Blew up my Redhawk

[Smaug]

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

[Sport45]

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]

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.

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.

[JohnKSa]

Originally Posted by Hogghead

But I was there when the revolver was developed. And it was not developed because of any RedHawk inadequacies.

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...

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

I didn't take it that way at all.

[HOGGHEAD]

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]

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.

Let us know how it ends up.

[JohnKSa]

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.

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]

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 revolver. Sorry, but it is true. Tom.

[HOGGHEAD]

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]

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. I dont' think eye relief is adjustable either.

[Quarterbore]

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:



I have not got to shoot it yet.

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



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

[azredhawk44]

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]

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]

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.

[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.

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.

[azredhawk44]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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

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?

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.


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

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!

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.

[MrNiceGuy]

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]

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]

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.

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?

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.

[Smaug]

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]

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 revolver.

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 ...)