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.