Quick charcoal comparison: RO vs Cowboy

[coyote-1]

Having used both in the past couple years, here are my findings.

Both are good. Both do the job, and yield delicious food.

Cowboy generally starts easier, 2 newspaper pages in the chimney vs 3 for RO. Naturally, this also means Cowboy is ready to cook sooner.

RO burns hotter and longer. A full charcoal basket sees a half-hour difference.

RO bag contains less useless dust than Cowboy.

So I have no real complaints about Cowboy, and will continue to not hesitate to purchase it if I can't get Royal Oak. But RO's the preferred choice.

 

[chisoxjim]

I have been using both recently as well, and have come to the same observations you listed.

 

[tasunkawitko]

same here, almost exactly.

 

[speedway73]

Cowboy is all that's available here in north GA in my area so I go with it. I have no complaints. I'm just a backwoods smoker...nothing fancy...

I usually go w/a 60/40 chimney mix of Kingsford Blue bag and Cowboy.

 

[rusticbob]

Being from the metro Detroit area we have many choices for fuel. I am a RO fan and will always be. What I don't like about Cowboy is that it is old processed lumber made into charcoal. Hard wood flooring, Etc. RO is wood from logs. HOwever Ro is getting harder to find. GFS used to carry it at a good price. Now the only place I find it is a high end garden shop for $16 to $18 a bag! I like it best so I will pay the price until I find an alturnitive.

 

[coyote-1]

Until/unless a chemical treatment is applied, it's ALL wood from logs.

It ain't like the wood in RO is naturally falling off the log in grill-size chunks - it too has to be 'processed' by being cut into small pieces.

 

[richoso1]

Since I switched to RO, no compaints and no regrets.

 

[fire it up]

Used cowboy once, never used Royal Oak, though I'll have to give it a try.
Almsot always use Stubb's all natural charcoal.