New Vaquero versus S&W Mountain Gun

[MePlat]

Where do the New Vaqueros stand strengh wise compared to the S&W in 45 Colt.  The New Vaquero is not as strong as the Vaquero of yesterday but is still not a whole lot thinner in the cylinder than the S&W.  At least not the one I measured.
Would it be 80 percent as strong?  Fifty percent as strong?
If a S&W with a 260 cast could run at 20 grs 2400 would 16 grs be alright with the new Vaquero?
I know what the factory says BTW.   

[timothy]

16 should be no problem I've shot 18.5gr through my cimarrons. Good luck

[DanChamberlain]

18 would be a nice load. 

Dan

[Redhawk1]

If you know the answer, why ask the question?  Why not just tell us?

It is not the cylinder that is just weaker in the New Vaquero, but the frame is as well.

[Keith L]

My guess is the load in question is not in the manual.  I don't know because my Vaquero is the old style.

Anyone who exceeds the manual levels and has to ask if it is ok shouldn't. 

[44 Man]

Yes, the 'New' Vaquero is not as beefy as the old Vaquero, BUT it is still stronger than the S&W.  Any load that is fine in the S&W, is fine in the New Vaquero.  44 Man

[Lloyd Smale]

frame strenght in the new vaqueros isnt a problem. Bowen and clements are converting them to 5 shot 44 mags and they hold up fine.

If you know the answer, why ask the question?  Why not just tell us?

It is not the cylinder that is just weaker in the New Vaquero, but the frame is as well.

[Redhawk1]

So is it that the cylinder is the weak point in the new Vaquero?  The New Vaquero frame is smaller than the old style frame.

[Travis Morgan]

Metal thickness isn't the only issue; different metal have different strengths and weaknesses.

[Lloyd Smale]

the frames are no doubt weaker then the old vaqueros and arent near as bullet proof. they will handle the 44 mag but im sure if a guy feed them loads a redhawk will take in 44 they would fail. I dont think using any kind of sanity a new ruger would fail in the cylinder either. The smiths are nessarilly week in the cyinder either. They are no doubt weaker then the 44 smiths but it would take alot to blow the side out of one. Where the smiths give out is there lock work. Shooting heavy loads will shoot them out of time in a short ammount of time. All that been said when dealing with any gun you should stick to loads that are designed for it. If you need more power then a ruger or smith 45 is capable of sell it and buy yourself a gun that is designed for the level you are looking for. Why take a chance on ruining a good gun. Kind of like putting nitrous on a ford escort. It make make it fast for a while but your going to go car shopping before long

[Travis Morgan]

Well said, Lloyd.

BTW, where can I foist off some molds, brass, and other crap on you? Is the new barn underway, yet?

[Tallwalker]

The locking notches in Ruger cylinders are offset from the centerline of the revolver, and cylinder which gives them more strength in that area. The base pin is also stronger than the crane set up on a standard double action.......... Ruger beefed that up on the Redhawk / Super Redhawks. I've read some articles by Brian Pearce, and others that make a lot of sense when loading for these guns. I would load a New Vaquero to  the 16,000-19,000 psi level, and perhaps to the .45 ACP +P levels occassionally, but I certainly wouldn't go over that. You can get 1000 fps + with most reasonable bullets at the 19,000 psi level, and that is more that adequate for most anything you would need to do with a gun like that. If I wanted more for certain purposes, I would get a bigger, heavier, and stronger gun.

[Lloyd Smale]

next month they will build it. Ive got some loading gear set up in the other garage for now though.

Well said, Lloyd.

BTW, where can I foist off some molds, brass, and other crap on you? Is the new barn underway, yet?

[S.B.]

From an unfortunate experience, I can tell you that the S&W 25-5s aren't all that weak as printed in most places.
I overloaded some .45 Colts and fired them in mine. I had began using a new powder scale and the main beam on the new one read differently than the old and this slipped right past me? The load was actually 23 grains of HS-6 under 250 grain of Keith SWCs. I thought I was loading 13 grains of powder but, not so. To the point, the gun did not blow up(lucky for me) as some would expect but puffed the cylinder on one chamber. It wouldn't turn completely around.
S&W's customer service has fixed the gun and the old cylinder now rests on my computer desk as a reminder of my error.
The problems with super hot loads isn't the blowing up but, the constant hammering, over time, to all parts of the gun. If you'll read some of Linebaugh's writings about pressure, he explains this rather well.
My $.02.
Steve

[Lloyd Smale]

SB is correct. the 25s will take more then people give them credit for. For the most part heavy loads will shoot them loose but its rare one actually blows up.

[Tom C.]

As an engineer, I like the idea of safety factor. When you overload something like a .45 Colt S&W N frame, you are using up some of that safety factor. You can probably get away with it for a while, but sometime it may let go.

My S&W N frame .45s are .45 ACP/AR. I tend to load them with fairly mild loads, just because they are so much fun to shoot that way. When I want to load a little warmer, I use my .45 Colt NMBH or Redhawk, but even then, I am on the low end of the “Ruger Only” loads. I feel safer loading any of my .44 mags full tilt, but don’t bother to do it very often. When I want serious power, I pull out one of my .500s.

[Lloyd Smale]

The hotter loads for the 45 colt smiths we are discussing are loaded to about the same pressures as 45acp factory ammo is. I dont think anyone would ever advocate ruger single action level loads for a smith or ever a small framed ruger. For the most part i dont even load my 29s up to factory level pressures. My hands says stop before the loading manuals do.