Gave the Redhawk a second chance

[feets]

It looks like the biggest problem with my Redhawk rests squarely on the loose nut behind the wheel.
In my "Ruger death match" post I was concerned with the new Redhawk scattering bullets everywhere despite the same loads running tightly in my Super Redhawk.
A close examination showed somewhat undersized chambers and a frame restriction choking the bore down to .4446".
It was suggested that I try some .451 jacketed bullets to see if they would run better than the .452 lead with the bore restriction.

Well, a friend and I took the Redhawk out for a little test drive today. The idea was to plant that sucker solidly and see what it would do.
We brought one of our home made Contender rests and the following loads:
230 FMJ (45 ACP style) .451" over 6.5 grains of Trail Boss.
265 RFN lead .452" over 5.5 grains of Trail Boss.
200 XTP .451" over 17 grains of Blue Dot.
265 RFN lead .452" over 15 grains of Blue Dot.
265 RFN lead over 17 grains of 2400.

We put at target up at 15 yards and stuffed the Redhawk into the rest.

First up was the 230 FMJ/Trail boss load.

That's fairly impressive considering I got 8" groups at 10 yards last time out. Maybe it likes jacketed bullets.

We pastied up the target and tried the same thing with the lead trail boss loads:

He tossed a couple rounds but it still wasn't an 8" group.

We patched the target again and ran the XTP/Blue Dot combo:

That was a bit looser but the target was getting a bit chewed up. I took over so he could get a little IPSC practice. The whole rig was moved to my shooting position for the next set.

This is what happened with the lead/Blue Dot loads:

Out of two cylinders full I managed to toss three rounds out of the group but it still held them together, relatively speaking.
The gun was consistently shooting high so we swapped the front sight between the Redhawk and the Super Redhawk.

Surprise! They were different heights. I was too brain dead to notice that when I shot the Redhawk the first time. I had swapped them because I could not see the factory sight as well as I could see the fiber optic sight I stuck on the SRH.

With the correct height site reinstalled I sent 12 of the 2400 loads down range:

Again, I managed to lump three off to the side but that sure looks like shooter error.

So, the drastic vertical dispersion of the first outing was completely my fault. I wasn't shooting the gun well and swapped sights to see if it would help. Obviously, it didn't.
Both of us are spoiled from shooting high mileage guns with improved triggers and actions. The bone stock low mileage Redhawk has a single action trigger that neither of us really care for. The gun really does have some issues to address but it appears to run better than I gave it credit for the first time around.

I guess I'll go sit in the corner with the dunce cap on. I still plan on calling Ruger about the reduced bore and oversize hammer pin hole that allows the assembly to slop around. If they don't offer to inspect/repair the gun I'll start working the action for a more acceptable trigger feel.

 

[redrick]

Keep us posted on the outcome with Ruger's CS. I was going to get a Redhawk and still might, but I have been hearing about that bore restriction a lot in the Redhawks.

 

[savit260]

that's a pretty big improvement!

 

[mmb713]

I've learned over the years to always assume it's me, not the gun, when first shooting a new gun poorly. You certainly aren't the first one to have this problem. At least you didn't send it back to Ruger first only to have it sent back with a target and a note saying "no problem found."

 

[RC20]

I think you will find that 2400 will give you the best groups.

There is something about that powder that just works well with the large hand gun cartridges.

 

[SteelChickenShooter]

test raises question

To what extent is muzzle jump a factor or not a factor if the handgun is rested as shown in the pics? Would there be muzzle flip affecting accuracy? If the revolver was held by two hands, and the wrists rested on sandbags, would there be any difference in impact? If the revolver was rested on a hard object, would the jump of the firearm from recoil skew results? But if it is rested as shown, the results would be pretty valid?
Just curious about soft rests, hard rests, sandbags, etc and if they skew test results?

 

[Sevens]

That's an absolutely gorgeous gun rest you've crafted, and looks phenomenal for a Contender. Which makes me wonder if you've begun to wreck that forward pad by shooting a revolver on it?

I've seen a lot of decent gun rests...maimed and left for dead because of the flash gap damage. I'd hate to see that rest get chewed up and spit out.

 

[feets]

Thanks for the input guys.

The gun still has a couple things that Ruger should attend to. The barrel really is squished a bit too much in the frame and the hammer pin hole is oval shaped, allowing the hammer and pin to wobble about.

SCS, when resting a gun you always want hard to soft. A hard stock goes on a soft rest. Two hard objects bounce. To soft objects squish too much. Repetition goes out the window. As it sat the results are very repeatable assuming the nut behind the trigger does his job.

Sevens, thanks for to compliment on the rest. I've got a lot of work into both of them, despite Kirk doing the assembly on his red rest.

We had the revolver back far enough that the flash did no harm. It's a little far forward in the pic so it would hold itself up there. Yeah, the face of the bag on mine is a wee bit darker after 40+ rounds but the gun was held back far enough to prevent any real damage.
I've been playing with big boomers for years and know the kind of destruction that blast is capable of producing.