Blew up my Redhawk

[HOGGHEAD]

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 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]

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]

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--

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

...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]

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]

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]

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.

[Kreyzhorse]

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

What kind of factory ammo were you using?

[azredhawk44]

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.

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]

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]

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, 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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!

[HOGGHEAD]

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]

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

[DAnjet500]

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 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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

[Smaug]

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]

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...

[Quarterbore]

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#

I really am curious...