Pros and cons of this conversion?

[S.B.]

http://www.rugerforum.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=105441&highlight=redhawk+454
I already know about the barrel errosion problems with hot loads. Looks like a very packable big bore and eye appealing.
Steve

[painted horse]

I don't see any pro's or con's to it. I guess it would depend on whether a person wanted or figured they needed a 454. Seems like a pretty straight forward "conversion" to make.  Personally, I'm not gonna pick a fight with anything that a 45 colt won't handle. That gentleman lives in Alaska so maybe he has a need.

[Tom C.]

As an engineer, I would like to see some testing done on the .454 configuration before I signed off on it. I would tend to suspect that the frame may stretch or possibly eventually fracture when used with a .454 cylinder.

My 5 ½” .45 Colt Redhawk weighs 52 oz. My 5” .500 S&W JRS weighs 57 oz. If I thought that I needed a hotter .45 than I could get by safely uploading my .45 Colt Redhawk, I would be carrying my .500.

[S.B.]

Tom C., several have already done this conversion so I would guess the frame issue isn't one? Evidently several custom pistol smiths think the frame IS strong enough. Clements, 'Reeder, and of course Bowen all build guns around the Redhawk in larger than factory calibers, hell Reeder builds some .510s on this frame? Type in Reeder Mastadons on any search engine?
Steve

[Tom C.]

I am aware that some feel the Redhawk frame is suitable for a .454 Carpenter steel cylinder. It may be, but I would like to see some more data, including endurance data.

I just don’t like the idea of hotrodding any caliber. I tend to feel if you need to firewall a caliber like .454, then you probably need a bigger gun. I don’t have a .454, but I do have 3 .500s. While I could safely load them hotter than any mortal man could ever require, I am content to load them with more modest loads, loads that exceed the power of the .44 mag and .454 and still have less recoil and blast, but that is just me. You are free to do what you prefer.

[S.B.]

Tom C., don't know where you got the idea this was my idea? I just ask for opinions of this conversions. I've emailed Bown to ask him also, I noticed that these conversions are six shots where Bowens conversion of same gun are only five shots. None of the websites that have mentioned this conversion advise anything near max loads in a Redhawk(too light for caliber?), don't know why or where you got that idea, also? I own a JRC 500 and it weighs close to what my Redhawk weighs but, no cigar.
Steve

[S.B.]

I got a reply from Hamiton Bowen today. It is as follows:

Dear Sir:

Thanks for your inquiry.

While I am not a fan of the Ruger factory 6-shot .454 cylinders (they are a
bit limber and may have sticky extraction with some factory loads), they are
perfectly safe with proper ammo. The factory uses some sort of fancy 465
stainless steel.

Our .454 Redhawks are 5-shot because we think it is a tougher cylinder and I
cannot inventory two different kinds of cylinder blanks. Our standard Alpine
conversions in .44 Magnum and .45 Colt use the factory cylinders; this
conversion is not available in Alpine, round-butt form. . We can also
provide 5-shot Redhawks in .45 Colt, .454, .500 Linebaugh, etc. but we offer
these only on square-butt guns such as our 'Kodiak' model which is
essentially  the same thing as an Apline but with the more controllable and
comfortable stock grip frame.

Hope this will help; thanks for your interest.

Sincerely yours,

Hamilton S. Bowen
Bowen Classic Arms Corp.

[pastorp]

SB,

All I can add to this discussion is that if you shoot guns with this level of recoil you will eventually have problems with your hand & or wrist. I know I did..... .

Regards,

[S.B.]

pastorp, I understand that, just as John Taffin must. This wasn't started to begin a debate over recoil, sorry you took it that way. I, like many others here, like big powerful handguns. This one looked interesting to me and I was inquiring if anyone else thought so?
Steve