10 Comments
User's avatar
C. Bowdre's avatar

I grew up in a family that was averse to guns, but was allowed to buy a 22 rifle to pursue my passion of squirrel hunting in Texas hill country.

After cleaning up my aged aunt’s place recently, she asked me to take all her guns—nine pieces in total. I plan to keep a few. Mainly a Taurus .38, a Ruger Vaquero .45 with a 7.5” barrel, and shotgun she had modified (sawed with only pistol grip).

My inner cowboy likes the Vaquero. But should I get rid of it?

Expand full comment
Jesse Slater's avatar

You lucky dog. Barring financial pressures, I can't think of any reason you should get rid of it. Ruger revolvers are extremely strong, durable, high quality pieces.

When I started Cowboy Action shooting it was with a pair of Ruger Super Blackhawks, (the big .44 Magnum frame size, on which the original Vaquero was based.) I went through a couple of pairs of Italian-made Colt clones before I had a set of 50th Anniversary Blackhawks (on the smaller Colt-sized frame, shared with the "New Vaquero,") slicked up into the Ultimate Gamer Guns. If I was going back now, I'd be hunting for a set of big framed stainless Vaqs. (In .44-40, but that's because I'd be aiming to shoot black powder, and it really shines there.)

Big framed Rugers in .45 Colt are also interesting in that they're so strong they can use heavy "Ruger-only" loads (that would grenade an old Colt,) making a sort of .45 Magnum.

On the other side of the coin, as much fun as they are, any single action revolver isn't the most practical choice for most things today. (Backcountry carry for a horseman is the only case I can think of where a single action revolver is the best choice, though it could be used for other things, too, if you weren't too worried about having absolutely the most efficient tool for the job.) They've definitely gone up in value since the switch to the smaller frame size 15 or so years ago.

Which do you need more, the money or a fun gun? To paraphrase Smokey the Bear, "Only YOU! can prevent gun-sale regrets!" 🐻 👉

Expand full comment
C. Bowdre's avatar

Sounds like I should keep it. It is a thing of beauty, to boot.

Expand full comment
Jesse Slater's avatar

Excellent choice! I've regretted selling far more guns than I've ever been glad were gone.

Expand full comment
Mike Lara's avatar

My EDC is not a target revolver...I need it for 3 to 7 feet. Critical Duty +P, is my load for my Smith Body Guard. My 1911, group's well @ 25 yards...but it is a Government mdl.

Expand full comment
Jesse Slater's avatar

I can't say I'm much concerned about an inch or two difference in group size, but I've gotten to where I hate a gun that doesn't shoot where it looks.

Expand full comment
David H. Roberson's avatar

I always like seeing someone use those Tyler T-grip adapters. They sure make a difference, don’t they?

Expand full comment
Jesse Slater's avatar

They're getting to be my favorite configuration. I've gotta have something to fill the "high sinus," that obnoxious space behind the trigger guard, but I don't really care for the big bulky aftermarket grips with the finger grooves and all the rest.

Expand full comment
David H. Roberson's avatar

I like the S&W target grips except for the fact that that they block speedloader access. The grip adapters avoid that problem.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Mar 23
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Jesse Slater's avatar

Yes indeed. When I was shooting cowboy action, it was a rule of thumb that highly tuned (i.e. lightly sprung) match guns needed soft Federal primers.

There are good applications for Winchester and CCI, (the other hard as rocks brand) like service rifle, which are apt to slam fire something soft, just shoving it into the chamber. But revolvers ain't it.

Expand full comment