Blew up my Redhawk

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
I don't believe gun shops test fire trade-ins, right?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
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,
Click to expand...
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.
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
???

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

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top