Author Topic: Ruger Vaquero Accuracy? (Read 5940 times)

timothy · « **Reply #30 on:** February 15, 2009, 09:45:46 AM »

I think it all comes down to how important hitting the target is to you. A guy shooting beer cans off a fence post at 20 feet in the summer (man doesnt that sound fun right now) may not need the same hit probability as a man $4000 into an alaskan hunt. The hunter will claim no use for the imprecise fixed sights and the other guy will say ''Ah just aim a little to the right''.

DanChamberlain · « **Reply #31 on:** February 15, 2009, 11:34:37 AM »

Timothy,

Why are fixed sights so standard on 90% of the combat pistols made? How important are those targets? I have guns that I can use to play around with different loads and adjust the sights. Then, I have a few special guns that were purchased with a single purpose in mind. I don't keep changing loads in my .45acp. I know what works for targets and what works for the night stand and they both hit to the same point of aim. I have a .22 Target pistol that I can dial in when I want to try the latest hi-vel .22 ammo or something a little exotic. I hunt with it regularly. But that Bear Cat goes with me when I'm carrying a shotgun, jumpshooting shooting rabbits or doing other things where I might spot a squirrel.

As an aside, one day during a "steel challenge" match I was shooting in another zone! I couldn't miss and I was making times I'd never made before. I was soundly trounced that day by one man. He was a pot-bellied, tobacco-chewing West Texas farmer with an original 1911 that was so old and worn that it had no finish left and a crack had started at the slide/stop lever hole. This man was a wizard with that old 1911 with milspec sights that could confound the best eyes in the world!

I asked him how he practiced. He said he carried that .45 every day of his life on the farm, walking, riding horse or on the tractor. When he jumped a jackrabbit, he shot until it was dead! That was his only practice.

I agree, if someone wants to shoot a lot of different bullet weights and velocities, a fixed sighted gun isn't for them. But really, anyone who claims they are worthless hasn't a clue.

Regards

Dan

timothy · « **Reply #32 on:** February 15, 2009, 12:12:24 PM »

Heck no their not worthless, the majority of my guns have fixed sights. Defensive guns dont usually need adjustable sights since the targets are big and close. Elephant guns have fixed sights how important are those shots? All I'm saying is fixed sights will get you through certain situations but when longer range accuray is a must most will choose adjustable sights. An ar15 is a defensive weapon are they made with fixed sights? A shotgun is whats the difference? I wouldnt buy a fixed sighted sniper rifle thats for sure. Like you mentioned you can shoot squirrels with your target sighted 22 but can you with a glock?

Bart Solo · « **Reply #33 on:** February 15, 2009, 01:58:01 PM »

I just took my new Vaquero out to the range. Except for the base pin problem mentioned elsewhere the gun shot very well. It didn't really come into its own until I assumed a one handed shooting position. When I first looked at the closest target 20 yards away I thought, this is going to be hard. Twenty yards seemed a long way with a cowboy gun, but really it wasn't. The range officer was watching me shoot, we looked at each other after the second round and he said, "that thing can shoot." It has been 15-20 years since I last shot a handgun--my old Glock. I couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with that thing. I sold it promising myself that I would never own a handgun again. Man I wasted 15-20 years. The Vaquero can plain shoot. Does it replace my rifle, hell no, but at 15-20 yards a man sized target isn't safe, and that is with the first box of ammunition. I think with a little practice and some hand loads can improve.

It points naturally single handed with the front foot aimed at the target. It is almost like an extension of my hand. It doesn't do as well with a two handed hold. Single handed target acquisition and firing are a dream.

Old Sam Colt got the ergonomics right the first time. Ever since handgun designers have been jacking around producing a lot of guns that don't point instinctively.

DanChamberlain · « **Reply #34 on:** February 15, 2009, 02:00:09 PM »

Timothy, it wasn't you who said fixed sights were "worthless." And, I wasn't suggesting you did, or that you didn't have a clue. Just so you know, I appreciate your comments.

I don't "own" a Glock

as I believe they are right up there with RGs for ugliness. However, my Springer XD would shoot squirrel head groups to point of aim at 25 yards and just to impress the youngsters at an NRA school one evening, I made a shot on a tiny target that drew some astonished applause from the peanut gallery. My Hi-Power will now shoot 2" groups to point of aim at 25 yards after I did a little slide/frame tightening, so if I were forced to forage a bit for my supper, squirrel/rabbit and probably domestic cat would be on the menu.

Just coz a defensive gun with fixed sights doesn't "need" to shoot little groups, doesn't mean it can't! Just because a person who relies on a defensive gun doesn't practice to the point where they "can" shoot little groups, doesn't mean they shouldn't!

We all have shots we've made that stick out in our minds. I like to recall a wood chuck I smacked at a stepped off 75 long steps with one shot through the shoulders with a S&W M&P fixed sighted .41 mag that shot to point of aim with my favorite 170 grain load. Another time I drilled a skunk with a Series 70 Colt .45acp with one shot at approximately 50 yards with FMJ ball after my father in law told me I wouldn't be able to hit a garbage can from that range. He still doesn't believe it was intentional. I used that same gun in Colorado to make a nearly 100 yard shot on a piece of basket-ball sized quartz in a valley a mile or two below St. Mary's Glacier after my camping partner had emptied the cylinder of his Model 29 at it without hitting it once. I don't consider any of those shots to be exceptional in their own right, but they come to mind. I've missed a whole lot more than I've hit getting to that point.

I've seen a lot of adjustable sights that were pretty much wasted on top of pistols and revolvers, because the shooter couldn't live up to the weapon's potential! Adjustable sights are great tools! I love them to death. But a lot of great deals on guns are missed because a prospective buyer doesn't understand the potential sitting in the display case.

You mentioned the $4000 bear hunt. I wonder if you were to query the Freedom Arms people, what do you suppose the sales ratio would be between adjustable sights and fixed sights in their .454 and .475 class revolvers. Sure, they must sell many more guns with adjustable sights, but there is a class of shooter/hunter who wants a gun that will stand up to the tumble down the mountain.

I appreciate jawin with you.

Regards

Dan

DanChamberlain · « **Reply #35 on:** February 15, 2009, 02:06:06 PM »

Ron

Glad to hear it shoots for you.

And you're right about pointability. I think that was one of the reasons Colt's pistols were the most popular. Yes, some will argue it was his marketing genius, but in truth, his original cap and ball revolvers and later his cartridge arms, pointed like lasers in a world where one did not get formal instructions in shooting pistols. One merely picked one up and pointed it in the direction one wanted the ball to go. With the Colt's style pistol, the ball generally went straight!

Dan

Bart Solo · « **Reply #36 on:** February 15, 2009, 02:15:52 PM »

There is shooting and there is shooting. A fixed sight pistol like the Vaquero is designed for fast target engagement at relatively short ranges. Adjustable sights are intended for longer range and time consuming precision. Different tools do different jobs.

timothy · « **Reply #37 on:** February 15, 2009, 03:26:06 PM »

I agree but its fun to strech the limits

teddy12b · « **Reply #38 on:** February 15, 2009, 05:23:30 PM »

I'd take both. A vaquero has more of the looks of the old west and the sights are harder to adjust, but it sounds like it can be done. The blackhawk has the old look with little modern touch of adjustable sights. Geesh guys, who wouldn't like one of each. I would suspect them the equally accurate once the sights are adjusted.

Flash · « **Reply #39 on:** February 16, 2009, 12:53:59 AM »

Quote from: DanChamberlain on February 14, 2009, 03:55:08 PM

Flash:

You're conclusion: "Nostalgia is nice but always out-dated, by definition."

A phrase comes to mind: "Horse Crap!"

Do you know how many combat pistols are marketed each year that have only fixed sights on them? It has nothing at all to do with nostalgia. It has to do with being nearly indestructable, and fool proof. Yes, it takes a tad more work, but the results cannot be argued with logically.

I understand your point about convenience; however, your comment about "worthlessness" is too easily debated. Like I said. It's all realitive. Some people don't mind a little effort to achieve satisfaction. Some want satisfaction to come easy. But just because you might like a particular feature for its convenience, doesn't mean all other features are worthless.

Regards

Dan

Dan, combat handguns aren't big bore revolvers capable of taking game at 100 yards. A hardly see a Vaquero as a combat handgun. I've had adjustable sighted guns all my life and wouldn't spend a dollar on one that wasn't. Comparing a nostalgic, fixed sighted revolver to a combat handgun is really stretching it to prove a point. If I wanted to shoot steel pigs, it probably wouldn't matter much but I respect the life of the animal I hunt and would much rather make the kill cleanly, rather than wound one for it to die in agony.

Brett · « **Reply #40 on:** February 16, 2009, 01:18:45 AM »

To each his own I suppose. Of coarse a lot depends on the intent of the shooter. Are you shooting bullseye, or SASS? If bullseye then adjustable sites are a plus but if your shooting SASS events you've got no choice.

If it's a woods tramping gun or gun for mounted carry a lot can be said for the ruggedness of a set of fixed iron sites. A stumble on the trail or a ornarry horse that likes to brush you against every other tree on the trail can do a number on a set of adjustable sites in a hurry.

The key to fixed sited guns is to find the load they likes best then tweak from there if need be. Like one poster said a file and a set of vice grips is generally all you need once you've found your guns pet load.

DanChamberlain · « **Reply #41 on:** February 16, 2009, 01:26:07 AM »

Flash:

Do you actually read what is written?

If a fixed sighted gun is dialed in for a particular load to shoot to point of aim, how on Earth can you believe it is not as accurate as one that has adjustable sights? It is simply inarguable.

"Combat handguns aren't big bore revolvers capable of taking game at 100 yards."

Again, BS! They aren't "designed" for that application, but just because a shooter cannot make his handgun perform at that range, doesn't mean the handgun cannot perform at that range! No, the 1911 isn't the best gun to attempt to take a 100 yard shot at a deer and I doubt I'd ever try it, but you and I both know hunters - or at least I know hunters - who have no business attempting rifle shots at ranges they routinely consider as being within their capability. I live in the butthole of Illinois where for decades, deer had to be harvested with slug guns! I'd rather shoot a 1911 than a smoothbore at a deer at any range! Now that we can use handguns during regular gun season, I shoot a TC Contender.

"Comparing a nostalgic, fixed sighted revolver to a combat handgun is really stretching it to prove a point."

Is this what you meant to say? A significant number of fixed sighted handguns are in fact designed for combat. There were literally millions and millions of them made and they are still being carried all over the country in .38 Special, .357 Magnum and various semi-auto configurations. But again, if a fixed sighted gun shoots to point of aim at 40 yards or 100 yards - how is it unusable for hunting?

"I respect the life of the animal I hunt and would much rather make the kill cleanly, rather than wound one for it to die in agony."

So a hit in the boiler room with a fixed sighted .44 magnum will somehow only wound an animal? Adjustable sights do not make shooters better. Anyone who says so brands themselves as an amateur, so I know that's not what you meant. Adjustable sights make it "easier" to dial in a load, but there is no magic to making it accurate.

You keep referring to nostalgia. Contact Freedom Arms and see how many fixed sighted revolvers they sell. These are serious handguns for serious applications and people are paying $2000 for them.

Just because "you" cannot see a serious hunting application, doesn't mean others - probably with far greater experience - don't.

Now, if you want to continue, please tell me how, or why you feel a fixed sighted revolver is worthless. Articulate it in a manner that explains beyond mere unsupportable prejudice toward serious handguns.

I apologize for the hijack of this thread.

Dan

DanChamberlain · « **Reply #42 on:** February 16, 2009, 01:29:33 AM »

Brett

Thank you. Truth is, I don't compete anymore in any games. Never competed in SASS. Couldn't get my mind around shooting guns at a costume party.

Dan

patriotpa · « **Reply #43 on:** February 16, 2009, 02:12:07 AM »

I've got an old model Vaquero in 45 Colt. Shoots point of aim. No troubles. In SASS, lots of people use Vaqueros with no trouble. I've been in SASS for over a decade and the Vaquero has been accurate and reliable the whole time.

Remember, handguns are harder to shoot well than longarms. Practice is the key.

If you want/need to adjust your point of impact, start with a 255gr LRN at 900 FPS. (That's a case full of 3F if you're shooting black)

patriotpa · « **Reply #44 on:** February 16, 2009, 02:13:37 AM »

Quote from: Ron Byers on February 15, 2009, 02:15:52 PM

There is shooting and there is shooting. A fixed sight pistol like the Vaquero is designed for fast target engagement at relatively short ranges. Adjustable sights are intended for longer range and time consuming precision. Different tools do different jobs.

Tell that to Mr. Munden.

Keith L · « **Reply #45 on:** February 16, 2009, 02:34:31 AM »

Interesting thread.

My understanding is that the original single action pistols were "combat" handguns, not really intended for big game hunting. Guns loosely patterned after them like the Vaquero are to generate the same type of feeling in the shooter, for re-creating the past.

Further, while there are without a doubt some shooters that can humanely take game with a Vaquero at 100 yards, most pistol shooters are hard pressed to have that level of accuracy at 100 yards with any sight system, scopes included. Heck, for some of us 100 yards with an iron sighted rifle is no longer possible. That doesn't make all pistols (or iron sighted rifles) worthless.

When I hunt with my .45 Vaquero I treat it like bow hunting, and the shots are short. Where I hunt with anything shots are under 50 yards, so I can still feel young once in a while.

Bart Solo · « **Reply #46 on:** February 16, 2009, 05:44:29 AM »

Patriotpa, Bob Munden not withstanding I stand by what I said. Remember Munden is a professional who has been shooting SSA type revolvers a lifetime. That talented people can practice enough to do amazing things with their SSA's isn't surprising. The bottom line, however, is the Vaquero mimics a military side arm designed to allow frightened horse soldiers to shoot the horses of their opponents at close range while the other guy was shooting back. It is a replacement for (or a supplement to) a saber not a Sharps. When Rooster Cogburn yells to Ned Pepper, "fill your hands your son of a bitch" and spurs his horse into a charge, he is using his SSA as designed.

Neither the SSA nor the Vaquero was ever intended to be a hunting arm, but that doesn't mean it can't be done and that it isn't a precision tool. Personally I wouldn't be afraid of carrying one in the woods. I know that it is accurate enough a half trained person can hit what scares him with a well placed shot at relatively close range. Given a choice, however, I would probably pick a Blackhawk.

Sverre A. · « **Reply #47 on:** February 16, 2009, 07:20:42 AM »

"If a fixed sighted gun is dialed in for a particular load to shoot to point of aim, how on Earth can you believe it is not as accurate as one that has adjustable sights? It is simply inarguable."

My point of view concerning fixed/not fixed - is that I feel that I get a better sightpicture with adjustable sights.

DanChamberlain · « **Reply #48 on:** February 16, 2009, 07:43:24 AM »

Sverre

There you have hit on it and undoubtedly, it is a truism.

For that, you have my heartfelt appreciation for intelligently adding to the discourse.

Now, let's look at this comment: "That talented people can practice enough to do amazing things with their SSA's isn't surprising."

How does one become "talented?"

I believe the "practicing enough" is what culminates in the talent! Not the other way around.

What Ron is either ignoring, or has not yet heard, is that cap and ball revolvers and later the cartridge arms made by Colt, were sighted at the factory to shoot approximately dead on at 50 yards! From their inception, it was intended that they would be able to hit a target well in excess of what any of our police agencies train for anymore! How is it, that they were intended to be "spittin-distance" tools meant to replace the saber?

Regards

Dan

Bart Solo · « **Reply #49 on:** February 16, 2009, 07:54:09 AM »

Dan, I take it you have never had a man ride a horse at you. Nor have you ever been on a ship closing to boarding distance. The Colt cap and ball military pistols and the 1873 Single Action Army were intended for horse soldiers or for sailors riding on a moving ship. The fight might start at 50 yards, but it would end at close range. Some were intended as a last line of defense for artillery men attacked by men on horse back. While soldiers might have tried to kill the guy on the horse, the ordinance officers knew the horse was an easier target. The Colt 45 was designed with that in mind. It is fully capable of killing a horse sized animal at any reasonable distance.

If you merely pick up a Colt SSA you will immediately realize that the piece is designed to facilitate rapid target acquisition and engagement by somebody either in a real hurry or without formal training. That isn't a bad thing.

I am trying to figure out why we are even arguing. If I have read you correctly I think I am in total agreement with you.

Bart Solo · « **Reply #50 on:** February 16, 2009, 08:09:25 AM »

Oh, are you saying Bob Munden doesn't have any real talent? I wouldn't. He started winning events early in his shooting career. His natural talent has been honed by a lifetime of practice, but he has always had natural talent.

teddy12b · « **Reply #51 on:** February 16, 2009, 08:23:32 AM »

Quote from: Ron Byers on February 16, 2009, 07:54:09 AM

I am trying to figure out why we are even arguing. If I have read you correctly I think I am in total agreement with you.

Seriously!?!? Why don't you guys shush. Like a couple of old ladies argueing over who's apple pie is better.

Bart Solo · « **Reply #52 on:** February 16, 2009, 08:57:04 AM »

Quote from: teddy12b on February 16, 2009, 08:23:32 AM

Quote from: Ron Byers on February 16, 2009, 07:54:09 AM
I am trying to figure out why we are even arguing. If I have read you correctly I think I am in total agreement with you.

Seriously!?!? Why don't you guys shush. Like a couple of old ladies argueing over who's apple pie is better.

Maybe because it is President's day and the weather isn't good enough to allow us to find a fence to shoot beer cans off?

teddy12b · « **Reply #53 on:** February 16, 2009, 09:44:12 AM »

Quote from: Ron Byers on February 16, 2009, 08:57:04 AM

it is President's day and the weather isn't good enough to allow us to find a fence to shoot beer cans off?

Fair enough. Almost, too cold to go out shooting today anyway.

Flash · « **Reply #54 on:** February 16, 2009, 01:25:40 PM »

Quote from: DanChamberlain on February 16, 2009, 01:29:33 AM

Brett

Thank you. Truth is, I don't compete anymore in any games. Never competed in SASS. Couldn't get my mind around shooting guns at a costume party.

Dan

You must have been the life of those parties too.

Were you depriving any shooters there of their opinions? Perhaps, adjustable sights were really a mistake after all and you miraculously stumbled onto the real truth in firearm shooting. And for all this time, I thought the adjustable sights were for more precision accuracy and the firearm industry was actually giving us something to improve firearm sighting. Little did I know, we were all going to become handloaders and front blade filers eventually and the adjustable sights would fade into memory. A shot to the boiler room you say? A deer could live for hours and be on foot for as long too, being gut shot. To me, that's a wounded animal that could have been killed cleanly with a precise shot to the heart lung area. Maybe I could duct tape a scope to that Vaquero, huh? Gosh Dan, you make is sound as though there always has to be an effort to achieve satisfaction with our guns. Let's throw out our scopes, our lasers, forget those speed loaders since we have our fingers. Holsters? I have a pocket! Adjustable sights? Who needs them when I have my files and reloading gear? Just give me a month or two to get to the range and test these 5,000 loads I made up. I guess we all need to find worth in fixed sights since "He" has spoken.

DanChamberlain · « **Reply #55 on:** February 16, 2009, 02:13:52 PM »

Flash

Now you are simply being contrary. You're arguing from no platform.

I have repeatedly said I own and use guns with adjustable sights. I also have handguns that are scoped. My God, man, you were the one who made the idiotic comment about the worthlessness of fixed sights. If you want to continue a discussion from a position of incredible and apparently deliberate ignorance, there is no one who can help you.

Where I come from, a shot to the "boiler room" denotes heart/lungs. If you take it to mean guts...I'm sorry. Just where did you come up with that? If you can't make the shot, you should probably take up needle point.

If my opinions grate on you, it can only mean that you have yet to come up with answers to the questions I've been repeatedly asking you. I doubt you'll take the time to do so. It takes far more practice being a critical reader than it does a critical shooter.

Regards

Dan

DanChamberlain · « **Reply #56 on:** February 16, 2009, 02:43:59 PM »

Ron

I'm not arguing with you. I just pointed out that single action pistols, most notably the Colt offerings, were factory sighted to strike at 50 yards. This wasn't because they expected the guns usefullness would only extend to bad-breath distance.

Everything else you say is 100% true. I made reference to such in my first article for Handguns Magazine back in the spring of 2002. Sights were pretty piss-poor back then, yet men managed to master them without lasik surgery and contact lenses. The 7.5 to 8 inch barrels of those early offerings went a long way to helping the neophytes stay alive. Yet, many a gun was emptied across card and pool tables without effect - by people who would have done the same with adjustable sights!

And I never said Bob Munden doesn't have any real talent! I simply stated that he didn't arrive at the talent before devoting himself to the practice. I do not believe there is such a thing as "natural talent." There is natural hand-eye coordination and superior reflexes and the ability to overcome instinctive reactions to blast and recoil with follow-through, but no one is born with the ability to pick up a handgun and master it without hours of practice. McGivern alluded to that as well.

Best wishes.

Dan

Bart Solo · « **Reply #57 on:** February 16, 2009, 03:34:25 PM »

Dan

I do think we are in total agreement, with one tiny exception. If I was 30 years old again I could practice all day every day for ten years and not be as good as Munden. I would get a lot better, but my best wouldn't be in the same league. The man is a master. Some of the things he does are borderline magic. His eye sight and his hand eye coordination are better right now in his later years than mine ever were. But I can only speak for myself.

DanChamberlain · « **Reply #58 on:** February 17, 2009, 01:38:35 AM »

Ron

I think you sell yourself short. Ed McGivern was a master beyond compare, and he didn't even start shooting handguns until he was in his 30s!

But neither one of us probably had the budget or the time to become half as good.

Here's a little Bob Munden video. I like the one where he cuts the playing card in half with a fixed sighted gun. Of course, we all know that is a technical impossibility because fixed sights cannot be precise!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYdkt7yIFLY

I love the guns in your avatar. It's too bad they can't be used for anything but nostalgia and targets.

They probably shoot seven feet to the left at 15 yards.

Regards

Dan