I recently bought a new Ruger Bisley Blackhawk in 45 Colt. After firing it some and then loading up some 335 gr, swc's, I came to the conclusion that the factory grips are a bit lacking. The grip panels barely reach the backstrap so the palm is taking the recoil directly off the backstrap, if that makes sense. I have small hands, but would like to find a grip that provides a bit more area on the sides of the frame to help spread the recoil a bit. I have looked online and most don't really mention, nor do their pictures show adequately, how they fit the back of the frame. Many of them say they are gunfighter grips for the Cowboy Action shooters and they are narrower than the factory grips. Anyone have any recommendations?

Brownell's sells Ruger Bisley grip frames for ~$90.

George

I corrected my post, my Ruger is the Bisley, but the grips are very thin and provide zero bearing surface where they meet the backstrap.

I find that it helped me to make grips that had NO flare at the bottom. They are probably 1/4" thick at the back and essentially even with the backstrap. It makes for a big wide area that spreads any recoil evenly over my hands.

I only wish my SS Super Blackhawk had Bisley grips.

making the grips straight from top to bottom and as you described sure changed the dynamics for me

The Bisley is still my favorite factory offering. That said, I highly recommend contacting Jack Huntington and have a custom set of grips made for it that are actually made for your hand. Plus, he slightly reshapes the grip frame to give you a little more space between your middle knuckle and the trigger guard. This is some of the best money you can spend.

Here are two examples of his grips (made with a tracing of my hand).

Whitworth,who did your case hardening???OB

Turnbull. I am very happy with the way it turned out.

Regardless if a person likes the Bisley or not, proper fitting grips, both to the shooter and the gun's frame, are critical in comfort and shootability.
In years past the factory Ruger grips were a bit thick and stood proud of the grip frame both on the front and backstraps and were rather thick and blocky in width.
It was a simple solution to mask off the frame and sand down the grips to fit you, and to match the grip frame. If you can find some over dimension grips you can do this yourself.

Lately the grips seem to be a bit small, however I think it is due to the frame itself lacking the former radius on the forestrap and backstrap making the frame more square or flat. The BFR is seemingly the worst I've seen that shows this trait. A bold owner can shape the frame and return it to a more rounded radius like the old SAA Colt. It is more easily done on the stainless guns than the blued models, or you can have a 'smith like John or Dustin Linebaugh, Jack Huntington, Hamilton Bowen or others, shape and refinish your gun.

I wish I could post you some pictures but the old computer went belly up and with it all my pics until it can be recovered. Whitworth will probably have some good pics of what I've discussed here.

Hope this helps.

Thanks for the replies. I was hoping to find an aftermarket grip that would give me a better starting point. I don't have a problem spending the money for some customs, but I guess you have to remove the grip frame and send it off. Whitworth, beautiful handgun! I ended up with stainless for practicality, but that is one gorgeous piece!
While on the subject of the Rugers, what is the consensus on the factory forcing cone and the cylinder bore? I have read several posts in other places that they tend to be undersized and can affect accuracy. Any comments? Thanks, Lee.