Author Topic: The Superior Strength Of The Ruger Redhawk Is Readily Apparent (Read 1819 times)

jwp475 · « **on:** June 01, 2008, 08:39:45 PM »

The Redhawk's rugged strength advantage is easily seen in side by side comparison to the S&W M-29. Both revolvers are chambered in 44 mag.

S.B. · « **Reply #1 on:** June 04, 2008, 02:13:14 AM »

I agree but, just how much extra weight do you want to carry for the little strength, you get? Please hear me out, S&Ws are capable of shooting any SAMMI ammunition on the market today. The only real advantage of Redhawks compared to Model 29/629s is when the owner wants to increase the pressures in his reloads above SAMMI specs?
There is another discussion going on, on a different forum, about penetration with hard cast bullets and the velocity it takes for the advantages it gains. Maybe good reading, to go along with your discussion here?
Personally, I own and regularly shoot both guns in question here so, I have no problems with either. They're just different from each other?

Savage · « **Reply #2 on:** June 04, 2008, 03:49:57 AM »

I don't think anyone would take issue with your contention. It's pretty much a given that the Rugers are among the strongest revolvers out there in their respective chamberings. For a steady diet of full house loadings in 44 mag, I'd pick the Red Hawk over the Smith. The Smith has certain refinements that make it a slightly more civilized revolver than the Ruger. I have a 4" mdl 29 that will handle any sane load that I choose to put thru it. I don't hunt with the gun, so my loads are in the mid range for the majority. I suspect this is true of most shooters. This Smith is as old as the average subscriber to this forum and is still tight. I expect it to last thru my son's lifetime as well.
Savage

m-g Willy · « **Reply #3 on:** June 04, 2008, 05:23:42 AM »

I read somewhere years ago where they took a Super Blackhawk and a model 29 and loaded both with hotter and hotter loads till one blew the cylinder.
The Blackhawk blew first!!!
Surprised the testers, and me too!
The testers stated that if they did the test again they wouldn't be surprised if the 29 would blow first.
The same as testing two model 29s.
One might blow while the other may handle the load.
I don"t load my 44s hotter than 22gr. of 2400 with a 240gr. jhp.
Handles anything I hunt.
If I ever thought I needed more omph than that I would get a 454 instead trying to load the 44 hotter.

Willy

S.B. · « **Reply #4 on:** June 04, 2008, 05:33:12 AM »

Willy, I think if you miked a cylinder from a BH and a S&W they would be close to the same diameter? RHs are a different story.

Broom Rider · « **Reply #5 on:** June 04, 2008, 12:57:49 PM »

One area on the Ruger that I think gives more strength is where the cylnder stop notch is located. On a S&W it is dead center on the chamber, on a Ruger it's offset somewhat. That being said I own a lot more S&W's than I do Ruger's and don't fire heavier than normal loads. I stay within the specs of what the loading manuals call for so that doesn't really make any difference to me.

SharonAnne · « **Reply #6 on:** June 08, 2008, 01:17:12 AM »

all that the picture SHOWS is the Ruger cylinder is larger diameter. nothing can be learned of relative strengths

warrior1 · « **Reply #7 on:** June 08, 2008, 07:21:05 AM »

simple explanation, ruger is stronger but will that fact handicap a smith as long as you
hold your loads to the range a smith can tolerate?dan

Boxhead · « **Reply #8 on:** June 08, 2008, 07:54:29 AM »

If I want more thump than my S&W M29 can deliver I move up in diameter to one of my 45 Colts or my 475 or 500 L's.

SharonAnne · « **Reply #9 on:** June 08, 2008, 08:20:26 AM »

W1. the Ruger is larger diameter. For all you know from that picture, the cylinder could be aluminum.

Jim n Iowa · « **Reply #10 on:** June 08, 2008, 02:38:35 PM »

I own 3 Rugers, 1sbh,2rh's. The sbh was in 44 mag and 7.5". the barrel turned in less than 150 rds, 2/3 rd factory ammo, the rest med handloads. Ruger "repaired" the gun, kept the refinements and graciously paid the return freight in 6 weeks. Then I discovered the 5.5 rh's barrel had turned also. Ruger then offered to pay the freight both ways, and 4 weeks later it arrived with a statement that the barrel had been replaced. So far no problem but have not fired it alot. However the sbh I had cut down to 4.75" to use in the field as a carry gun in 44 sp. Less than 25 rds of 200 g win sthp factory loads in 44sp turned the barrel again. Heavy duty? no Heavy weight yes. A 4.75" FA is not realistic for a 44 sp in SA for that money to me.I will be trading to S&W for replacement 44's. It's a shame that Ruger will not address this problem, as it is becoming more than random experience's.
Jim

S.B. · « **Reply #11 on:** June 08, 2008, 04:29:22 PM »

Jim n Iowa, in more than 35 years of shooting, yours is the very first case of barrel turning that I've heard of? With any manufacturer. When you slug the barrels, what do they mike and what size bullets are you using?

Broom Rider · « **Reply #12 on:** June 09, 2008, 11:23:46 AM »

I think if any of my guns barrels start turning I'll have them pinned like the older S&W revolvers.

SharonAnne · « **Reply #13 on:** June 09, 2008, 01:52:37 PM »

perhaps the barrels turn because the Rugers are stronger?!?!? Just trying to sort things out.

Savage · « **Reply #14 on:** June 11, 2008, 02:27:55 AM »

Lately I have heard of several occurances of barrel turning with the Rugers. The only centerfire Ruger I currently own is a Black Hawk .45 convertable. I haven't shot it much, so haven't had any problems. Looks plenty strong tho-------

!
Savage

S.B. · « **Reply #15 on:** June 11, 2008, 02:45:04 AM »

Savage, I've been watching that thread also, any thoughts on the cause of the barrel turnings?
Steve

warrior1 · « **Reply #16 on:** June 11, 2008, 02:58:28 AM »

i'm no gunsmith, but it sounds as if ruger should have replaced the frame not the barrel,or they should have just replaced the gun. dan

Savage · « **Reply #17 on:** June 11, 2008, 02:13:07 PM »

SB,
Logically I guess one could assume a problem with the threading operation/s. I have been shooting Ruger revolvers since they first came on the market, and untill the last year or so never heard of one of their barrels turning. Maybe it's time for them to retool or replace worn equipment.
Savage

copdills · « **Reply #18 on:** June 12, 2008, 07:11:19 AM »

built with a lot of meat where its needed Ruger is a very well built gun , I just wish it had the trigger action of the smith & wesson

S.B. · « **Reply #19 on:** June 12, 2008, 07:49:46 AM »

My thoughts were, if he was using an over sized bullet in a small bore diameter with an opposite spin of twist the torque effect could possibly start things going wrong?
Thinking means trouble for me!
Steve

Savage · « **Reply #20 on:** June 12, 2008, 12:41:31 PM »

My thinking was:
A properly threaded and torqued barrel should remain in it's intended position indefinitely, or at least until intentionally moved. A barrel that could be rotated by bullet torque would be useless. Ruger needs to get their act together on this one!
Savage

Old Griz · « **Reply #21 on:** June 15, 2008, 01:47:33 PM »

Quote from: jwp475 on June 01, 2008, 08:39:45 PM

The Redhawk's rugged strength advantage is easily seen in side by side comparison to the S&W M-29. Both revolvers are chambered in 44 mag.

It's no big problem with the .44 mag, but if you want to use .44 mag level hunting loads in a .45 Colt you have to use something other than a S&W. The SAMMI spec loads which you have to use in a S&W are pretty wimpy compared to the +P Buffalo Boar and CorBon loads you can use in the Ruger.

S.B. · « **Reply #22 on:** June 15, 2008, 05:27:44 PM »

Doesn't Buffalo Bore and CorBin make S&W level loads, also?

Old Griz · « **Reply #23 on:** June 15, 2008, 08:00:28 PM »

CorBon said not to use their stuff with a S&W. Buffalo Bore makes one, I think, but it is not a +P hunting load on the level of a .44 mag.

six_gunz · « **Reply #24 on:** June 15, 2008, 10:18:55 PM »

Quote from: Savage on June 11, 2008, 02:13:07 PM

SB,
Logically I guess one could assume a problem with the threading operation/s. I have been shooting Ruger revolvers since they first came on the market, and untill the last year or so never heard of one of their barrels turning. Maybe it's time for them to retool or replace worn equipment.
Savage

That was what came to mind first as I read this.....sounds like the threads may have been turned undersize from specs.
Maybe it's the machinist who turned the threads and not the equipment being used... just a thought. I see that happen on a daily basis. If so then Quality Control needs to step it up at Ruger.

gypsyman · « **Reply #25 on:** June 16, 2008, 06:23:19 AM »

I'll stick with my Dan Wessons and not worry about it!!! gypsyman

SharonAnne · « **Reply #26 on:** June 16, 2008, 07:42:40 AM »

what I have not seen stated is: are the barrels loosening, that is twisting out of the frame, or, are the barrels tightening, screwing deeper into the frame? comments???

Savage · « **Reply #27 on:** June 17, 2008, 03:58:12 AM »

Quote from: SharonAnne on June 16, 2008, 07:42:40 AM

what I have not seen stated is: are the barrels loosening, that is twisting out of the frame, or, are the barrels tightening, screwing deeper into the frame? comments???

Interesting thought. As no one has mentioned cylinder gap reduction in these pistols, I would guess they are loosening.
Savage