Ruger Redhawk Common Problems
- Thread starter rc
- Start date
Two things Bowen does to remedy this are a longer firing pin (the protrusion has been known to be a little short) and removing a tiny bit of material off the hammer face for maximum contact and energy transfer to the bar.
The light strike problem isn't new.
I had Bowen do that to both of my Redhawks, they both have to work every time & I will not play games with looking for softer primers or tolerate a defensive gun that can only work reliably with one or two brands of ammunition.
Denis
The light strike problem isn't new.
I had Bowen do that to both of my Redhawks, they both have to work every time & I will not play games with looking for softer primers or tolerate a defensive gun that can only work reliably with one or two brands of ammunition.
Denis
I'm glad that I've had enough of you that share my experience to confirm this is not my imagination, this is not my reloads, this is a design flaw in the gun. I have winchester primers that should last a long time and I'm not going to stock up on federal because they are "softer" I want this gun dead nutz reliable no matter how I shoot it fast double action or slooooowww single action. I've had the most problems with double action light strikes. I rarely get light strikes with the gun in single action mode. Not sure why. Maybe one of you expert old timers can help me understand this. I haven't had a chance to mess with the gun yet but I'm not bothering to call Ruger and get the run around when I'm pretty sure I've got the solution from what I've read online and plenty of sandpaper. It's not like I'm going to remove a lot of mettle from the hammer. A few thousandths isn't generally much but it may make enough difference in energy transfer to get the results I'm looking for. I just need to make sure the transfer safety is not compromised in any way when I adjust this. I think my tolerances are just a we bit on the large side so there is a bit too much material on the hammer step. My buddy who bought his gun at the same time and who could just have easily ended up with my gun hasn't told me of any misfire problems. When we've shot identical loads through the chronograph, my gun tends to shoot just a wee bit faster telling me that my guns cylinder gap is a wee bit tighter than his. I don't think I've had the gun long enough to develop and end shake problem. Each gun even if they came one after the other from the assembly line is different. Our guns serial numbers are more than 1 number off, but probably within 1000 of each other. They came from the same distributor in the same order so I have a sample size of more than 1 to compare. rc
I've owned a 5.5" blued Redhawk 44mag for 5 years now. Mine tended to experience light strikes after a hammer spring had a few hundred cycles through it. Replacing the spring solved the problem for a few hundred more cycles, then it would come back (bought a bunch when they were on sale). I had a friend, who owns a computer controlled mill, square up and remove a couple 10thous off the hammer "step" (the part that strikes the frame above the pin). The idea is that with a bit less material there, the hammer would travel a bit further before bottoming out against the frame, imparting more force against the FP. We didn't remove so much that the hammer block safety didn't do it's job though.
Unfortunately, I haven't fired it quite enough to determine if this will be the solution or if we'll need to remove more. The write-up I found on the subject indicated we should remove twice what we did, but I want to take it more slowly.
Not a few thous, but a few 10thous (.001 vs .0001). BTW, doing this with sandpaper will be very slow and tedious.
Chris
Unfortunately, I haven't fired it quite enough to determine if this will be the solution or if we'll need to remove more. The write-up I found on the subject indicated we should remove twice what we did, but I want to take it more slowly.
Not a few thous, but a few 10thous (.001 vs .0001). BTW, doing this with sandpaper will be very slow and tedious.
Chris
rc ~ you haven't said if you chkd for end-shake? Simple to chk w/feeler gauage. Any that you can eliminate by shimming effectively 'lengthens' the FP. All of mine now have none and so far so good. Yes, my experience was w/SRHs but all the big ruger DA revolvers are the same in that respect/same design.
ES isn't necessarily the issue. I have right about .002" ES in mine, but my BC gap is only .006 (Ruger's spec is .008 or less IIRC) and headspace is at minimum spec. If I put a .002" shim in mine, I no longer have enough headspace for the gun to be loaded and operated without drag.
I've been told Rugers need a small amount of ES, unlike S&W revolvers.
Chris
I've been told Rugers need a small amount of ES, unlike S&W revolvers.
Chris
The Repatriated Ruger GP-100
Copyright Ó 2003, by Steve Sargent
photos and digital editing by Peggi Sargent.
It might be worth pointing out that my Redhawk's FP protrusion was adequate. The Redhawk FP static protrusion is a bit of a red herring though since the FP is a rebound model and full protrusion with the hammer down isn't the full protrusion when firing. A longer pin may help, but there seems to be some disagreement among smiths regarding this. It seems the root issue is transfer energy and not the length of the pin. A longer pin appears to be a band-aid to the energy transfer problem.
Chris
Chris
That said, I have refitted the hammer nose, transfer bar and even removed a little material from the frame above the firing pin to get several Ruger DA's up to the industry standard 0.050-0.055 firing pin protrusion spec.
Why Ruger is 'stingy' with FPP remains a mystery, sorta like why they insist on undersize chamber throats in the .45 Colt. Obstinance, I reckon.
Why Ruger is 'stingy' with FPP remains a mystery, sorta like why they insist on undersize chamber throats in the .45 Colt. Obstinance, I reckon.
When I was working in Miami back in the early 80s and the Redhawk was new, our store sent back no less than 4 of them with what I consider a very odd problem.
Four different customers who "couldn't live without one" brought them back to the store with the same complaint: While out firing, the cylinder would bind up and completely seize up the whole gun, yet, when the gun was brought back to the store, it would work fine. (I should add that all four were stainless guns.)
We sent all four guns back to Ruger who returned them with work orders stating that they had been "cleaned and lubricated."
I had a wild theory about the cause which was confirmed when the guns were returned to us; Ruger had lightly faced the front of the cylinders on each gun, but did NOT mention it on the work orders. This served to increase the cylinder gap very slightly, but not to the point of unserviceability.
My theory was that there was uneven expansion of metals exacerbated by the hot climate in south Florida, and probably tolerances that were at dead minimum, due to the Redhawk being brand new on the market. It's possible that a combination of the heat generated by firing .44 mags, coupled with the hot ambient temperatures and probably minimum tolerances caused the various parts of the gun to expand at different rates, causing the cylinder to bind up tight as a drum.
By the time the gun was brought back to the shop, I guess the metals had cooled sufficiently to allow the gun to function normally.
These were the only instances of problems that I was ever aware of with the Redhawk. Maybe my theory was off by a mile, but I can't think of any other reason why something like that would occur.
Chris- 'adequate' or within spec? I read your post to say that inertia somehow makess up for the Redhawk's under-spec firing pin protrusion? It ain't heavy enough. That's work with a 1911, P35 or anything which has a long heavy pin; but it is the lack of mass among revolver firing pins that results in their FPP spec, in the first place.
Sarge, it's within spec according to the numbers I've seen. It was over a year ago that I measured it, so I don't recall the numbers.
As for the inertia comment, if you measure the FP protrusion with hammer down, you get one number, but if you push the FP forward with a punch, it'll actually go a bit further than if pushed by the hammer. What I've read is that there is a bit of movement beyond the static protrusion generated by the hammer.
There's no doubt a longer FP works, but it's an extreme solution since removing the old pin requires removing a fixing pin that is ground flush with the frame, replacing the parts, machining the fixing pin smooth, then refinishing the gun.
Chris
As for the inertia comment, if you measure the FP protrusion with hammer down, you get one number, but if you push the FP forward with a punch, it'll actually go a bit further than if pushed by the hammer. What I've read is that there is a bit of movement beyond the static protrusion generated by the hammer.
There's no doubt a longer FP works, but it's an extreme solution since removing the old pin requires removing a fixing pin that is ground flush with the frame, replacing the parts, machining the fixing pin smooth, then refinishing the gun.
Chris
There is a recess in the hammer over the firing pin to prevent contact to the firing pin when the gun is not cocked. When I shaved a little off my hammer, I drilled the same amount out of this recess (probably not necessary, but for piece of mind). I am no gun smith, but I don't where a bike helmet either. 
Things are different now and Ruger seems to be more responsive to any defects. Save yourself the hassle and give them a call. If they give you any hassle take it to a good gunsmith. They should be able to fix it for very little money.
Things are different now and Ruger seems to be more responsive to any defects. Save yourself the hassle and give them a call. If they give you any hassle take it to a good gunsmith. They should be able to fix it for very little money.
Single Six
New member
With both of my Redhawks, my SP-101, and my GP-100, not one misfire, or any other problems...ever.
I want everybody to know my Redhawk is my favorite gun. I forgot all about this till I saw this thread.
My Redhawk has not misfired in 15 years.
rc you still have one of the finest handguns ever made, and when this minor bumb is resolved, you will fall in love with that gun.
My Redhawk has not misfired in 15 years.
rc you still have one of the finest handguns ever made, and when this minor bumb is resolved, you will fall in love with that gun.
I've also had the factory FPs replaced with Bowen's FPs (by Bowen, and my local guy) on a .44 Special Flattop, a .44 Mag Flattop, and a .45 Colt Convertible Blackhawk.
Had C&S do the same thing on a new Smith N-Frame, the first thing I'd do on those to compensate for the dimensional changes they made with the progression of MIMs & locks.
Those Rugers HAVE to work, they're not range toys or hunting guns.
It may be a bandaid approach, but I see no harm in it, I was willing to spend the money to hedge my bets on all of them, it wasn't a big deal as far as the work itself goes, and I couldn't care less if the retaining pin ends are domed now instead of ground flush and contoured to the frame.
Whether you think it's worth the money or not is up to you.
The intermittent light strikes in Redhawks have been known for several years. It doesn't occur with every gun or every brand of ammunition, but it does occur.
Bowen considers the FPs too short, so does my longtime local guy, both are men whose opinions I listen to.
I take the guns mentioned above very seriously, and each one has had at least some minor modification to improve on how the factory sent 'em out.
Historically, if you return a problem gun to Ruger, I think you're just as likely to get a "It's within specs" response as you are to get any corrections made.
Hopefully I'm wrong.
This is not knocking Ruger, both of my Redhawks were deliberately chosen as primary bear defense guns in appropriate territory, and the decision was not made lightly.
Just a matter of making as absolutely certain they'll be there for me if needed as I can.
Denis
Had C&S do the same thing on a new Smith N-Frame, the first thing I'd do on those to compensate for the dimensional changes they made with the progression of MIMs & locks.
Those Rugers HAVE to work, they're not range toys or hunting guns.
It may be a bandaid approach, but I see no harm in it, I was willing to spend the money to hedge my bets on all of them, it wasn't a big deal as far as the work itself goes, and I couldn't care less if the retaining pin ends are domed now instead of ground flush and contoured to the frame.
Whether you think it's worth the money or not is up to you.
The intermittent light strikes in Redhawks have been known for several years. It doesn't occur with every gun or every brand of ammunition, but it does occur.
Bowen considers the FPs too short, so does my longtime local guy, both are men whose opinions I listen to.
I take the guns mentioned above very seriously, and each one has had at least some minor modification to improve on how the factory sent 'em out.
Historically, if you return a problem gun to Ruger, I think you're just as likely to get a "It's within specs" response as you are to get any corrections made.
Hopefully I'm wrong.
This is not knocking Ruger, both of my Redhawks were deliberately chosen as primary bear defense guns in appropriate territory, and the decision was not made lightly.
Just a matter of making as absolutely certain they'll be there for me if needed as I can.
Denis
FWIW, Bowen website shows extra length FPs for SA only ~ would those work in the DA guns?
When I called about what I felt to be excessive ES (still do) the tech didn't ask what mine was ~ quickly stated (as if he knew I was coming ahead of time) 0.004" which was what mine were so it ended the discussion right there. Fixed it on my own.
When I called about what I felt to be excessive ES (still do) the tech didn't ask what mine was ~ quickly stated (as if he knew I was coming ahead of time) 0.004" which was what mine were so it ended the discussion right there. Fixed it on my own.