Ruger Forum banner

1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,290 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I've just discovered a strange disparity between my new Mantado's actual weight and Ruger's and Davidson's spec sheet weights.

Call me weird but I weigh every handgun I own. Both loaded and unloaded.

I just picked up my Vaquero Mantado .357 yesterday and, after snapping a few pics today, put it on the postage scale. Ruger's spec sheet lists the weight as 37 ounces. Davidson's at 35 ounces. It weighs in at a hefty 43 ounces.

However, that's not the cause of my confusion. I compared it to it's bigger, stronger brother, a Super Blackhawk with the same short 3 ¾" barrel, and it weighs exactly the same. That seems totally incongruous to me.

After all, the New Vaquero has a slimmer, and I thought smaller, frame. Both the grip frame and the cylinder frame. It's cylinder is fluted, the SBH's is not. So, shouldn't there be a weight difference between the two?

The only conceivable theory I can hypothesize is that the bore in the barrel is considerably larger in the SBH and also the chambers in the cylinder. i.e. less metal, less weight. But, still . . . . it just doesn't seem logical that the "little" New Vaquero would weigh exactly the same as a "big" SBH. ???

Does anyone have any other theories?

OK, since you insist here's a picture of them next to each other. About the 3rd one I've posted of it today. :D :D

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
226 Posts
Maybe it's just the angle, but the grip frame appears to be smaller on the SBH. Also, try re-zeroing your scale between each weigh.

Rod
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
339 Posts
I think the listed specs might be for a 45 cal revolver?

Your theory about more metal in the barrel and cylinder (due to larger caliber having more metal removed in machining) is probably right on!
 

·
Retired Moderator & Gunsmith
Joined
·
16,408 Posts
I've found Ruger's stated weight in their specs is far from accurate. I've noted instances where Ruger's weight was several ounces off of actual weight. I don't understand this ... how hard could it be to put each model on a scale???

SBH cylinder frames are 1/10 of an inch taller and 1/10 of an inch longer than New Vaqueros .... hardly enough mass to make much difference in weight. FYI, BHs and SBHs have exactly the same cylinder frame. Further, the SBH cylinder frame is not "stronger", just a tad larger. If anything the NV frame is stronger.

Pull the cylinders, weigh them, and you will see the answer .... both the 357 barrel and cylinder weigh a little more than the SBH cylinder and barrel. This will offset most of the difference in frame weight. Weigh your grips too ... Micarta grips are heavier than wood.

Very nice looking guns, BTW!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,290 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
I think the listed specs might be for a 45 cal revolver?
Yes. I'll bet that's correct. But, there's still a difference between Ruger's and Williams' numbers.

theory about more metal in the barrel and cylinder (due to larger caliber having more metal removed in machining) is probably right on!
Yes, as both you and lowegan have noted, that volume of steel would amount to enough to account for the difference.

- - - Large snip - - - Pull the cylinders, weigh them, and you will see the answer .... both the 357 barrel and cylinder weigh a little more than the SBH cylinder and barrel. This will offset most of the difference in frame weight. Weigh your grips too ... Micarta grips are heavier than wood.
Spot on lowegen. I weighed both and, despite both the circumference and the length of the SBH's being 1/10" greater than the Vaquero's they are within a tenth of an ounce of each other. (The Vaquero's being the heavier.)

Thus, I'm convinced that the barrel weight, (and perhaps the grips, I didn't weigh them,) of each would account for the difference. Or, in this case, the equality. :) :)

What piqued my interest was the weights of the two revolvers are EXACTLY (42.7 vs. 42.8 ounces, the Vaquero .1 oz. heavier.) the same. When I "assumed", reinforced by the spec sheets, that the Vaquero would be lighter. I know, it's much ado about nothing, but it intrigued me.

Thanks to you both for taking the time to help me "puzzle" this out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Running some numbers, you would only need to remove .028" thickness the length of the barrel to account for the 6 oz difference you mention.
In my industry we list the max weight of our equipment rather than the nominal weight. This accounts for the variations inherent in multiple parts coming together. I would be a little surprised that Ruger has 16% variation in a specific model which leads me to wonder if it could be something as simple as a mis-print.
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top