Has Anyone Seen a Stress Crack Like This Before?

N

November

New member
I'd like to hear from anyone with experience with this type of problem or has seen it before. This is a close-up of a little crack in the breechface of my stainless 357/9mm Blackhawk next to the firing pin hole bushing. I don't know if it's new or has always been there. I think it's new as I've never noticed it before. My question is: Is this pistol still safe to shoot? Has anyone seen this kind of thing before? I don't think there's any way that the crack could grow much longer seeing as how thick that part of the gun is. This is one of the roughest breech faces I've seen, so for all I know it could just be a casting flaw or the casting is weak in that area. It looks like a stress crack in the frame as it terminates at the firing pin bushing and doesn't effect the bushing itself. Normally, I'd just send it back to Ruger, but this gun is somewhat special. It is a 4-5/8" .357 stainless Blackhawk with a 9mm stainless cylinder fitted at the factory. I think they may have goofed when they agreed to fit my gun with a stainless 9mm cylinder as they won't do that to a gun unless it was a catalog item at some point. Ruger has never cataloged such a gun, and I'm afraid that if I send it in and the gun needs to be replaced that they won't re-fit a 9mm cylinder. Again, I'd really like to hear from anyone with experience with this type of problem or has seen it before. Thanks.

showimg.jpg
 
Did you buy that NIB? My opinion is that is UNSAFE to shoot. My guess is that it has been hot rodded with ammunition that was so HOT, the primers melted and backflowed and the recoil shield was eroded/burnt with hot gases. I believe a new frame is required. Ruger will most likely rebuild the revolver. They would be within their rights to charge for fitting the second cylinder. I suspect they won't charge though.
 
Now that, friends, is some serious wear. I'd shoot it if the crack isn't all the way through the frame, but only lightly loaded (very). Meantime I'd get customer service on the phone and find out how much repair/ replacement would run. You could e-mail this pic to them for clarification. Did you do all that shooting yourself? What does the frame by the forcing cone/ topstrap area look like?
Josh
 
Wow :eek: , that is some serious pitting in the metal on that gun.

NIB or bought used?

In my opinion, a crack doesn't get smaller but larger as time goes by. Have you had a gunsmith check it out? If not, I would do so. Maybe it can be repaired, maybe you will have to send it back to Ruger anyway and see what they can do.

A stop at your local gunsmith is in order before you fire it again. That's just my opinion, I am not a 'smith and I don't play one on tv.

Wayne
 
This gun has less than 250 factory-loaded rounds thru it from new. That's not wear or erosion, it's just a REALLY rough casting (you can see the same roughness next to the pawl slot where there wouldn't be erosion). The worst part is that I have it tweaked and timed just the way I want it, so sending it back will be a bit of a bummer but it might be the way I have to go.
 
If you send it to Ruger and receive a new serial number and are living in California expect to have to go though the whole rigamarole of registration. $$
 
Sometimes things get through that shouldn't. It could have been an inspector that got distracted, it may have been a casting that was supposed to be pulled and wasn't - there's no telling, but it never should have gotten out - period! Send it back to Ruger immediately! They should replace your gun without question.
 
November:

If under 250 rounds, I have to ask, what magnification on the mircoscope did you use?

I just looked at my GP and my Vasquero (sue me for the misspelled words) and I am not seeing any of the such that you've shown. I have around 2,000 rounds though the GP and only about 500 rounds though the .45LC and I am not seeing that type of damage.

I will admit, I only used a 10x microscope on mine (and yes, I have one, came with the junior chemical set that I got when I was around 10... I save everything).

If that is NIB and only 250 rounds, Ruger owes you a new gun with new cylinder.

I don't know, after looking at my two, Ruger really messed up on yours when they worked on it because with the rounds that I have through mine, I just can't believe that the gun looks that bad and has the fracture. And if that was done by the 9mm round, not the 357 round, which the 9mm being the weaker of the two, then I would say that you need to get a new one and if they won't do so then you need to post that here so we all know not to buy a new Ruger.

Wayne
 
You say 250 factory rounds? I thought you said that. I cannot see how that can be. That is a used and abused frame to my eye. Surely NO manufacturer would let ANY product out in that bad a shape. I would be talking with whoever I bought that revolver from. Look at the loading gate and then at the frame/recoil shield. That just doesn't seem equally worn.
 
First of all, November, nice photography!

That does look like a stress induced fracture, probably caused by a casting void behind the face of the recoil plate. How deep is that crack? The concern here is what's behind the crack. If it's shallow it's probably less hazardous than if there's a good sized "pocket". In the event of a ruptured primer, gasses could enter a deeper hole with enough pressure to fracture more of the frame.

The "pitting" is typical of cast metals and it looks to me like machining was incomplete. I'd send the photo to Ruger and see what they say. Most likely they'll replace the frame. In an ideal situation, they'd replace the frame with a new one, stamp your serial number on it and destroy the old frame.
 
I have no opinion on the stress crack, but I did recently buy a new SP-101 in .22 LR, manufactured in August 2004. I was unpleasantly surprised by the roughness, sharp edges, toolmarks and cosmetic defects compared to the Ruger revolvers that I bought new in the 80's and 90's. My sample size is clearly very small, but I thought this was interesting nonetheless. In contrast, my Taurus 651, bought new last month, came with much better fit and finish right out of the box than my new Ruger.
 
Investment castings

It takes quite a bit of labor to get the entire frame buffed smooth if in fact those "pit"looking marks are factory original. Could someone explain to me how rearward stress makes a horizontal crack. This may have been there all along and became noticeable after dirt/carbon got inside. I think I would have a smith check it anyway.
 
When I first purchased my SP101 (since sold to my a*****e brother, due to money issues), I found a worse looking fissure in the area of the frame close to the forcing cone, right where it gets thinner (sorry, I'm a semi-auto person and my knowledge of revolver anatomy terms is rather poor). Anyway, the store from which I purchased it sent it off to Ruger who agreed to replace it with a new gun. It took a while, but they did come through.

My suggestion is to do what you have to do to send it back to them (go through your dealer) and see if you can't get it replaced. It will take a while and it will suck, but eventually you will probably get a new gun and definitely ease your mind. I did this a couple of years ago and have no regrets. I doubt I would have ever been happy, had I not sent it. It was a pain and it did take a little while, but that was then and when it was over, I was so glad I did it (even though it is now owned by Devil-Sibling).

Good luck.
 
Send it back. I spoke with several CAS shooters and gunsmiths who agreed that Ruger sent out some weapons that should not have been. The consensus was that Ruger is NOT finishing their products as well to reduce labour costs. I thought they had machines doing everything.
 
If you bought that as a new gun then certainly send it back , that's a poor example for Ruger to have produced.
 
Yup, I choked on that one. :barf: Sorry. After looking at the pic some more, I agree it is a poor casting. The smooth area of the top strap gives it away. No marks there. Sorry again, folks!
Josh
 
Its rough casting and thats a void not a crack, the cylinder contains the pressure of the round firing not the recoil shield of the frame. You probably did not notice it before because it had some gunk in it and when you cleaned the gun you removed the gunk that was filling the void. I would call ruger and then send it back for replacement. I don't think its unsafe to shoot, but there could be a bigger void in there that you cannot see, or worse yet one in the front of the frame near the barrel that could cause the gun to fail.

Poor casting and poor QC.
 
I had bought a SP101 back in 1994. It's hammer rubbed against the frame and had deep gouges in it after it's first session at the range. I sent back to Ruger and they replaced the hammer and polished up the gun. However this gun was made on a Monday and it broke down three more times. Two for springs and once for the transfer bar firing factory loads. I sold it and bought a Taurus 85 which has not failed since 1998. I am not knocking Rugers as I have a Redhawk,Mini-14, and a MK 2 pistol which are excellent. However no one is perfect.
 
Dry fire?

Just as a thought, did you dry fire it alot? I once had a Dan Wesson that apparently had a frame that was maybe too soft or something. It developed a raised ridge around the firing pin hole. I dressed it down to prevent any rotational binding, but got rid of it soon afterwards. Shame, was a sweet shooter. Note that S&W uses a bushing around the firing pin hole, as I recall. Maybe it is made to prevent that, and also seems to be replaceable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top