This is the best explanation

http://www.riflemagazine.com/magazine/PDF/HL_234_preview.pdf

[Wolfer]

I have never owned an old vaquero. I've always thought they felt good but we're just a bit heavy for constant field carry. I feel the same way about the super Blackhawks.
That these are strong well made guns is without question but I'm not interested in hot rod loads.
When Ruger introduced the new vaquero I ordered one immediately. Had it in my hands in about a year. I like it better than any handgun I own or have owned. When Lipseys announced the 44 spl on an old model 357 frame I jumped on it. I'm pretty fond of it also.

If you want your gun to be all that it can be then the super Blackhawks or old model vaquero is what you need. Myself I like a 250 ish boolit at around 950/1050 fps. The smaller guns work just fine for me.

[Outpost75]

I want to be able to use the same loads in rifle and revolver. The small New Vaquero and original Blackhawk grip frame is uncomfortable with heavy loads. The extra weight is no issue for me.

I don't shoot mouse fart loads, but most of my .44s are around 1000 fps, similar in energy to original blackpowder loads in the .45 Colt or. 44-40. These are adequate for most outdoor use. Firing such loads in the original Vaquero or the Super Blackhawk with steel XR3 grip frame is easily manageable, but unpleasant with the tiny Colt style grips.

[jmort]

I have owned both old and new Vaqueros, and I like the new Vaquero much more.

[EDK]

Differences of opinion is what makes horse races and elections.

I prefer the Original Size VAQUERO...in 44 magnum please. I further add a HUNTER or DRAGOON grip frame and SUPER BLACK HAWK hammer or choose a BISLEY. 44 Special brass was problematic at one time also.

FWIW a NIB stainless steel 44 magnum VAQUERO with 5.5 inch barrel just went for $650 on gunbroker; Similar pair went for $1200 awhile back. Used Original Size VAQUEROS, especially 44 magnum, are going for $500+. Somebody else must like them.

[Wolfer]

Yeah, when I got my new vaquero I figured the price on the old models would go down and I could pick up a bargain. I'm wrong so often I've gotten used to it.

[Dale53]

There are those that have a problem with the New Vaquero plow handle grip with the heavier loads. There is a solution. I found a number of new (old stock) Colt SAA Pachmayr grips online (just google them). They were reasonably priced (Pachmayr no longer offers these grips, I understand). They are not a perfect fit but they work very well. They TOTALLY solve the pain in shooting the SAA grip and allow you to shoot to your potential. If hitting what you aim at is more important than esthetics (as it is for me) than these may be for you. Here's a pair on my .44 Lipsey Special:

http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj80/Dale53/DalesPistolsRevolvers4Selects-0392.jpg (http://s269.photobucket.com/user/Dale53/media/DalesPistolsRevolvers4Selects-0392.jpg.html)

Dale53

[Tar Heel]

Bouncer50.....ultimately (unfortunately) these discussions always seem to devolve into a "mouse-fart load versus a howitzer load" issue. That is not why Ruger redesigned the Vaquero. The Vaquero was made to be a Colt "look alike" with more eye appeal to the cowboy action shooters. Ruger based it on an existing Blackhawk frame and simply rounded it off some to be more eye appealing to the CAS shooters and 45 Colt SAA aficionados.

Then years later to further appease the CAS crowd, Ruger redesigned the gun to be more of a Colt clone and gather lost market share which the Italians (Uberti) were dominating. Both guns are chambered in 45 Colt and it has NOTHING to do with hot rodding the 45 Colt.

It just so happens that the original Vaquero, being built on a Blackhawk frame, can actually withstand the loading data for the 45 Colt cartridge which was intended for T/C Contender and Ruger BLACKHAWK frames. These loads had higher chamber pressures than the original 45 Colt cartridge was designed for.

The New Vaquero, being built on a lighter redesigned frame, closely matching original Colt SAA frames, can NOT withstand 45 Colt loads developed specifically for the Ruger Blackhawk frame - of which the ORIGINAL Vaquero happens to be.

Ruger did NOT redesign the frame to accommodate high pressure or low pressure anything. They are both chambered in 45 Colt and designed for 45 Colt pressures. IT JUST SO HAPPENS that the original frame could handle higher chamber pressures that handloaders can work up.

It is a constant source of amusement to me, and I am sure to others, that these comparisons typically devolve into a "you can load a 9,374 grain bullet to 74,784.343 fps for 118 tons of energy to kill bunny wabbits with."

Both of the Ruger Vaqueros are built for and chambered for the 45 Colt load in its SAAMI specifications. It's a 45 Colt - not a howitzer. If you want to shoot a howitzer, make a call to SSK Industries and get a SSK Hand Cannon. J.D. Jones will fix you right up.

If you want a nice 45 Colt SAA look alike, Ruger can fix you right up with the New Vaquero chambered in 45 Colt. I have an original Vaquero and would like to get a New Vaquero but having an Uberti already to fit the 45 Colt SAA clone desire, I can't justify the expense. The newer Vaquero feels better and is a truer clone to the original Colt SAA.

It also is interesting to note that the original 45 Colt black powder loads, with a 250gr bullet atop 40 grains of black powder, are surprisingly powerful. In fact, they were too powerful for the US Army and led to the adoption of the .45 Schofield which was a reduced 45 load which most soldiers could handle better.

Elmer Keith, the "father of the 44 magnum", often told of his respect for the 45 Colt for its ability to stop a steer or horse when needed. Shooting the original BP loads will convince you of his reasons for that admiration. It is not a load for the timid. While there are certainly more powerful guns and loads out there, the 45 Colt in its original configuration is no mouse fart. The Action Shooter crowd shoots drastically reduced 45 Colt loads to "game" the event. Those loads do not compare ballistically to the original 45 Colt loads which, while not a howitzer, are nothing to scoff at.

Here is a pretty good video showing an original Vaquero shooting original 45 Colt black powder loads (250gr bullet, 40gr black powder).


http://youtu.be/0Ym4ZEkh_14

[contender1]

Well put Tar Heel!

[paracordkydexcummins]

I would take one of the vaqueros with a birdshead grip like this for a carry gun defensive ammo is not loaded super hot and doesn't need to be in a cross draw rig it would look super nice http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/15/01/31/d752ad4830b251b3d1528e874fcf7ce7.jpg
A 45 acp was originally designed to copy the 45 colt black powder load the army and FBI has reduced there guns power many times like 7.62 to 5.56, 45acp to 9mm and so on

[DougGuy]

Yep like TarHeel says, Ruger wanted to scale down the Vaquero to be more the size of the old Colt SAA, and to make it more appealing to the Cowboy Action shooters. I think they did a great job with the medium framed guns, and from what I have seen out of both generations of Vaqueros, the New Vaquero by far is a better fitted gun than the original Vaquero. Their cylinder throats (albeit 90% of them are too tightly dimensioned to shoot .452" cast boolits without sizing them down) are smoothly polished and much more consistent than the large framed models. The barrels are fitted better to the frames, the ones I have had in my shop have been surprisingly free of thread choke, and the roll mark is not nearly as deep so they don't have the distortion in the rifling behind the roll mark on the barrel. Two VERY important attributes that the old Vaquero was known to suffer from much more so than the New Vaquero.

I myself have a back burner project in the works, I plan to use a New Vaquero in .45 ACP and rechamber it in .45 Schofield, so that the Tier 2 pressure ceiling can be attained in a shorter case which would lend itself to more consistent performance than loading the full size .45 Colt to the 23,000psi pressure ceiling these guns are designed to operate within. My project will launch a 250 - 280gr boolit at just over supersonic, in the 1150 - 1180f/s velocity range, and operate very near the 23,000psi max.

Ruger gave us a FINE tier 2 capable revolver, but there really isn't much load data aimed at this niche in the .45 caliber guns, this project aims to take advantage of the refinements that Ruger gave us, and match it to an equally refined tier 2 level cartridge, the revisited and now modern day .45 Schofield.

[jmort]

^^^ This is an excellent post

[MakeMineA10mm]

It also is interesting to note that the original 45 Colt black powder loads, with a 250gr bullet atop 40 grains of black powder, are surprisingly powerful. In fact, they were too powerful for the US Army and led to the adoption of the .45 Schofield which was a reduced 45 load which most soldiers could handle better.




A 45 acp was originally designed to copy the 45 colt black powder load the army and FBI has reduced there guns power many times like 7.62 to 5.56, 45acp to 9mm and so on


Just a quick historical correction or two.

Tar Heel: The 45 Schofield load was adopted by the U.S. Army with the S&W Schofield #3, because the frame and cylinder on the #3 was shorter than that on the Colt, hence requiring the shorter cartridge. For a short period of time, the U.S. Army stocked both, but once the Quartermaster Corps realized the Schofield load would fit both guns, they standardized on that one load. It had everything to do with logistics and nothing to do with power.

paracord: The 45 Colt government load was a 250gr bullet & 40grs of black powder. The 45 A.C.P. was designed to emulate the final version of the 45 Schofield load with its 230gr bullet at 820 f.p.s.

[Char-Gar]

There seems to be a little confusion about the various Ruger frame sizes for their SA centerfire sixguns. Let me give a little over view as I remember it.

I will not be talking about the Single Six frame which original was 22 LR, but about the original centerfire frames.

1. First up was the Blackhawk in 357 Mag, introduced in 1955. This is the famous Flat Top. After a time some ears were added on top of the frame to protect the rear when elevated. Along the way, there was also a revamping of the grip from the X3 to the X3-RED. This original frame was very close in size, weight and internals to the Colt SA, except for the use of coiled springs.

2. Ruger actually beat Smith and Wesson into production (1956) with a 44 Magnum and this is the much sought after old model 44, which was built on a new larger frame with some differences in steel.

3. In the early 60's, Ruger produced the Super Blackhawk which utilized a new larger frame, different grips and some other changed. The extra steel in the SBH frame and cylinder provided weight, durability, longevity and for some were more comfortable to shoot. For some there were more uncomfortable to shoot. The squared back of the trigger guard was supposed to keep the trigger guard from abusing the knuckle, but it doesn't work that way for me.

4. These two frames, the Blackhawk and Super Blackhawk remain the two basic frames that Ruger uses today. There have been changed in sights, grip frames, triggers, hammers, barrel lengths, lockwork, calibers etc. but these two basic frame are all there is. OK, back to the story.

5. In due time the original Blackhawk was introduced in 45 Colt. It didn't take long for the word to get around that it was stronger (which it was), that the Colt, due to better steels etc. It also didn't take long for folks to take advantage of this and start jacking the pressure of their 45 Colt loads up. The result was these handguns started showing up at Ruger for repair.

6. No. 5 prompted Ruger to cease production of the Blackhawk and create the New Model Blackhawk which was just the old Super Blackhawk frame with a change in grips and a few other items. These larger framed revolvers could take the increased pressure loads and the game of hot rodding the 45 Colt was afoot.

7. In due time, Ruger produced a fix sighted version of the New Model Blackhawk and this became the original Vaquero. Again the frame size was the old Super Blackhawk/New Model Blackhawk.

8. Nostalgia set in and Ruger produced a Anniversary model of the original flat top Blackhawk on the original smaller frame in 357 magnum with the original grip. These proved quite popular.

9. Seeing the popularity and collector's status of original small frame Blackhawks and the new Anniversary model, plus the advent of Cowboy shooting, Ruger started to produce the New Vaquero on the original smaller. Blackhawk frame.

10. Lets not forget there was a change from the original Colt style lockwork, albeit with coiled springs to the new transfer bar lockwork which made it safe to carry the pistol with a loaded round under the hammer.

It has been quite a ride and I can see how folks get confused, but there really are only two frame sizes (Black Hawk and Super Blackhawk) that have morphed into various configuration. The New Vaquero and various Flat Tops are built on the original Blackhawk frame, albeit with new lawyer approved internal lockwork. The rest are built on the Super Blackhawk frame in various configurations with various names. Again, there are only two basic frames.

The above is very sketchy and brief and books can be written about all the ins and outs of these things. I am not a Ruger collector, but have been around and shooting for the entire life of the Ruger single action revolvers, payed attention and have not lost my mind...yet!

The Single Six, Bearcat and there evolution is quite another matter.

For reference here are two of my pistols, a 1963 Super Blackhawk and a 1964 Blackhawk. Both of the have had some modifications done by myself, but they are the two different Ruger frames in their old dress.

[Char-Gar]

Addendum: The recoil of the smaller frame has been mentioned as punishing. For me the cure is pretty simple and has two parts.

1. Use grips that have flat bottoms. See pic.

2. Curl the little finger under the bottom of the grip. This keep the rear of the trigger guard from barking the knuckle of the hand. It also assists in accurate shooting and the frame does not rest on the trigger fringer and make it easier to isolate the trigger finger so it does not contact the frame at any point.

[Tar Heel]

Let's please suffice it to say, for the OP and a new user, that the original Vaquero is a beefier frame and the New model Vaquero is a lighter frame. Both shoot the 45 Colt cartridge (in SAAMI Spec) quite well.

For Makeminea10mm.....agreed. I was attempting to simplify the situation. But we know the army has an affinity for the short & weak version......(40 S&W)...:p

[paracordkydexcummins]

Thank you for that correction I knew it was one of those cartridges

[Char-Gar]

Let's please suffice it to say, for the OP and a new user, that the original Vaquero is a beefier frame and the New model Vaquero is a lighter frame. Both shoot the 45 Colt cartridge (in SAAMI Spec) quite well.:p

Sorry if the extra information was confusing, but the OP did want to know "why", the frame change came about. He knew there was a change in size, but wanted to know the why. I was trying to address that question. I also understood some folks thought the New Vaquero was
A new frame, when in fact it was the old/original frame.

At any rate, I thought this board exists for the exchange of information and not necessarily in the most abbreviated and sketchy way possible.

[Tar Heel]

Sorry if the extra information was confusing, but the OP did want to know "why", the frame change came about. He knew there was a change in size, but wanted to know the why. I was trying to address that question. I also understood some folks thought the New Vaquero was A new frame, when in fact it was the old/original frame. At any rate, I thought this board exists for the exchange of information and not necessarily in the most abbreviated and sketchy way possible.

It's not only confusing, it is excessive, off point, and incorrect. I was not going to point that out however because I do not wish to involve myself in a peeing contest. Hopefully the OP answer has been addressed. No further comments will follow from me. And now......post 10,692?

[Hickory]

The Blackhawk frame was upsized because idiots wanted to shoot super hot 45 Colt loads and were destroying the revolvers and endangering themselves. So, Ruger built a revolver for the idiots to shoot.

This may not be entirely true.
The Super Blackhawk was a result of the 44 magnum.
The 44 magnum was first built on the Blackhawk frame by Ruger. When Ruger realized the Blackhawk would not take a steady diet of 44's, the Super Blackhawk came into being.
Now this is where your statement gains credibility, some of the "idiots" who owned the Blackhawk's in 45 colt tried to get the same performance out of the Blackhawk as the 44 magnum was delivering, but the cylinder of the 45 Blackhawk was thinner then the 44 magnum.
But even the 44 cylinders were weak in the Blackhawk.
So, this is why the Super Blackhawk was built-more strength.

[Silver Jack Hammer]

I think I speak for a lot of guys when I say we longed for a .44 Special on the old 1955 3 screw Blackhawk frame as evidenced by the number of special order $2,000+ custom jobs done by Clements and Bowen who bore out the old 3 screw Blackhawk frames for guys willing to wait 2+ years to get what they want.

I've shot a 2 day cowboy match with the old style larger Vaquero and must say they are balanced too far forward for cowboy loads. The strength derived from their size is of no benefit to SASS shooters and the larger size makes them feel awkwardly large.

I've got a brace of 3 screw .357's non-flattop and they are excellent, perfect little guns. I've got a 3 screw SBH which is a great .44 Mag but the frame is bigger to accommodate the magnum. Ruger made a few .44 Mag on the first, smaller frame and sold it. Those guns bring a high price now but I've talked to guys who have shot them and say they are awful with full loads.

Ruger originally promised a .44 Special when they came out with their .357 3 screw in 1955 but the .44 Mag craze hit so they just made all their guns on the .44 Mag frame for decades. And really, Rugers are excellent guns. Guys like me reading Skeeter Skelton and hiking in rough brush and hill country who will never encounter anything bigger than a black bear carried the SBH but longed for the smaller frame calibrated to something bigger than the .357. The SBH was loved because it was a cheaper .44 Mag and in my opinion a better gun than the M29 but we wanted the smaller gun in the field before SASS ever developed.

Ruger went to that XR3-RED grip in 1963 and that grip is really popular with SASS shooters who cock the hammer with their off hand while shooting two handed. Most SASS shooters do this. I shoot one handed and the longer grip feels awful to me compared to the Colt, especially with that short hammer ear on the Ruger. When shooting one handed the long grip and the short hammer makes for an uncomfortably long reach. I see the new Vaquero has a long hammer ear so it appears the folks at Ruger are listening to us shooters.

I don't own a custom 3 screw .44 Special but a buddy of mine has one. He killed a black bear with one shot with it. Then Ruger came recently out with their new .44 Special smaller frame gun which is essentially the same size, about $2,000.00 less and can be purchased right off the shelf without waiting the 2 years for the custom shop. My buddy has both and says the new gun is heavier but both shoot well. I've shot his custom 3 screw .44 Special and it's about the most accurate gun I've ever shot.

[bouncer50]

So what am i understanding the old Vaquero and the older model blackhawks which i have made in the late 70s 45 LC Ruger is the larger frame. So my 3 screw 357 Ruger is the smaller frame. So Ruger only made two frame size i willing to bet i am not the only one who have ask this question. So do all the grips interchange on the larger frame.

[contender1]

Grip frames are a whole different topic completely. Several shapes & sizes, so the grips need to match the grip frame. BUT,,, the screw hole pattern for all of the Ruger SA frames is identical. You can swap around grip frames quite easily.

[Hickory]

Char-Gar;
I meant no offence, but was centering my response around this statement.

So, Ruger built a revolver for the idiots to shoot.
Basically, you are right, Ruger did make a revolver for idiots to shoot.
A long time ago I foolishly sold a 3 screw 44 special Blackhawk for a 44 magnum Super Blackhawk.
I have always reloaded my ammunition with this thought in mind: If you want your 44 special to shoot like a 44 magnum, then buy a 44 magnum.
Or in the case of the "idiots" with a Blackhawk in 45 caliber who wants it to shoot like a 44 magnum, I will only say this, "Buy a 44 magnum."

[bouncer50]

Grip frames are a whole different topic completely. Several shapes & sizes, so the grips need to match the grip frame. BUT,,, the screw hole pattern for all of the Ruger SA frames is identical. You can swap around grip frames quite easily.
Thanks you answer my question.

[GOPHER SLAYER]

I just have to jump in here and add my opinion of Ruger pistols . I bought my first Ruger in 1956. It was the .22 cal single six. It is still in the family. I have also had the good fortune to own two of the early flat tops. One in .357 and the other a .44 Mag, first year of production. I also owned a Super Black Hawk which should have been called "Ruger's 1st model Dragoon. I hated it. It was like wearing a half inch drill motor on your hip. I traded it to a co-worker for a three screw .357 and got fifty bucks to boot. I still have it. I think the frame is actually a little smaller than a Colt SA that I have. I also loved the .44 Mg flat top and enjoyed shooting it but I know that some people over loaded the pistol. There was a gun shop near me that had a 44 Flattop on the counter that was missing the top strap and the top half of the cylinder. At the same time I owned the two Flat Tops I also owned a first generation Colt SA in .45 cal. It had beautiful stag grips and was a real pleasure to shoot. Unfortunately I was forced to sell two of my most prized pistols. Our boy was in collage and tuition came due. My wife said, I need $1000, so my Colt 45 and the 44 Mag were sold, along with a beautiful Winchester 12 Ga Super X which were sold to a friend. To add insult to injury just two weeks after buying my guns my friend's home was burglarized and 42 pistols were stolon. They didn't take a single long gun. He got nine of the pistols back but none of the good ones. I like the pistol designed buy Colt in 1873 and I think many agree with me. I enjoyed reading articles by Skeeter Skelton about the old Colt and his fondness for the .44 Spl. As I remember his preferred walk about load was a 200 grain bullet at 900 fps. I like that load myself.

[jmort]

Here is good summary of Ruger single action grips from Private's Custom Grips



Ruger Single Action Grip Frames






Over the years, Ruger has used five (5) basic grip frame designs. While there have been a few
oddities, the basic shapes can be described best as the XR3, "New XR3", XR3-RED, Super
Blackhawk Dragoon style, Birdshead, and Bisley.

I am currently only accepting orders for the first three profiles: XR3, "New XR3", and
XR3-RED. Usage to the best of my knowledge is described below.

- XR3 -
Ruger introduced the XR3 grip frame in 1953 with the introduction of the Blackhawk revolver.
This grip frame remained in production until 1963 when it was replaced with the XR3-RED
(redesigned) grip frame.

- XR3-RED -
Ruger introduced the XR3-RED grip frame design in 1962 and uses variants of the original design
still today. This is by far the most common Ruger grip frame since it has been used on a variety
of single action revolvers. Grips made to fit the XR3-RED grip frame will fit the following
Ruger single action revolvers: Blackhawk, New Model Blackhawk, Vaquero, Single Six, Super
Single Six, Old Army, and 4-5/8" and 5-1/2" barreled Super Blackhawks.

- "New XR3" -
Ruger replaced the Vaquero in 2004 with the New Vaquero. The New Vaquero was designed
to better suit the needs of the action shooters out there and was equipped with a slightly
modified version of the XR3 grip frame. The grips are not directly interchangeable between the
two grip frames. Ruger also used this grip frame on the 357 Magnum 50th Anniversary
Blackhawks in 2005, the 44 Magnum 50th Anniversary Blackhawks in 2006, all 44 Special
Blackhawks, and all modern production flattop Blackhawks.
http://www.privatescustomgrips.com/Grip_Frames.html

[Hickok]

I have owned both old and new Vaqueros, and I like the new Vaquero much more.You beat me to it. Same with me. The New Vaquero has a "just right" feel and balance. The first time I picked one up, I knew I had to have one, and now I have two, a 4 5/8" and a 7 1/2", both stainless. I don't think they make the 7 1/2" anymore.

I sold my Old Model Vaquero.

[jmort]

"I sold my Old Model Vaquero."

Me too.

[Char-Gar]

Char-Gar;
I meant no offence, but was centering my response around this statement.

Basically, you are right, Ruger did make a revolver for idiots to shoot.
A long time ago I foolishly sold a 3 screw 44 special Blackhawk for a 44 magnum Super Blackhawk.
I have always reloaded my ammunition with this thought in mind: If you want your 44 special to shoot like a 44 magnum, then buy a 44 magnum.
Or in the case of the "idiots" with a Blackhawk in 45 caliber who wants it to shoot like a 44 magnum, I will only say this, "Buy a 44 magnum."

I took no offence at your post, so there is nothing to worry about on that point. I have been insulted by professionals in the field, so there is not much that bothers me :-). I spent some years as trial attorney and that is an "insult rich" environment being mental and verbal combat without spilling liquid blood or breaking bones.

I will admit that the use of the term "idiot" might have been hasty and pejorative. There are some very good folks that like to stretch the pressure limits of the 45 Colt and some of them are my dear friends. Then again there are some idiots trying to do it.

I was well into the 44 Magnum long before folks began to push the red line on the 45 Colt, so I never saw much purpose in doing so. The only rational that made any sense to me was the use of heavier bullets in the 45 for big game like elk, moose and big bear. Being no such critters in Texas, that was never an issue for me. But, if I wondered the woods where such things walked, I would rethink the full snort 45 Colt.

[Char-Gar]

So what am i understanding the old Vaquero and the older model blackhawks which i have made in the late 70s 45 LC Ruger is the larger frame. So my 3 screw 357 Ruger is the smaller frame. So Ruger only made two frame size i willing to bet i am not the only one who have ask this question. So do all the grips interchange on the larger frame.

You have received some good information on swapping Ruger grip frames, but I will just add a little more. There is a difference in the width of the trigger and how it functions between the old (3 screw Rugers) and the New Model Rugers. The old model (3 screw) models use a plunger and spring to return the trigger. You can see it bearing on the rear of your trigger. So while old model and new model have the same screw holes placement, they won't interchange due to the trigger features.

The only recent production Ruger that used the old lockwork and thereby the spring and plunger trigger return was the Old Army percussion models. These can be fitted to the old 3 screws with a few tricks to compensate for the wider trigger window in the frame. If you look at my 3 screw Blackhawk in post 18, it has been fitted with an Old Army stainless grip frame, along with a steel ejector housing. I like the extra weight these steel parts give vis-a-vi the original alloy parts.

[44MAG#1]

Now, on to another subject. We have been educated above and beyond need.
just like I was on the "fact" that mass cannot be weighed.

[Char-Gar]

You beat me to it. Same with me. The New Vaquero has a "just right" feel and balance. The first time I picked one up, I knew I had to have one, and now I have two, a 4 5/8" and a 7 1/2", both stainless. I don't think they make the 7 1/2" anymore.

I sold my Old Model Vaquero.

I noted a post by Outpost 75 up the thread that made a very good point regarding the old model vs. new model Vaquero/Blackhawk handguns. I will also add that what Outpost doesn't know about Rugers isn't worth knowing. If it is worth knowing, he knows it.

The smaller frame Ruger SA kick like Billy-B-Jiggers when loaded up full snort. The larger frame Rugers are much easier to handle with loads that deliver substantial recoil. So there is a place for both of these pistols, depending on what a fellow wants to use them for.

[Char-Gar]

Now, on to another subject. We have been educated above and beyond need.
just like I was on the "fact" that mass cannot be weighed.

There are things we need to know and things we want to know. Interest always exceeds needs, for some folks and some folks never have interest beyond their needs.

[prs]

The smaller frame Ruger SA kick like Billy-B-Jiggers when loaded up full snort. The larger frame Rugers are much easier to handle with loads that deliver substantial recoil. So there is a place for both of these pistols, depending on what a fellow wants to use them for.


As I read down through this thread this windy afternoon, I kept saying, "Thank you." to Char-Gar for taking time to explain so well. So, Thank you; Sir.

The post I copy above hit the nail on the head RE the other recurring thought I was having. I have several original model Vaquero pistols, preferring the Bisley variant since I shoot duelist or gunfighter (one handed or one pistol in each hand). With full house or even mock Schofield 28 grain real black powder charges under the 250 gain boolit, the original Vaquero is hands down a superior weapon to the new. When gaming down the charge and boolit weight to one cc of Holy Black under a less than 200 grain pill, as many cowboy action shooters want to do, the new model's trim weight and deft handling are an advantage. I prefer the buck'n roar and the original Vaquero.

prs

[shorty500M]

ahem, gentlemen mistakes are being made- Ruger only built .357 on the original size frame. the Flattop .44 magnums the same frame as the later Super Blackhawk! the Super just has the ears at rear sight. the .357 was the ONLY caliber built on the smaller frame and in 1973 when the NEW MODEL came out it was consolidated into the same frame size that ALL OLD MODEL .41, .45, .30 were built on the .44 frame. then in 2005 came the NEW VAQUERO and FLATTOP .357 ANNIVERSARY MODELS on the ORIGINAL 1955 "Colt sized frame" which goes backto the frame they used for .357 from 1955-1973. until the 2005 New Vaquero/FT guns Ruger never built anything above .357 on that frame size

[Tar Heel]

Good Lord.....

[Char-Gar]

ahem, gentlemen mistakes are being made- Ruger only built .357 on the original size frame. the Flattop .44 magnums the same frame as the later Super Blackhawk! the Super just has the ears at rear sight. the .357 was the ONLY caliber built on the smaller frame and in 1973 when the NEW MODEL came out it was consolidated into the same frame size that ALL OLD MODEL .41, .45, .30 were built on the .44 frame. then in 2005 came the NEW VAQUERO and FLATTOP .357 ANNIVERSARY MODELS on the ORIGINAL 1955 "Colt sized frame" which goes backto the frame they used for .357 from 1955-1973. until the 2005 New Vaquero/FT guns Ruger never built anything above .357 on that frame size

Actually Shorty, I am going to back up and say you are right. I was working on old memory and that proved to be incorrect when I checked my facts. The prototypes were made on the smaller Blackhawk frame, but production handguns were made on a new larger frame, that morphed into the Super Blackahwk and then the New Model Blackhawk. Here is a good link to an article on Gun Blast about the Flat Top 44.

I made corrections to my previous posts to reflect my refreshed memory. I will be more careful, when dealing with things I recall from more than 50 years ago.

http://www.gunblast.com/Hamm_44-Flattop.htm

[44MAG#1]

Slowly going downhill.