Author Topic: Ruger Redhawks warning...... (Read 5860 times)

1911crazy · « **on:** February 14, 2011, 02:00:37 PM »

http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2010/08/robert-farago/ruger-redhawk-barrel-failure/

This is not good........ruger i think we have a problem.

Hit or Miss · « **Reply #1 on:** February 14, 2011, 02:56:22 PM »

All I can say is WOW!!!!! Praise God that no one was hurt!

Redhawk1 · « **Reply #2 on:** February 14, 2011, 05:30:29 PM »

Not wise to put out a warning before you actually know what happened. I have been shooting Ruger's Redhawk's for almost long as they have been out, Bought my first one in the early 1980's. Never had a problem with any of the 7 I have owned.

Bigeasy · « **Reply #3 on:** February 14, 2011, 05:42:59 PM »

[This is not good........ruger i think we have a problem.
[/quote]

Yea, we all know about the quick detach Ruger barrel issue..

The fact is the Redhawk (I have owned two since they came out) is one of the strongest revolvers ever made. Any idiot can blow up a revolver with a major over-load, or a plugged barrel. Unless this was a brand new gun being fired for the very first time with factory loads, after having first inspected the bore for an obstruction, it was operator error.

Larry

1911crazy · « **Reply #4 on:** February 15, 2011, 05:45:59 AM »

The rumor thats going around is the lube they used on the threads before assembly. The story is they lubed the threads on friday and assembled them on monday so its said. I'm guessing they should of assembled them at the sametime the lube was put on them. I think they followed the wrong process. So far i think the number of guns is around 30 but i'll check it again. I just hope that no one gets hurt or even worse. I love my redhawks and thought they were the tops in 44mags. I just hope this is just one little bump that we can get over with just a few having problems.

1911crazy · « **Reply #5 on:** February 15, 2011, 05:50:19 AM »

Quote from: Redhawk1 on February 14, 2011, 05:30:29 PM

Not wise to put out a warning before you actually know what happened. I have been shooting Ruger's Redhawk's for almost long as they have been out, Bought my first one in the early 1980's. Never had a problem with any of the 7 I have owned.

Whats wrong with putting out a warning with a video to back it up? I'm saying is to use caution to besafe. Gun safety never sleeps or takes a vacation we need to be well imformed about all guns and that they may have a problem that could happen to anyone of us. I believe there are around 30 of these that have seperated there frames from the barrels does that sound better? I love my redhawks too but if i'm in any danger i would like to know about it wouldn't you too?
czy

irold · « **Reply #6 on:** February 15, 2011, 06:19:01 AM »

I tend to agree with Bigeasy. I thinks there's a snake in the woodpile.........I do remember an issue about the lube on barrel threads however, I'm thinking that was an issue with the original SRH design ?? Don't remember exactly.....fortunately no one was seriously injured.

regards , irold

Wyo. Coyote Hunter · « **Reply #7 on:** February 15, 2011, 07:25:46 AM »

While you guys are on the redhawk issue, do you feel if a guy were buying a .44 to load heavy it would be best or a Bisley, or Superblackhawk?

Just wondering..I have only owned one RH for about a week...What are the advantages of it over the other two aside from double action?

?

buck460XVR · « **Reply #8 on:** February 15, 2011, 02:07:54 PM »

Quote from: Redhawk1 on February 14, 2011, 05:30:29 PM

Not wise to put out a warning before you actually know what happened. I have been shooting Ruger's Redhawk's for almost long as they have been out, Bought my first one in the early 1980's. Never had a problem with any of the 7 I have owned.

Barrel separation problems with Redhawks made in the mid-eighties is a well known fact. Even Ruger themselves admitted there was a problem. The Super Redhawk was designed to replace the Redhawk because Ruger could not figure out what the problem was. This is why the Super Redhawk is so much beefier in the frame where the barrel attaches. The Redhawk was to be discontinued once the Super Redhawk was introduced. Turned out it was the lube they were using during assembly allowed the barrel to be over-torqued. Since the problem was an assembly and not a design flaw, and the solution was simple, Ruger continued production on the Redhawk, even after the introduction of the Super Redhawk. You would think that Ruger must know the serial numbers of the affected revolvers and would have had a recall on them.

1911crazy · « **Reply #9 on:** February 15, 2011, 04:36:25 PM »

If they knew about it since then they should of recalled them before someone gets hurt or killed. Its not safe to shoot along side someone with a redhawk i would think. We just never know if some of the barrel parts will go to either side too. I guess i'll be getting an S&W 29 in 44mag soon too. I think my 3 redhawks will be leaving the armory now soon. I may get another ruger super blackhawk to have a 44mag to hammer on. I really love my redhawks too. Bill

BTW; Now that i hear this they probably over tightened the barrel during the assembly and started the crack in the thread area. Armed with this knowledge ruger is sitting on a powder keg if someone gets hurt sooner or later. There better off recalling them or buying them back to avoid a class action law suit right?
They should give us the serial numbers of these bad redhawks to possibly save someones life.
The snake in the wood pile sounds like its ruger itself. Ruger did tell one guy who had a flying barrel from his redhawk that they don't have a problem with the redhawks. I believe there are around 30 barrels now that have left the frames.

Redhawk1 · « **Reply #10 on:** February 15, 2011, 11:19:47 PM »

1911crazy, sounds like you maybe jumping the gun, But I am sure there are a lot of guys out there that will take your defective Redhawk's of your hands for a reduced price, seeing how they are so dangerous.. I will give you a $100 for all of them bad powder keg Redhawk's you have. Let me know where to send the money. That should make you feel better about not having to worry about anyone but one person getting hurt shooting them. I will even sign a waver not to come after you if one should loose it's barrel.

Lloyd Smale · « **Reply #11 on:** February 15, 2011, 11:47:54 PM »

buddy had one let loose on him. I think it was a problem only for the first year redhawks.

Redhawk1 · « **Reply #12 on:** February 15, 2011, 11:56:02 PM »

I am going to contact Ruger, I have done hours of research on this, nowhere did I find that there was 30 instances of this happening.

Like I said, I had a Redhawk I put well over 3000 HOT 44 Mag rounds down the tube, never a problem, my buddy now owns that gun, and has shot close to a thousand himself, not a problem. I have a newer Redhawk 44 Mag right now, and has been shooting the heck out of it with no problems what so ever as well. I also have a Redhawk that was customized to 475 Linebaugh, not a problem with it, and they are a lot more of a round that the 44 Mag. My 41 Mag Redhawk has never had a problem either.

Like I said, I will call Ruger today and see if they have a number on the Ruger's that have had problems with here lately. I would think if there we 30 cases, there would of been a massive recall already. My offer still stands on your 3 defective Redhawk's.

Foggy · « **Reply #13 on:** February 15, 2011, 11:59:35 PM »

I seen a Redhawk come in a 44mag box with a 41mag barrel I think the guy still has it

Redhawk1 · « **Reply #14 on:** February 16, 2011, 12:02:52 AM »

Lloyd here is one report I seen on a recent issue.

http://rugerforum.net/ruger-double-action/31448-redhawk-barrels-do-have-tendency-fly-off.html#post334857

Also here is the report from the early models.

Problems with the Redhawk

During the mid-1980s, Ruger began to have reports of failures in the Redhawk revolvers.[2] Some Redhawks were reported to be separating at the junction between barrel and frame. It was not known at the time why this was happening; the Redhawk had been on the market for years with no reported problems, but Ruger decided to address the issue by extending the frame 2.5 inches past the cylinder face, all the way to the end of the ejector rod, to provide a massive surface into which to thread the barrel.[2] The extended frame also provided enough length to allow scope bases to be mounted on the frame, rather than on the barrel as was done on the scoped versions of the Redhawk.[2] It was determined that the barrel separations on the Redhawks were due to a change in the lubricant used when attaching the barrels to the frames, but by that time the new Super Redhawk design was already well underway and the extended frame was kept.[2]

Despite plans to drop the Redhawk revolver with the introduction of the Super Redhawk, the Redhawk (with the barrel thread lubricant issue corrected) remains in production today.[2] Many shooters prefer the more classic lines of the Redhawk, especially those who do not plan to use a scope.[2]

Redhawk1 · « **Reply #15 on:** February 16, 2011, 12:05:12 AM »

Quote from: Foggy on February 15, 2011, 11:59:35 PM

I seen a Redhawk come in a 44mag box with a 41mag barrel I think the guy still has it

I don't think that would be a problem with the gun, more of an employee problem putting the gun in the wrong marked box.

PeterCartwright · « **Reply #16 on:** February 16, 2011, 02:49:20 AM »

Redhawk 1, I'll be interested to see how Ruger responds. This is an old story. Folks with a background in metalurgy and machining processes will have more useful analysis than folks like me. I waited a long time before I found the (used) 5.5" stainless (.44) Redhawk I wanted. I've been shooting some pretty stout loads through the gun. I'm not afraid of it (and it's NOT for sale

). Historically, there have been other well-designed firearms which occasionally suffered from the stresses of over torquing (the 1917 Eddystone comes to mind).

PC

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #17 on:** February 16, 2011, 02:59:25 AM »

Quote from: Redhawk1 on February 16, 2011, 12:05:12 AM

Quote from: Foggy on February 15, 2011, 11:59:35 PM
I seen a Redhawk come in a 44mag box with a 41mag barrel I think the guy still has it

I don't think that would be a problem with the gun, more of an employee problem putting the gun in the wrong marked box.

I saw a Browning A bolt returned to the store it had a 270 bbl with a 3006 chamber and marked 3006. The guy fired it twice he said but it didn't sound right

1911crazy · « **Reply #18 on:** February 16, 2011, 04:45:33 AM »

Quote from: PeterCartwright on February 16, 2011, 02:49:20 AM

Redhawk 1, I'll be interested to see how Ruger responds. This is an old story. Folks with a background in metalurgy and machining processes will have more useful analysis than folks like me. I waited a long time before I found the (used) 5.5" stainless (.44) Redhawk I wanted. I've been shooting some pretty stout loads through the gun. I'm not afraid of it (and it's NOT for sale ). Historically, there have been other well-designed firearms which occasionally suffered from the stresses of over torquing (the 1917 Eddystone comes to mind).

PC

Ruger has responded that they don't have a problem already but these video's tell the truth that there maybe a problem. Is it being covered up for all these many years, maybe. I'm on the fence now with selling them or keeping them. Redhawk1 posted with so many stout / hotter rounds thru his its sounds good.

With machining i wonder if the barrel is undercut were the threads stop and it goes to the face of the barrel were it meets the frame. If its a square undercut this could be even more of a problem. But having an under cut there would be a no-no anyway. Comming from a machine builders back ground and working as a lead tech in the engineering field we would use shear bolts on the couplings on the larger dynomometers. I'm talking about very large electric motors with the hp output/torque of 30 or 40 chevy 427 engines. I had to teach them about the shear bolts and there designs. With the groove that they machined in the mid way part of the bolt so it would shear they had a radious at the bottom of the groove. This wouldn't shear. You need a square edge, sharp corner at the bottom of the groove so the shear bolts would ork properly if the dyne was run 24/7 and no one there to push the stop switch we relied on the shear bolts to shear the couplings apart if something went wrong in the drive line at night. We did have camera's so the night guard could watch them. But we needed a mechanical built in safety factor too besides the electrical system. My point is if they put an under cut with a square edge at the end of the threads were the barrel is broken in the pic this could be the root cause why the barrels are cracking in this area. I don't know for sure but its one more thought/part for the puzzle. I find it hard to believe the barrelswould crack because the chamber is in the cylinder were it sees the most pressure so there isn't much pressure in this barrel area except for the cone were the bullet enters the barrel. Now if there's a slight under cut there the barrel is thinner in this area too. The redhawk could be ok its just a nitch in the design thats the problem and there not seeing it. I've seen engineers overlook many things in the past. I'm just thinking out loud. CZY

tguil · « **Reply #19 on:** February 16, 2011, 05:34:44 AM »

For what it's worth this Redhawk http://rugerforum.net/ruger-double-action/31448-redhawk-barrels-do-have-tendency-fly-off.html#post334857 is a very recent production model. I'm pretty sure that Ruger will issue a recall if/when they determine what the problem is. They can't afford not to. Good heavens..they recalled a bunch of SR9's just on the chance that something might go wrong.

Tom

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #20 on:** February 16, 2011, 06:32:24 AM »

Never had a problem with mine and I have shot some what must be proof loads in it. I had a bullet stick in a Super Blackhawk once it gives you an idea of the pressure build up as it is released thru the cyl bbl gap. I have no clue about why some RH lose the bbl but if threads are not damaged then it should be easy to check them. If there is damage it should be easy to see what failed . That said if both bbl and frame were at the lose end of spec. I have to wonder if the gun failed hot or cold. Could the expansion rate of the metal in the bbl be slower than in the frame ? If so the bbl frame joint may be more lose wnen heated from fireing or when cold ?

DANNY-L · « **Reply #21 on:** February 16, 2011, 09:41:59 AM »

I dont own a RH but you got to give the designer credit for if something like this was to happen, it kept the danger away from the shooter.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #22 on:** February 16, 2011, 09:51:05 AM »

I think back to shooting IMHSA and think about that joint being by my knee , OUCH !

1911crazy · « **Reply #23 on:** February 16, 2011, 02:47:53 PM »

I sent ruger an email and i asked a few questions about my 3 redhawks and i'm conserned about trusting them now. They told me i had nothing to worry about but they said to mail them to them and the'll check them out. And they gave me the address and how to do it. Bill

longwinters · « **Reply #24 on:** February 16, 2011, 04:30:57 PM »

Gee, I thought it was an advertisement for the new Redhawk Snubby.

Long

1911crazy · « **Reply #25 on:** February 17, 2011, 04:43:32 AM »

Quote from: longwinters on February 16, 2011, 04:30:57 PM

Gee, I thought it was an advertisement for the new Redhawk Snubby.

Long

That could be an idea comming from a higher lever about making a non barreled snubbie called the "belly buster". How about using shotgun rounds in 00 buck with no barrel.

powderman · « **Reply #26 on:** February 17, 2011, 08:06:30 AM »

Looked like a seperation, not an obstruction. POWDERMAN.

Blackhawker · « **Reply #27 on:** February 17, 2011, 10:22:13 AM »

I hate to throw a monkey wrench into the topic but can anyone really identify the type of revolver being used in that crappy film? If the guy didn't shoot without pulling the hammer back, I'd be hard pressed to tell if it's a DA or SA revolver, much less the make and model. Secondarily, how do we know that's not a film from 10 years ago?

I agree that safety is a MUST with guns but I also tend to think we should get ALL the facts before we begin to speculate.
I say, unless you filmed that video or were there when it happened, that revolver could be a Taurus or some other.
For all we know, this could be someone looking to make some money by filing a law suit with Ruger.

1911crazy · « **Reply #28 on:** February 18, 2011, 08:07:19 AM »

Its a ruger, Its a redhawk and the barrel flew off. Take your monkey wrench back and go to; http://rugerforum.net/ruger-double-action/31448-redhawk-barrels-do-have-tendency-fly-off.html#post334857

The pic is one of the actual redhawks that had the barrel fly off. What more proof do you want. This has been happening ever since the 80's when the first redhawks were offered. If the barrels are cracking in the threaded area then its a case of improper assembly and over tightening i would say. It seems to be happening with brand new guns. There's another post somewhere were its about 30 redhawks so far where the barrels have left the frames. It looks like a redhawk to me? I have three of these and no law suit intended here i really like my redhawks but just worry about the safety. Bill

buck460XVR · « **Reply #29 on:** February 18, 2011, 08:42:20 AM »

Again.....it has been known for 25 years that there has been cases of barrel separation in Redhawks that was not caused by barrel obstruction or "hot loads". The information I posted in my previous post was info gleaned from hanging out in gun shops, talkin' handguns, shootin' handguns and askin' folks that know, questions before buyin'. My LGS warned folks in the late eighties and early nineties about the problems Ruger was having with their Redhawks. The info Redhawk1 cut and pasted does a good job of confirming what they told me and others during that time. I'm not bashing Ruger...they make fine firearms and I own several.(no Redhawks tho....). Every manufacturer has a few lemons that get by and that is why good customer service is so valuable. My X-Frame was recalled because of potential barrel problems and was sent back and tested. Not a problem other than the inconvenience of not having it for a few weeks. This is why I question why Ruger has not at least put out an alert and a option to owners to have their barrels tested somehow to verify their gun is safe. Maybe, like the internal locks on Smiths, the percentage of failures is so low that they feel recalling and testing is unnecessary. Maybe since the problem was solved many years ago, they feel that any defective gun has been "owner tested" enough to be deemed safe. Dunno...............