In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options

Ruger redhawk barrel seperation.

3404speed3404speed Member Posts: 42 ✭✭
edited October 2014 in Ask the Experts
Hey everyone i have my grandpa's ruger redhawk that was given to him by my grandma on their anniversary. I thought it was pretty much able to withstand any round and never fail. But a month or so ago i read online that very few cases have been reported about when shot that the barrels sepperated from the frame. From what i heard the main blame was on the threadlock or sealant they used on the threads for assembly. Others stated that the barrels werent threaded far enough into the frame and they corrected the issue by introducing the ruger super redhawk. Any body ever hear or know someone this happened too or have seen it. Im afraid to shoot my grandpa's redhawk now because it means a lot to me and i dont want anything to happen to it.

Comments

  • Options
    tsr1965tsr1965 Member Posts: 8,682 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    3404speed,

    It would be interesting to know where you got that information from. I have never heard of a failure with a Redhawk. They are stronger than the N-Frame S&W's. The only foreseen failure that might happen, is a squib load getting stuck in the barrel, and then pulling the trigger on another round.

    But again, everything has its limitations, and a 357, 41, or 44 magnum, or 45 Colt, cannot be loaded to 454 Casull operating pressures successfully.

    Best
  • Options
    MG1890MG1890 Member Posts: 4,649
    edited November -1
    Every make and model of firearm has had a failure of some nature.

    I would not hesitate to shoot it; I have a Redhawk, they are extremely stout.

    Did anybody offer up pictures or evidence of failure thru design or manufacturing error?

    Really, sounds like a S&W fan bashing Rugers to me.
  • Options
    mrbrucemrbruce Member Posts: 3,374
    edited November -1
    Sold a lot of them years ago, and never seen or heard of that problem...
  • Options
    mrbrucemrbruce Member Posts: 3,374
    edited November -1
    Sold a lot of them years ago, and never seen or heard of that problem...
  • Options
    charliemeyer007charliemeyer007 Member Posts: 6,579 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I never heard of this problem. I have a buddy that has 5 or 6 of them. Ammo is a nearly full 5 gallon bucket to feed the kids. One shoots really good the rest are OK.

    They are really stout boat anchors (29 fan here).
  • Options
    beantownshootahbeantownshootah Member Posts: 12,776 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    This was a real issue.

    What happened was that in the mid 1980s Ruger started hearing of individual incidents where .44 Magnum Ruger Redhawks revolvers failed where the barrel met the frame. The gun was in production for MANY years prior to that with no reported issues. . .its been in continuous production for years since. . .with no issues.

    Eventually they ascribed the problem to a type of new lubricant they were using around the time of manufacture of the defective guns, changed it and never heard about this particular issue again.

    Before that happened, they introduced a newer variant of the gun, the "Super Redhawk". That gun does have a bigger frame, with quite a bit more "meat" where the barrel and frame interface, but also a better trigger system, and a modular grip system. IE, this wasn't "just" introduced to fix the frame/barrel issue, though it did that as well.

    Bottom line, if your gun wasn't made in the mid 1980s, chance of a problem here is close to zero. Even if it WAS, chance of a problem is still pretty small, and I'd say even if you DID have such a problem, Ruger would almost certainly fix the gun for you at no charge.

    If you want to know your guns year of manufacture, you can probably pull that info right off of Ruger's website from its serial number (but if not, I'm sure they'd be happy to get it for you with a phone call).

    So I say just shoot it and don't worry about it.

    Edit:
    quote: i would hate for it to happen to my redhawk and then ruger say we cant fix it but we can replace it with a super redhawk :(
    If your gun is really from the early 1980s (or earlier) then it pre-dates Rugers issues with these, and you don't need to worry about it.

    Just the fact that you've been using it for 30+ years without issue "probably" means that the gun is OK. Assuming the thing hasn't sat in a drawer since the Carter administration, if there were something wrong with the gun, it probably would have turned up by now!

    Also, again, Ruger is still making "regular" Redhawks, and it sells plenty of them. There is no reason why they wouldn't have the parts or expertise to fix yours, if it came down to it (and it probably never will).

    Even assuming the absolute worst case scenario that your gun had a non-repairable frame crack, Ruger could still replace the entire gun or (maybe) just the frame, possibly even re-engraving the original serial number back onto it.

    If you don't want to shoot it because you don't want to shoot it, so be it, but I wouldn't not shoot it just because there is about a 1 in 50,000 chance that it might be defective. That's just silly. As mentioned above, these guns are built like tanks. I think you can probably shoot it all you like, and then leave it again for YOUR grandson!
  • Options
    3404speed3404speed Member Posts: 42 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Yeah thats what ive read ^ i think mine is a late 70's early 80's i mean ive shot it some and my grandpa and my dad have shot it quite a bit with no issue but i dont wAnt it to happen with mine. I think there have been less than 20 reported cases but still i would hate for it to happen to my redhawk and then ruger say we cant fix it but we can replace it with a super redhawk :(
    Guess ill just use my super redhawk alaskan for mist of my 44.mag shootin
  • Options
    dcs shootersdcs shooters Member Posts: 10,969
    edited November -1
    I bought a new Redhawk 44mag about '87 to hunt deer. Sent it to Magna-port before any rounds fired.It had about 2500rds through it when I sold it. Never had one problem with the max loads I loaded.
  • Options
    DEEREHARTDEEREHART Member Posts: 374 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I had a Redhawk in the mid 80s in 44 mag. It was one of the pistols that I learned to reload on. Checking my notes I would estimate 2300-2600 rounds, most of them at current max and many that I would not approach again. When I sold it to purchase an Anaconda is was still going strong. Maybe just a bit less than tight but certainly not loose or unsafe.
  • Options
    fordsixfordsix Member Posts: 8,722
    edited November -1
    have had mine since 86 put strong reloads thru it never an issue would not do it to any other 44mag,,if you are a worry wort just shoot 44 spl in it
Sign In or Register to comment.