Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Widder, SASS #59054

RUGER advertises for 'Vaquero' in CC

Recommended Posts

Many Ruger collectors refer to four click model Rugers (without transfer bars) as old model and sometimes it can be confusing to call any Vaquero an "Old Model".

I always use the OMV abbreviation for Original Model Vaquero to differentiate them from the New Vaquero's.

Interesting, most that I know refer to older Blackhawks as 3 screw or the even older ones Flat Tops. The new model Blackhawks have the transfer bars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Vaquero (so called New Vaquero) is every bit as strong as the Original Colt model P. In fact, it is much stronger. All these post that worry about Full Loads in a 45 Colt cartridge are just not correct. The gun will handle any correctly loaded 45 Colt cartridge. Remember, the original cartridge came into general production in 1873, with a Iron Frame Colt model P... in time, the Steel Frame was introduced and Smokeless powder was right behind that. It was the Power House of handgun cartridges until the 357 Mag came out and still has plenty of power for just about any Handgun Job. The new version was NOT designed for the pressures of the 44 Mag and up. It is true that the first model Vaquero was a larger and stonger gun. It could be use to go far beyond the Full power 45 Colt Loads. I've never seen any Cowboy action shooter use any loads that even come close to approaching the maximum in a Vaquero.... New or Old, while playing the CAS game.

 

Snakebite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Vaquero (so called New Vaquero) is every bit as strong as the Original Colt model P. In fact, it is much stronger. All these post that worry about Full Loads in a 45 Colt cartridge are just not correct. The gun will handle any correctly loaded 45 Colt cartridge. Remember, the original cartridge came into general production in 1873, with a Iron Frame Colt model P... in time, the Steel Frame was introduced and Smokeless powder was right behind that. It was the Power House of handgun cartridges until the 357 Mag came out and still has plenty of power for just about any Handgun Job. The new version was NOT designed for the pressures of the 44 Mag and up. It is true that the first model Vaquero was a larger and stonger gun. It could be use to go far beyond the Full power 45 Colt Loads. I've never seen any Cowboy action shooter use any loads that even come close to approaching the maximum in a Vaquero.... New or Old, while playing the CAS game.

 

Snakebite

 

The New Vaquero (now 'Vaquero) in 45 caliber is not suitable for loads above SAAMI spec 'factory' loads - period. Only the 'original' Super Blackhawk framed Vaquero's can handle loads well above those SAAMI specs...'Full loads' is refering to these 'hot' loads.

 

and yes...there are people that like to load up and shoot .45 caliber loads (like a 300gr projectile at 1200fps) at times - these guns aren't always just used for CAS.

 

Ex: from Cor-Bon's website:

 

What’s the story behind COR®BON’s non-SAAMI spec. 45 Colt +P and 45-70 Govt. +P loads?

COR®BON’s 45 Colt +P ammunition is not suitable for all guns. It should NEVER be fired in old guns, especially Colt single action army revolvers or clones thereof.

 

We use these criteria: Any Model gun that is also offered in .44 magnums will handle COR®BON’s 45 Colt +P loads. This cartridge may be used in modern hunting revolvers such as Ruger’s “Black Hawk”, and “Red hawk”, Freedom Arms revolver, The Colt “Anaconda”, and the Thompson Center “Contender”.

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it come in .45 Long Colt or just .45 Colt?

 

;):blink::lol:

Are you trying, as a joke, to deliberately entice some pedantic sucker like me to point out that there is no such thing as a 45 Long Colt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you trying, as a joke, to deliberately entice some pedantic sucker like me to point out that there is no such thing as a 45 Long Colt?

Sure there is:

See?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure there is:

See?

OK, I am eating my crow. There IS such a thing as a 45 Long Colt. Of course, we could get into the same sort of pedantics as most of this thread regarding "New" vs "Old" vaqueros and start arguing over the difference between a 45 Long Colt and a long 45 Colt. Oh, gawd, please help us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ruger should have called the New Vaquero something else,I know they wanted to capitalize on their former revolver just look at how it has turned out as far as Old verses New. As unplanned as Hodgdons Clays line,Clays,International Clays and Universal Clays. How much damage has occurred because some one had a open bottle of Clays but ended up using the data for Universal Clays,it has to have happened. Adios Sgt. Jake

 

I agree completely. Ruger got it right when they brought out their Mark II 22 semi-auto pistol, followed by the present Mark III. What the heck was so difficult about that? Not 'cowboy' enough I guess.

 

I will continue to refer to my Vaqueros as 'original model' Vaqueros and Mrs Johnson's pistols as New Vaqueros. I sure hope I don't get my knuckles whacked, but that is what I will continue to do. I like to be a little bit more descriptive so there is no mistake of exactly what I am talking about. Particularly since Ruger does not seem to care too much about exact descriptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you trying, as a joke, to deliberately entice some pedantic sucker like me to point out that there is no such thing as a 45 Long Colt?

 

I'll rise to the bait - .45 Long Colt was terminology, not a manufactured round. Same as this discussion, it serves a purpose. When you have a .45 pistol made by S&W you just can't shove a "long colt" into it. Might have made a difference in a fire fight? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll rise to the bait - .45 Long Colt was terminology, not a manufactured round. Same as this discussion, it serves a purpose. When you have a .45 pistol made by S&W you just can't shove a "long colt" into it. Might have made a difference in a fire fight? :P

As I said - Oh, gawd please help us! How the devil are you going to shove a 45 Colt with a 10-inch barrel into a S&W?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't they make a handful for one of the distributors a couple years ago? They were sold under the moniker of "Final Frontier" or some such nonsense?

 

And so far as the molds, isn't an "old" Vaquero just a Super Blackhawk frame with additional machining? That has been my impression.

The "OMV's are a fixed-sight version of the Super Blackhawk. The "cylinder frames" (Ruger's term for the...main frame)of the OMV's and SBK's and the "New Model Blackhawks" are identical except for the milling on the topstrap and the front sight blade being connected directly to the barrel, rather than having a ramp under the blade. Parts from all are interchangeable, except that the Bisley gripframes require the Bisley hammer so as not to leave a gap between the back of the hammer and the cutout in the gripframe.

 

So far as using the New Vaquero (or whatever you want to call the newest iteration) for .44 Extra Long Russian (aka Magnum), or .44-40, it can't be done! Although Ruger states that .45 LC loads should not exceed those for a Colt's SA, in order to keep the safety margins as high as the OMV/Black/Super in that caliber, Ruger reduced the diameter of the index circle of the six chambers (that's an imaginary circle drawn through the center of the chambers, with the axis at the center of the cylinder). The result is that if you made a .44-40, the rims of the cartridges would overlap. You could probably get away with .44 Magnum, since the rim diameters are the same as in .44 Special, but the length of the cylinder is shorter than on the SBK/OMN series. Strength-wise, they probably would not warrantee a .44 Mag., which is why the special run of (New) Vaqueros is in .44 Special only.

 

Language is a changing thing. So-called "Artillery" Colt's SA's were NEVER so-designated by the military; that is a collectors' "convention" to prevent confusion. Same with the various "models" we designated for the Remington O/U double-deringer, or even the "Phase" designations used my model railroaders referring to various modifications to certain diesel locomotives. Call it by whatever makes things the clearest. If the manufacturer doesn't like it...tough!

 

Ride easy, but stay alert! Godspeed to those still in harm's way in the defense of Freedom everywhere! God Bless America!

 

Your Pard,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "OMV's are a fixed-sight version of the Super Blackhawk. The "cylinder frames" (Ruger's term for the...main frame)of the OMV's and SBK's and the "New Model Blackhawks" are identical except for the milling on the topstrap and the front sight blade being connected directly to the barrel, rather than having a ramp under the blade. Parts from all are interchangeable, except that the Bisley gripframes require the Bisley hammer so as not to leave a gap between the back of the hammer and the cutout in the gripframe.

 

So far as using the New Vaquero (or whatever you want to call the newest iteration) for .44 Extra Long Russian (aka Magnum), or .44-40, it can't be done! Although Ruger states that .45 LC loads should not exceed those for a Colt's SA, in order to keep the safety margins as high as the OMV/Black/Super in that caliber, Ruger reduced the diameter of the index circle of the six chambers (that's an imaginary circle drawn through the center of the chambers, with the axis at the center of the cylinder). The result is that if you made a .44-40, the rims of the cartridges would overlap. You could probably get away with .44 Magnum, since the rim diameters are the same as in .44 Special, but the length of the cylinder is shorter than on the SBK/OMN series. Strength-wise, they probably would not warrantee a .44 Mag., which is why the special run of (New) Vaqueros is in .44 Special only.

 

Language is a changing thing. So-called "Artillery" Colt's SA's were NEVER so-designated by the military; that is a collectors' "convention" to prevent confusion. Same with the various "models" we designated for the Remington O/U double-deringer, or even the "Phase" designations used my model railroaders referring to various modifications to certain diesel locomotives. Call it by whatever makes things the clearest. If the manufacturer doesn't like it...tough!

 

Ride easy, but stay alert! Godspeed to those still in harm's way in the defense of Freedom everywhere! God Bless America!

 

Your Pard,

Switches verses Turnouts! Adios Sgt. Jake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said - Oh, gawd please help us! How the devil are you going to shove a 45 Colt with a 10-inch barrel into a S&W?

KY??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me would like to see'm come out in .44 extra-long Russian, aka .44Mag :P

LG

And the .44 Long Russian. aka .44Special :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the .44 Long Russian. aka .44Special :P

 

No problem..

 

44 Special Ruger 'new' Vaquero

 

 

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible to own a New Old Vaquero and an Old New Vaquero at the same time, or would doing so create a paradox? I'm concerned about a rift in the space-time Cowboy continuim. I think I'll sell all my Rugers, just to be safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Switches verses Turnouts! Adios Sgt. Jake

 

Yup! U.S. railroads call the track mechanism that changes one route to the other "switches". Model railroaders call them "turnouts" to distinguish from the electric switches on the control panel. I think we got the term from the Brits. Wasn't it the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland who said, "Words mean what I say they mean!"????

 

All aboard!

 

Your Pard,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The New Vaquero (now 'Vaquero) in 45 caliber is not suitable for loads above SAAMI spec 'factory' loads - period. Only the 'original' Super Blackhawk framed Vaquero's can handle loads well above those SAAMI specs...'Full loads' is refering to these 'hot' loads.

 

and yes...there are people that like to load up and shoot .45 caliber loads (like a 300gr projectile at 1200fps) at times - these guns aren't always just used for CAS.

 

Ex: from Cor-Bon's website:

 

What’s the story behind COR®BON’s non-SAAMI spec. 45 Colt +P and 45-70 Govt. +P loads?

COR®BON’s 45 Colt +P ammunition is not suitable for all guns. It should NEVER be fired in old guns, especially Colt single action army revolvers or clones thereof.

 

We use these criteria: Any Model gun that is also offered in .44 magnums will handle COR®BON’s 45 Colt +P loads. This cartridge may be used in modern hunting revolvers such as Ruger’s “Black Hawk”, and “Red hawk”, Freedom Arms revolver, The Colt “Anaconda”, and the Thompson Center “Contender”.

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

 

Who said anything about loads outside of SAAMI? It sure wasn't me... Full 45 loads should NOT refer to loads that are outside of SAMMI specs.. That is NOT a full load.. it is a overload. ANY 45 COLT LOAD THAT WILL WORK IN A REAL COLT "P", WILL WORK IN THE NEW VAQUERO. Of course there are Wildcats... and in some cases, fools, who will push things past where they were meant to be... but my statement is correct and true.

 

Snakebite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is with the word Model. It baffles me that pards insist on inserting that word when it is totally unnecessary and makes the term inaccurate and impossible. Just leave it out. Why type 5 extra key strokes when you don't have to??????????????????? And one of them a capitalization. Makes absolutely ZERO sense.

 

When you stick the word Model in the middle of the term, the term then becomes an impossibility. Using the word Model just shows that you don't know what you are talking about. There are NO Old Model Vaqueros. NONE. NADA. ZERO. That's just how it is whether YOU like it or don't like it. Continuing to do so just makes you stubborn.

 

An Old Model Ruger has no transfer bar and is held together with screws. New Model Rugers have transfer bars and are held together with pins. The very first Vaquero came along over 20 years too late to be an Old Model. Therefore and thus there are no not now, never have been, and can never possibly be any such thing as an Old Model Vaquero. Why is that so hard to comprehend???????????????????????

 

So why do the extra typing. Just type Old Vaquero, or Original Vaquero or Big Vaquero. All of which are accurate and correct and require 5 less keystrokes. Don't type New Model Vaquero. ALL Vaqueros, new and old, are New Models. Save 5 keystrokes and just type New Vaquero. Simple.

 

The jury is still out whether you pards saying 20 years from now everyone will be using the inaccurate/impossible term "Old Model Vaquero". And neener neener neener we kin call our guns what we want to. It is only widespread here. And this is a VERY small forum. Other places realize OMV is just plain wrong and correct those who in their blissfulness use it. Only here do I get flames for speaking the truth and trying to help pards see the light. Even tho they don't appreciate it and despise and belittle me.

 

There remains the very good possibility the crazy and silly term Old Model Vaquero/OMV will die out and wiser heads prevail.

 

Even here.

 

Someday...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True and some people also insist on putting "clips" in their pistols and not magazines. No bother though, even though it is not technically correct communication has occured because I understood what they meant. I would rather share stories about the sport of shooting instead of beating their head against a wall over a technicality. Besides typing 5 more keys doesn't bother me that much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is with the word Model. It baffles me that pards insist on inserting that word when it is totally unnecessary and makes the term inaccurate and impossible. Just leave it out. Why type 5 extra key strokes when you don't have to??????????????????? And one of them a capitalization. Makes absolutely ZERO sense.

 

When you stick the word Model in the middle of the term, the term then becomes an impossibility. Using the word Model just shows that you don't know what you are talking about. There are NO Old Model Vaqueros. NONE. NADA. ZERO. That's just how it is whether YOU like it or don't like it. Continuing to do so just makes you stubborn.

 

An Old Model Ruger has no transfer bar and is held together with screws. New Model Rugers have transfer bars and are held together with pins. The very first Vaquero came along over 20 years too late to be an Old Model. Therefore and thus there are no not now, never have been, and can never possibly be any such thing as an Old Model Vaquero. Why is that so hard to comprehend???????????????????????

 

So why do the extra typing. Just type Old Vaquero, or Original Vaquero or Big Vaquero. All of which are accurate and correct and require 5 less keystrokes. Don't type New Model Vaquero. ALL Vaqueros, new and old, are New Models. Save 5 keystrokes and just type New Vaquero. Simple.

 

The jury is still out whether you pards saying 20 years from now everyone will be using the inaccurate/impossible term "Old Model Vaquero". And neener neener neener we kin call our guns what we want to. It is only widespread here. And this is a VERY small forum. Other places realize OMV is just plain wrong and correct those who in their blissfulness use it. Only here do I get flames for speaking the truth and trying to help pards see the light. Even tho they don't appreciate it and despise and belittle me.

 

There remains the very good possibility the crazy and silly term Old Model Vaquero/OMV will die out and wiser heads prevail.

 

Even here.

 

Someday...

Or, Old Model Vaquero and New Model Vaquero which are the popular names will survive in the long run. Since CAS makes up by far the bulk of Vaquero users I expect whst they are called by users will survive long term. Personally I don't give a crap how you feel about it! It is getting tiresome seeing you pretending to be a Ruger expert. The rest of us are just cowboy action shooters thst call em like we see em.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But why do it when you shouldn't, don't need to and makes your term technically wrong?

 

ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not pretending to be a Ruger expert. Far from it. But I am somewhat knowledgeable about firearms as they are my chief interest along with history.

 

I don't care if I am growing tiresome to you GCK or that you don't appreciate my efforts to be altruistic in helping the pards with terminology. Your constant flaming is tiresome to me. You have taken a dislike to me, obvious to all and oh well. May as well get over it, stop telling me to "get a life", etc or bully me into throwing in the towel as I assure I will not be deterred in this effort at elementary education. Those here that don't appreciate an altruistic attempt, well nothing I can do about that.

 

The jury is still out. I wouldn't be so quick to crow that the incorrect term will win out in the end. If it does, it won't be because I didn't try to stop it.

 

I will reserve my right to speak my mind on any topic. Whether you like it or don't and whether you disagree or not. Thank you. With or without your permission or the level of your tiresomeness it engenders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never split infinitives.

 

Don't end a sentance with a preposition.

 

Irregardless is not a word.

 

You can't start a sentance with and, but or because.

 

 

 

People will continually to boldy refer to the Old Model Vaquero, irregardless of what others think. And just because it's technically "wrong" doesn't mean that people won't understand what you are talking about. I'd go on, but at the moment, this is all I can think of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So my dad is the "Old Model Stewart" and my son Canyon is the "New Model Stewart"? Where does that leave me? I'm confused.

 

Your reference to your Dad would be like talking about a Ruger Flat-top, Your Son would be like a Ruger with a transfer-bar.

That leaves me to believe you are a 3 Screw Ruger, with 4 clicks. I hope all your screws are tight. Just sayin'

 

Big Jake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't touch on the SBHs. Not very many of those on the firing line.

 

The flat tops, while a little different are still 3 screws.

 

I just add Bisley to the proper revolver classification.

 

The usual discussion ensues when they are looking at my 3 screws. They flip the gate open and try to spin the cylinder. They are familiar with the transfer bar Rugers but not the 3 screws. For the newbie, it is difficult to grasp the fact that in the 50s, Ruger made a Colt. With the Ruger name.

 

The hot "For Rugers only" subject is really a concern of mine. Pick up a box of 45 Colt by Cor Bon. They do not identify the one to use.

 

The other discussion are the grips. Which fits what? That makes it a little more complicated. Thats when I break out my cheat sheet. Hard to remember the X3red etc.

 

http://www.gunblast.com/Hamm_Ruger-SA-GripFrames.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So my dad is the "Old Model Stewart" and my son Canyon is the "New Model Stewart"? Where does that leave me? I'm confused.

 

Well check you family tree you may not even be Rugers, you may be Colts. That would make you 2nd generation...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I had two OMV's in the safe and sure enough, they are in there. Maybe we could call them

"Old Modelo Vaquero" and "New Modelo Vaquero".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ye thought wrong. Ye may have two RVs, old Vaqs, original Vaqs or big Vaqs but nobody ever had any OMVs.

 

 

And nobody ever will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not pretending to be a Ruger expert. Far from it. But I am somewhat knowledgeable about firearms as they are my chief interest along with history.

 

I don't care if I am growing tiresome to you GCK or that you don't appreciate my efforts to be altruistic in helping the pards with terminology. Your constant flaming is tiresome to me. You have taken a dislike to me, obvious to all and oh well. May as well get over it, stop telling me to "get a life", etc or bully me into throwing in the towel as I assure I will not be deterred in this effort at elementary education. Those here that don't appreciate an altruistic attempt, well nothing I can do about that.

 

The jury is still out. I wouldn't be so quick to crow that the incorrect term will win out in the end. If it does, it won't be because I didn't try to stop it.

 

I will reserve my right to speak my mind on any topic. Whether you like it or don't and whether you disagree or not. Thank you. With or without your permission or the level of your tiresomeness it engenders.

Thanks for your concern - but many of us stick with R.A.H. when it comes to altruism:

 

Beware of altrusim. It is based on self-deception, the root of all evil.

 

If tempted by something that feels “altruistic” examine your motives and root out that self-deception. Then, if you still want to do it, wallow in it!

 

Sometimes the pedantic need to correct others is akin to the kid in school who always raises their hand and says "Teacher, Teacher, you forgot to give us home work".

You're not going to win friends by correcting them in public . . all you're going to do is engender anger . . . It doesn't matter how right you think you are . . .

there are a lot of adults here who just don't need to be corrected by folks, they're quite content to say and think what they want . . This is a cowboy site, and

being told we're wrong all the time gets a mite tiring . . .

 

SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I came to see whether Ruger was really bringing the OMV, original/old vaquero, Vaquero, what have you back. <_<

 

As soon as I saw the discussion start, I was glad to see ChuteTheMall contribute with .45 Long Colt.

 

I leave by inquiring whether the handguns in question would be pistols or just revolvers? :huh:

 

Bud

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shadowcatcher, your points are well taken. I am not trying to make any friends here. I know what you are saying. This is not the first rodeo on this deal. I feel there are more than just me on my side of the issue. It's just that others are intimidated by the greater odds and long john singe-ing of the other side. Me I don't care if someone wants to call me pedantic. I think I know what it means. Others might chime in to support me but don't want to suffer the slings and arrows.

 

The overwhelming need to correct others is an affliction. I admit to being seriously afflicted. Always have been. Ask my siblings or my army mates who called me the Professor. Most of the time, especially around here I am able to resist the urge. Ole Buck tried to tell me once that people perceive it to be tantamount to calling them a dumb@$$. I wish they wouldn't. Like I say mostly I can control the urge. Some things just push my button. This is one. I hate that OMV replaced RV almost overnight and overwhelmingly. I do not want folks coming here to get the impression the pards are ignorant hick from the stick bubbas. Maybe altruistic is the wrong word. But I really am not trying to project a holier than thou persona or anything. Lord knows I mess up my fair share.

 

The thing is when I am laboring under a delusion, have got something wrong or am disseminating false information, I truly do enjoy being corrected. I will thank the person who helps me see the light. Unfortunately too many here bristle at being corrected. Beats me why. Why take umbrage? Learn something and go on more enlightened. But the flames here have caused me to just bite my tongue the vast majority of the time.

 

This is not one of those times. I also cannot abide and will not overlook any use of the word "calvary" for cavalry. That will have me chiming in most every time. Most everything else I just have to stifle the urge and let go, like the too-frequent-still use here of loose for lose. You are beginning to see that everywhere even in major publications. I theorize that loose just somehow looks more correct to the mind's eye. Then there is the monkey see monkey do factor. Major reason for the meteoric acceptance of OMV here. I would save many minutes typing and asbestos garment expenses if I could just start sloughing off OMV.

 

But that would be admitting defeat. And I still have some faint hope the OMV dragon can somehow someway someday be slain...

 

Sam Colt settled that question over 150 years ago by referring to his revolvers he built as pistols. Good enuff for this chile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shadowcatcher, your points are well taken. I am not trying to make any friends here. I know what you are saying. This is not the first rodeo on this deal. I feel there are more than just me on my side of the issue. It's just that others are intimidated by the greater odds and long john singe-ing of the other side. Me I don't care if someone wants to call me pedantic. I think I know what it means. Others might chime in to support me but don't want to suffer the slings and arrows.

 

The overwhelming need to correct others is an affliction. I admit to being seriously afflicted. Always have been. Ask my siblings or my army mates who called me the Professor. Most of the time, especially around here I am able to resist the urge. Ole Buck tried to tell me once that people perceive it to be tantamount to calling them a dumb@$$. I wish they wouldn't. Like I say mostly I can control the urge. Some things just push my button. This is one. I hate that OMV replaced RV almost overnight and overwhelmingly. I do not want folks coming here to get the impression the pards are ignorant hick from the stick bubbas. Maybe altruistic is the wrong word. But I really am not trying to project a holier than thou persona or anything. Lord knows I mess up my fair share.

 

The thing is when I am laboring under a delusion, have got something wrong or am disseminating false information, I truly do enjoy being corrected. I will thank the person who helps me see the light. Unfortunately too many here bristle at being corrected. Beats me why. Why take umbrage? Learn something and go on more enlightened. But the flames here have caused me to just bite my tongue the vast majority of the time.

 

This is not one of those times. I also cannot abide and will not overlook any use of the word "calvary" for cavalry. That will have me chiming in most every time. Most everything else I just have to stifle the urge and let go, like the too-frequent-still use here of loose for lose. You are beginning to see that everywhere even in major publications. I theorize that loose just somehow looks more correct to the mind's eye. Then there is the monkey see monkey do factor. Major reason for the meteoric acceptance of OMV here. I would save many minutes typing and asbestos garment expenses if I could just start sloughing off OMV.

 

But that would be admitting defeat. And I still have some faint hope the OMV dragon can somehow someway someday be slain...

 

Sam Colt settled that question over 150 years ago by referring to his revolvers he built as pistols. Good enuff for this chile.

Looks like you are losing sleep over it also, posting at 2:30 AM, maybe you should seek help!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.