Blew up My Redhawk

TheFiringLine Forums - Blew up my Redhawk

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 > Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

TheFiringLine Forums (http://www.TheFiringLine.com/forums/index.php) - Handguns: The Revolver Forum (http://www.TheFiringLine.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=22) - - Blew up my Redhawk (http://www.TheFiringLine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=310125)

Smaug September 8, 2008 10:48 PM

Blew up my Redhawk

That didn't take long, seeing as how I just got it yesterday. :mad:

So I took it to the range today, intending to zero the scope for about 1/2" high at 25 yards. Just to get used to shooting a big 44 again, I loaded up one of my Light Magnum handloads. 240 gr. Ranier plated flat point bullet, over 6-12 gr. of Unique. should be about 44 Special power level. I'm 100% sure these loads are OK. Not double-charged or any of that jazz. I shot half of this batch probably 3 years ago in my S&W 29. They are beautiful loads. Very accurate, not too much kick.

So, I draw a bead on the target, cock the hammer, and cut 'er loose. BOOM clunk, clunk, clunk. It took a second to register what happened. The gun's weight was cut in half. I looked downrange, and the barrel/scope assembly had just stopped rolling.

I'm thinking the guy that traded this in somehow broke it. Maybe HE did a super-hot handload? Then glued it back together and traded it in on something. I don't believe gun shops test fire trade-ins, right? They probably just clean them up, give them the once-over, and mark them up 100% over what they paid, right?

Anyway, here's the gun:

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q...edredhawk1.jpg

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q...edredhawk2.jpg

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q...edredhawk3.jpg

Look at the cross section at the break. I'm no expert, but I didn't think gun barrel steel looked so... hollow. Doesn't that look like broken JB Weld to you guys?

The question is now: What do I do? Have any of you had something like this happen? The shop that sold it to me has a 30 day warranty. But I'm sure they'll ask what ammo I was shooting, and when I tell them it was a light magnum handload, they'll probably just slam the gate.

If I give the whole story to Ruger, they might fix it, but they also might not. I could of course furnish them with a couple of my handloads for them to disassemble and analyze if they ask. But I might have to pay them $100 or something for the service.

I wonder if I can get out of this without getting burned.

tplumeri September 8, 2008 10:59 PM

Quote:

I loaded up one of my Light Magnum handloads.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/printthread.php?t=310125&pp=40[12/28/2009 9:15:49 AM] TheFiringLine Forums - Blew up my Redhawk

no, i'm sure you are mistaken. you shot factory ammo right? bottom line: this gun was an accident waiting to happen. factory defect? point is, let ruger figure out what the problem was. if it was defective out of the factory you'll get a new gun. if it was blown up...... well, they'll tell you that too. JMHO tom

Sarge September 8, 2008 11:04 PM

Bad casting, severe over-torquing, or a combination of both.

Trust me...a handload didn't do that.

Call Ruger & make arrangements to send it back.

zxcvbob September 8, 2008 11:09 PM

Quote:

over 6-12 gr. of Unique

Which was it, 6 or 12? Twelve would be a significant overcharge (about 40000 psi) with a 240 grain bullet. But that's not how it should fail.

Quote:

I wonder if I can get out of this without getting burned.

The scope is worth $200+ (maybe a lot more). The gun looks OK, just needs a new barrel. I agree, the break shouldn't look like that (it should be shiny). I think you got screwed, but you'll come out OK.

laytonj1 September 8, 2008 11:13 PM

An overcharge would have taken out the cylinder. Your barrel just snapped in half. Looks like a defective barrel, but it is coincidental that it broke on the first shot you put thru it... being a used gun.

Jim

laytonj1 September 8, 2008 11:18 PM

The break will be rough. And a little dark because of the burning powder charge in it when it let go. Did the bullet make it out of the barrel?

Jim

Stumper September 8, 2008 11:22 PM

http://thefiringline.com/forums/printthread.php?t=310125&pp=40[12/28/2009 9:15:49 AM] TheFiringLine Forums - Blew up my Redhawk

That is a metalurgical problem, NOT an overpressure issue. If the cylyinder had ruptured, questions about the loads might be relevant. That failure looks like clorinated solvent induced cracking or some such.

HoraceHogsnort September 8, 2008 11:26 PM

So, what's a rebarrel gonna cost ya if'n Ruger don't want to make it good? It probably won't break your bank account and you have a new barrel, whatever length you desire.

Oh, BTW, if the scope is damaged, ITS A LEUPOLD!!

I think you meant to say 6 1/2 gr. of Unique, did you not?

44 AMP September 8, 2008 11:29 PM

Not the first time I've heard abouot this

Although I can't remember exactly where I heard it before, but I do recall hearing about a guy who had the barrel come off of his Redhawk, some time ago.

I don't think your reload was the cause, but I do think you ought to find a better way to describe it. Saying 6- 12gr Unique sounds like you don't know what is loaded in the case. Is it 6gr? or 12gr? or somewhere in between?

Call Ruger, and contact the gunshop where you bought it. The gunshop will have a record of who they got it from, and if it turns out the barrel came off on him and he JB welded it back on (unlikely, but not beyond possibility), there ought to be consequences for him.

Ruger will want the gun, and want to know what happened. BE HONEST! No matter how much it hurts. Yes, all the makers say that reloads void their warranty, but except for Glock, I have never heard of one not honoring the warranty when the reload wasn't the cause of the problem. Also there is the gunshop 30 day guarantee, and I would think that any costs Ruger imposes (and there may not be any) ought to be borne by the shop, not you.

The metal in your pictures looks crystalized, which is a flaw, not damage from your reload. An overcharged (overpressure) round in a revolver normally blows out the cylinder wall(s) and bends the frame. It does not shear off the barrel.

Smaug September 8, 2008 11:31 PM

tplumeri - You're right, I was mistaken. It was in fact a factory magnum.

Sarge - I just sent a contact email through Ruger's website. They will supposedly contact me within 3 business days. (I'm hoping tomorrow)

zxcvbob - My 48th Edition Lyman reloading manual says 10.3 - 11.5 gr. of Unique for a 240 gr. jacketed bullet. 11.5 is at about 39k psi. I'm 90% sure this was more on the high side of the 44 Special loads, like 7 gr. The recoil was not in the same ballpark as a 240 gr. factory magnum. I don't have the load data any more. I had it in the Lee Shooter program, which crapped out on me. From now on, it is all going on good old fashioned paper.

laytonj1 - Yep, the bullet made it out. The barrel is still clean inside. It hit in about the right area of the target. Look at the bottom photo in this thread. That was shot at about 25 ft. I expect it would be low if the previous owner had it zeroed for 50-100 yards.

I'm already kind of a Ruger fan; if they make this right, I will be impressed. The more I look at it, the more it looks like bad casting.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/printthread.php?t=310125&pp=40[12/28/2009 9:15:49 AM] TheFiringLine Forums - Blew up my Redhawk

I just hope they don't replace the gun. This one has a VERY nice trigger. Much nicer than the new Super Redhawks I've tried.

Smaug September 8, 2008 11:33 PM

When did Ruger get into investment casting? Was it about this time, (1983) or was it much earlier? Maybe they were in their infancy when this one was made...

HOGGHEAD September 8, 2008 11:34 PM

Burned???

You want to get out of it without being burned?? You have got to be kidding?? You are lucky you did not get hurt. You should go out and buy some lottery tickets immediately!!!

Honesty is the best policy. I would first ask the dealer for a refund, but you may not get one. I would then contact Ruger, and tell them the truth. They are not dummies. And the truth can go a long way.

However I agree with you. IF this was the first shot you took with the pistol then I would be a bit pis*** at whoever traded it in. I imagine there was a problem with the pistol, and the original owner wanted to get rid of it. I have a hard time believing the gun dealer would be involved. If you could prove that then he would be in a terrible liability position. Go talk to the dealer first. Tom.

HOGGHEAD September 8, 2008 11:37 PM

Casting

The Ruger's are and have been casting. That is why the S&W's cost more. S&W machines their pistols, and that costs more. Tom.

Sport45 September 8, 2008 11:42 PM

I remembered something about Ruger having problems with barrels breaking due to the thread lubricant used in initial assembly. Found this on Wikipedia. Send it to Ruger and they should make it good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by On Wikipedia Problems with the Redhawk When Ruger started to scale up the GP-100 to build a .44 Magnum version, they began to have reports of failures in the Redhawk revolvers. Some Redhawks were reported to be separating at the junction between barrel and frame. It was not known at the time why this was happening; the Redhawk had been on the market for years with no reported problems, but Ruger decided to address the issue anyway, by extending the frame 2.5 inches past the cylinder face, all the way to the end of the ejector rod, to provide a massive surface into which to thread the barrel. The extended frame also provided enough length to allow scope bases to be mounted on the frame, rather than on the barrel as was done on the scoped versions of the Redhawk. It was eventually determined that the barrel separations on the Redhawks were due to a change in the lubricant used when attaching the barrels to the frames, but by that time the new Super Redhawk design was already well underway and the extended frame was kept.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/printthread.php?t=310125&pp=40[12/28/2009 9:15:49 AM] TheFiringLine Forums - Blew up my Redhawk

JohnKSa September 8, 2008 11:46 PM

Yup, known problem.

I suspect that the previous owner didn't shoot it much and that this is one of the batch (from quite a few years ago) that had the barrel separation problems.

Ruger will take care of you, no doubt about it. When you send them the gun, ask them to clean up the trigger while they have it. Might as well get a little something for your trouble. ;)

CraigC September 8, 2008 11:50 PM

Couple things. You can't stuff enough Unique in the case to blow up a .44 Redhawk. Ain't gonna happen. These guns can take nearly 50,000psi in .45Colt. However, don't tell Ruger you used a handload. They have always recommended factory loads only in their guns. If the handload was the problem, the cylinder would've blown as the barrel does not contain the pressure. But Ruger 'could' use that as an excuse to charge you. I have heard of this happening with the first run of Super Blackhawk Hunters as the barrel shank is smaller than on the Redhawk. The added weight of the scope increased the leverage the barrel had against the shank and SNAP! I have not heard of it happening to a Redhawk but that doesn't mean anything. What you have is a defect, period.

Send it to Ruger, they will fix it and it will likely not even cost you shipping. Their customer service is unparalleled.

Smaug September 8, 2008 11:54 PM

If it comes up, I will be honest then about the loading. But if it was a known problem, it doesn't seem like the load had anything to do with it, and they probably won't even ask.

That must have been some damned corrosive thread lock, to eat into barrel-grade stainless steel like that. I suspect it was a bad batch of castings, and they didn't want to admit that this could happen with their castings, since the S&W were looking for a chink in the armor already. ;)

Thanks for that quote, Sport45. It seems like this would have happened even with the extended frame at the front. (which I think looks hideous, by the way)

bcrash15 September 9, 2008 12:02 AM

Agreed with comments so far. There is no way that was caused just by a reload.

Pretty much the only way you can screw up a revolver barrel is firing into a squib/obstruction.

Can't tell much from the pics, unless you can get a real close macro of the cleaned surfaces. But that radial ridge in the metal looks scary. Possibly overtorque of the barrel, but it'd really have to be extreme. Improper heat treatment, forming defect, or previous abuse would be my prime culprits. Barrels strike me as something that would generally only undergo sudden brittle failure without leaving metallurgical traces (like say a driveshaft or connecting rod would), so who knows how long it was like that.

edit: well, looks like you guys diagnosed the problem before I finished typing :)

HOGGHEAD September 9, 2008 12:09 AM

Wikipedia??

http://thefiringline.com/forums/printthread.php?t=310125&pp=40[12/28/2009 9:15:49 AM] TheFiringLine Forums - Blew up my Redhawk

Isn't that the outfit that makes up history when it does not know the truth??

It said Ruger started to "scale up the GP-100 to build a 44 magnum version". This line is "Hogwash". The GP100 came out after the RedHawk, not before. And the Super RedHawk could no way be considered a "beefed up GP100". Tom.

Mike Irwin September 9, 2008 12:18 AM

To the best of my knowledge, Ruger has been investment casting since the 1960s, but they have never used investment cast barrels.

JohnKSa September 9, 2008 12:34 AM

Hogghead,

The GP100 was scaled up to make the Super Redhawk (not the Redhawk). The GP100 came out in 1986, the Super RedHawk in 1987. The Redhawk and the Super Redhawk are two very different revolvers, the only similarities being their initial chambering, the fact that they're both made by the same company and the similar names.

The Super Redhawk is, in fact, a scaled up GP100. The action and the frame, with the exception of the frame extension at the barrel is are pretty much identical to the GP100 with the exception of size.

You are correct that the Redhawk came out before the GP100, but if you read the article carefully you'll see that it doesn't say the REDHAWK was the scaled up GP100, it merely says that at the time the GP100 was being scaled up (to make the Super Redhawk) Ruger began getting reports on the Redhawks failing at the barrel/frame junction. You'll also note that the article does state that the "Redhawk had been on the market for years with no reported problems".

The Wiki article seems to be pretty much correct as far as I can determine.

Sgt.Fathead September 9, 2008 12:37 AM

Ruger will make it good for you. Be honest and, me, I'd call them as a voice on the line is more speedy and easier to 'read' than an email. Glad you weren't injured! Bad that this happened but you could be typing your emails with stumps, right? I've had nothing but good luck with Ruger customer service.

Let us know how you fare.

HOGGHEAD September 9, 2008 12:53 AM

Wikipedia

John I agree with you somewhat. But the article says RedHawk-not Super RedHawk. And Super RedHawk is not referred to until the last line. Also I believe the author of the post has a RedHawk-Not a Super RedHawk. Or at least that is how his picture looks to me?? And the article says that there is separation at the frame and barrel connection-of the "Redhawk". Which as I stated was out before the GP100. So I stand by my criteque of the article, I do believe it is very misleading. But that is just my opininon. Tom.

ChicagoTex September 9, 2008 12:56 AM

Quote:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/printthread.php?t=310125&pp=40[12/28/2009 9:15:49 AM] TheFiringLine Forums - Blew up my Redhawk

I don't believe gun shops test fire trade-ins, right?

Mine does. They run a full magazine or cylinder through anything you trade in to them prior to finalizing the sale/trade and forking over your money/store credit. They don't want you pulling a fast one on them and they sure don't want to then extend that fast one on someone else. I call it good business.

JohnKSa September 9, 2008 01:08 AM

The article is about the problems with the Redhawk, if you read it carefully, it states (correctly) that the Redhawk had been on the market for years at the time that the GP100 was being scaled up to a .44Magnum. Quote:

When Ruger started to scale up the GP-100 to build a .44 Magnum version, they began to have reports of failures in the Redhawk revolvers. Some Redhawks were reported to be separating at the junction between barrel and frame. It was not known at the time why this was happening; the Redhawk had been on the market for years with no reported problems,

The article isn't stating that the Redhawk was the scaled up GP100 or that the GP100 came out before the Redhawk, it clearly states that the revolver under development was the SUPER Redhawk. Quote:

It was eventually determined that the barrel separations on the Redhawks were due to a change in the lubricant used when attaching the barrels to the frames, but by that time the new Super Redhawk design was already well underway and the extended frame was kept.

Yes, the author of this thread has a RedHawk, that's the model with the barrel separation issues in the article. There have never been any barrel separation issues with the Super Redhawk, it wasn't even in production during the timeframe that the Redhawk barrel separation issues were discovered.

What the article is saying is this.

When the Super Redhawk was being designed (scaled up from the GP100) Ruger got reports of barrel separations on the Redhawk which had been on the market for years at that time.

Ruger decided to beef up the frame on the Super Redhawk (which was being designed at the time) due to the problems with the Redhawk and made that design change (frame extension on Super Redhawk) before it was determined that the problem was actually improper lubricant in the Redhawk assembly process.

It may not be saying it in the most clear way, but it's not inaccurate.

HOGGHEAD September 9, 2008 03:38 AM

???

If that was what they were trying to say then that is how they should have said it. The article is very misleading. And it is still wrong.

Ruger came out with the massive Super Redhawk for a couple of different reasons. When they first came out with the Super Redhawk there were other heavier cartridges on the drawing board. But they needed a heavier built revolver, because of the "cheapness" of the Redhawk(and Super Redhawk) design. When I speak of cheapness I mean manufacturing costs(not necessarily quality). Ruger knew(I am speaking of Bill) that the

http://thefiringline.com/forums/printthread.php?t=310125&pp=40[12/28/2009 9:15:49 AM] TheFiringLine Forums - Blew up my Redhawk

future of big revolvers was going to be in the Casull and other large cartridges, and the fact that scoped revolvers were becoming very popular. This is not made up, this came from Bill's mouth at a sales meeting I attended in the 80's. He wanted a revolver to handle the big cartridges. Bill was also very disappointed with the scope mounting on the barrel. He wanted to be able to mount the scope on the receiver-hence the bigger frame. I doubt very seriously if Wikipedia consulted with Bill. This is why I said "made up history".

They could have easily fixed any Redhawk problems that they had. But the revolver was not that popular to start with.

In other words the Super Redhawk was not developed because of inadequacies in the standard Redhawk. It was developed to be able to handle the heavier cartridges. And to mount a scope on the frame, not the barrel. Bill knew that S&W was still behind in scope mounting.

I remember on one of my trips to the Hornady plant. Steve said get ready for some big things coming in conjunction with Ruger and Hornady. And boy was he right.

It did first come out in 44 magnum-that is true. But at the time the 44 magnum was still king. However the Super Redhawk sold very. very, very poorly. If they had not brought out the bigger cartridges it probably would have been discontinued. As a matter of fact we could hardly give the 44 magnums away. I worked for the largest distributor of firearms and ammunition in the country(at the time). Most new Ruger products would be on allocation for a year or two. The Super Redhawk came off allocation after the first shipment!! The P-85 was on allocation for over 2 years. And it was truly a piece of ****.

I do not mean to be a smart *** with my comments. But I was there when the revolver was developed. And it was not developed because of any RedHawk inadequacies. It was developed to handle bigger cartridges, and as a new way to mount a scope. And as far as scope mounting was concerned, it was very successful at that. I remember when they introduced the revolver. We had a sales meeting, and handled the revolver before it was introduced. We were not impressed. We could not imagine any one wanting to carry that "thing". The idea of a revolver(at that time) was fast handling and light weight. The model 29's were on allocation for years. Tom.

Master Blaster September 9, 2008 06:53 AM

This is a defect for sure.

I would call Ruger and tell them you had the barrel seperate from the frame with a 44 special load on the first shot. If they hmmm and Haw ask to speak to a manager and ask them to pay for the shipping. This is a manufacturing defect and you could have been injured. The serial numebr will tell them if the gun is in the range where they had a big problem, if not its defective steel or bad heat treat for sure.

They should replace it for free first owner or not. Only a serious manufacturing defect could cause this to happen.

Sevens September 9, 2008 07:57 AM

YEAH! A .44 Mag super snubbie!

Smaug, what lousy luck. Like everyone else, I would imagine Ruger will step up to the plate and knock this one out of the park. I would imagine that after it's all said and done you will be coming out ahead on this one.

Just... WOW.

Wikipedia-- Quote:

Isn't that the outfit that makes up history when it does not know the truth??

http://thefiringline.com/forums/printthread.php?t=310125&pp=40[12/28/2009 9:15:49 AM] TheFiringLine Forums - Blew up my Redhawk

...like message board posters?

Wiki gets such a bad rap and so much of it is undeserved. While there can be some folks who carelessly or intentionally write crap, there's typically a slew of passionate folks who religiously keep tabs on the pages that they care about. It really, truly is very much like a message board discussion and presents info in a similar manner, but more streamlined. You don't have to take whatever you read as Gospel, but for an ultra-quick look at almost any subject, Wiki serves it's purpose quite well.

Hogghead-- you seem to know your stuff and are passionate about it. What you oughta do is up the signal to noise ratio and use some of your knowledge at making Wikipedia even better than it already is rather than bash it. Each page has a discussion page right along with it where you can question word choice or format or flat-out call something wrong.

Try and see it for what it is, and not what isn't. And if you have expert knowledge on a topic, share it on Wiki and make it an even better resource.

CraigC September 9, 2008 08:26 AM

Quote:

If they had not brought out the bigger cartridges it probably would have been discontinued.

I have to disagree. The Super Redhawk was on the market as a .44Mag only for 12yrs before the .454 in 1999. Ruger would not have nursed it along for that period of time if it was a poor seller. It's design was not 'necessary' for the bigger cartridges. The cylinders are interchangeable between the Redhawk and Super Redhawk. They could've just as easily introduced the Redhawk in .454 and .480Ruger chamberings.

Smaug September 9, 2008 08:50 AM

HOGGHEAD, I'm with Sevens here. I sure appreciate all the information I'm getting from this thread. I was under the impression that Wikipedia entries ask for citations? At certain places in the articles, it says "(citation needed)", at which point the reader knows if something has not been confirmed as fact.

*** Side Topic Alert ***

Well, now it appears that I will end up with a new barrel on my Redhawk. (if they can even get the old one out of the frame!) I should start thinking about whether I want a 5-1/2", as I was originally looking for, or a 7- 1/2".

I was thinking about using this (5-1/2") as a replacement for my Ruger P90 (45 ACP) as a home defense gun. (I'm using a 380 now) But I'm not sure a scope could be mounted to a 5.5" barrel without the blast messing up the front lens.

If I get another 7-1/2" barrel and scope it, it will remain too big & clunky for home defense.

zxcvbob September 9, 2008 08:58 AM

I think I'd sell the scope or put it on something else. (it's a leupold, they sell for about the same price whether new or used or even broken.)

Is there a 6.5" barrel available? I have a Bisley with a 7.5" barrel, and I love it, but a little bit shorter barrel is a *lot* handier.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/printthread.php?t=310125&pp=40[12/28/2009 9:15:49 AM] TheFiringLine Forums - Blew up my Redhawk

Kreyzhorse September 9, 2008 09:30 AM

Scary...... I'm sure Ruger will take care of this. Good luck.

What kind of factory ammo were you using? ;)

azredhawk44 September 9, 2008 10:28 AM

Quote:

tplumeri - You're right, I was mistaken. It was in fact a factory magnum.

Sarge - I just sent a contact email through Ruger's website. They will supposedly contact me within 3 business days. (I'm hoping tomorrow)

I'm already kind of a Ruger fan; if they make this right, I will be impressed. The more I look at it, the more it looks like bad casting.

I just hope they don't replace the gun. This one has a VERY nice trigger. Much nicer than the new Super Redhawks I've tried.

Ruger warranty service doesn't get a lot of broken Redhawks in for service.;)

Especially ones with stainless barrels snapped in half. And I'm sure those fellas up in Prescott read some gun forums from time to time. You've got pictures here, so when they see the gun in front of them the break will be identical to those pics put here. TFL is not a vacuum.

I'd suggest being honest with them. Ruger doesn't technically have a warranty anyways, and you bought it used. They are a stand-up outfit though and have a reputation to protect. A barrel and some 'smith time is a cheap way to build that reputation.

Mark Milton September 9, 2008 11:08 AM

The S&W Model 65 had the same problem a few years ago. Some corrections department had a bunch of model 65s that had barrels that broke and flew downrange. Somebody on here or over on the 1911 forums explained the factory mistake that causes this....

Ruger will probably repair it for free.

DEDON45 September 9, 2008 11:22 AM

Ruger will fix this... definitely looks like a defect either in the steel, or maybe due to the overtorqueing of the barrel as another poster stated (due to bad thread lube).... just call them, tell 'em what happened, and I'm sure they'll replace or fix it. I know someone who has really blown up two revolvers from them (massive overloads, http://thefiringline.com/forums/printthread.php?t=310125&pp=40[12/28/2009 9:15:49 AM] TheFiringLine Forums - Blew up my Redhawk

no injuries), and even when told how and why they got that way, Ruger fixed them for free, just charged shipping. Ruger revolvers, in general, are renowned for their strength. Anyone can make a dud, guess that goes to show that it can happen. At least you weren't hurt.

Paul105 September 9, 2008 12:10 PM

This is not an ammunition problem. It is a mfg defect of some type. Had basically the same thing happen to a S&W 329PD .44 Mag. S&W gave me a new gun. I asked the lady coordinating the warranty work what the prob was. She said it wasn't an ammo problem and the tech guys thought that the barrel had been over torqued when assembled.

FWIW,

Paul

Smaug September 9, 2008 12:46 PM

This bit about the barrel being over-torqued; Let me see if I understand this:

The thread lube they were using at the time didn't lube well enough. Then, when they twisted the barrel hard enough to get it aligned correctly, it weakened the steel, kind of like when you've just started to twist off the head of a screw, but it hasn't fallen off yet?

Sarge September 9, 2008 12:59 PM

Can't say Smaug, other than 'screwed in too tight', probably straining the barrel shank- which may have been a defective casting in the first place. Threading that shank brings streses of its own, which may contribute if everything isn't perfect.

I believe the 'lubricant' story is well documented outside this thread and that Hogghead is spot-on. I personally would have expected the component to be thread locker, instead.

I do know that older Ruger SA's were occasionally found to be tight in the bore at the frame, and at the time this was also attributed to over-tightening. I don't have first-hand knowledge of that, but I do know it was hell to get some of those guns to shoot really well, because of that constriction.

crowbeaner September 9, 2008 01:24 PM

When you send the gun back to Ruger, why don't you send in the other 5 cartridges in the cylinder and let the factory check them over for their satisfaction? If they are OK then they might not even charge for the barrel replacement. Tell them that you want the original frame and just want a new barrel put on unless the frame is defective also. That way you can get the gun back with the same trigger pull. If they can't get the barrel stub out without major machining then they'll probably send you a new gun. Ruger is very good about fixing their products. They will know by the serial # if yours is one of the suspect guns.

Svashtar September 9, 2008 01:40 PM

I'm glad it's working out for you. I was not aware of this problem. FYI, I have a very early blue Redhawk, no exended frame, no scope detents on the barrel, 7.5", with these exact old Pachmayers on it (the std. grips were pretty poor IMO.)

I got it in an even trade in 1985 for a Manhurin manufactured blue Walther PPK/S at a gun show, and figured it's value at the time at about $300.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/printthread.php?t=310125&pp=40[12/28/2009 9:15:49 AM] TheFiringLine Forums - Blew up my Redhawk

Very good action on it, and the only change I made to it was to add the Ruger brass bead front sight. Now I'm a bit paranoid! I wonder if this Redhawk barrel problem was just the SS guns? (At the same time if I'm not hurt yet I'm not going to cry.)

Thanks for any info!

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:15 AM. Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 > Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Page generated in 0.06062 seconds with 7 queries

http://thefiringline.com/forums/printthread.php?t=310125&pp=40[12/28/2009 9:15:49 AM] TheFiringLine Forums - Blew up my Redhawk

Page 2 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 > Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

HOGGHEAD September 9, 2008 01:43 PM

Seller

Craig it truly was a poor seller. However Mr. Ruger was a hard headed man. But he was also a very very very smart and savvy man. He knew the trend was going to be scopes on revolvers. And he was probably the only man at the time that really listened to the customers-to his credit. And the Super Redhawk truly was an advancement on scope mounting on revolvers. So he stuck it out. And he was right. Bill knew that accuracy was not the real driver at the time for revolver hunters. It was important, but price, and ease of set up was more important(please do not think I am calling the SRH inaccurate).

The few times I met Bill he was truly interested in what was going on in the real world(who was buying what). He was a real innovator, and a remarkable man. I tend to think of Bill Ruger and Fred Bear as two of the best guys in the business, as well as Steve Hornady. These three guys live what they produce, unlike so many others. And they were truly good guys. You could sit down at their desk and talk to them like you knew them for years. Tom.

langenc September 9, 2008 01:44 PM

Maybe someone else asked- Was there ever a recall?? Was this gun included??

DAnjet500 September 9, 2008 02:21 PM

I posted a link to this incident over on the Ruger Forum. A member there had the same thing happen to him. He asked me to post the following over here since he is not a member. Sounds good for Smaug.

Danjet500, Yes, it has happened before. Not often but it has happened. To me. Would you be so kind as to post a copy of this reply over there for me as I'm not a member?

I purchased a Redhawk new many years ago. It never saw factory ammo. It had reloads worked up for accuracy in it only. The most accurate load was a mild load of IMR 4227 with a 240 grn bullet. I still have targets showing 1/2" groups at 50 yds with it. (Yes, one ragged hole less than an inch at 50 yds.) Anyway, I used this gun off & on for a few years. Then, one day I decided I hadn't shot it in a few months, and decided to practice with it. My normal load, and it too was scoped, and it also had the barrel seperate from the frame, looking almost exactly like the pics show, including a Leupold scope. I went back to my local gun shop, with the gun, and a detailed letter to Ruger INCLUDING complete loading data I had used. Sturm, Ruger replied quickly with a letter of liability release, (to make sure I wasn't injured,) which I signed & returned to them. They replaced the gun WITHOUT QUESTIONS!!!! When I inquired as to the cause, they told me that they weren't sure yet. Well, a few years later, I happened to be on the phone with them again, and asked if they ever determined the cause. I was told it was due to a change in lubricant, a time delay in assy, and when it was torqued to the frame, it cause a bit of stress in that area. The lubricant seemed to be the main culprit along with waiting for assy. (Lubricate the threads on several barrels, then because of it being a weekend etc, not getting them

http://thefiringline.com/forums/printthread.php?t=310125&pp=40&page=2[12/28/2009 9:18:06 AM] TheFiringLine Forums - Blew up my Redhawk

assembled right away. The lubricant set on exposed threads for hours or a few days before assy.) Unusual? Yes, Common? No. Will Sturm, Ruger make it right? Absolutely. Will they customize a barrel for you? No. They will replace the gun with a brand new one. And to the posters who feel it's "bad casting etc," Sorry, you are mistaken.

Wleoff September 9, 2008 02:22 PM

I hope everyone understands that anyone can post an article on Wikipedia. There's a lot of good info on Wikipedia, but there is also a lot of junk.

Smaug September 9, 2008 02:33 PM

Svashtar, Welcome to The Firing Line!

Ruger would have recalled them if there were a hazard. To me, the only hazard is that you may only get off one shot. So if you're depending on your life, you have a full barrel for the first shot, and a snubby for the rest.

The dangerous part happens on the muzzle end. The barrel flies off, but not at high velocity. I could have thrown it farther by hand. Also, if you're in the direction to be hurt by the barrel flying off, you'd better be more concerned with the bullet that will come out first!

I would have been pretty mad if this had happened when I was out hunting and missed a shot on a game animal because of it.

My advice is to go and shoot a box or two of factory magnums. If it stays on, it is probably not one that was affected.

Sarge September 9, 2008 02:43 PM

Just FWIW boys, I have hot-rodded Redhawks off & on for 20+ plus years, along with two brothers and a nephew who did the same thing. Each of us went through 2 or 3 of them in search of the 'perfect' one. So if you could blow a Redhawk barrel downrange with a hot load, our old back 40 would look like an elephant graveyard- except for old Rugers.

This is not to say that you couldn't wreck a Redhawk if you put too much of the wrong powder in a big pistol case. We never shot anything that wasn't published, at least somewhere.

And on that note, I shall leave you to your imaginations;)

Quarterbore September 9, 2008 03:28 PM

Here is the thread at the Ruger Forum for you:

http://www.rugerforum.com/phpBB/view...=329290#329290

Also, I am working on a project around the Ruger Hunters and I would like to ask your permission to save and use your images on a website I am going to be putting together. I think your issue may be the same issue Ruger had with the Blackhawk Hunters back in 1993/1994 causing that line to be dropped for rework until 2001 when they were introduced. In old articles I read the same types of stories of the barrel falling off and a reference to a lubricant being the issue...

Also, will you please share your serial number less last digit please so I can see when your Redhawk was made? Also, this is a 44 Mag, right?

Thanks! http://thefiringline.com/forums/printthread.php?t=310125&pp=40&page=2[12/28/2009 9:18:06 AM] TheFiringLine Forums - Blew up my Redhawk

Smaug September 9, 2008 04:55 PM

Thanks Quarterbore. I have to say, the responses here were much more helpful.

I wasn't allowed to register, because my email address has been banned. (it has "naked" in it, but has nothing to do with sex) Oh well.

Svashtar September 9, 2008 05:13 PM

Smaug, thanks very much for the welcome! Looks like you guys have a great forum here.

I think I'm probably good with my early model as since I've owned it I've probably put close to 1000 rounds through it, and it was used when I bought it 23 years ago. Mostly factory, but quite a few were the old Keith load, 240 gr. bullet with 21 grains of 2400. (Some folks say Keith meant the std. to be 22 grains?) Same load I put in an Old Model Super Blackhawk and it seems to do well with them.

I know with the old Herc 2400 I would load them even hotter, and even ran up to 24 grains in some loads with no ill effects in either gun, pushing it I know, and I would only do that in a Ruger. Seems very strong.

Knock on wood... :D

Quarterbore September 9, 2008 07:43 PM

Can you advise what year this was made from the following table:

500-00001 1980 500-03611 1981 500-19388 1982 500-50567 1983 500-90245 1984 501-30534 1985 501-78855 1986 501-80232 1987 502-24545 1988 502-49301 1989 502-73151 1990 502-77177 1991 502-85090 1992 502-89051 1993 502-96855 1994 503-02775 1995 503-09164 1996 503-18834 1997 503-21458 1998 503-26013 1999 503-31340 2000 503-33857 2001 503-37107 2002 503-41075 2003 503-44765 2004 503-45028 2005 503-46657 2006 503-48424 2007

From: http://ruger.com/Firearms/PS-SerialN...story-RE.html#

http://thefiringline.com/forums/printthread.php?t=310125&pp=40&page=2[12/28/2009 9:18:06 AM] TheFiringLine Forums - Blew up my Redhawk

I really am curious...

Smaug September 9, 2008 08:30 PM

Yep, I found that table too. Mine's from '83

Sport45 September 9, 2008 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smaug My advice is to go and shoot a box or two of factory magnums. If it stays on, it is probably not one that was affected.

That might be a little optimistic. If it's a stress crack in the threads there won't be any predicting when the barrel will fail through non-destructive testing. The crack simply grows a microscopic amount with each firing until there is not enough material left to withstand the tensile forces when the gun is fired. You could have a barrel removed and then magna-flux or WFMP the threads for cracking to be sure, but that would probably cost more than the handgun is worth.

Does anyone know if this failure is limited to the stainless Redhawks? I'm guessing (only guessing) it is. I know there are special requirements for thread lubrication when using stainless in other applications.

Smaug,

You mentioned getting a 5-1/2" barrel. I think that's a good choice. I like the way my 5-1/2" Stainless Redhawk in .45C looks and the balance is great. I use the Pachmayr grips as well.

Stevie-Ray September 9, 2008 11:11 PM

Quote:

Smaug, Don't know if these are still available, but you might be able to find one used if not. Or maybe somebody else makes something like it, but it's the way we mounted scopes on Redhawks before they had integral rings. It was made by Weaver and mounted the scope about as far back as the Super. Bad thing was it also eliminated the rear sight, but on a scoped gun, I didn't care.

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s...g?t=1221019862

JohnKSa September 9, 2008 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hogghead But I was there when the revolver was developed. And it was not developed because of any RedHawk

http://thefiringline.com/forums/printthread.php?t=310125&pp=40&page=2[12/28/2009 9:18:06 AM] TheFiringLine Forums - Blew up my Redhawk

inadequacies.

:confused: The article doesn't say it was developed because of any RedHawk inadequacies. In fact it's pretty clear from the article that the Super design process was underway before the problem with the Redhawks was discovered.

The Super Redhawk was developed to be a scaled up version of the GP100, probably because Ruger figured that the GP100 design was better than the Redhawk (I think the single spring design of the Redhawk didn't please him like he thought it would) and also, as you point out because it would simplify manufacturing. I suspect that he originally intended to discontinue the Redhawk once the Super Redhawk came out but decided not to later-- probably due to the sales issues you mention. The article in no way implies that the Super was developed because of the Redhawk barrel problem, it only states that part of the design of the Super was affected by the Redhawk barrel problem. I can't verify for certain that the frame extension was a result of the Redhawk barrel problem but I've heard that version of the story more than once.

I've read your posts several times and the article several times and as far as I can tell the article is accurate for all practical purposes. Most of what you're saying in your posts agrees with what the article says, it seems that the biggest part of the problem is that what the article says isn't coming across clearly to you... Quote:

I do not mean to be a smart *** with my comments.

I didn't take it that way at all.

HOGGHEAD September 10, 2008 01:47 AM

Over React

I went over the article a couple of more times also. And I do see your point. I probably did over react to the article.

I just hate seeing things that make people think one way or another without all the facts, and opininios.

I truly do believe the extended frame was built for one reason only. To mount the scope on the frame and not the barrel. I just can not imagine modern metals(even cast metals) not being able to handle the pressure of modern cartridges.

However I must admit this is the first time I seen a barrel "break off" like Smaug's did. I have seen several cylinders blow, and barrels blow, but I never seen anything happen like what happened to this guy. I am sure Ruger will take care of it. Tom.

AZAK September 10, 2008 01:58 AM

Quote:

I just hope they don't replace the gun. This one has a VERY nice trigger. Much nicer than the new Super Redhawks I've tried.

I was just looking at new Redhawks just today. Friend of mine installed a Wolff spring for the trigger, and it is smooth and sweet! Night and day compared to new factory pull. (Tried them out side by side.)

So, if you end up with a new model... food for thought.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/printthread.php?t=310125&pp=40&page=2[12/28/2009 9:18:06 AM] TheFiringLine Forums - Blew up my Redhawk

Let us know how it ends up.

JohnKSa September 10, 2008 02:00 AM

Tom,

Do you remember what sales differences between the Redhawk & the Super Redhawk were?

There's always been some question in my mind as to why Ruger kept the Redhawk after developing the Super Redhawk. Clearly Ruger was very happy with the GP100 design, going on to base the Super Redhawk & the SP101 on it. It seemed that the logical thing would have been to completely change over to the new design and drop the old one.

The only thing that would have changed his mind would have been if the Redhawk was a far better seller than the Super. Quote:

I truly do believe the extended frame was built for one reason only. To mount the scope on the frame and not the barrel.

I've been trying to come up with some supporting evidence because that makes a lot of sense. I'll keep poking around, I think we have an ex-Ruger employee on TFL who may be able to shed some light on this.

HOGGHEAD September 10, 2008 03:37 AM

Redhawk's

You may find this hqrd to believe but a lot of the Redhawks I sold were blued models, that did not have the scope rings, or the barrel fitted for rings. It was their least expensive 44 magnum, and it was a high quality 44 magnum that a consumer could buy for a reasonable price. This revolver handled, and carried very well.

You need to keep in mind that the Anaconda was just coming out, and Taurus was not making a 44 magnum. So there really was not a lot of options out there for a 44 magnum revolver. The S&W did hold most of the market. and most shooters were shooting the 44 without a scope.

Ruger was having accuracy problems with the standard-scoped Redhawk. that is when Ruger decided to build the SRH. As I stated earlier he wanted a revolver that was easier to scope, and built heavier to handle the heavier cartridges that he had on the table. Bill really wanted to get into the 454 Casull single action market, But that would have made for one KLUNKY looking Blackhawk, so they decided to go double action. And as stated in the article all they had to do was build up the GP100. If you find that hard to believe then think in terms of Ruger's dabbling in the 357Maximum BH. I have one that is NIB, and it is worth a pretty penny. I had a customer who had some backstrap cutting. He sent the pistol to Ruger to have it fixed. Ruger would not replace or fix the revolver, they kept it and issued a refund.

As far as sales differences were concerned. I sold more of the standard Redhawks. Strictly for the price point. We ran the blued version with no scope rings for a low price, and it sold the best. There are a lot of these out there. You just do not see a lot of them for sale, because most shooters are happy with them and want to keep them. however you need to keep in mind that the Blackhawk probably sold 5 or 10 to1 over both Redhawk models. I sold a bunch of BH's. However the BH Hunter had not come out yet. Ruger was still trying to figure out the barrel mounted scope. S&W figured it out with the heavy full lug, but you do not see a lot of these either. I have one.

The reason why the SRH appears to have been a good seller is because there are a lot of them on the used market. But the real reason behind that is the disappointment of owners. The SRH realy is a big KLUNKY

http://thefiringline.com/forums/printthread.php?t=310125&pp=40&page=2[12/28/2009 9:18:06 AM] TheFiringLine Forums - Blew up my Redhawk

revolver. Sorry, but it is true. Tom.

http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o...1/IMG_0463.jpg

HOGGHEAD September 10, 2008 03:54 AM

Dropped the Ball

Where Ruger really dropped the ball was when he brought out the SP-101. He did not do his research here. He went with the heavier small pistol, while S&W went with the lighter CCW. It is pretty obvious how this turned out. S&W cleaned up the market. Starting with the model 60 and never looking back. The SP-101 was a phenomenal revolver, but it was completely over built for what is was going to be used for, and that made it too darn heavy. I did sell several of these in the 357 Magnum version. For a small full power 357 they were a great revolver, especially for the person who was concerned with CC, and target shooting. However the original 38 Specail was a slow seller, and the 22LR version was also a slow seller.

Ruger has never seemed to be able to put out great numbers in the double action market, but they sure as he** control the single action market. Tom.

Smaug September 10, 2008 06:20 AM

Well, I got a form email response from Ruger yesterday night. It said to send it back to them and provide them with a UPS address where they could return it to me. It didn't say how they were going to handle it. They said to include a detailed letter of what happened.

So I'm going to do that. I think I'm going to ask for the same barrel length blued Redhawk with the integral scope mounts. It will match my scope, and be a great hunting gun.

The thing that concerns me is what HOGGHEAD said. If they were having accuracy problems from the barrel mounted scoped Redhawks, it may be due to harmonics or heat or something, and maybe no Redhawk will be as accurate at > 25 yds. as a Super. But the problem is that I think the Supers and their extended frame are ugly. Don't know how to handle this.

Stevie-Ray - That looks like it would solve the barrel mounted scope inaacuracy & balance issue. However, my scope doesn't have the proper eye relief unless it is held at full arms length from me. Moving it an inch or two closer would actually mess it up. :confused: I dont' think eye relief is adjustable either.

Quarterbore September 10, 2008 08:40 AM

I am not a pistol sharp shooter by any means but I use the Super Blackhawk Hunter with the scope mounted to the barrel without any issues and it is quite accurate. Now, I do not know if the Redhawk barrel is as heavy as the Super Blackhawk but I can do some measuring to compare as I have a Blued Redhawk with the scope rib to compare them.

Here is a picture of mine:

http://www.quarterbore.com/images/ruger/rh-44r-001.jpg

I have not got to shoot it yet.

Here is a photo of a couple of my Blackhawk Hunters without a scope mounted:

http://www.quarterbore.com/images/ruger/45hunters.jpg

I would not worry about the accuracy and I am confident Ruger will be able to replace the barrel on this for you.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/printthread.php?t=310125&pp=40&page=2[12/28/2009 9:18:06 AM] TheFiringLine Forums - Blew up my Redhawk

azredhawk44 September 10, 2008 09:39 AM

Quote:

I think I'm going to ask for the same barrel length blued Redhawk with the integral scope mounts.

Now that's an interesting request.

You want them to change your stainless gun out for a blued one, with a 7.5" barrel with the integral mounts?

The only blued redhawk currently in production is a 5.5" model with no scope mounts.

It would be interesting to see if they accomodate this warranty request. My money is on "no", but I hope you get it. Blued guns are always sexier than stainless, IMO. And since your scope is also blued, that would really look sharp.

Sarge September 10, 2008 09:53 AM

Accuracy has never been a problem with any of the 12-14 Redhawks I have owned, or were owned by folks who I new could shoot. When they're right, they'll flat shoot.

I have had two .44 Redhawks that would easily stay inside 4" with six shots, at 100 yards. I can't shoot any better than that with iron sights anyhow.

Smaug September 10, 2008 11:09 AM

That's a good point azredhawk, and I think you're right.

I guess I'll just tell them if it needs to be a new gun, to please make sure the trigger is as good as mine from 1983. I don't think the 5.5" barrel will accomodate the scope mounts. I also think that since I'll be carrying this in a holster while hunting, stainless is a better option. Time to write the letter.

I rode my scooter to work today (it took an hour and a half to go 30 miles) just so I could stop by the gun shop on the way home to have them ship it. I forgot the receipt, but I'm hoping I can have the gun shop ship it at their cost since I'm counting on Ruger to make it right rather than cashing in on their warranty. I had to haggle with the manager to get the price down $25, so he will remember me I'm sure. :D

CraigC September 10, 2008 12:07 PM

Don't count on a configuration change, at all. Ruger will fix it or replace it but expect to get back the exact same thing. Especially considering that it's still catalogued. Also do not expect them to do anything with the trigger.

The GP was designed as a replacement for the Security Six and its brethren. The Redhawk was an extension of that product line. The GP is slightly larger and stronger but its main reason for being is that it is less costly to produce than the guns it replaced. That much is widely accepted fact. I can assume the same for the Super Redhawk. That if you're gonna build a completely new gun strictly for hunting, rather than adapting an existing design for mounting optics, why not design it with the scope mounts on the frame. If there was a problem with mounting scopes on the barrel, Ruger would not have built so many Hunter series Blackhawks nor would they catalog the ring-equipped Redhawks at present.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/printthread.php?t=310125&pp=40&page=2[12/28/2009 9:18:06 AM] TheFiringLine Forums - Blew up my Redhawk

azredhawk44 September 10, 2008 12:34 PM

Quote:

If there was a problem with mounting scopes on the barrel, Ruger would not have built so many Hunter series Blackhawks nor would they catalog the ring-equipped Redhawks at present.

You know... on the scope issue, I would expect a barrel-mounted scope to be more likely to be in bore alignment than a receiver mounted scope.

It is possible for the barrel to be off-true with the frame by 0.00002 degrees (or a lot more than that), resulting in misalignment with the receiver's true 90 degree firing direction. If your scope is on the receiver and the barrel isn't perfectly square, there's ultimately no solution for that other than attempting to square the barrel or zero'ing for a particular range and accepting some left/right play outside of that.

On the barrel though, you are directly parallel with the firing tube. Just adjust the crosshairs to match.

I don't care for scope on handguns though... I might reconsider if I end up with a TC someday, but I've shot a .357 with a scope and found the additional weight introduced too much tremble. The sight picture was nicer and I could shoot better from a bench, but from a real position it was awful.

I am kinda scrawny though.:p

Smaug: if they screw up the trigger, just get some Wolff springs. Although today's redhawks are MUCH better than they were 4-5 years ago.

I have one I bought in 2003 that didn't have a very good DA trigger at all. I just accepted it though for a long time. I then got one of the 2007 4" .44 Redhawks, and it had a glorious trigger that put modern 629's to shame. I replaced the springs on the 2003 Redhawk and had a much more pleasureable experience shooting it since then.

Legionnaire September 10, 2008 04:46 PM

Interesting thread, all; thanks.

Smaug, Jack Weigand makes a no-drill mount for the 5.5" Redhawk. Here's a link:

http://jackweigand.com/Ruger-Redhawk...-No-Drill.html

I have a 2x Leupold mounted on mine. I'll see if I can shoot a pic in the next day or two and get it posted for you.

laytonj1 September 10, 2008 04:58 PM

I'm kinda suprised that you have to pay to ship it to them when it's an obvious defect with the gun. I would have thought they'd issue a call tag.

Jim

laytonj1 September 10, 2008 05:16 PM

Quote:

If your scope is on the receiver and the barrel isn't perfectly square, there's ultimately no solution for

http://thefiringline.com/forums/printthread.php?t=310125&pp=40&page=2[12/28/2009 9:18:06 AM] TheFiringLine Forums - Blew up my Redhawk

that other than attempting to square the barrel or zero'ing for a particular range and accepting some left/right play outside of that.

If the barrel was not square to the receiver your open sights would have the same problem. Once you adjust the windage of the scope/open sights to allow for the azimuth deviation the range you zero at would make no difference because it would be a linear deviation. Then all you need to worry about is the wind.

Jim

Smaug September 10, 2008 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by laytonj1 I'm kinda suprised that you have to pay to ship it to them when it's an obvious defect with the gun. I would have thought they'd issue a call tag.

Ruger didn't offer this. I spoke to the manager at the shop I bought it from. He said he would try to get Ruger to pick up the shipping. He said if they wouldn't, he would split the shipping with me. When I pressed him and suggested that if I held them to THEIR warranty, they would pay the shipping, he said not necessarily. :rolleyes:

Seems like that's the best I'm going to do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legionnaire Smaug, Jack Weigand makes a no-drill mount for the 5.5" Redhawk. Here's a link:

http://jackweigand.com/Ruger-Redhawk...-No-Drill.html

I have a 2x Leupold mounted on mine. I'll see if I can shoot a pic in the next day or two and get it posted for you.

My scope is a 4X Leupold, I'm not sure if it would overhang the barrel and take the blast/flame? Does the scope it overhang the hammer so that it is hard to cock for SA shots?

One poster earlier mentioned that I might want to get a 2X scope instead of the 4X. Why is that? Does it have a more forgiving eye relief? Is it smaller? Do you feel that it is harder to find the animal quickly with the higher magnification?

Quote:

Originally Posted by CraigC Don't count on a configuration change, at all. Ruger will fix it or replace it but expect to get back the exact same thing. Especially considering that it's still catalogued. Also do not expect them to do anything with the trigger.

I'm not counting on it, but it would be nice! These long barrels are good for hunting, but that's it. Regarding the trigger, I just requested that if they replace the gun to make sure the trigger is as good as the gun I turned in. That's not too much to ask, right? It is worth a try anyhow, and it seems like a fair request to me. http://thefiringline.com/forums/printthread.php?t=310125&pp=40&page=2[12/28/2009 9:18:06 AM] TheFiringLine Forums - Blew up my Redhawk

Here's the text of the letter I'm sending to Ruger: Quote:

Originally Posted by Smaug, to Ruger September 10, 2008

Sturm, Ruger & Co. Product Service Dept. 411 Sunapee St. Newport, NH 03773

Subject: Broken Barrel on Ruger Redhawk Request No. 9898

To Whom It May Concern:

About a week ago, I purchased the enclosed Ruger Redhawk Hunter.

I picked it up after the Illinois state-mandated 72 hr. waiting period.

I went to the range the next day to try it out. On the first shot, the barrel/scope broke off and flew downrange, about 5 yards. The bullet did exit the barrel and struck the target. The Leupold scope doesn’t seem to have sustained any damage.

Although I originally thought it was a factory magnum load, I have looked through my ammo box again and have found it was a light reload consisting of the following:

· Remington 44 Magnum brass, twice-fired · Ranier Ballistics 240 gr. Copper-plated flat point bullet · Alliant Unique powder, 10 gr. · CCI Large Handgun primer

I have fired these loads many times through my previous 44 Magnum, a Smith & Wesson Model 29 w/8- 3/8” barrel, with no problems. I double-checked each round for double-charge or no-charge round. They were fine.

The symptom doesn’t appear to stem from a reloading error. This seems like the barrel steel was weak where it was screwed into the frame.

I did some internet research and found that Ruger did indeed have this problem with Redhawks many years ago. I checked the serial number of my gun vs. the list on the website, and it seems to have been made in 1983.

I am hoping that Ruger will extend to me its excellent customer service, as I have experienced in the past.

If you are able to simply replace the barrel on this revolver, that would be my preference, as the trigger action is excellent. Would you please put a 5-1/2” barrel on instead of another 7-1/2” one?

If you decide to replace the whole gun, would you please work on the trigger of the new gun a bit, so that it is as light, smooth, and crisp as the trigger on the gun in this package? Also, I would appreciate it if I could keep the original grips (assuming they fit the new gun) and original cardboard box. If possible, would you please include one of the new-style, lockable plastic cases too? I would feel safer if I could store and transport it in such a case. If you could accommodate these small requests, it would be most excellent, and I will be a Ruger customer for life! I currently have two other Rugers: A Mk. II Target model, and 77/22 in 22LR. I sold my P90 to purchase this Redhawk. I’m quite fond of Ruger firearms!

http://thefiringline.com/forums/printthread.php?t=310125&pp=40&page=2[12/28/2009 9:18:06 AM] TheFiringLine Forums - Blew up my Redhawk

Twice in the past 10 years, I have called on Ruger Product Support, and have been happy with the outcomes.

If you need to reach me for more information, I can be reached at ...

When finished, please ship the gun to me, care of:

GAT Guns 14N915 Rt. 25 Dundee, IL 60118

Thank you very much for your consideration.

I guess I have asked for a lot, but nothing unreasonable. If they laugh at me and just put a new barrel on the gun, I will have lost nothing for trying, right? Hell, you all can laugh at me too if you want. :D

MrNiceGuy September 10, 2008 06:56 PM

Quote:

If they laugh at me and just put a new barrel on the gun, I will have lost nothing for trying, right? Hell, you all can laugh at me too if you want.

you DID ask for allot, as a result they might be less inclined to offer what they'd offer a more appreciative, or at least, less demanding customer.

While i would still expect compensation, technically they owe you nothing.

If this is a known defect, and their usual remedy is a replacement with a re-designed model, then i wouldnt particularly want the gun back with a new barrel thrown in.

Sport45 September 10, 2008 08:32 PM

If you want to keep the grips and original box then don't send them to Ruger with the gun. They couldn't care less what box it comes in to them. Any box will do as long as it's properly packed/padded. Same with the grips. Send them a Redhawk w/o grips and they may send one back w/o grips (but probably not). Your grips will fit any Redhawk they may send back. They'll send the gun back in a new Ruger cardboard handgun box.

Legionnaire September 10, 2008 09:40 PM

1 Attachment(s) Quote:

My scope is a 4X Leupold, I'm not sure if it would overhang the barrel and take the blast/flame? Does the scope it overhang the hammer so that it is hard to cock for SA shots?

My 2x does not overhang the barrel (pic attached), and thus far is showing no signs of muzzle blast. It is short enough to leave the hammer fully exposed. And the ocular bell is small enough that I could use low rings.

Quote:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/printthread.php?t=310125&pp=40&page=2[12/28/2009 9:18:06 AM] TheFiringLine Forums - Blew up my Redhawk

I had a 4x on a Super Redhawk and didn't like it. It was great for target shooting from a bench, but for hunting, I much prefer the 2x. Overall length of the scope is 8". The magnification is adequate for reasonable revolver distances. My sense is that the 2x does have more forgiving eye relief, and I find it noticeably easier to pick up the target with the lower magnification. YMMV.

Sorry the picture didn't turn out better; lighting wasn't what I would have liked. But you get the idea.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...9&d=1221100809

Smaug September 10, 2008 09:52 PM

Well, it's done. I dropped it off, and the shop is going to pack it and send it. The shop manager thinks they'll re- barrel it, rather than replace it. That is fine by me! They estimate 4-6 weeks. Ouch.

I'll report back when the gun comes back.

Thanks for all the tips, opinions, and advice.

Legionnaire September 10, 2008 10:16 PM

Quote:

Good deal of truth to that, but I'll bet there would be fewer SRHs on the used market if some of them had 4" or 5.5" barrels. I sold my 7.5" SRH and replaced it with a 5.5" RH. If the SRH had had a shorter barrel, I'd still have it (probably should have had a smith cut it down for me ...)

Quarterbore September 10, 2008 10:39 PM

My Redhawk (post above has photo) has the 2x Leupold as well and you can see how much smaller it is compared to your photos. The eye relief is also better with the 2x especully for big game hunting.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...8&postcount=61

Leedavisone September 11, 2008 08:20 AM

Solution!

It appears that the original Ruger technique of JB Welding their barrels on just didn't work. But I am certain that they will re-JB it for you if they are asked... they are a reputable group. But I should think that the real fault lies with the owner for not having a professional Fault Finder available to scan the pistol before purchase. I have been lucky in life to have an excellent Fault Finder with me... my ex. Well, until now that I am independent again.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/printthread.php?t=310125&pp=40&page=2[12/28/2009 9:18:06 AM] TheFiringLine Forums - Blew up my Redhawk

I would like to suggest the best and most profitable solutions: Sell it back to the pawn shop as a "Super Snub" special, or just keep it as a shooter and tell people that it is the ultimate 'Sheriff's Special' . I would be willing to buy it from you for what you paid just for the bragging rights and stories I could tell about how it came to happen. ("look how this cracked when I wacked that Bison"!).

B.N.Real September 11, 2008 09:30 PM

The failure follows the threads that mounted the barrel to the gun.

If the barrel was fitted way too tightly to the frame (just jammed to the frame)and the rifling in the barrel essentially retightened it to the gun everytime you fired it,that might cause this kind of failure too.

The bullet entering a gun barrel that is sized for accuracy creates alot of friction and twisting action as is starts down the barrel after going through the forcing cone.

The barrel at that point has alot of grooves that are each a place to have stress create small fractures.

Also the thickeness of the barrel is at it's least there as well.

Plus there is horrendously quick temperature changes and propellant pressures involved at that location in the barrel as well.

With an extremely powerful handgun,like the 44,it's history,before you ever got it may well have included alot of shooting with 'full house" factory loads or even reloads.

But if that was the case,I am sure you would have turned the gun over,opened the cylinder and looked at the top strap directly next to the forcing cone and you could see some top strap flame cutting if that was the case.

You did'nt mention that so I guess it was'nt there.

I am surprised this does'nt happen more often with guns that fire very powerful handgun cartridges but that is a tribute to the engineering genuis of these gun makers as well as Ruger too.

Not a common happening with any Rugers.

Look forward to a beautiful,rugged,hand tuned Ruger coming your way.

And I am not a trusting soul.

I find it very hard to believe the former owner and/or someone in the gun shop did'nt know this gun did'nt have a problem before it was sold to you.

Smaug September 11, 2008 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B.N.Real I find it very hard to believe the former owner and/or someone in the gun shop did'nt know this gun did'nt have a problem before it was sold to you.

B.N. - I don't blame them. From what I've read about it, it was not only the thread lube, but the fact that some barrels were lubed, then sat out overnight or over the weekend, then threaded in the next working day. Apparently, the thread lube had dried up somewhat, or something to that effect, so it was not every gun during this time period. Just guns that were made at the end of a shift.

When I was back there having them ship the gun out, the guy who sold it to me was there, helping someone

http://thefiringline.com/forums/printthread.php?t=310125&pp=40&page=2[12/28/2009 9:18:06 AM] TheFiringLine Forums - Blew up my Redhawk

else. I said to him: "Thanks for selling me a bum gun, Dude." I waited for the reaction, which I got, then let him down and said: "Just kidding. Not your fault." You should've seen the look on the face of the girl who was just buying a Glock off of him. :D

FM12 September 12, 2008 07:26 AM

Thanks for sharing this incident with us. Please keep us up to date on the outcome. I suspect Ruger will m ake this right for you, they certainly don't want this gun displayed at some gunshow as an example of their production handguns. Plus, it's just the right thing to do. What they do here will go a long way toward their credibility as a manufacturer. There are more than a few suscribers to this forum that will be watching, and the word of mouth can be tremendous..("Did you hear about the Ruger SBH that blew up and had pics of it on TFL"?..."No, what did Ruger do about it"?)

BTW, I can only assume that the barrels are not cast, are they? Surely they are forged.

I also remember the ads where Ruger went head-to-head with S&W in the 1980s, purporting the strength of their beefed-up guns as opposed to the lighter, thinner S&Ws, and how much stronger the Rugers were.

Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. Maybe we'll see.:)

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:18 AM. Page 2 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 > Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Page generated in 0.06656 seconds with 7 queries

http://thefiringline.com/forums/printthread.php?t=310125&pp=40&page=2[12/28/2009 9:18:06 AM] TheFiringLine Forums - Blew up my Redhawk

Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 > Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Smaug September 12, 2008 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FM12 I also remember the ads where Ruger went head-to-head with S&W in the 1980s, purporting the strength of their beefed-up guns as opposed to the lighter, thinner S&Ws, and how much stronger the Rugers were.

Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. Maybe we'll see.

Well, I know Rugers are thicker & heavier than S&Ws, and that is at least partly due to using cast metal instead of forged. Forged is stronger for its size because it has grain direction. In that regard, S&Ws are like solid wood, where Rugers are like particleboard. They both have their place. I think the main thing that makes Rugers stronger is their more modern & thicker design, not the material.

I would assume the barrels are forged, but I'm not sure.

Wuchak September 12, 2008 09:41 AM

This has been a know issue with the old Redhawks for better than two decades.

From Grant Cunningham's excellent article on Lubricants. http://www.grantcunningham.com/lubricants101.html

"(One major gun manufacturer actually had barrels fall off of their revolvers. An investigation ensued, and they found that the chlorinated esters used in their machining oils was causing stress cracking in barrel threads. When combined with the gun owners' use of cleaning and lube compounds containing chlorinated esters, the barrels simply sheared off at the weakest part - the threads. To this day, the company forbids any chlorine- carrying compounds on the manufacturing floor, to prevent a recurrence.) "

Want to guess who he's talking about?

PzGren September 12, 2008 10:42 PM

Wrong title, you did not actively blow up your gun, it failed on you by manufacturing defect:).

JohnKSa September 12, 2008 10:52 PM

Quote:

Well, I know Rugers are thicker & heavier than S&Ws, and that is at least partly due to using cast metal instead of forged. Forged is stronger for its size because it has grain direction.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/printthread.php?t=310125&pp=40&page=3[12/28/2009 9:18:12 AM] TheFiringLine Forums - Blew up my Redhawk

In some cases the Ruger's heavier, in some cases not. The 686 and the GP100, for example, are identical in weight and can use the same holster. Clearly the strength advantage ascribed to the GP100 isn't from additional weight or size.

Forged vs. Cast is a lot more complicated than most realize. For those who are really interested in the truth, here's a very informative thread. It may be a bit more in depth than many care to read. Post #118 (page 5) is especially pertinent.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=20673

Suffice it to say that properly done a cast part can be just as strong as a forged part of equal weight, size & quality.

WIN71 September 12, 2008 11:29 PM

Quote:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=20673

Suffice it to say that properly done a cast part can be just as strong as a forged part of equal weight, size & quality.

Looks like Properly done is the core of it.

B.N.Real September 13, 2008 09:35 AM

:eek:

Wow,Wuchak,that was definitely an eye opener.

To (that companies) credit,they took action.

I am amazed that this information did'nt go into an industry wide warning.

JohnKSa September 13, 2008 07:25 PM

Quote:

Looks like Properly done is the core of it.

Yup. The point is, of course, that PineTree Casting (Ruger's Investment Casting branch) is the best in the industry. They even cast turbines for jet engines.

WIN71 September 14, 2008 12:32 AM

Quote:

They even cast turbines for jet engines.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/printthread.php?t=310125&pp=40&page=3[12/28/2009 9:18:12 AM] TheFiringLine Forums - Blew up my Redhawk

That's interesting although I imagine there is a substantially bigger profit margin in a jet turbine wheel, not to mention one of the most rigid inspection protocols known to mankind.

454PB September 14, 2008 11:46 PM

Very interesting. I have an identical RH, and it was made about the same time period. Mine has had many thousand heavy loads fired through it with no problems.

Using lubricants of any kind on torqued threads can cause failures. I've seen it myself on grade 8 7/8" bolts securing a crane to it's pedestal. When the engineers required torque is applied to a bolt with thread locker or sealant, the bolt is over stressed. They don't fail immediately, it takes multiple stress cycles. IMHO, that's what happened here.

dchi September 16, 2008 05:27 AM

Im in agreement that it appears to be a metalugical problem. I've seen lots of breaks like this in cast steel and iron. Also every blown gun I've seen has either blown cylinders, frames or split barrels. Not broken in half. You will have to take this up with Ruger, the gun shop is not responsible. If you tell them you used reloads, Ruger will not be responsible either. Send it back and let them test the steel first before you admit to anything. It could be faulty.

Smaug October 20, 2008 11:16 PM

Update

I just asked Ruger for an update.

They said that "it is in polishing and will be another 3-4 weeks."

Must be some kind of polishing... :confused:

I hope they don't bump it back and screw me out of late gun deer season. (1st week of December here)

The dealer said it would be 4-6 weeks. By my calculation, it has been over 5 weeks already. Another 3-4 weeks = 8-10 weeks. Damn.

WESHOOT2 October 21, 2008 07:26 AM

first, be patient

Then, when you get it back, contact me direct for some 44 Redhawk reloading advice......

[email protected]

Smaug October 21, 2008 11:08 AM

Thanks WESHOOT2.

I just remembered I requested a bit of extra service from them too, so it is my own fault, if that is why it is in Polishing for so long.

My 44 Magnum dies should be arriving any day now, and I intend to have some loads worked up for late deer

http://thefiringline.com/forums/printthread.php?t=310125&pp=40&page=3[12/28/2009 9:18:12 AM] TheFiringLine Forums - Blew up my Redhawk

season when the gun arrives.

I'm planning on a max load (according to Lyman) of H110 and Rem 240 gr. JHPs. (since that's what I have on hand) Then, maybe Bullseye or HP38 for target ammo. I have some 240 gr. Rainier plated flat points that I need to use up before ordering some lighter range ammo.

WESHOOT2 October 21, 2008 11:16 AM

public admission

I have a 5.5" Redhawk. I have many many dies. I have Lyman data, and more. I have H110, and more. I have the Rainier 240g TCJ-FP, and more. I DO NOT HAVE the Remington 240g JHP, but I have some experrience, and ideas (and many other choices).

But I won't post too much 'heavy' data here, because not everyone understands or accepts the ramifications.

(And if I could, I'd post a picture of a box of very old ammo marked "45 Long Colt" LOL)......

Bogie October 21, 2008 11:38 AM

Too bad it was already sent off...

I'd love to know the results of firing it with only the barrel stub in... Preferably with photos taken at dawn or dusk...

RevolverRO October 21, 2008 11:41 AM

I've been following this thread since the first post, and Smaug, I hope they get the gun back in time for deer season !

I own a 5.5 Redhawk and two 4 5/8 inch Bisley Vaqueros. I've had a lot of success reloading with H110 using the 240 Hornady XTP. Last year I got a nice 4 x 6 buck with one of the Bisleys shooting the XTP over 23.5 grains of H110 (Open sights, of course.)

Good luck, I hope they get it back to you in time !

crghss October 21, 2008 08:39 PM

Did they find anything out?

Do they know the cause for the failure? Did it cost you anything to have it repaired, besides the extras?

4V50 Gary October 22, 2008 08:19 AM

Polishing? I'd think Ruger would replace the gun rather than release a defective product on the market.:confused:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/printthread.php?t=310125&pp=40&page=3[12/28/2009 9:18:12 AM] TheFiringLine Forums - Blew up my Redhawk

Smaug October 22, 2008 11:03 AM

crghss - I'm sure they do know the cause of the failure. It was well known back in the 80s. They haven't said a word to me. I assume there will be no charge, since they are already in Polishing. (read the whole thread for details)

4V50 - The barrel broke off right at the frame, allegedly due to over-torquing the barrel when installing it. Allegedly, that was caused by the thread lube not being good, because it was left out overnight. So it isn't like the whole gun was defective, just the barrel. Also, I specifically requested that they repair that gun (if it is safe to do so) since the trigger is so nice on it. (the trigger is much nicer than those of the Super Redhawks) (if you look back at the text of the letter I sent to Ruger, you'll see the full context)

Smaug October 22, 2008 11:05 AM

crghss - Another thought. I didn't ask them to polish my Redhawk. It is possible they just decided to replace the gun and polish the internals of the new one so that the action is as smooth as my old one was. I will not know until I receive the gun back, I guess. (see my letter to Ruger for reference)

roklok October 31, 2008 05:05 AM

Just saw this thread, thought I would throw a comment in. I had to send my Bisley Super Blackhawk back to Ruger after I discovered a crack in the forcing cone. It had seen extensive use of heavy handloads and Ruger installed new barrel, replaced internal parts, and reblued the gun free of charge. I was happy with the customer service.

AZAK November 2, 2008 03:41 AM

Smaug

Getting close to two months, any new news to report? Hear anything back from Ruger since your last info?

Master Blaster November 2, 2008 08:40 AM

Quote:

I specifically requested that they repair that gun (if it is safe to do so) since the trigger is so nice on it. (the trigger is much nicer than those of the Super Redhawks) (if you look back at the text of the letter I sent to Ruger, you'll see the full context)

I hate to say this, but dont be surprised when you get it back and the trigger stinks. They will most likely replace the lightened springs that are in it with ruger factory springs. You will know when you fire it single action and the SA pull is 8-10lbs. But dont despair, order a pack of wolf springs for it and change them back again.

Gun 4 Fun November 3, 2008 02:40 AM

JohnSka -you are dead on. The redhawk was/is a great gun, but many, many shooters and hunters were dissatisfied with the trigger pull. Ruger was listening and decided to change over to the GP100 grip and trigger system. About the same time as that they started getting reports of Redhawks letting go at the barrel/frame junction. They came up with the idea for the frame extention, but then they had to decide wether or not to keep both guns in the line. I'm glad they did, because in the late 90's the chambered Big Red in .45C. I have

http://thefiringline.com/forums/printthread.php?t=310125&pp=40&page=3[12/28/2009 9:18:12 AM] TheFiringLine Forums - Blew up my Redhawk

one and love it. The book Big Bore Handguns by John Taffin explains most all of this in fair detail. It's a great book any serious gun lover should have. John T. explains the lube issue as well, and he didn't get the info from wikopedia, as he has access to trade info most of us would love to be privy to.

Smaug November 3, 2008 09:23 AM

AZAK - No word from Ruger yet. I'm getting nervous too, as deer season is 4 weeks away. I have this sinking feeling that I'll get a call from the shop saying they have my gun one day before I'm supposed to go hunting. At which point, I'm screwed out of hunting this season.

Gun 4 Fun - Welcome to The Firing Line. I'll keep an eye out for that book. I like Taffin's writing, but would hate to limit myself to a book on big bore. (since I like medium bore too)

Master Blaster - You can bet your bottom dollar I'll fix it again if they've replaced the springs with the overly stiff factory ones. I just stoned & polished the action of my SP-101, then installed the Wilson "Custom Tune" spring kit, and the difference from the stock gun is just amazing. I won't be able to stand shooting stock Ruger revolvers any more.

Smaug November 3, 2008 04:07 PM

Don't know yet, rootcanal. They said the gun is in polishing. I can't imagine why it would be in polishing if it were the same gun but re-barreled.

I'm thinking it is a new one, and they're polishing the internals to comply with my request to make sure the action is as smooth as it was on mine.

I may have shot myself in the foot with that request, as that would be the thing that causes me to miss deer season. :mad:

Gun 4 Fun November 3, 2008 11:08 PM

Smaug, thanks for the welcome! I too hope you get your requests granted. Even more so since I had a problem 2 years ago with a brand new Blackhawk, and when I sent the gun in they told me [ on the phone ] that any modifications such as trigger work, sights, grips, etc. would be returned to factory original condition and if I wanted any of that stuff to take it off before shipping the gun, because they wouldn't return it. While I like Ruger guns I went quite a few years without one in my collection because of their attitude on matters like this. I know they're only protecting their hienies from litigation, but still they could be more polite on the phone when talking to their bread and butter. Also I would think a company as big as Ruger would have a custom shop like Smith does, so you could get some of these things addressed while your gun is there. Good luck and I hope you get it back in time to use it to hunt. If they give you a whole new gun, like alot of people have said, use a Wolfe spring kit. They're easy to install, and I would start with the middle weight spring and see how it works. I did on my .45C Redhawk but had to put the heaviest spring in the kit in to keep from getting misfires.

Smaug November 3, 2008 11:42 PM

Side note - I have the Wolff spring kit for the Redhawk right here. I ordered it the same time I ordered the kit for the SP-101. :D

Gun 4 Fun November 4, 2008 05:26 PM

Smaug - Taffins book starts at .357 and goes up, guess he figures it has enough of the right stuff to hang with the big dogs. Any word yet? I don't think I've ever seen a group of people so eager to here about someone else's situation.:D

http://thefiringline.com/forums/printthread.php?t=310125&pp=40&page=3[12/28/2009 9:18:12 AM] TheFiringLine Forums - Blew up my Redhawk

AZAK November 14, 2008 03:11 AM

Smaug

It has been over a week and a half since I last checked in about your Ruger.

Any news, or are you planning to throw rocks this deer season?

(Hopefully you already have it back, and have not posted about it due to too much time spent at the range with it!)

Wyngnut November 14, 2008 09:42 AM

WOW! Sorry to see and hear Smaug! I have no doubt Ruger will take care of you, just unfortunate and inconvenient. Many good informative posts, thanks gang.

Good Luck Smaug, enjoy your new piece.

Smaug November 14, 2008 09:51 AM

AZAK - No word from Ruger yet. I'm getting that despairing feeling that I will not be deer hunting this season thanks to this 25-year-old failure of Ruger's. I don't even want to go back to pg. 1 and see how long it has been. Feels like at least 2 months.

I'm going to write to Ruger again today. If I find out that it is sitting at the gun shop and they didn't call me, that shop is really going to get an earful.

On the optimistic side, I've got a box of ammo loaded and ready to go, featuring H110 and Hornady 240 JHP XTPs. 3 weeks to go.

Gun 4 Fun November 16, 2008 01:50 AM

If the shop your refering to is the gunshop it's being sent to and it is there, I'd use that first XTP on whoever was responsible.;)

Wyngnut November 16, 2008 11:32 AM

Any news on your Ruger Smaug?

Smaug November 16, 2008 02:37 PM

Nope. Sent them another email in the wee hours a couple days ago, asking them to please hurry it up. 2 months is plenty of time to re-barrel or replace a Redhawk, even if it needed polishing. I will look for a reply from them about Tuesday or Wednesday.

Customer Service, even with the desired end result, that takes months instead of days or weeks is not really excellent after all. Seems like they need crack open the checkbook and hire more people at Ruger...

Smaug November 17, 2008 03:17 PM

http://thefiringline.com/forums/printthread.php?t=310125&pp=40&page=3[12/28/2009 9:18:12 AM] TheFiringLine Forums - Blew up my Redhawk

It's Done!

I just got a call back from the fun shop; they've got my Redhawk. It took about 9 weeks, all said & done.

This was cutting it a bit close, but I still do have 2 weeks to practice & zero before going out for a deer with it.

I'm curious to see whether they put another 7-1/2" barrel on it, or a 5-1/2". What are your bets? (the one it had was a 7-1/2", but in the letter, I asked for a 5-1/2") If it has the 5-1/2" barrel, it will be a fun range gun on the off season. Otherwise, it'll be.... well still fun, just damned heavy. :cool:

I've got 100 rounds all loaded up. A box of hunting ammo consisting of 240 gr. Hornady XTP with a full charge of H110, and a box of plated flat point 240 gr. with a light charge of HP38. (44 Special load in the magnum case)

I plan to go get it tonight after work, and to take 'er to the range on Wednesday. Wish me luck! :D

Wyngnut November 17, 2008 03:33 PM

Grats!

Bets are: I was gonna say...but recanted my reply upon re-reading your post. If it came stock with the 7.5" and you requested a lesser 5.5" then they would probably grant your request. If it was reversed, they might charge you a slight difference for the added materials. That's my bet.

If I was the floor manager for Ruger, and was responsible for solving this problem, I would grant the request on the basis of the inconvenience of having the gun break to begin with. It's all about reputation and doing the right thing. The right thing may also include stamping out that gun the way was it was originally sold. If it were up to me, I'd grant the request.

Gun 4 Fun November 17, 2008 03:45 PM

I agree and I bet you get your 5 1/2". I asked them to change one on a Blackhawk because a local "gunsmith", who actually was lisenced to do that kind of work ,****** it up so bad that the sight came flying off at my face while shooting at the range. They did it without hesitation even though I had had someone work on the gun. It originally was a 7 1/2" and they switched it to 5 1/2". Let us know how it looks and shoots, eh. Christmas came early to Smaug's house.:D

45reloader November 17, 2008 06:50 PM

WOW

I really hope Ruger keeps up the quality with the revolvers that they lack with the semi auto's.

Wleoff November 17, 2008 06:56 PM

Here's a couple of Redhawks that I bought new in the 80s. I use to shoot the 2x scoped Redhawk in 45 Colt with 325 grain Buffalo Bore rounds. I now shoot handloads in it with 250 grain Hornady HP/XTP copper bullets over IMR 4227 powder. It'll really tag a deer with either. I've mostly shoot commercial rounds in the 44 Mag Redhawk. So far, I've put thousands of rounds thru these two with now problems. Both are very accurate. http://i416.photobucket.com/albums/p.../Redhawks1.jpg

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:18 AM. Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 > http://thefiringline.com/forums/printthread.php?t=310125&pp=40&page=3[12/28/2009 9:18:12 AM] TheFiringLine Forums - Blew up my Redhawk

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Page generated in 0.05552 seconds with 7 queries

http://thefiringline.com/forums/printthread.php?t=310125&pp=40&page=3[12/28/2009 9:18:12 AM] TheFiringLine Forums - Blew up my Redhawk

Page 4 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Smaug November 17, 2008 10:40 PM

Well, it's back. They somehow got that stub of a barrel out of the frame and re-barreled the same gun. They ignored my request for a 5-1/2" barrel. I guess I can't complain. The guy who said they would put it back just the way it was was right. No letter, no action polishing or anything.

Anyway, I'm glad to have 'er back. That stock cowboy grip feels better in my hand than the Pachmayr. I'm sure I'll change my mind on that part the first time I touch off a magnum load.

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q.../IMGP3225s.jpg

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q.../IMGP3224s.jpg

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q.../IMGP3222s.jpg

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q.../IMGP3221s.jpg

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q.../IMGP3217s.jpg Who's your daddy!?

Smaug November 17, 2008 10:42 PM

So, in the end, Ruger did the right thing. I'm a bit surprised it took 9 weeks to re-barrel a revolver. Seems like a long time.

Maybe not Taurus-long, but long anyway. ;)

Gun 4 Fun November 17, 2008 11:11 PM

Smaug- Sorry that those idiots at Ruger couldn't even make an effort to take care of a customer who 1- had to wait so long 2- made a simple request Did they mess with the action, or leave it alone? Gee, it's been so long that I forgot, didn't it have a really smooth action that you asked them to either leave alone or put back the way they received it? I'd be willing they were holding you off so that they could meet their production quoata first, then get to the work that they weren't getting any money out of. Hopefully it'll at least shoot the way you like.

AZAK November 17, 2008 11:13 PM

Quote:

back just the way it was was right. No letter, no action polishing or anything.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/printthread.php?t=310125&pp=40&page=4[12/28/2009 9:18:16 AM] TheFiringLine Forums - Blew up my Redhawk

So, did they replace the entire action? Basically gutted and replaced all stock?

Congrats!!! No rock throwing for deer season for you!

kman November 17, 2008 11:15 PM

"I draw a bead on the target, cock the hammer, and cut 'er loose. BOOM!clunk, clunk, clunk"

That statement is priceless, I was wiping the marinara sauce off my screen when I realized a few thoughts of my own,,,front sight looks a bit off!!, or how about, Hmm, maybe this is a new take-down model? Glad you can find humor after watching your $500 handgun disintegrate after one round.

Smaug November 17, 2008 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AZAK So, did they replace the entire action? Basically gutted and replaced all stock?

:confused:

Just the barrel, as near as I can tell.

AZAK November 17, 2008 11:19 PM

So, is the trigger pull the same as before?

If so that would be a good thing!

Gun 4 Fun November 17, 2008 11:20 PM

Wleoff-How'd you manage a .45 Redhawk in the 80's?They didn't come out until 1999 in .45 according to the person I talked to at Ruger, when I called to find out the year mine was made. Did you get someone to rebore and rechamber your gun? If so, who? Before I got mine, I was thinking about having either Bowen or Clements do that to a.44 Redhawk, cause I like the .45 a lot better.

Wleoff November 18, 2008 08:11 AM

Gun 4 Fun, The 45 Colt is stock. I got it in 88' thru Davidson. A friend of mine, who is a gun article writer, told me about it. I wanted the Redhawk in 45 Colt because I was already loading that round in a Blackhawk. I did add the scope and grips to the Redhawk later. Bowen does great work, especially being nearby in Tennessee. He made a 4" barrel Redhawk in 45 Colt for me years ago. Here's a few of the 45 Colts that I still have: http://i416.photobucket.com/albums/p...f/45Colt01.jpg

Smaug November 18, 2008 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AZAK So, is the trigger pull the same as before? http://thefiringline.com/forums/printthread.php?t=310125&pp=40&page=4[12/28/2009 9:18:16 AM] TheFiringLine Forums - Blew up my Redhawk

If so that would be a good thing!

Yes, they didn't do anything with the action.

Between sending the Redhawk in and receiving it back, I bought an SP-101 and did an action job on it. The single action on the SP is better than that of the Redhawk, so I'm going to have to work on that. Polish things up a bit. The SA is better on Super Redhawks too.

The Six series, GP-100, SP-101, and Super Redhawk all use the same action, and it is just not as good for DA as that of the Redhawk. I haven't even put the lighter springs in the Redhawk yet.

The SA on the Redhawk is just really heavy for a hunting handgun. It is clean, but very heavy.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:18 AM. Page 4 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Page generated in 0.03501 seconds with 7 queries

http://thefiringline.com/forums/printthread.php?t=310125&pp=40&page=4[12/28/2009 9:18:16 AM] http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q112/jzorns/Guns/bustedredhawk1.jpg[12/28/2009 9:18:30 AM] http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q112/jzorns/Guns/bustedredhawk2.jpg[12/28/2009 9:18:41 AM] http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q112/jzorns/Guns/bustedredhawk3.jpg[12/28/2009 9:18:48 AM] Grant Cunningham - custom revolvers for sport and defense

Home Gunsmithing Recent Projects Reviews Shopping Library Contact Me The Blog

Lubrication 101

Introduction Firearms enthusiasts are the targets (pardon the pun) of some of the most misleading advertisements regarding the proper lubrication of their guns. The purpose of this article is to give a background on basic lubrication concepts, the technology behind them, and some guidelines for selecting lubricants based on facts, not hype.

Before going further, let's make something perfectly clear: with a very few obvious exceptions, firearms lubrication isn't terribly difficult. Compared to many more common objects, guns just don't make big demands of their lubricants! That's right, firearms pose no actual "extreme" situations with which a lubricant must deal. There are thousands upon thousands of 100-year- old-plus guns out there that are functioning - just fine, thank you - on a diet of "3-in-1" oil.

However, that doesn't mean that there isn't something better. This article, it is hoped, will help you determine just what "better" means to you.

Let's start at the beginning... Why lubricate something? First, to prevent wear and second, to promote a certain level of performance. To put it more clearly, what we're trying to do is to keep parts from rubbing directly on other parts, and to make the interaction of those parts as smooth as possible.

As it turns out, those polished surfaces that rub against each other aren't all that smooth. Looking through a microscope, even the most highly finished metal surface still looks like a forested hillside - with all kinds of huge voids, depressions, and valleys. Imagine, then, what happens when that surface meets the surface of it's companion part! Not only does the combination become difficult to move, but the tops of those trees get broken off - that's how wear starts at the microscopic level.

That's why we lubricate those surfaces. Lubrication works in a couple of ways: "hydrodynamic" and "boundary".

Hydrodynamic lubrication is essentially when the parts ride on the film of liquid (or semi-liquid) lubricant; the lubricant fills all of the voids, and the film itself serves as a buffer to keep the surfaces apart.

This works really well, except when a load is applied and the lubricant is squeezed out of it's space between the surfaces. When that happens, the surfaces grind together and wear. What if we added something to the mix - something that was a bit more "solid" than the lubricant, which wouldn't be easily squeezed out? Well, that's just what "boundary" lubrication entails - adding small pieces of more-solid material to serve as a physical separator between the surfaces, keeping them from tearing each other to pieces.

The solids that provide this service are known as "anti-wear" or "extreme pressure" (AW/EP) additives - solids of microscopic size that are mixed into a lubricant, in order to maintain a protective boundary (get it?) under load. "Moly", a generic term for several molydenum compounds, is one example; others include sulphur compunds, zinc, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE, aka 'teflon'), zinc diakyl dithiophosphate (ZDDP), phosphors, boron, antimony diakyl dithiocarbamate (and it's derivatives), and many more. Each of these has certain properties that the skilled tribologist (lubrication scientist) will balance to achieve the optimum lubricant for the application.

http://www.grantcunningham.com/lubricants101.html[12/28/2009 9:21:52 AM] Grant Cunningham - custom revolvers for sport and defense

Regardless of the physical characteristics of the product, lubricants are a "package" - the primary lubricant plus boundary additives, thickeners (as in greases), and other things (tackifiers, pour point depressants, detergents...the list is endless and chock full of chemical names I can't begin to decipher!)

My exaggerated interpretation of the primary lubrication states.

All about grease Grease is nothing more than thickened oil. Grease is made by mixing oil with a "base" to thicken it - the base being a metallic soap (lithium, aluminum, barium, calcium), or a non-soap alternative (bentone, polyurea.) Each of these bases have different characteristics, which are taken into account (along with the oils and additives) to produce a grease of the desired effectiveness.

Different bases will show different degrees of water resistance, cold weather performance, stability (the ability to resist oil separation under shear and mechanical operations), oxidation, and "reversability" - the ability of the base to re-absorb any oil that might have been separated out.

Lithium is the most common base encountered; it's cheap, easily produced, and has enough good traits to make it a decent choice for general purposes. Aluminum bases, though, have several advantages: much better resistance to water (and acids and alkalis), better low- temperature performance, better stability, and dramatically increased reversability. Aluminum greases are typically a bit harder to find, and more costly, but their performance advantages can be pretty dramatic.

Grease is graded in thickness by its NLGI number. Most grease you're familiar with is NLGI #2; smaller numbers mean less thick, larger numbers mean thicker. A grease rated at NLGI #00 is almost a liquid a room temperature.

What makes for a good gun lube? Firearms encounter intermittent high loads, interspersed with long periods of inaction. This means that the primary lubrication need isn't hydrodynamic - it's boundary. What, then, should we be looking for?

http://www.grantcunningham.com/lubricants101.html[12/28/2009 9:21:52 AM] Grant Cunningham - custom revolvers for sport and defense

Start with a very good boundary lubrication package - that translates to lots of EP/AW additives. We need superb corrosion resistance, along with resistance to oxidation (don't want those lubricants thickening up during non-use.) We could also use some water resistance and an ability to withstand mild acid and alkali exposure (think perspiration.) Low temperature performance would be icing on the cake, and for a grease we want something that won't easily separate under load.

We need our oils to migrate. No, I don't mean to fly south for the winter! Migration is the ability of the lubricant to spread to surrounding and adjacent areas. For instance, let's say we're lubricating the shaft on which a hammer pivots; a lubricant with poor migration would just sit where we applied it, and would never get into the space between the hammer hole and the pivot. The net result would be a poorly lubed mechanism. A lube with good migration will succumb to capillary action and snake its way down into that small space, lubricating everything it comes into contact with.

Sounds like migration is just the cat's meow, right? Not really - there is such a thing as too much. The migration that is so desirable on hammers and triggers isn't really good on autopistol slides; the lubricant tends to "run off", or migrates to the holster (or your clothes.) Ever wonder why your autoloader slide goes "dry" while in the holster? Lubricant migration at work. (What, you think it disappeared into thin air?)

What about greases - do we even need them? You bet! I use the General Rule of Lubrication: oil for rotating parts, grease for sliding parts that carry a load. In firearms, grease is most appropriate for any part interaction that has a scraping (aka "shear") type of action, and will be subjected to pressure or shock. What kinds of parts are we talking about? Slide rails, bolt carriers, and sears - especially double-action sears. (An example of a sliding part that should not be greased is the trigger bow of the 1911 pistol - it carries virtually no load, and is subject to almost no stress; it also is under very light tension, so little that a thickened lubricant could reduce its free movement.)

That's a pretty good explanation of what we need - is there anything we should avoid? Of course - any product that contains chlorine compounds. These compounds, usually referred to as chlorinated esters, were used as boundary additives for many years. As boundary lubes they actually work pretty well; the problem is that they promote a phenomenon known as "stress corrosion cracking" (SCC). Essentially, SCC creates microscopic pits and cracks that, under heat and pressure, widen to become noticeable cracks - and sometimes, even broken parts!

(One major gun manufacturer actually had barrels fall off of their revolvers. An investigation ensued, and they found that the chlorinated esters used in their machining oils was causing stress cracking in barrel threads. When combined with the gun owners' use of cleaning and lube compounds containing chlorinated esters, the barrels simply sheared off at the weakest part - the threads. Like most aircraft makers, the company learned to forbid chlorine-carrying compounds on the manufacturing floor, to prevent a recurrence.)

What about "miracle products"? Let's be clear: there are no "new", "revolutionary" lubricant products made for firearms. That's a flat statement, and it's intended to be. All of the lubricants, bases, and additives of suitable use are already well known to the lubricant industry. Specific combinations might be unique, but it's all been tried before - if not necessarily on guns.

There are several such products on the market right now that are simply a well-known boundary additive in a light carrier; at least one of them is a chlorinated ester! These things have been around a long time, and unless you didn't know better the products using them would indeed seem to be "revolutionary." Just remember: any new gun lube is going to be made up of readily available components, perhaps blended especially for the requirement, but will not be a "miracle". 'Nuff said!

Cut to the chase! What should I use? Let's start with oil. Most people use oils that are way too heavy; thicker is not better! Use a relatively thin oil with the correct properties, and use it very sparingly - most "oil failures" I've seen have been from too much, rather than too little, oil.

http://www.grantcunningham.com/lubricants101.html[12/28/2009 9:21:52 AM] Grant Cunningham - custom revolvers for sport and defense

Frankly, in terms of mechanical performance, most oils "work"; some are better than others, but everything will make parts move for a while. The weakest area of most oils is in corrosion resistance - and on a gun, corrosion is a bad thing! There have been lots of claims, but those people who have actually taken the time to run experiments to test corrosion on steel have found that the products with the greatest hype are often the worst at corrosion resistance. Not surprisingly, plain mineral oils, such as Rem Oil, score at the very bottom of the list.

One product that scores pretty well in corrosion testing is also the readily available and dirt cheap. It also has good migration, a good boundary lubrication package, is the right weight (thickness) for general firearms use, doesn't oxidize over long periods of storage, and is compatible with a wide range of metals and plastics. In addition, it is recommended by at least one real degreed firearms engineer! Just what is this miracle elixir??

Dexron-type Automatic Transmission Fluid (ATF). That's right, plain ol' ATF. The kind you get at every gas station, auto parts store, and even most convenience stores. Synthetic or regular, either will work just fine. (ATF does have a slight odor to it. If you find that objectionable, a decent alternative that is still readily available is "NyOil." Check your local auto parts store, in the aisle where they keep the miscellaneous lubricants and additives.)

If we were to spec out a "best in class" oil, it would probably be something like Lubriplate's FMO- AW oil, specifically the 350-AW weight. This is an oil designed with very high boundary protection and very high corrosion resistance - especially in the presence of acids, alkalis, and moisture. It is darned near tailor-made for our use!

I'm aware of at least one large coastal police agency using FMO-AW, and they report complete satisfaction with its performance. Unfortunately, it's not (as of this writing) packaged in consumer friendly quantities - 1 gallon pails being the smallest available. If, however, you have a food service equipment dealer near you, they may agree to sell you a small quantity - FMO-AW is designed for food handling equipment. (Ask nicely and bring your own bottle.)

What about grease? Remember that you should grease sliding parts that carry a load - slide rails, sears, and bolt carriers. Again, remember to start with your criteria: must have superb boundary lubricants (particularly when used on double-action mechanisms), preferably of aluminum base, good cold working characteristics, resistant to acids/alkalis and water (especially water), and preferably of a non-staining variety (black grease stains look awful on clothing!)

Many people use Brownell's Action Lube as a popular general purpose grease - it has wonderful boundary lubricants (in fact, it is mostly composed of molybdenum compounds in a light grease base) and great shear resistance. It is superb on action parts, and works fairly well on slide rails - as long as you don't mind black stains. Yuck! It does exhibit poor oxidation characteristics and reversibility; though I have no hard data, I suspect it also doesn't resist water or pH changes all that well. For internal parts, which are protected by housings, it is terrific and gives actions a unique 'buttery' feel. I use a lot of it to lubricate sears and rebound slides, but for all other needs there is a much better choice.

For such things as autoloader slides and rifle bolts, Lubriplate "SFL" NLGI #0 grease is my choice. In my testing it's proven itself superior as a general lubricant. It is white, aluminum- based, low odor, has superb boundary lubricants, and is designed specifically for use in environments that encounter a huge temperature range. It's also resistant to water washout and acid/alkali environments, has great shear resistance, and doesn't oxidize like lithium greases will. As an all-around grease I've found nothing better. It's available from www.lubriplate.com, in their online store. It comes in a 14oz can which will last you for years - no matter how many guns you have!

(Lubriplate also makes SFL in heavier grades, such as NLGI #1. While thicker than the #0, it is still a pretty light grease, and would be my recommendation for very hot climates. The NLGI #0 is a better choice for most of the United States.)

But what about...... ? Everyone has their own little "secret". If it works, is there anything wrong with it? Let's find out...

Motor oils: Generally good boundary lubrication (particularly the Havoline formulations), but very poor corrosion resistance and poor resistance to open-air oxidation. In addition, their pour-point

http://www.grantcunningham.com/lubricants101.html[12/28/2009 9:21:52 AM] Grant Cunningham - custom revolvers for sport and defense

additives often contain benzene compounds, which aren't a good thing to have next to your skin on a regular basis! ATF performs better for firearms use on every count, even if it is a tad more expensive. (ATF is still 1/10 to 1/100th the cost of a specialty "gun oil"!)

Gear oils: Too thick for the application. In addition, they contain tackifiers which gives them poor migration and lead to oxidization in open air, rendering them even more "sticky" - pretty much what we don't want. (Some folks use it on their slide rails because it's thicker and won't migrate easily; a light grease is a far better choice.) If you really want a thicker oil with all the good characteristics we've covered, but is still cheap, mix ATF and STP Oil Treatment in a 40/60 ratio. Far better than gear oil on every count - but I'd still rather have a good NLGI #0 grease.

WD-40: WD-40 was never meant to be a lubricant - it was designed as a moisture displacer. It's far too light for any load protection, has incredibly poor corrosion resistance, contains zero boundary lubricants, and rapidly oxidizes to form a sickly yellow varnish (hint: this is not good for delicate internal lockwork.) There are those who will defend this stuff vehemently, but then again you can still find people who think smokeless powder is a passing fad. Just. Don't.

Automotive motor oil additives: Usually a boundary additive in some sort of light mineral oil carrier, they usually lack corrosion protection and often oxidize rapidly; some have poor migration characteristics and rely on the oil to which they'll be added to provide those things. There are better and cheaper alternatives, though when mixed with an appropriate oil additives do have some merit (see above.) By themselves? No.

Silicone spray: Right up there with WD-40, but at least it'll shed water while your parts grind themselves into little shavings!

Graphite: (sprays, powders) Graphite is a crystalline product which is actually very slightly abrasive. It offers no appreciable benefit other than being dry; a lube with a good boundary lubricant package can be wiped dry to the touch and still provide better lubrication and protection than graphite. Save it for your keys and padlocks.

Finally, note that the foregoing is a layman's understanding of lubrication technology. I don't pretend to be an expert, just a well-informed amateur hoping to disseminate some arcane knowledge. Use at your own risk!

Home :: Library :: Lubricants 101 ::

http://www.grantcunningham.com/lubricants101.html[12/28/2009 9:21:52 AM] http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q112/jzorns/Guns/IMGP3225s.jpg[12/28/2009 9:22:59 AM] http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q112/jzorns/Guns/IMGP3224s.jpg[12/28/2009 9:23:10 AM] http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q112/jzorns/Guns/IMGP3222s.jpg[12/28/2009 9:23:15 AM] http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q112/jzorns/Guns/IMGP3221s.jpg[12/28/2009 9:23:28 AM] http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q112/jzorns/Guns/IMGP3217s.jpg[12/28/2009 9:23:32 AM]