Ruger Vaquero vs Uberti Cattleman

[Driftwood Johnson, SASS #38283]

And by the way, Bob Munden basically says the same thing about Rugers: He said to me "Ruger just throws their guns together".

 

Have you ever heard the expression that a little bit of information is dangerous? Bob did not tell you the whole story.

 

Of course Rugers are just slapped together. They are designed that way.

 

When Bill Ruger decided to make his first single action revolver way back in 1953, he made some radical design changes from what had been done before. The basic design of the Single Action Army has not changed much since 1873. As a matter of fact, elements of the design go back much farther, back to the 1837 Paterson Colt. But given the manufacturing equipment and the materials available at the time, the Colt design was state of the art FOR ITS TIME. But by 1953 great strides had been made in manufacturing. By starting with a completely clean slate, by thinking outside the box Bill Ruger came up with a completely new design for a single action revolver that looked very similar to the Colt, but was completely different inside.

 

Take for instance the bolt of a Colt. The bolt is the heart of the design. It is a complex part, requiring precise machining to function correctly. On top of that, one leg has to flex like a spring every time the hammer falls. It is expensive to make this part. To further add to the cost of the gun, to function properly a bolt needs to be fitted, it does not just drop into the gun. Ruger threw all that right out the window. The analogous part to the bolt in a Ruger is the cylinder stop. It is not a precisely machined part. It is a stamping. It does not have to flex like a spring, and it does not have to be fitted. I'll bet it only costs pennies to make a Ruger bolt stop. An assembler can grab one out of the parts bin and slap it into a revolver and the revolver functions just fine. That was part of Bill Ruger's genius. He looked at gun design from a different perspective and came up with alternative solutions. But more important than that, his designs drove the cost out of his guns.

 

In the old days, quality firearms like Colts and S&W were assembled by skilled assemblers. They did not just slap parts together. These guys spent their entire careers working their way up to becoming highly skilled assemblers. They had a lifetime of knowledge behind what they did. The assemblers built the guns in lots of around 20 or so. The internal parts for each gun were hand fitted to each frame. The parts would only function perfectly in the frame they had been fitted to. Once the guns were assembled, they were taken apart, and the parts were hardened and blued if necessary. The parts for each gun had been marked, so that after hardening they could be reassembled into the same frame. Then any final fitting required could be done at the final assembly stage. The system worked because these highly skilled assemblers did not make a whole lot of money.

 

Bill Ruger's designs did away with all that. He drove the cost out of the guns because the parts he designed did not need to be hand fitted for the gun to function properly. They could be slapped together by relatively unskilled assemblers without the expense of hand fitting.

 

Colt, Uberti, Pietta, and everybody else who is making the SAA or its replicas today is making an obsolete design. Don't get me wrong, I shoot 2nd Gen Colts, and I love them. But I recognize that the design is obsolete. Give Ruger his due. Ruger today produces the very best single action revolver on the market FOR THE PRICE. When Uberti makes a bolt for a Cattleman, it is the same basic design as the bolt that Colt first produced in 1873. Yes, they produce it today on modern high speed CNC equipment, which did not exist in 1873. But the part still functions the same as it did in 1873, and it is relatively expensive to produce. I just looked at VTI gunparts and they are charging $20 for a bolt for a Cattleman. Yes, that includes markup, but I guarantee you that part does not cost pennies to produce like the Ruger cylinder stop does.

 

And I also guarantee you that Uberti is not handfitting the bolt in a Cattleman. I guarantee you they are 'slapping them together'. Pulling parts out of the parts bin and simply bolting the parts together. The part may be made on CNC equipment today, but the basic design has not changed, and the bolt still needs to be handfitted to function properly. That is part of what you pay Bob Munden and guys like him to do when he tunes up an Uberti. He does the handfitting necessary to make the gun funtion properly.

 

 

 

But we are talking assembly here.

 

 

Not accuracy.

 

 

They are two completely different things. When you pay a cowboy gunsmith to 'slick up' a gun, what he is doing is similar to what those highly skilled assemblers did in the old days. He polishes a little metal here, he removes some burrs there. He puts in lighter springs because he has reduced the internal friction and the lighter springs can do the job. This makes the gun easier to operate. It does not necessarily make the gun more accurate.

 

For a revolver to be truly accurate, the bullet has to go from the chamber, through the barrel and out the muzzle with minimum disturbance. Tuning the action so it works easily has almost nothing to do with that. For a revolver to be truly accurate the chambers must line up perfectly with the bore, the chamber throat must be correctly sized to the rifling, and the cylinder must lock up perfectly with no sideplay when at battery. About the only thing that can be done with ANY stock revolver, no matter who made it, to improve on the accuracy is to ream out chamber throats if they are too small and recut the forcing cone if necessary. If the chambers do not line up precisely with the bore, nothing can be done about that other than line boring new chambers in a blank cylinder. That's the kind of stuff you pay guys like Linebaugh for. You simply ain't going to get that type of precision with ANY revolver that comes off a production line today. If it did, you would be paying a heck of a lot more for it than you do for a Ruger.

 

Sorry to go into such a harangue, but it really ticks me off when you keep insisting on calling Rugers 'crap' when it seems like you don't have any real understanding of what goes into making one.

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

Have you ever heard the expression that a little bit of information is dangerous? Bob did not tell you the whole story.

 

Of course Rugers are just slapped together. They are designed that way.

 

When Bill Ruger decided to make his first single action revolver way back in 1953, he made some radical design changes from what had been done before. The basic design of the Single Action Army has not changed much since 1873. As a matter of fact, elements of the design go back much farther, back to the 1837 Paterson Colt. But given the manufacturing equipment and the materials available at the time, the Colt design was state of the art FOR ITS TIME. But by 1953 great strides had been made in manufacturing. By starting with a completely clean slate, by thinking outside the box Bill Ruger came up with a completely new design for a single action revolver that looked very similar to the Colt, but was completely different inside.

 

Take for instance the bolt of a Colt. The bolt is the heart of the design. It is a complex part, requiring precise machining to function correctly. On top of that, one leg has to flex like a spring every time the hammer falls. It is expensive to make this part. To further add to the cost of the gun, to function properly a bolt needs to be fitted, it does not just drop into the gun. Ruger threw all that right out the window. The analogous part to the bolt in a Ruger is the cylinder stop. It is not a precisely machined part. It is a stamping. It does not have to flex like a spring, and it does not have to be fitted. I'll bet it only costs pennies to make a Ruger bolt stop. An assembler can grab one out of the parts bin and slap it into a revolver and the revolver functions just fine. That was part of Bill Ruger's genius. He looked at gun design from a different perspective and came up with alternative solutions. But more important than that, his designs drove the cost out of his guns.

 

In the old days, quality firearms like Colts and S&W were assembled by skilled assemblers. They did not just slap parts together. These guys spent their entire careers working their way up to becoming highly skilled assemblers. They had a lifetime of knowledge behind what they did. The assemblers built the guns in lots of around 20 or so. The internal parts for each gun were hand fitted to each frame. The parts would only function perfectly in the frame they had been fitted to. Once the guns were assembled, they were taken apart, and the parts were hardened and blued if necessary. The parts for each gun had been marked, so that after hardening they could be reassembled into the same frame. Then any final fitting required could be done at the final assembly stage. The system worked because these highly skilled assemblers did not make a whole lot of money.

 

Bill Ruger's designs did away with all that. He drove the cost out of the guns because the parts he designed did not need to be hand fitted for the gun to function properly. They could be slapped together by relatively unskilled assemblers without the expense of hand fitting.

 

Colt, Uberti, Pietta, and everybody else who is making the SAA or its replicas today is making an obsolete design. Don't get me wrong, I shoot 2nd Gen Colts, and I love them. But I recognize that the design is obsolete. Give Ruger his due. Ruger today produces the very best single action revolver on the market FOR THE PRICE. When Uberti makes a bolt for a Cattleman, it is the same basic design as the bolt that Colt first produced in 1873. Yes, they produce it today on modern high speed CNC equipment, which did not exist in 1873. But the part still functions the same as it did in 1873, and it is relatively expensive to produce. I just looked at VTI gunparts and they are charging $20 for a bolt for a Cattleman. Yes, that includes markup, but I guarantee you that part does not cost pennies to produce like the Ruger cylinder stop does.

 

And I also guarantee you that Uberti is not handfitting the bolt in a Cattleman. I guarantee you they are 'slapping them together'. Pulling parts out of the parts bin and simply bolting the parts together. The part may be made on CNC equipment today, but the basic design has not changed, and the bolt still needs to be handfitted to function properly. That is part of what you pay Bob Munden and guys like him to do when he tunes up an Uberti. He does the handfitting necessary to make the gun funtion properly.

 

 

 

But we are talking assembly here.

 

 

Not accuracy.

 

 

They are two completely different things. When you pay a cowboy gunsmith to 'slick up' a gun, what he is doing is similar to what those highly skilled assemblers did in the old days. He polishes a little metal here, he removes some burrs there. He puts in lighter springs because he has reduced the internal friction and the lighter springs can do the job. This makes the gun easier to operate. It does not necessarily make the gun more accurate.

 

For a revolver to be truly accurate, the bullet has to go from the chamber, through the barrel and out the muzzle with minimum disturbance. Tuning the action so it works easily has almost nothing to do with that. For a revolver to be truly accurate the chambers must line up perfectly with the bore, the chamber throat must be correctly sized to the rifling, and the cylinder must lock up perfectly with no sideplay when at battery. About the only thing that can be done with ANY stock revolver, no matter who made it, to improve on the accuracy is to ream out chamber throats if they are too small and recut the forcing cone if necessary. If the chambers do not line up precisely with the bore, nothing can be done about that other than line boring new chambers in a blank cylinder. That's the kind of stuff you pay guys like Linebaugh for. You simply ain't going to get that type of precision with ANY revolver that comes off a production line today. If it did, you would be paying a heck of a lot more for it than you do for a Ruger.

 

Sorry to go into such a harangue, but it really ticks me off when you keep insisting on calling Rugers 'crap' when it seems like you don't have any real understanding of what goes into making one.

 

 

Very well put, and as usual, very complete information ~ thanks....

 

GG ~

[Rancid Loosehammer]

Driftwood -

All you say is true.

Except one thing. I don't just call Rugers Crap if they can't be made to shoot to point of aim. I call ANY make of gun Crap if it can't be made to shoot to point of aim. And no, I am not talking about group size. I don't care if the group is 1" or 3", but it had danged well better be able to be made to center AT POINT OF AIM regarding WINDAGE. And it's fine with me if the gun will only do that with one "brand/type" of ammo. But if it won't do that with ANY kind of ammo, well, I will call it the "C" word. And I'm not saying ALL Rugers are pieces of crap. What I AM saying is that SO FAR, the TWO SPECIFIC RUGERS THAT I HAVE, have proven to be "pieces of crap" in my book.

[Squint Westwood SASS#2165]

DJ, Thanks for the very educational posts. As a long-time Colt owner, shooter and fan (since 1961) as well as the owner of several Uberti-made (Cimarron) copies, I remain in the Colt camp. I love the way a first or early second generation Colt SAA feels in my hand. I have shot them in stock configuration for so many years that I am used to the way they feel and have rarely spent any money tuning them up. They were meant to be shot duelist fashion and that's the way I shoot them. I have several signed copies of books by Keith Cochran ("Peacemaker Encyclopedia", etc.) and other authors dealing with Colts, both first and second generations.

 

I have owned several Ruger revolvers (flattops, 3-screws, new models, and one old model Vaquero) over the past 40 years, or so, and they have performed well for me. I primarily use them for hunting and field shooting tasks, not for western action shooting. Rugers are rugged and perfectly suited for field use being capable of holding six rounds while being carried. The Ruger XR-3 frame is my preference since it is most like the Colt. One vast improvement by Ruger is the reverse-indexing pawl that allows for easier loading and unloading (like a Colt). Of course, in the field a two-handed hold is preferred.

 

My reason for not using Rugers for western action shooting is that I am a historical rfeenactor as well as a SASS shooter. My "bag" is that I want to shoot what I would have used had I lived in the 19th Century. I also want to carry as close to an authentic firearm as possible when in my 19th century clothes. The Colt (and other 19th century single-actions) are the revolvers of choice. For me, the increased cost of a Colt is worth it. Other folks have different priorities.

Thanks again for your inforamtive posts. Happy trails, Squint

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

What I AM saying is that SO FAR, the TWO SPECIFIC RUGERS THAT I HAVE, have proven to be "pieces of crap" in my book.

 

Sometimes you're the windshield - sometimes your the bug Guess your on the 'bug' side in this case

 

GG ~

[Fairshake]

Let me say that this forum has some good and some very bad answers. Go back and read the post by Steve Young aka Nate Kiowa Jones as he is dead on. Bill Ruger did design all his guns to be just put together with out hand fitting. They are built like tanks and I attended the armorer's school. But they are so far from being a true 1800's gun that it is nuts!! Several of you speak of breaking Colt and other revolvers made like them with flat main springs. I have been shooting that type gun since the 60's and have yet to break a spring. The guns designed by Colt and the other gun makers of the time period that we are supposed to be reenacting were never made to shoot no where near any thing close to the amount of ammo fired by a very active SASS member. IN case you pards who are screaming about Rugers allow me to inform you that they make and sell replacement parts. The way the loading of a Ruger is done is no way in the western tradition. Have you noticed all those fine Rugers with the turning line around the cylinders. If you see them on a Colt or USFA it is from improper use. It happens on every Ruger because of design. I shoot 44-40 USFA's and would not trade them for 6 pairs of Rugers. They are going on 2 years with no problems and I quit carrying a back up.The Rugers in 44-40 have a very bad track record. First they decided to build them with 44 magnum barrels that slugged at .430 and larger when the correct size for the 44-40 is .427 You may find if you look, people complain about the revolver they have that has .429 cylinders and barrels that go .432 or larger. Or they have been made with large cylinders and small barrels. This makes them a wall hanger.If you want to say I am incorrect then I have no problem if you take the time to call some of the smith's who work on them and see if they will tell you the same. I have also seen several shooters buy the Rugers and then spend hundreds of dollars to make them like the Colt revolver. One last thing to address is the fact that Jim Finch AKA Long Hunter changes the springs out to Rugers when he builds the USFA guns. That is not 100% correct as it is only one spring that is changed. I and several other SASS members choose to shoot the guns that were made and designed in the 1800's. If you choose a Ruger then you could use a 1956 Chevrolet for a gun cart.

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

Let me say that this forum has some good and some very bad answers. Go back and read the post by Steve Young aka Nate Kiowa Jones as he is dead on. Bill Ruger did design all his guns to be just put together with out hand fitting. They are built like tanks and I attended the armorer's school. But they are so far from being a true 1800's gun that it is nuts!! Several of you speak of breaking Colt and other revolvers made like them with flat main springs. I have been shooting that type gun since the 60's and have yet to break a spring. The guns designed by Colt and the other gun makers of the time period that we are supposed to be reenacting were never made to shoot no where near any thing close to the amount of ammo fired by a very active SASS member. IN case you pards who are screaming about Rugers allow me to inform you that they make and sell replacement parts. The way the loading of a Ruger is done is no way in the western tradition. Have you noticed all those fine Rugers with the turning line around the cylinders. If you see them on a Colt or USFA it is from improper use. It happens on every Ruger because of design. I shoot 44-40 USFA's and would not trade them for 6 pairs of Rugers. They are going on 2 years with no problems and I quit carrying a back up.The Rugers in 44-40 have a very bad track record. First they decided to build them with 44 magnum barrels that slugged at .430 and larger when the correct size for the 44-40 is .427 You may find if you look, people complain about the revolver they have that has .429 cylinders and barrels that go .432 or larger. Or they have been made with large cylinders and small barrels. This makes them a wall hanger.If you want to say I am incorrect then I have no problem if you take the time to call some of the smith's who work on them and see if they will tell you the same. I have also seen several shooters buy the Rugers and then spend hundreds of dollars to make them like the Colt revolver. One last thing to address is the fact that Jim Finch AKA Long Hunter changes the springs out to Rugers when he builds the USFA guns. That is not 100% correct as it is only one spring that is changed. I and several other SASS members choose to shoot the guns that were made and designed in the 1800's. If you choose a Ruger then you could use a 1956 Chevrolet for a gun cart.

 

My Rugers in .45 caliber are going on 17 years with no problems ...and at times with BIG loads....

 

"If you choose a Ruger then you could use a 1956 Chevrolet for a gun cart." - ??

 

GG ~

[Driftwood Johnson, SASS #38283]

Several of you speak of breaking Colt and other revolvers made like them with flat main springs. I have been shooting that type gun since the 60's and have yet to break a spring.

 

Glad to hear you are having very good luck with your springs.

 

The very first revolver I ever bought was a Navy Arms (Uberti) percussion revolver I bought back in 1968. Within six months the trigger/bolt spring broke.

 

Here is a photo of some broken Colt parts. The broken trigger/bolt spring is from my 2nd Gen SAA, made in 1973. The broken bolt is from my 2nd Gen Colt made in 1968. Both of these parts broke within the space of a couple of months last year. Yes, the bolt is over 40 years old and the trigger/bolt spring is close to 40 years old. No, they don't owe me anything. But these parts can break, here is proof. I will continue to bring my Rugers as backups to every match, just in case another Colt spring decides to let go.

 

Broken Parts

 

P.S. Believe it or not, there are some places here in the US where it is not legal to buy a Colt. Or any other single action revolver with a similar lockwork. Rugers are the only single action revolvers that are legal to buy in that case. Doesn't matter how different a Ruger is from a Colt, in that situation, if you want to play cowboy, its either Ruger or nothing.

[Nate Kiowa Jones #6765]

...............................................................................................................

In my experience, Pietta revolvers are one notch below Uberti in quality. I know a lot of folks rave about the latest GWII revolvers from Pietta, but the burrs left on the outer surface of the frames of my Pietta 1860 Armies are a disgrace. .......................................................

 

DJ, you are comparing apples and oranges. The CB made by Pietta are marketed mainly to the big box mail order company's like Cabela's, Bass Pro Shop and Gander Mountain. They are made very cheap, poorly fitted and oversprung to save on manhours so those company have a margin to resell them so cheap.

 

The Pietta GWII's from EMF in my oppinion are the very best SAA coming out of Europe now. Did you know they even have pressed in recoil/firimg pin bushing just like the original Colts. Pietta odviously puts more time into these guns and the Price reflects it.

[Rancid Loosehammer]

Hey there, Gunner Gatlin -

Yep, sometimes we're the windshield and sometimes we're the bug. And so far, with my two Rugers, I am the bug.

But as I have said in previous posts, there are some things I haven't tried yet - I haven't tried literally every brand/bullet weight of ammo available yet, and I haven't done an adequate job of trying every conceivable variation of my trigger pull yet. But once all that has been done, if I still haven't managed to come up with a combination that puts the point of impact at the point of aim, I can absolutely guarantee you that these will be the LAST Rugers this bug will EVER spend another dollar on.

 

And in response to another post, as for using my particular pair of Rugers for field guns, that concept is an utter joke ... SO FAR. The only thing you could possibly hit with them in the field might be an elephant at 10 paces, and if you aimed at his head you'd probably hit him in the yaas yaas yass and just tick him off. You'd be better off just throwing the gun at him and running like hell. For gunner Gatlin, that would be me playing the part of a running bug. For a field gun, it will continue to be my 41 magnum Taurus Tracker ... powerful, light, reliable and highly accurate. For me, the Tracker has proven to be an exceptionally good gun. Can't speak for the Gaucho.

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

But once all that has been done, if I still haven't managed to come up with a combination that puts the point of impact at the point of aim, I can absolutely guarantee you that these will be the LAST Rugers this bug will EVER spend another dollar on.

 

 

Sounds good...I guess you'll just have to stay on the windshield I reckon

 

GG ~

[Possum Skinner, SASS#60697]

I wouldn't trade my Rugers for 6 pairs of Colts. Ok. I would, but then I'd sell all the Colts and buy me another pair of Rugers just like the ones I have now and I'd buy reloading supplies with the rest of the loot. But I don't much care about a name. I care about performance.

[Pit Bull Tex]

I had a pair of ruger besleys, blue, 4 5/8" barrels Action work by a younger Jimmy Spurs.If I could shoot the rugers like Possum shoot his I would have rugers.They did not fit my hands.I have pair of P model cimarron costoms with thurderstorm hammers,They feel better in my hand than any rugers.I still cant shoot them as fast a Possum shoot his rugers.I also have a pair of AWA longhorns that a shoot some time they also feel better in my hands than any rugers.I think it is what you want and how they feel.My guns may brake the next shoot,if they do, I will fix them.I bought 5 sets of gun before I got what I have and if I ever find some that feel better in my hands then I will think about getting them.The fastest shooters I have ever seen shoot,they shoot rugers.I love to see them shoot.

[Possum Skinner, SASS#60697]

I ain't saying everyone should shoot Rugers. I don't think anyone should shoot a name. You should shoot what fits you, that will keep working and you can afford.

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

Ditto what PS says...

 

GG

[Scratch McCoy]

I have owned and shot Ubertis, Ruger Vaqueros, Colts and USFAs and IMO the USFA is the best of the bunch by a good margin. Colts are great but can be inconsistent from gun to gun in my experience. They stay in my gun safe for the most part. I have never shot a USFA that was not close to perfect and extremely accurate right out of the box. They can be a p.i.t.a. to deal with sometimes, they are expensive and they can be hard to get but USFA makes the worlds best single actions. IMO.