Blew up new Ruger 45Colt/45ACP
- Thread starter MarkJD
- Start date
Jim Watson
New member
Doesn't matter. Even the NV - Lipsey Flattop is a heavier built gun than a Colt and the old heavy .45 Colt load was 10 gr Unique with a 255. No minor slip up demolished the OP's gun.
Elmer Keith wrecked a gun once by pushing a bullet that had jumped its crimp back into the cylinder too far for the load of No 80. The loose bullet mentioned here reminded me of that. But the OP said nothing about bullet movement in the gun.
Elmer Keith wrecked a gun once by pushing a bullet that had jumped its crimp back into the cylinder too far for the load of No 80. The loose bullet mentioned here reminded me of that. But the OP said nothing about bullet movement in the gun.
One last pic. This one of the exploded shell. The parts I found anyway.
The difference in snuffy's and my full case powder measurement is probably due to the fact I measured first then tried to pour the double charge into the case. While snuffy filled the case with as much powder as would fit *then* weighted the powder.
My Blackhawk is a new model flat top, in the picture it just looks like an older humpback from the explosion.
Snuffy, I just noticed we're neighbors. I'm in Neenah.
The difference in snuffy's and my full case powder measurement is probably due to the fact I measured first then tried to pour the double charge into the case. While snuffy filled the case with as much powder as would fit *then* weighted the powder.
My Blackhawk is a new model flat top, in the picture it just looks like an older humpback from the explosion.
Snuffy, I just noticed we're neighbors. I'm in Neenah.
Attachments
They didn't test those loads in one of the new flat top mid size frame blackhawks and yes there should be a disclaimer in the loading data, it's not hard to find information as to caution that the "ruger only" loads aren't safe in the New Vaquero and New Model Flattop 45 Colts.
here's the disclaimer from Hodgdon
As to Unique's suitability for hot loads I submit the OP's gun.
*sigh*
The 3 digit prefix Hodgdon refers to applies only to the New Model Vaquero which, starting in 2005, was produced with the medium frame. Hence the 3 digit prefix and "New Model Vaquero" moniker. No Ruger Blackhawk in existence, whether its a Blackhawk or a New Model Blackhawk, has a 3 digit prefix with the sole exception of the 50th Anniversary Model Blackhawk. The Blackhawk has always had the same frame size since its inception. And yes, they used Blackhawks in the testing of their data. Regardless, Ruger Vaqueros are irrelevant to this thread since the OP's gun was a New Model Blackhawk.
Bottom line, Hodgdon's disclaimer is wrong (and contradicts itself). The "Ruger only loads" are perfectly safe to use in a New Model Blackhawk.
*facepalm*
wild willy
New member
*sigh* The new flattops are medium frame same as the new Vaquero. Not to be loaded to the same pressures as a full size Blackhawk
I was unaware of the "New Model Flat Top" until now as they are only listed as as "Distributor Exclusives" on Ruger's website.
My mind didn't distinguish between "New Model Flat Top" and "New Model Blackhawk" when reading this thread and your post as well as the OP's #43 post mentioning that he had the "New Model Flat Top" as opposed to the "New Model Blackhawk".
Therefore, I humbly stand corrected that only the 50th Anniversary Blackhawks had a 3-digit prefix.
My mind didn't distinguish between "New Model Flat Top" and "New Model Blackhawk" when reading this thread and your post as well as the OP's #43 post mentioning that he had the "New Model Flat Top" as opposed to the "New Model Blackhawk".
Therefore, I humbly stand corrected that only the 50th Anniversary Blackhawks had a 3-digit prefix.
Last edited:
Well in that case I'm gonna go back to wrong powder, overcharge or deep seated bullet and like I said unique isn't as forgiving at the upper end as some of the slower burning stuff. and 10+ gr of faster burning bullseye or something of that nature could easily spike pressure high enough.
And for all of you out there that are still arguing flat top / vaqueros frames etc., in post 15 I stated
Even the mid frame guns will withstand 25k psi. The subject of the destructive disassembly was exposed to far higher pressures. While the poster stated that he thought that he was loading 10.9 gr. he may have set the scale to 19.0 or 20.9 or even double charged; we don't know. But that damage was not caused by 10.9 gr. of Unique.
New Vaquero
Just thought I would add that Ruger uses the same proof loads for the New Vaquero as they did for the old ones.
Would they do that if the New Vaquero was weaker than the old one?
Granted, they say that it is perfectly safe with any ammunition that is manufactured for the 45 Colt. That means that the design pressure would be 18K, if I am correct?
Just thought I would add that Ruger uses the same proof loads for the New Vaquero as they did for the old ones.
Would they do that if the New Vaquero was weaker than the old one?
Granted, they say that it is perfectly safe with any ammunition that is manufactured for the 45 Colt. That means that the design pressure would be 18K, if I am correct?
Handloader109
New member
Ya'll pardon me for being mathematically deficient, but I have a question. I believe he used a Hornady electronic- right? The one I just looked up on line said it weighs in grains and grams. Is there a chance he might have had his set on grams?
Ah, NO! 10.9 grains is 0.706 grams. It really sounds like either of two errors, wrong powder due to fill variance noted by OP, or overfill by scale or double charge....guess that is one of three errors possible. I think that the loose bullets should have had you stopping in your tracks and figuring that out too. High potential for something else bad to happen with that.......and I can't say that is an error, you KNEW that was wrong
Ah, NO! 10.9 grains is 0.706 grams. It really sounds like either of two errors, wrong powder due to fill variance noted by OP, or overfill by scale or double charge....guess that is one of three errors possible. I think that the loose bullets should have had you stopping in your tracks and figuring that out too. High potential for something else bad to happen with that.......and I can't say that is an error, you KNEW that was wrong
OP stated the scale he used was a RCBS balance beam. When setting for 10.9 grains, getting it on the 19.0 grain setting is very easy to imagine , 19 grains will fit in a 45 Colt case and all three would be the same level.
I did the same thing, years ago, had been loading for 2-3 years, Redding #1 beam scale, set for 10.5 grain Unique for 357 Magnum load with 110 grain Super-Vel jacketed hollow points. Ruger Blackhawk held together for 5 rounds but empties had to be driven out with a rod. HOT, HOT !
Yeah, you guessed it, had the little adjustment set for 15.0 not 10.5, very easy to do and understandable. Sometimes I have moved the adjustment accidentally while weighing.
I'm thinking most likely a 19 grain charge did the deed.
MarkJD, I'm glad no injuries, guns can be replaced, things like fingers and eyes can't. About the only thing you can do is be careful and double check things...heck sometimes I triple check things involving powder.
Be careful, load safe....Gary
I did the same thing, years ago, had been loading for 2-3 years, Redding #1 beam scale, set for 10.5 grain Unique for 357 Magnum load with 110 grain Super-Vel jacketed hollow points. Ruger Blackhawk held together for 5 rounds but empties had to be driven out with a rod. HOT, HOT !
Yeah, you guessed it, had the little adjustment set for 15.0 not 10.5, very easy to do and understandable. Sometimes I have moved the adjustment accidentally while weighing.
I'm thinking most likely a 19 grain charge did the deed.
MarkJD, I'm glad no injuries, guns can be replaced, things like fingers and eyes can't. About the only thing you can do is be careful and double check things...heck sometimes I triple check things involving powder.
Be careful, load safe....Gary