|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
June 14, 2016, 09:12 AM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 3, 2014
Location: Land of the Pilgrims
Posts: 2,033
|
Howdy Again
As I have said many times, there is no logic to model naming at Ruger. The first mistake they made with the Vaquero was to name the newer, smaller one the New Vaquero. Now they have compounded the error by producing a 44 Magnum for limited release through some distributors, on the old large frame, and stamping New Vaquero on it. And stamping Vaquero on the 44 Special version built on the smaller frame. To make matters worse, the Ruger website refers to the currently produced New Vaquero as simply Vaquero. Why they did not do something sensible, as they did with their iconic 22 semi-automatic pistols, calling them Mark II and Mark III, is beyond me. That way it is easy to differentiate between models. Some marketing genius must have felt the name Vaquero was sacrosanct, rather than coming up with a new name for the newer models. |
June 14, 2016, 09:40 AM | #27 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,812
|
Always a sad day when a company does not follow their own rules...
I suppose now I'm waiting for their next gen SA with key lock, combination lock, biometric ID and voice print authorization required to operate... They can call that one the CHICKENHAWK and then we'll have threads on how strong that one is.....
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
June 14, 2016, 03:50 PM | #28 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 31, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 2,076
|
Quote:
|
|
June 14, 2016, 08:11 PM | #29 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: In the valley above the plain
Posts: 13,424
|
Quote:
__________________
Don't even try it. It's even worse than the internet would lead you to believe. |
|
June 14, 2016, 10:35 PM | #30 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,812
|
Quote:
or would it be the Super Chickenhawk?? I have one of the New Vaqueros, it has the lock, which, in my opinion is one of the few things Ruger has done right, lately. tis there as a selling point for those who think it is a desirable thing, but its not in the way, or in your face (like S&W) for those who don't like it. Ruger seriously needs to come up with new names for new versions, not just add (or drop) the word "NEW"...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
June 16, 2016, 11:55 PM | #31 | |
Member
Join Date: June 9, 2016
Location: God's Country NW
Posts: 27
|
Quote:
If I were to listen to the original engineer, I would not even buy an 1895, as it's just a 336 action modified so that a bigger cartridge will pass through it! See the 36 was only designed to be a 30-30. Later on the same action came to house the thundering .444 Marlin, with a full 41% more bolt thrust than the 30-30 musters. Mainly though, when a firearm fails, it's due to hoop stress. I do think that bolt thrust is a useful number to examine however, especially on less than strongest actions or actions that are used above their design parameters. Now if we acknowledge that Marlin knew what it was doing when it chambered a 336/1895 in .444 Marlin, then we can also surmise that the action is strong enough for that level of bolt thrust. Coincidentally a 40 000 PSI 45-70 load generates the same level of bolt thrust as a .444. And we are reasonably sure they didn't downgrade the steel when they started making them in 45-70.... Now a few years ago they put a hot version of a 45-70 (or a short version of a .458 Win Mag, if you prefer) in the same gun. The MAP of the .450 Marlin is 43 500 PSI. Maybe the steel is a little better? Of course I can't predict what your old revolvers actual pressure ceiling is.
__________________
Profanity is a poor substitute for education and logic. |
|
June 17, 2016, 12:20 PM | #32 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: In the valley above the plain
Posts: 13,424
|
The Model 444 is a modified Model 336.
The (new) 1895 is a modified Model 444. 1893 -> 1936/36 -> 336 -> 444 -> 1895 Not arguing about strength or pressure. Just wanted to clarify the lineage of the 336 family.
__________________
Don't even try it. It's even worse than the internet would lead you to believe. |
June 19, 2016, 09:55 AM | #33 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Posts: 5,261
|
Quote:
I have found common knowledge to be wrong on many things and assuming that the delusions of the multitudes justifies unsafe practices is going to be proven wrong more often that it will be proven right.
__________________
If I'm not shooting, I'm reloading. |
|
June 19, 2016, 10:55 AM | #34 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 25, 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 18,535
|
Even the Brian Pearce Tier 2 loads that he says are safe in USFA SAA clones and S&W N frames are about all the fun I want. And they are themselves 40% overloads vs the SAAMI nitro-for-black standard.
Quote:
Did they keep it up for the lower pressure but larger diameter .45-70? Have to think they did something to contain the .450 Marlin. |
|
June 19, 2016, 10:45 PM | #35 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: In the valley above the plain
Posts: 13,424
|
Quote:
Former Marlin employees, including the aforementioned "Tomray", have said many times on the MarlinOwners forums that each model's receiver (and sometimes other parts) were heat treated differently. These 'revelations' were generally in relation to discussions of converting .30-30s to .375 Winchesters, or converting .30-30s to .444 Marlin (like I have done*), or running uber-ultra-super-hot wildcats (like .405 JES) in 336s originally chambered as .30-30s; but the basic message is always the same: The different heat treating was intended more for longevity than higher pressure. That's what I picked up from the discussions, anyway. *(I run my hybrid 336/444/1895 .444 Marlin at safe and sane pressures. While I am not a metallurgist, engineer, or firearm designer, I believe the pressures that I am running will give it a life span much longer than my own.)
__________________
Don't even try it. It's even worse than the internet would lead you to believe. |
|
July 7, 2016, 01:22 AM | #36 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 11, 2014
Posts: 754
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
July 7, 2016, 03:03 AM | #37 | |||
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,812
|
Quote:
Remember that Elmer was restricted to guns that existed at the time he was doing his experimenting. There were no Ruger Blackhawks around then for him to work with. Quote:
So the frames had to be bigger to as strong as forged, why not make them a bit bigger yet? An excess of strength is seldom a detriment. Bigger frames means bigger cylinders, (which are forged steel) so the strength increases even more. As long as the buying public would accept the size of the gun (compared to what they were used to) it was a win/win. And, the public did. Quote:
I think that's quite fair, actually.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|||
July 7, 2016, 11:48 AM | #38 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 11, 2014
Posts: 754
|
Keith only "blew" one sixgun. It was a military surplus SAA (wrought iron frame) that when he fired a caseful of blackpowder under a 300gr cutdown .45-70 bullet, the loading gate blew off. I don't know where the idea that he blew up a bunch of guns comes from.
|
|
|