Author Topic: HOT LOADS IN NEW VAQUERO (Read 5435 times)

m-g Willy · « **on:** May 30, 2009, 06:33:54 AM »

Anyone know how hot you can load the 45 new Vaquero?
My load for a Rossi 92 and a Blackhawk is 250 gr. JHP over 22gr. 2400
Would like to be able to carry a new Vaqero with the same load.

sprest22 · « **Reply #1 on:** May 30, 2009, 06:46:14 AM »

45 Colt loads in a New Vaquero should be kept at the same pressure as Colt SAA loads.DO NOT use loads for Ruger Blackhawk/Thompson Contender in your New Vaquero.

BlkHawk73 · « **Reply #2 on:** May 30, 2009, 07:37:42 AM »

So long as the load is within SAAMI specs you'll be fine. It's the loads over the SAAMI specs that create a dnager zone.

MePlat · « **Reply #3 on:** May 31, 2009, 12:02:34 PM »

It always seemed odd to me but Elmer Keith recommended 18.5 2400 with his 250 gr 454424 for the COLT SSA and it has been used by many but now the New Vaquero (which should be as stronger or more stronger) should not be used for anything but 14000 PSI loads.
What is wrong with this line or reasoning?
Am I completely crazy or am I just plain dumb for not seeing any sensibilty for that type logic?

Swampman · « **Reply #4 on:** May 31, 2009, 12:38:47 PM »

Maybe it was Elmer's logic that should be questioned.

MePlat · « **Reply #5 on:** May 31, 2009, 02:34:01 PM »

Swampman:

The possibility of Keith being wrong hasn't escaped me even though I am a Keith fan.
But do you have anything of substantial value to indicate that he didn't know what he was talking about?
People used his load for the 44 specials for years with good results.
People used his 45 Colt loads too.
Does anyone expect Ruger to say anything other than lawyerese when suggesting loads.
If Elmer was crazy what does that make John Linebaugh considering the loads he recommends for the S&W 45 Colt revolvers?
I still don't see the logic of saying the New Vaquero is weaker than a Colt SSA

spruce · « **Reply #6 on:** May 31, 2009, 02:34:26 PM »

Elmer blew up a few guns while developing his loads.

He had no pressure testing equipment so when working up loads he simply went PAST maximum and then backed off a tad - a procedure not usually recommended in modern reloading manuals!

MePlat · « **Reply #7 on:** May 31, 2009, 02:36:47 PM »

Anyone that thinks Keith recommended loads he used to blow up revolvers with hold up your hand and say Aye

spruce · « **Reply #8 on:** May 31, 2009, 02:56:24 PM »

I didn't mean to imply that Elmer ever recommended any loads he knew to be dangerous. He contributed greatly to the sport of handgunning and I'm grateful to him for that.

All I'm saying is that he, and others of his day, were mostly operating in the dark when it came to knowing exactly what kind of pressures they were getting - and he did ruin a few guns in his experiments.

A lot of the loads in modern manuals are reduced from what was recommended in manuals even 40 years ago. Some of that may be due to lawyers, but a lot is because of the advent of more precise testing equipment.

jager · « **Reply #9 on:** May 31, 2009, 03:36:10 PM »

   I have often pondered the same question regarding using loads with more than 14,000CUP in a new Colt or Colt "Clone". Ken Waters published his testing in a March '75 "Handloader" article that is used in his "Pet Loads" book listing 3 distinct pressure loads. He cites the "Group I" for the 1st Generation Colts; "Group II" for "later Colt SA's, New Service & S&W revolvers"; and "Group III" for ruger Blackhawk revolvers and Tompson-Center pistols. I've used some of his Group II loads in my Beretta Stampede with satisfactory results. While the Group I loads are easier on the gun and more fun to shoot, I prefer the Group II loads for hunting. (I'll not argue that a Colt .45 lead slug at 950fps may be just a lethal at 75yards as one going 100fps faster, but I seem to beable to hit targets further out with these faster loads.)
   I wouldn't even attempt to use the Group III loads in guns other than the BH or T.C. (Besides, once you get into the Group III loads the recoil factor goes up radically and I'd just as soon be shooting a .44 Magnum than make a .45 Colt into one.)
   When you consider the .45ACP operates at 21,000CUP and the +P at 23,000CUP, 14,000CUP for a new SAA Colt or "Clone" seems unecessarily restrictive. The old 1917 Colts used .45ACP with "moon clips" and I'd argue they are not as strong as a modern Single Action Army and I've never heard of anyone "blowing one up". Even if there is the possibility of using "too stiff" a load in an older pistol, "throttling" a modern steel model to "black powder" standards is akin to restricting a "new" Marlin 1895 to "trap door" pressure loads because you might inadvertenly use that cartridge in an "older" model 1895.
   It seems the .45 Colt starts to become "uncomfortable" to shoot at the max velocity and pressure limits published in Waters' Group II; and that seems to be a good "stopping point" for a very effective cartridge!
I don't consider adding a couple of thousand CUP's to the New Vaquero anymore hazardous than using .357Mag rounds in a "K" frame "smith; a steady diet might "loosen" things up a bit too early in its life, but it might make your "carry" pistol a bit more formidable in "bear" country.

mjbgalt · « **Reply #10 on:** May 31, 2009, 05:14:48 PM »

part of what you say is accurate. the part you missed, i believe, is that the .45 colt and .44 mag brass is wider at the rim than the ACP, which creates more backthrust on the frame.

also, the .45 colt cartridge is much fatter than the acp, which means less steel between the rounds in the cylinder, which also takes some of the safety margin.

you can shoot a .223 in a contender but not a .243. same reason.

-Matt

Bigeasy · « **Reply #11 on:** May 31, 2009, 06:31:36 PM »

I think standard pressure factory loads for the .45 LC are loaded well below what a modern Colt SAA / Clone can comfortably withstand. Steels just were not as refined and strong 130 years ago as today. I'm sure there are still more then a few black powder framed colts out there doing what they were designed to do....Using modern factory loads.

Without reccomending specific loads, I have shot quite a few .44 spec. and .45 LC 250 / 270 grain cast lead bullets at 900 to 1000 fps out of Colts and several replicas without issue. I am sure the new Ruger frame in question is at least as strong as the SAA. That being said, these "medium frame" big bores should not be loaded to magnum levels. Even if you don't blow the gun up, you accelerate wear and tear on the gun, and your hand. If you want max performance, buy a gun chambered for a magnum caliber, or use the older "heavy frame" Vaquero or Blackhawk. By the way, it's no mean feat to shoot thru both sides of a big buck with a hard cast 250 grn sem-wadcutter bullet at 900 or so fps. They usually run 20 or 30 yards, then tip over..

Larry

MePlat · « **Reply #12 on:** June 01, 2009, 02:56:19 AM »

Some interesting things have been brought up in this little thread that I would like to ask a few questions on.

1. I have the 45 th edition (1970) of Lymans reloading book. This before the Ruger 45 Colt that later prompted loading date in two sections for the Colt and clones and for the Ruger that recommended a max of 10.0 grs. Unique with the 454424 Keith. Now this is with the bullet seated deep and crimped over the leading edge of the front drive band.
In the 49th (2008) it says that 8.5 grs. is max with the bullet seated the same way.
Now does that mean that many of the older guns were destroyed by Lymans data back years ago because of Lymans 10 gr data?
2. Does anyone know of any being blown up by Lymans data?
3. Now since there were no sophisticated pressure measureing testing by Keith does that mean he was not aware what type of loads WERE safe/
4. Did Keith list loads that he did not test throughly in his own guns before listing them?
5. Back thrust is actually calculated by the INSIDE diameter of the case at the case head NOT at the rim diameter.
anyone that has studied pressure either hydralic or other knows that pressure is calculated only on the actual area the pressure pushes on.
6. In Speers lastest book it lists 20.5 grs. H110 for the 260 gr JHP and 23.5 with the 300 gr with both bullets seating the same depth in the case. Does that mean that 23.5 will blow up a gun with the 260 JHP when Hodgdons recommends 26 or so grs. H110 with the 250 Hornady XTP?
7. Although I load my Ruger Blackhawks to not over 20000 psi according to the data I have found for my loads as I don't see any need of it BUT do any of us REALLY know just half of what we talk about?

spruce · « **Reply #13 on:** June 01, 2009, 04:07:39 AM »

MePlat, you bring up some good points. Will give you a few opinions on some of your questions. I'm not saying these are the RIGHT answers, just MY answers.

1. and 2. - Have no knowledge of any guns "destroyed" by the old data, but some may have suffered a bit of accelerated wear.

3. and 4. - I think old Elmer was very aware of what loads were safe (after he went beyond safe!) because he tested extensively. I'm sure he never recommended any loads to others that he didn't feel were entirely safe.

7. - Can't speak for everyone else, but I'm not an expert. That's why I follow the data in reputable loading manuals. The .45 Colt and Model P size guns is a grand old combination, BUT I wouldn't try to "magnumize" the combo. If someone else wants to push the limits that's fine with me, but if I need more power then I'll go with a magnum.

One thing to keep in mind in the discussion of the .45 Colt and Model P size guns is that Elmer's earlier experiments in "hot rodding" were with this combo, but after some "unsatisfactory" results he then switched to the .44 Special because he found the thicker chamber walls allowed for some hotter loads.

fastbike · « **Reply #14 on:** June 01, 2009, 08:41:56 AM »

It's clear that there is a fair bit of variation between different manuals. This is typically ascribed to differences in test barrels, pressure measurement technique/equipment, etc. Avoidance of potential lawsuits is also a likely factor.

It's also clear that loads have become more conservative, in some cases, compared to older loading manuals. I would suspect that potential lawsuits are also a factor here as well.

It seems like some of the standard advice, i.e. work up to a maximum load is still good, practical advice. We should also remember that there are differences, some probably significant, between today's SAAs and the ones Elmer Keith had available.

That said, I'm kind of with spruce. I have made some 45 Colt Blackhawk loads w/ 18.5 grains of Lil'Gun under a Hornady 300XTP. These are on the minimum side according to Hodgson, but I definitely won't shoot a lot of them at the range. I also believe that the "traditional" 255 grain load @ 850 fps or so is still effective.

Bart Solo · « **Reply #15 on:** June 01, 2009, 12:19:55 PM »

Why don't you ask Ruger? I bet they tell you not to go beyond SAAMI standards. Of course, the new Vaquero in 357 magnum will take the same loads as any other 357 magnum. The difference isn't the steel, it is the thickness of the cylinder wall. The cylinder wall is mighty thin in the new model Vaquero in 45 LC. Of course, the steel in the bigger old model Vaquero was much thicker. You will notice that they don't make a new model Vaquero in 44 magnum for exactly the same reason. They don't even make one in 44 special for fear that some guy will feed 44 magnum ammunition through it. The frame used for the nm Vaquero is the same small frame that was designed for the 357 magnum. It is a stretch to configure it to shoot 45 factory loads.

jimster · « **Reply #16 on:** June 01, 2009, 12:35:03 PM »

Take it easy on your new Vaquero, even though it might be a tad stronger than some other "Colt P model" types.
I agree with fastbike, 850 to 900 with a 250/255 gr. is pretty effective. I was trying to mark some of my .45 handloads for certain guns at first, then just decided to not go over 900 fps with anything I loaded, just so I wouldn't wreck a USFA or something. I actually think my 92 with the 24" inch barrel hits pretty hard with loads that the book says is approaching 900 fps for a 7" revolver. If I need more power I switch calibers. The make 454's in both 92's and revolvers if you like a heavy .45 slug going real fast.

LONGTOM · « **Reply #17 on:** June 01, 2009, 06:38:46 PM »

Boys, I am a long way from being an expert on things of this nature but I think that Ruger has been in the handgun business longer than most of us and they have all the equipment to test anything they may desire all the way past the breaking point.
If they say don't do (and they do say just that) then why take the change.
If they thought it would take it then they would say so.
Why would they want to hurt their own sales by telling you not to when it would be safe to do so.
I value my life and limbs more than that so for me it is be safe not sorry.

Yes the steel of today is better but as stated the new Vaquero is a smaller frame than the old with a smaller cylinder in terms of wall thickness.
It's just not worth taking that chance.
Now maybe, just maybe if it had been built with a five shot cylinder than that might be a different story but I think I will put my trust in the factory.

Just my thoughts on the subject.

LONGTOM

fowler · « **Reply #18 on:** June 02, 2009, 02:36:52 AM »

Ruger never advised using anything over SAAMI specs in the old Vaqueros much less the newer smaller models. I know Brian Pierce has written in some detail about those guns in past issue of Handloaders and I would tell you to what level he advised stopping at if I had the issue handy but I don't at this time. Perhaps after work...

Bart Solo · « **Reply #19 on:** June 02, 2009, 05:52:49 AM »

The old model Vaquero and the Blackhawk are the same gun with different sights. Anything the Blackhawk can handle the old model Vaquero can hand just as well.

salvo · « **Reply #20 on:** June 02, 2009, 07:49:51 AM »

I do not have a New Vaquero in .45, but I do have the Lipsey's .44 Special in the new mid sized frame. Just as others have said the cylinder is what determines how hot a .45 or .44 Special can be loaded. I'll be keeping my .44 Specials on the mild side.

Here is a picture of a stainless .44 Mag cylinder compared to the .44 Special, the .45 has even thinner walls.

MePlat · « **Reply #21 on:** June 02, 2009, 11:01:03 AM »

There is no one on here that believes the New Vaquero can stand the loads the Blackhawk can, But, here is the meat of the subject. It is not whether they can, as we know they can't, but to say that they are 140000 psi only guns is crazy.
One only has to look at a Colt SAA cylinder and a New Vaquero cylinder and one can tell if the Colt can withstand 18.5 gr 2400 with a 454424 the New Vaquero will easily stand it.
HOT is a relative term. 16000 psi is hot compared to 14000 psi. 20000 psi is hot com pared to 16000 psi 24000 psi is hot compared to 20000 psi etc. We all know that a Blackhawk should not be loaded with top loads that a custom 5 shot cylinder 45 Colt Blackhawk can be loaded with just like a New Vaquero shouldn't be loaded with the top loads a regular Blackhawk can be loaded with but to say that a New Vaquero should be relagated to 14000 psi loads is silly
Can anyone see this?

Racer X · « **Reply #22 on:** June 02, 2009, 01:02:17 PM »

In the April-May 2007 article of "Handloader" where Brian Pearce did all the testing on the RCBS 270 SAA bullet, he put the New Vaquero in the 20,000 PSI category. Note the following quote from page 15:

Loads in the 20,000 psi range will prove useful for U.S. Fire Arms revolvers that are 100 percent American made (after the year 2000), Colt New Service, Ruger New Vaquero and Smith & Wesson post-World War II N Frames, including Models 25 and 625 Mountain Guns.)

jimster · « **Reply #23 on:** June 02, 2009, 01:29:18 PM »

I can agree you can go over 900 fps with a 45 Colt Ruger, God knows I've experimented enough with blackhawks in my younger years, shook a couple of them lose with hot loads over long periods of time. I have a lot of respect for Rugers, and when you send one in for fixin they don't charge you either. After all that experimenting I just decided for me that 900 fps was a good point to stop for all the revolvers (Colt size) I own in that caliber and they would probably last longer shooting them A LOT. If you want to work your way up to 20,000 PSI carefully, have fun with it, I been there, done that.
I kind of retired myself to the 900 fps range in .45 Colt, it was a personal thing just for me and my guns, and where I live there isn't any criters too big and mean to stand up to a 900 fps 250/255 gr bullet out of a .45 Colt.

If ya want to reach out for the over 1000 fps mark, feel free to do so, but be darn careful, and if you shoot a whole bunch with those loads out of a revolver the size of a Colt single action, you can expect to get some work done to it faster if you do lots of shooting with those. I should know, been there done that too.

It was Elmer's fault I did all that experiementing when I was young, used to read about him all the time.

Autorim · « **Reply #24 on:** June 02, 2009, 03:30:48 PM »

I have read these posts and the basic question to me is why do you want to shoot hot loads in the Vaquero - they are not a lot of fun.

Bart Solo · « **Reply #25 on:** June 02, 2009, 05:46:33 PM »

Quote from: Autorim on June 02, 2009, 03:30:48 PM

I have read these posts and the basic question to me is why do you want to shoot hot loads in the Vaquero - they are not a lot of fun.

I have been thinking the same thing. The old Colt SAA in 45 colt was designed to kill horses using black powder. It will put a darn big hole in any person not wearing body armor. You don't need hot loads for personal protection. Anyway cowboy loads are a hoot to shoot. Who needs the pain associated with hot loads . I would like to know why anybody would want to shoot hot rounds out of a 45 caliber Ruger nm Vaquero.

MePlat · « **Reply #26 on:** June 03, 2009, 01:19:38 AM »

I for one don't know why either considering the gun wouldn't shoot no where near the sights more than likely and then one would have to have someone like John Linebaugh or Dustin Linbaugh or Dave Clements install a higher dovetail front sight so it could be filed and drifted to get the gun sighted in.
BUT, One has the right to do what one wants as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others or their safety.
I'd say we all have done things that many have wondered about in our lives. It's just because we want to.

Bart Solo · « **Reply #27 on:** June 03, 2009, 03:32:16 AM »

If somebody wants to find out where a Ruger will fail that is his right, but I don't want to be standing next to Lefty or Stump when he finds out.

Blackhawker · « **Reply #28 on:** June 03, 2009, 04:17:31 AM »

If you want to fire hot loads from a Vaquero, get an older model or have a custom model made. If you want to take chances with your new model pistol, PLEASE, don't shoot it around anyone else. Maybe you don't mind fragments of metal embedded in your face and hands but shooters next to you probably do. BE RESPONSIBLE!

Comparing cylinders from one gun to another is NOT a valid thing to do. Even if a cylinder looks thicker than another, that doesn't mean that the alloy or formulation of the metal is the same. There are some metals that are MUCH stronger than others and hence, may be built lighter looking than others. Just the same, a heavy looking cylinder may NOT handle what a stronger (thinner looking) cylinder can handle. Looks does not do it here so don't be fooled by it.

As for the Elmer Kieth question:
Here is the reason why Elmer Keith loaded as he did BEFORE there were heavy or stronger metals used in modern handguns. LIABILITY! It's as simple as that. Yes, you probably can load your Vaquero hot if you like but the manufacturers know the statistics of duration of it handling loads like that. Eventually (some day, some year, some time

) something is going to give. That doesn't necessarily mean it's gonna blow up but something will break and cause it to not function correctly or at all. And if it does blow up, then you or the guy next to you is going to file suit against the manufacturer, all because the user didn't follow directions. Guess what happens after that? MORE RESTRICTIONS ON GUNS.
Give us all a break and follow directions and shoot safe and smart.

Thanks!

jimster · « **Reply #29 on:** June 03, 2009, 06:27:57 AM »

I must be getting old, cause around 850 to 900 fps with a 250 is PLENTY for me too!

I have read these posts and the basic question to me is why do you want to shoot hot loads in the Vaquero - they are not a lot of fun.

I agree! I'm also pretty lucky to live through those days of experimeting with loads that Elmer wrote about. I was WAY too hard on those Blackhawks in my opinion and have no idea why I was always looking for more speed. (Elmer's fault!)

I have noticed that even at 850-900 fps...that slug penetrates just fine.
I left behind trying to make the .45 Colt a magnum more than 25 years ago even in Blackhawks, I won't put a Colt sized revolver through that.

Big heavy slugs just don't have to go all that fast to do what you need them to, if you have a use for such things, they make better revolvers for that. I'm getting pretty careful in my old age...wish I would have been more careful when I was younger. I stuffed so much W296 ball powder into the Colt case it was just plain dumb on my part, lucky that Ruger re-built my blackhawk after that with no questions when it got all sloppy, I don't think they would do that again for free.