Blew up my Redhawk

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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;)
 
Here is the thread at the Ruger Forum for you:

http://www.rugerforum.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=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!
 
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.
 
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
 
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-SerialNumberHistory-RE.html#

I really am curious...
 
Smaug said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.

100_0458.jpg
 
Hogghead said:
But I was there when the revolver was developed. And it was not developed because of any RedHawk inadequacies.
Click to expand...
: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...
I do not mean to be a smart *** with my comments.
Click to expand...
I didn't take it that way at all.
 
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.
 
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...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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 revolver. Sorry, but it is true. Tom.

IMG_0463.jpg
 
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top