Question about big bore revolvers???

[knight0334]

Yeah, I'm familiar with the residue ring.  However, I didn't know about FA's tight clearances.

I've only shot a few 38's in my Colt Python.  I usually just load some low powered .357mag cases if I feel the need for lessor stuff or if letting the woman's kid shoot.

[Golsovia]

targetshootr,

If your Blackhawk felt like lead then you'll think the BFR is lead with a small anchor attached to it. To appreciate the extra mass in these big revolvers you need to feel how well they absorb the recoil produced by moving massive projectiles. I normally shoot a 320 grain slug in both my Blackhawk (SS 4 5/8") and my Redhawk (SS 5.5"); shooting 420 grain slugs in my BFR at identical velocities feels about the same or maybe a bit less.

The BFR seems to be well made in many respects and it is easy to see many good aspects. I am not convinced based on my own sample that they are any better overall than are the Rugers. IOW, I don't see any pros which downright outweight the cons (and "outweighing" is certainly a con for the BFR.) I did not have the advantage of handling my revolver before buying it living where I do. I simply went with what I could find out from research and friends and including casual looking at them in gun counters. I would suggest looking them (it) over carefully before buying - they are a lot of money considering what you can get for more or less.


Here's another pic which shows, I'm sure, part of the reason the BFR feels different in recoil even with heavier bullets than the heavy loaded 45 Colt. Barrel mass is
significant!  



The BFR, just as the acronym suggests, is a "pun" gun and one of the obvious puns - or at least a phrase with multiple meanings, is that one cannot take them lightly.

[targetshootr]

Wow, that's a lotta gun. Thanks for those pics also, Gos. I'll be buying online since no one around here carries them as far as I know. My idea was that it may be possible to install the 5-shot internal parts on a Ruger someday (I like to fiddle) and if not, a shorter octagon barrel might look nice and may be lighter too. I am going to call Magnum Research today to see if they are indeed line-bored. The gun I'm looking at appears to be the same frame size as a Blackhawk and it's a little under $600.

[targetshootr]

Turns out BFR didn't make them in 45 colt only so the gun I'm looking at must be a 454. Which generation is another question. Talking to MR today it sounds like the earlier guns had issues and one of the fellows who makes them for BFR sounded as if they are not line-bored. The man who knows for sure (Jimmy T) will be back next week and I'll know more then.

[knight0334]

Is it just me, or do you guys also get that warm, tingly feeling when you see two revolvers laying together like that?   kinda like looking at two lesbians. :devil2:

[AZ223]

Until I read this thread, I had the impression that Ruger revolvers were built like tanks. The FA guns look great, but the $1,600 price tag doesn't. Maybe you just get what you pay for, or the Rugers just don't have the quality control.

[Golsovia]

I believe they (Rugers) are very well built and a bargain when it comes to what you are getting for the outlay. FA, on the other hand are not mass produced and can consequently be held to tighter tolerances which translates to even greater strength potential assuming the materials used are up to it which they are. I believe FA are also a very good buy considering what you are getting. The issue with their value is that many folks are not 'there' and consequently can't appreciate the value and maybe not even recognize it. Of course there is also the problem of whether one can afford them too and that can also separate the owners of them from the covetors of them.

The bigger issue I see here - and this is based on my very limited exposure to a very small sample (one) of the BFRs; I don't see where a person actually gets much extra product in terms of actual quality in buying the BFR instead of the Ruger. Paying for hand work, if that is what one gets with the BFR over the Ruger, does not amount to beans if that hand work is not high quality- and I don't see that it is. (Heck, I'll bet there's a lot of hand work in Chinese stuff and I don't hear too much bragging about that.) Don't get me wrong, the BFR seems like a good product but it's main advantage I see over the Ruger is the fact that it can be had in ways the Rugers can't. Given similar products offerings I'd easily choose the Ruger over the BFR. FA is in an entirely different league altogether based on what I've seen in my limited use of borrowed specimens.

[WNY_Whitetailer]

Aww..Crud...So you guys are telling me that the Ruger Super Blackhawk Hunter in 44mag is no good? :shock:   I should have went and bought a Freedom Arms?   :wink:

[Redhawk1]

Golsovia, I got the BFR because the 500MAG. Ruger nor FA offer it in there guns. Also people get the BFR for the 45-70, 500MAG and 450 Marlin. I had a Smith & Wesson in 500MAG but I liked the BFR better for the balance and looks. I know people out there think there ugly, but heck we all don't marry  :shock:  Pamela Anderson.  :shock:  

[targetshootr]

Until I read this thread, I had the impression that Ruger revolvers were built like tanks. The FA guns look great, but the $1,600 price tag doesn't. Maybe you just get what you pay for, or the Rugers just don't have the quality control.

Rugers are tanks but BFRs look like Rugers on steroids. FAs can be had for a good price if you don't have to have a new one. I bought a nice Field Grade with Leupold EER 2x, scope base and 454 rcbs dies and some brass for just under $1000 so there are good deals out there.

[myronman3]

i have to agree with the last post.  the f.a.'s can be had at a good deal if you dont need to have one new.   i got mine for $945 all said and done.  
 
rugers are not built like tanks.  i had two break as i was confirming the zero this year the day before gun season opened.    i sent them in to ruger and they fixed them up and got them back to me.   do i think they will break again? no.  but with the f.a. i bought,  i aint keeping them anyway.  my plan is to sell them and a few other guns, and get a f.a. new with the exact chambering i want in the exact barrel length.   the one i have now is a little long for my tastes.   but a very sweet gun regardless.  and it will stay in my collection.  truely a gun that is going to be an heirloom.  

to me it boils down to absolutely being able to count on the gun working when i need it to.   i thought the rugers were up to it.  but they broke at the worst possible time imaginable.   so they have to go.   one gun that works is worth a hundred that dont.

[22popnsplat]

I own a FA 83 454 with 4 3/4 inch barrel that I stole new in the box for $850 , Bargins are out there and I jumped on it quick . It is Twice the price of a new ruger and worth it . always works and has some pop , If the 454 wont get the job done you shouldnt have been there to begin with .
I do own ruger revolvers , The newer ones have required at least some minor tweaking to get them to work like I want a revolver to and the one older one I have has always been a real favorite and reliable as a swiss watch .
I have handled a few BFRs , Never fired one . They have always struck me as to large and heavy to feild carry and a novelty item . It has been a long while since I handled one and it may well have been very early models  but they did not impress me with their workmanship.
I have fired the 500 smith with the 8 3/8 barrel and a brake , It was impressive , I dont care fore brakes on guns though . If it has to have a brake to be shootable I will stick to the 45s

[Graybeard]

my plan is to sell them and a few other guns, and get a f.a. new with the exact chambering i want in the exact barrel length.

So whatcha gonna get? Inquiring minds want to know.

I own a FA 83 454 with 4 3/4 inch barrel that I stole new in the box for $850 , Bargins are out there and I jumped on it quick .

If you didn't steal it someone did.  :eek:  That's less than FA charges distributors for them.

[AZ223]

Golsovia, you make a good point between the three pistols in question. I'll be in the market for a SA revolver in the near future, and I like the look & feel of the Rugers; I had never heard of the FA until I started searching this thread. I have held a BFR; it just feels too big. Then again, that was the .45-70 model. But before I buy anything, I'll have to try and find one of the FA's. Some comments suggest the grip is a lot more comforable shooting. And my comment on the price is in reference to what's quoted on the Web site.  

BTW, I've never shot a SA-only revolver; only DA's. Almost bought a Blackhawk years ago, but the curved grip gave the impression it would be brutal to shoot. I didn't realize it's supposed to roll when you shoot it...DUH!!  :?  

Anyway, thanks guys; there's a lot of great information on this site.

[KENTDEP]

After some thinking about needs and wants in regards to weather I need need a .454 or .475 etc. I would have to ask, what would cost to have 5 shot .454 cylinder made for a .45lc Bisley Blackhawk? I like the looks of them alot.

I like my Super Single Six Bisley's grip frame and I think that I would like the larger .45. If I got one of those and decided that I needed to chamber it in .454 that would be do'able wouldn't it?

Jay

[targetshootr]

That would mean a custom conversion and I think they start out around $800. You might check the websites of Clements Custom Guns, Linebaugh, Bowen, Clark, Cosby, Qualite, Alpha Precision, etc.

[Lloyd Smale]

personally id go with a 5 shot .45 it will do anything a .454 will do and brass is easier to come by. Just about any of the good gunsmiths will make you a nice bisley. But be prepared to spend about $1800 on one of them to have it right.

[myronman3]

So whatcha gonna get? Inquiring minds want to know.

if i were to order one the exact way i want it, it would be a premier grade with a 4 1/2 inch barrel in 44 mag.    i flirted with the idea of a 41, but there is nothing i want to do that the 41 will do better than the 44.   and i already have a few other 44's.   the way i aim (looking over the sights with my eyes locked on where i want the bullet to strike, using periphial vision to line up the sights) the shorter barrel works better for me.  feels better in my hand, too.   i like the way 10 inch barrels shoot, but i love the way the shorter ones carry.  the 7 1/2 is a good compromise, but still a little long to carry on a excursion into the backwoods when i want to travel light.   so i would most likely use the 7 1/2 for hunting and the shorter one for security.

[Graybeard]

I had a really hard time deciding what barrel to ask Bob to put on this one for me. I really did. But it was always between 5.5" and 7.5". They will cut as you ask for a fee rather than the standard lengths. I almost asked for a 5.5" and I came really close to asking for a 6". But in the end I went with what I know I shoot as well as any and isn't too bad for carry. Really the FA83 is a pretty large and heavy gun for hip carry regardless. So is my 5.5" Accusport Bisley .45 Colt. Yet that is how I carry it. I figured the extra 2" would help me shoot it more accurately without really adding more than a couple ounces if that to the weight. I can always call up Pistol Packaging and have them make up a holster for it to fit on the rig I already have. I'm sure not gonna carry it and the RB480 both at the same time.

I've owned 4" .44 Mags and to me they are not nice guns. Just way to short to suit my tastes. I doubt I'll ever buy another with less than 5.5" barrel except as a CCW gun. Maybe but I doubt it.

[Redhawk1]

If you are going to use it for hunting, some not all States require a 6 inch minimum.  You may want to take that into consideration.

[Greybeard]

Dunno about that "most states" requiring a 6" minimum. I think 4" is a more common number if you're gonna say MOST. That's the number here in Bama. Which states do you know for sure require 6"? That would rule out my Bisley .45 Colt at 5.5"

[EdK]

For what it's worth my FA is a 454 and it is a 6". I'm with GB on being able to shoot a 7.5" a little better but on other hand I feel it's not nearly as big an advantage as moving up to 6" from the 4-5 inch range.

I am very patient, don't move on anything too quickly. About 18 months back I found my "new" premier FA in the used section, unfired in box at $1195. If you lay low and look patiently anyone can do it.

[Redhawk1]

Dunno about that "most states" requiring a 6" minimum. I think 4" is a more common number if you're gonna say MOST. That's the number here in Bama. Which states do you know for sure require 6"? That would rule out my Bisley .45 Colt at 5.5"

I changed my post to read some, I don't want anyone going off the deep end on that one.

I am going to look at all the DNR sights and see. I will post it later. I know for sure North Dakota and Nebraska. But I will post the correct number so no one gets the panties in a bunch.  :eek:

[Lloyd Smale]

I must be a freak as i can usually shoot a 4-5 inch gun better off hand then a long barreled one. Maybe its because thats what i shoot the most. I also find no problem with recoil in shorter barrels as a matter of fact i seriously believe that my 4 inch 500line. kicks less then my 5 1/2 did. I have a theroy as to dwell time of the bullet in the barrel increaseing recoil but in all honesty i dont see much difference in recoil with the same load out of different lenght barrels in the same model gun. What you will see is increased muzzle blast especially if your talking guns like 454s and i think that in it self gives alot of people the impression that the gun is kicking more. To me guns with severe muzzle blast bother me more then recoil. Thats why im not a big fan of the .454 or any ported gun wether its a handgun or long gun. I dont beleive Michigan has any barrel length law in effect. Only law Ive ever seen states that your gun must be a centerfire.

[redawg]

I know for sure North Dakota and Nebraska.

Redhawk1, do you happen to have a link that shows Nebraska's minimum barrel length?  I've never heard of a minimum barrel length.  All I can find is the 400 ft-lbs at 50 yards law that I'd already known about.  Thanks!

[Redhawk1]

I know for sure North Dakota and Nebraska.

Redhawk1, do you happen to have a link that shows Nebraska's minimum barrel length?  I've never heard of a minimum barrel length.  All I can find is the 400 ft-lbs at 50 yards law that I'd already known about.  Thanks!

I will look it up. I know when I was stationed in Nebraska 15 years ago, it use to be a 6 inch minimum.

[Redhawk1]

I know for sure North Dakota and Nebraska.

Redhawk1, do you happen to have a link that shows Nebraska's minimum barrel length?  I've never heard of a minimum barrel length.  All I can find is the 400 ft-lbs at 50 yards law that I'd already known about.  Thanks!

Either I am getting old or I just did not remember correctly. I might of been mistaken.  :oops:

[redawg]

Redhawk1, it's all right.  I've emailed the Nebraska Game and Parks to find out for sure.  I've got an Acusport Bisley that I'm hoping to get out with eventually.  I just don't want to find out the hard way that it's not a legal weapon for deer.  Thanks for your responses.

[Golsovia]

I'll try for a third time to post these for anyone still interested in some of the comparitive differences and similarities between the BFRs and the Blackhawks.

Here is a shot of the trigger guard and lower frames of the two. The BFR is 0.930" in width while the Blackhawk is 0.740," these measuremnets taken at the forward portion of the trigger guard.




The narrow "web" at the front of the frame - it probably has a name, unbeknownst to me. The BFR is "0.340" in thickness, the BH 0.290" thick. The cylinders are 1.885" and 1.730" in diameter respectively.




The grips; the Blackhawk wears a Pachmayr product while the BFR came with the similar grip made by Uncle Mike's, I believe.





The BFR's weak point may be here at the rear sight cutout. As massive as the rest of the frame is, it is considerabley thinner and possibly weaker than the Blackhawk here:



The BFR measures 0.210," the Blackhawk, 0.310" at the narrowest point in the frame beneath the sight.  If this is indeed the weakest point in the frame then the extra mass in the rest of the frame serves only as ballast, an admittedly not necessarily unneeded thing, but one not always desirable either.

[targetshootr]

Thanks again, Gos. I talked to Jimmy T the other day who redesigned and makes the BFRs for Mag Res. He said they aren't line bored but they are blocked before boring so the cylinder alignment is pretty tight which is why they are so accurate.

I was thinking of getting the older 45 colt for $575 but it sounds like the new ones are a lot better and a new one in 45 colt would be a pricey custom job so I'm going with an extra cylinder for my FA. He said he also does 5 shot Ruger 454 and 475 conversions starting at $600 which is the lowest I've heard anyone doing them which includes stretching the frame. And he can turn a BFR barrel into an octagon for $350 or thereabouts.