The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Handguns: The Revolver Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 19, 2007, 04:06 PM   #1
j. villarreal
Member
 
Join Date: August 19, 2007
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 31
vaquero bird's head vs. cimarron thunderer

which would you guys pick? i've heard lots of great things about the vaqueros but am not that familiar with the cimarron thunderer.

jason
j. villarreal is offline  
Old August 19, 2007, 05:20 PM   #2
bulbboy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 2, 2005
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 375
I can only tell of my experience with Rugers. I have 5 now and they are all great!! Whether it be the DA revolvers (GP100 and SP101), the Mark III Hunter .22, or the SA revolvers (New Vaquero .357 and Vaquero Montedo .45 LC). I've been turned into a huge Ruger fan. I have never heard anything bad about the Cimarrons, but I can tell you the Rugers are awesome!!


you might also check out the Beretta Stampede Marshall - I have one and its a blast to shoot.
bulbboy is offline  
Old August 19, 2007, 06:42 PM   #3
Jim March
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,309
The Thunderer/Marshall type grip frame is GREAT as long as your horsepower needs aren't extreme. In other words, at some recoil level the gun will try and tear your thumb web in half rather than rolling in the grip. Typical self defense loads should be OK, but at the highest end of the 357Mag spectrum or higher you might run into trouble.

I'm not saying "avoid", I'm saying "evaluate your needs".

The Ruger Bird's Head and similar QPR Bird's Head grips are small yet still roll and for some people with smaller hands provide excellent recoil control - some report respectable comfort into high-end 44Mag power levels.
__________________
Jim March
Jim March is offline  
Old August 19, 2007, 10:24 PM   #4
Socrates
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 5,866
I'm not up on these, but, the Ruger has a working transfer bar. I'd make sure the cimarron does too, or, you are buying a five shooter.

Socrates J.D.
Socrates is offline  
Old August 20, 2007, 12:00 AM   #5
Jim March
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,309
The Berettas have transfer bars. The Ubertis, Cimarrons and such don't.

Beretta bought Uberti recently and specified that the guns under their brand would have transfer bars. Other than that the guns are similar - high-end Ubertis will be similar in QC to Berettas.
__________________
Jim March
Jim March is offline  
Old August 20, 2007, 12:38 AM   #6
Playboypenguin
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,515
I would recommend the Ruger version. The combination of it's weight and the shape of the grip make for a very comfortable shooting experience. As I mentioned in PM the one I have is a .45colt and it is a leasure to take to the range.

Playboypenguin is offline  
Old August 20, 2007, 02:28 AM   #7
Socrates
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 5,866
Wonder if that lil gun would take my Buffalobore ammo?
Half the fun of the 45 Colt, in a strong gun, is, you just bought a 44 magnum on steroids...

Socrates J.D.
Socrates is offline  
Old August 20, 2007, 07:23 AM   #8
Stainz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 13, 2007
Location: Alabama
Posts: 739
It is my assumption that Ruger quit making the BHG because their newly adopted hammer spring lock couldn't be fitted. It is probably the reason that the shortened BH gripframe has drifted into oblivion as well. Of course, you can always retrofit a QPR BHG frame, in the raw, to other Rugers - as I have done with a 4.6" Super Blackhawk (.44M). As J.M. said, the ball-like Ruger - or QPR - BHG, usually in black Micarta, rolls easily in your hand, transferring muzzle flip into a dedicated muzzle rise - like an anti-aircraft gun, with warm plus .44M loads. The Ruger BHG, like their Bisley grip, is a crude, at best, interpretation of the original grips - and, in general, quite an operational improvement.The clone interpretation is close to the originals - and a bit 'odd' if you are accustomed to the Rugers. The original BHG is more of a handfilling, if small, grab, where the Ruger BHG is, as I said, more ball-like. That actually puts the 'ball' more naturally in the 'socket' of your palm - a decent recoil transfer. The original BHG is a great hide-a-way, even if you 'feel' the recoil a bit more.

I know modern Uberti's are fine - and Beretta has raised the bar for them. My experience with new Rugers has not been stellar. They - produced from 2000-2006 - have had a myriad of problems. Ruger had to replace a few pieces - including the cylinder - on a two-day old Redhawk. The remainder have been fixed here - I have become somewhat adept at fixing many aggravating QC shortcomings - including the finish, only possible because I buy SS. Still, my .45 BHG Vaquero, .44M SBH with BHG, and .32 BHG SSM (All 4.6", SS, and with black Micarta BHG.) are keepers - as is the 4" .32M SP101... but only after some work. Check out your new Ruger purchase carefully.

Stainz
Stainz is offline  
Old August 20, 2007, 08:26 AM   #9
BlkHawk73
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 14, 1999
Location: Maine
Posts: 744
The BHG and the short BH grip frame were phased out I'm told due to the lack of sales for thoe models. the short frame was only used on the .32 mag Single Sixes which met it's fate a second time. It was also the last model to use the birdshead gripframe as well. Even the large frame Vaqueros weren't overly popular with this gripframe. Many just don't care for the different design, especially with the heavier recoil loads. Me, I like 'em. I think they're a bit out of proportion on the large frames but on the small frames, they fit perfectly.
__________________
Shoot safe, shoot often
BlkHawk73 is offline  
Old August 20, 2007, 08:36 PM   #10
Socrates
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 5,866
I get REAL sick of hearing Ruger gun models don't sell. I've seen ONE birdshead grip gun, and, if I'd had money with me, I'd still probably have taken it home, until it dawned on me it had probably a screwed up cylinder, a junk barrel, and God knows what else wrong with it.

Likewise the .480 Ruger SRH Alaskan. I'd grab one in a heart beat. However, I've NEVER even seen one out here, in any of the 3 gun stores I go to.

I think Ruger turns out tiny production runs on this stuff, doesn't get them into many markets, then say they can't sell them, and go back to the regular stuff.

I often wonder how that company stays in business...

Socrates J.D.
Socrates is offline  
Old September 1, 2007, 12:00 PM   #11
bulbboy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 2, 2005
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 375
If Ruger would make more of them - I would buy a couple!
bulbboy is offline  
Old September 1, 2007, 01:07 PM   #12
j. villarreal
Member
 
Join Date: August 19, 2007
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 31
playboy, have you made any modifications to your ruger bird's head or is that what they all look fresh out of the oven?

jason

Last edited by j. villarreal; September 1, 2007 at 11:38 PM.
j. villarreal is offline  
Old September 2, 2007, 09:14 PM   #13
Eric M.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2007
Location: Forest Lake, Minnesota
Posts: 302
I just picked up a Uberti Cattleman a couple of days ago, and it sure shoots nice. VERY accurate.
I'm totally new with the modern cowboy guns, but I hope that this gun is as good as it looks and shoots right now when it's new.
The feel is like the cowboy single action pellet gun that my Dad gave me to learn to shoot pistols when I was young.


Eric
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer
NRA Pistol Instructor
NRA Life Member
DNR Certified Firearms Safety Instructor 37 yrs
Eric M. is offline  
Old May 12, 2013, 07:05 AM   #14
asaphjubal
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 11, 2013
Posts: 1
cimarron thunderer vrs ruger

It is likely that someone has already made a purchase concerning the thunderer vrs the Ruger. I have both and shoot both in 44 special (ruger is a vaquero). Loaded with 17 grains of 2400, the 250 bullet is quite a handfull but the birdshead gives more positive puchase that the plow handle grip.
I normally shoot 5.3 grains of bullseye and that shoots to point of aim with both guns in a 200 grain RNFP bullet.
asaphjubal is offline  
Old May 12, 2013, 08:16 AM   #15
wheelyfun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Vermont
Posts: 239
I love Ruger single actions, for their transfer bar (can safely carry six rounds) and for their customer service and ease of maintenance.

I no longer have this Birdshead in 45 ACP.....


but replaced it with this 44 Special Vaquero with short barrel...
__________________
When two of equal skill meet at swords' point, there is no conclusion to the match--Takuan Soho (written in 1629)
wheelyfun is offline  
Old May 12, 2013, 09:58 AM   #16
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,368
Cimarron offers some nice pistols, but I don't care for the Thunderer because it's pretending to be something it isn't. The Colt M1877 (which is called the "Thunderer," but was not so designated by the factory) was a double action revolver chambered in .41 Long Colt, with a distinctive variant of a birdshead grip. Now, Cimarron comes along and slaps a reproduction of the M1877 grip into a single action pistol chambered in .45 Colt and they call it "Thunderer." I don't approve of such playing fast and loose with historical references.

Further, the grip design (and the entire M1877 line) was not designed for nor offered in the .45 Colt chambering, and the grip design probably isn't well suited to such a powerful cartridge. The original chamberings were .32 Colt ("Rainmaker"), .38 Long Colt ("Lightning"), and .41 Long Colt ("Thunderer").
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old May 12, 2013, 07:42 PM   #17
Joe_Pike
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 30, 2010
Posts: 1,025
__________________
Stay Groovy
Joe_Pike is offline  
Old May 13, 2013, 04:57 PM   #18
newfrontier45
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 23, 2012
Posts: 921
Quote:
Cimarron offers some nice pistols, but I don't care for the Thunderer because it's pretending to be something it isn't. The Colt M1877 (which is called the "Thunderer," but was not so designated by the factory) was a double action revolver chambered in .41 Long Colt, with a distinctive variant of a birdshead grip. Now, Cimarron comes along and slaps a reproduction of the M1877 grip into a single action pistol chambered in .45 Colt and they call it "Thunderer." I don't approve of such playing fast and loose with historical references.

Further, the grip design (and the entire M1877 line) was not designed for nor offered in the .45 Colt chambering, and the grip design probably isn't well suited to such a powerful cartridge. The original chamberings were .32 Colt ("Rainmaker"), .38 Long Colt ("Lightning"), and .41 Long Colt ("Thunderer").
Everything is based on something. I'd be more inclined to judge it based on its own merit. With that in mind, the Thunderer works better than a regular birdshead for controlling the sixgun.
newfrontier45 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.11842 seconds with 9 queries