Ruger Talk Forums banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
I have seen some posts getting close to this question but not actually getting there ..Does anyone know if New Vaq's or SBH's can be loaded to + P safely? I have yet to see one rated for it but with some of the crazy caliber's people mod these things out too I have to think its okay to load some hotter rounds....thanks for the input ya'll
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
I don't think there is any doubt that the SBH can handle +P, I don't know what to say about the New Vaquero other than I doubt it is nearly as strong as the SBH. Don
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Thanks, thats along the line of what. I was thinking

only accurate guns are interesting....making one accurate is more interesting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
I don't have a definitive answer, but perhaps I can get the conversation rolling. Jeff Quinn of Gunblast Magazine compared the size of the New Vaquero cylinder and frame with that of similar revolvers. He did not include the Super Blackhawk, but he did include the Old Model .357 Mag Blackhawk and the Old Model Vaquero. Dimensions here are listed in inches:

THREE GUN MODELS: --- Old Vaquero ----- New Vaquero ---- Old .357 Blackhawk
Cylinder Diameter --------- 1.732 -------------- 1.675 ------------- 1.672
Cylinder Length ----------- 1.703 -------------- 1.610 ------------- 1.602
Frame Window Hdight ----- 1.763 -------------- 1.700 ------------- 1.700

You can see that the New Vaquero cylinder appears to be at least as beefy as the Old Model Blackhawk. But the Old Vaquero's cylinder appears to be thicker, and its frame was more like that of the SBH, (if I'm not mistaken). Does that mean the New Vaquero is at least as strong as the Old Blackhawk but not as strong as the Old Vaquero? You decide. That brings up another other question: that of frame specs. (thickness and kind of metal used). The Quinn article does not give that information, and I have not taken time to find it.

I'm having enough fun with the standard pressure stuff, but I would also like to know how much is too much for this fine shootin' iron.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
SP357 provided some interesting specs. While I would say cylinder diameter, all things being equal, would be a major point, I don't think the Vaqueros have as thick a topstrap as the Blackhawks which may save your rear if things really go to hell on you. Don
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
SP357 provided some interesting specs. While I would say cylinder diameter, all things being equal, would be a major point, I don't think the Vaqueros have as thick a topstrap as the Blackhawks which may save your rear if things really go to hell on you. Don
Good point. Over time that top strap can stretch with too much stress (AND WORSE). One good reason to stay away from extra pressure rounds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
Good point. Over time that top strap can stretch with too much stress (AND WORSE). One good reason to stay away from extra pressure rounds.
I have a couple of S&W .500 Mags that I reload for. Have an email relationship with one of the S&W engineers who, among other things, worked on the Model 500 project. In response to a question, he said they had never tested one to failure but estimated it would take approx 130,000psi to break it.

Despite that, I usually stop my reloads below listed maximums which are still 10,000psi below SAAMI maximums. Either conservative in my advancing years or wimpy?? Don
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Wow! That is impressive. Thanks for the inf. It feels good to have a gun that can take anything I can dish out.

I remember when I enjoyed Max loads in my SP101. Arthritis has taken its toll on my hands, so the thrill has been replaced by a chill in my aching bones. That's when I traded for my New Vaquero. I do enjoy shooting a handful of full Mag 158's or 180's with a maximum load of Alliant 2400 from time to time -- ringing the 100-yard gong, but I'm swearing off the extra pressure stuff for the arthritis reason (or excuse).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
Arthritis has taken its toll on my hands, so the thrill has been replaced by a chill in my aching bones. I'm swearing off the extra pressure stuff for the arthritis reason (or excuse).
Wise to do so. When I shoot heavy loads in the .500 Mag, I do restrict how many I shoot. With the heaviest, it's two cylinder fulls. I see no reason to beat myself up. Don
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Maybe this is common practice in the industry but ...s&w didn't test the framework to max???? I Find that hard to believe, no offense to who posted, but wow. ...Now I can see not publishing the final results for quality control/insurance purposes...but c'mon if I build a firearm with the knowledge that it took to get there...man I want to know what itt'll take...again maybe this is very common but im surprised to hear so...and a little disappointed.

only accurate guns are interesting....making one accurate is more interesting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
Maybe this is common practice in the industry but ...s&w didn't test the framework to max???? I Find that hard to believe, no offense to who posted, but wow. ...Now I can see not publishing the final results for quality control/insurance purposes...but c'mon if I build a firearm with the knowledge that it took to get there...man I want to know what itt'll take...again maybe this is very common but im surprised to hear so...and a little disappointed.

only accurate guns are interesting....making one accurate is more interesting.
No, testing to destruction is not industry practice. They do shoot proof loads that are maybe 30% pressure overloads. Proof loads are industry standard for quality companies.

The S&W engineer said testing to destruction would destroy their pressure testing rig and they had no interest in that. Don
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top