Blew up my Redhawk

Status
Not open for further replies.
smaug, glad to see all is well with your redhawk! I have a 1983 made redhawk with a 7 1/2 barrel, and I was scared to shoot it at first cause barrel separation I've read about. After about 100 mid power loads and another hundred of the hot stuff, my barrel stayed intact. I'm glad that it did, because the accuracy and action of my particular redhawk is nothing short of incredible! Happy shooting!
 
I wonder if anyone knows of the serial number range of Redhawks that might be afflicted with the barrel/frame separation issue?
 
Give Ruger a call, I suspect they'd fix it.
Click to expand...

Yeah they will probably rebarrel it. I bet you a steak dinner it takes them more than 2 months to do it though!

And I hope he doesn't get his hopes up about that 5 1/2 barrel
 
My dad's 44 blackhack blew up with a 4227 load, the cylinder had a flaw and Ruger sent him a 44 Redhawk as a replacement at his request.
 
Yeah they will probably rebarrel it. I bet you a steak dinner it takes them more than 2 months to do it though!
Click to expand...

What kind of sucker bet is that? It did take 9-10 weeks for him to get the gun back.... in 2008! ;)

Didn't there used to be a necro-thread warning under the subject line of threads that were started more than six months or so ago?
 
Didn't there used to be a necro-thread warning under the subject line of threads that were started more than six months or so ago?
Click to expand...
There is a warning if one attempts to reply to a thread that hasn't been active in awhile. But after someone bypasses the warning and puts a new post on the thread, now it's an active thread and subsequent posters won't get the warning.
 
I thought Ruger fixed this problem several years ago,Some Monday morning guns were shearing off the barrels, as the lube put on Friday night dried out before the barrel could be installed,causing excessive force to be used when screwing in the barrel and fracturing the steel.I know it was discussed here at least two or more years ago.
 
That is correct, as far as I know. This is one of the threads where it was discussed--it was started in 2008. ;)

Since the age of this thread is causing confusion, I'm going to go ahead and lock it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top