Blew up my Redhawk

Status
Not open for further replies.
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:

rh-44r-001.jpg


I have not got to shoot it yet.

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

45hunters.jpg


I would not worry about the accuracy and I am confident Ruger will be able to replace the barrel on this for you.
 
I think I'm going to ask for the same barrel length blued Redhawk with the integral scope mounts.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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. :D
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.:p

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.
 
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
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
laytonj1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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. :rolleyes:

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


Legionnaire said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?

CraigC said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
Smaug said:
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.
Click to expand...

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. :D
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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?
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • Redhawk55.jpg
    Redhawk55.jpg
    77.7 KB · Views: 6,937
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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 ...)
 
Solution!

It appears that the original Ruger technique of JB Welding their barrels on just didn't work. But I am certain that they will re-JB it for you if they are asked... they are a reputable group. But I should think that the real fault lies with the owner for not having a professional Fault Finder available to scan the pistol before purchase. I have been lucky in life to have an excellent Fault Finder with me... my ex. Well, until now that I am independent again.
I would like to suggest the best and most profitable solutions: Sell it back to the pawn shop as a "Super Snub" special, or just keep it as a shooter and tell people that it is the ultimate 'Sheriff's Special' . I would be willing to buy it from you for what you paid just for the bragging rights and stories I could tell about how it came to happen. ("look how this cracked when I wacked that Bison"!).
 
The failure follows the threads that mounted the barrel to the gun.

If the barrel was fitted way too tightly to the frame (just jammed to the frame)and the rifling in the barrel essentially retightened it to the gun everytime you fired it,that might cause this kind of failure too.

The bullet entering a gun barrel that is sized for accuracy creates alot of friction and twisting action as is starts down the barrel after going through the forcing cone.

The barrel at that point has alot of grooves that are each a place to have stress create small fractures.

Also the thickeness of the barrel is at it's least there as well.

Plus there is horrendously quick temperature changes and propellant pressures involved at that location in the barrel as well.

With an extremely powerful handgun,like the 44,it's history,before you ever got it may well have included alot of shooting with 'full house" factory loads or even reloads.

But if that was the case,I am sure you would have turned the gun over,opened the cylinder and looked at the top strap directly next to the forcing cone and you could see some top strap flame cutting if that was the case.

You did'nt mention that so I guess it was'nt there.

I am surprised this does'nt happen more often with guns that fire very powerful handgun cartridges but that is a tribute to the engineering genuis of these gun makers as well as Ruger too.

Not a common happening with any Rugers.

Look forward to a beautiful,rugged,hand tuned Ruger coming your way.

And I am not a trusting soul.

I find it very hard to believe the former owner and/or someone in the gun shop did'nt know this gun did'nt have a problem before it was sold to you.
 
B.N.Real said:
I find it very hard to believe the former owner and/or someone in the gun shop did'nt know this gun did'nt have a problem before it was sold to you.
Click to expand...

B.N. - I don't blame them. From what I've read about it, it was not only the thread lube, but the fact that some barrels were lubed, then sat out overnight or over the weekend, then threaded in the next working day. Apparently, the thread lube had dried up somewhat, or something to that effect, so it was not every gun during this time period. Just guns that were made at the end of a shift.

When I was back there having them ship the gun out, the guy who sold it to me was there, helping someone else. I said to him: "Thanks for selling me a bum gun, Dude." I waited for the reaction, which I got, then let him down and said: "Just kidding. Not your fault." You should've seen the look on the face of the girl who was just buying a Glock off of him. :D
 
Thanks for sharing this incident with us. Please keep us up to date on the outcome. I suspect Ruger will m ake this right for you, they certainly don't want this gun displayed at some gunshow as an example of their production handguns. Plus, it's just the right thing to do. What they do here will go a long way toward their credibility as a manufacturer. There are more than a few suscribers to this forum that will be watching, and the word of mouth can be tremendous..("Did you hear about the Ruger SBH that blew up and had pics of it on TFL"?..."No, what did Ruger do about it"?)

BTW, I can only assume that the barrels are not cast, are they? Surely they are forged.

I also remember the ads where Ruger went head-to-head with S&W in the 1980s, purporting the strength of their beefed-up guns as opposed to the lighter, thinner S&Ws, and how much stronger the Rugers were.

Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. Maybe we'll see.:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top