How much endshake is acceptable on a Redhawk?


PDA






Buck13
May 9, 2013, 12:33 PM
Yesterday I picked up my Redhawk purchased from a Gunbroker auction. Sell had rated it as "very good" condition. It's cosmetically quite nice, and seems to pass inspection *except* that there is some detectable endshake in the cylinder. I haven't got out the feeler gauges to measure it yet; I'll probably do that tonight.

The cylinder/barrel alignment at lockup is fine, so I have no worries about shooting it. I'm not going to be putting huge numbers of rounds through this gun, but I was hoping for a good shooter. My hands aren't that great, so I don't need the gun adding more error. :D

I'm thinking of giving the seller a one- or two-star review on Gunbroker, because I don't think a revolver rated "very good" should have any endshake. Probably two-star, since I did not email them to ask specifically to check that, so they did not actively lie to me about it. Does this seem like a reasonable reaction?

If you enjoyed reading about "How much endshake is acceptable on a Redhawk?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
WoodchuckAssassin
May 9, 2013, 12:51 PM
Is there any cylinder movement when the hammer is cocked? If not, then I wouldn't worry about it. The Redhawk is a tank of a gun.

I think that 2 stars is a little harsh. What if the guns always been that way, and the seller doesn't know any better?

JRH6856
May 9, 2013, 12:54 PM
I've always felt that .003" is excellent and .006" is probably too much. Power Custom make .002" endshake bearings for the Redhawk (http://www.midwayusa.com/product/519485/power-custom-endshake-bearing-ruger-six-series-gp-redhawk-super-redhawk-002-package-of-10).

Buck13
May 9, 2013, 01:09 PM
Is there any cylinder movement when the hammer is cocked? If not, then I wouldn't worry about it. The Redhawk is a tank of a gun.

I think that 2 stars is a little harsh. What if the guns always been that way, and the seller doesn't know any better?
I'm assessing the endshake at lockup: trigger back, hammer down in firing position. It's my understanding that a good new revolver should have practically no endshake at lockup, so I doubt it's always been that way. But I haven't done that test the few times I've handled a near-new Redhawk.

JRH6856
May 9, 2013, 01:16 PM
It's my understanding that a good new revolver should have virtually no endshake at lockup, so I doubt it's "always been that way".

I don't think I have ever owned a revolver that had absolutely zero endshake. Colt has a reputation for the tightest factory tolerance with a maximum of .003.

Here is a link to an old THR thread on the subject (http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-179965.html)that may shed more light

Buck13
May 9, 2013, 02:24 PM
I don't think I have ever owned a revolver that had absolutely zero endshake. Colt has a reputation for the tightest factory tolerance with a maximum of .003.

Here is a link to an old THR thread on the subject (http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-179965.html)that may shed more light

I realize they will not feel welded in place, but I think my other revos have endshake that is not so obvious. However, except for the new GP100, I haven't really payed much attention to them, so I'll have to play with that the next time I get them out.

Thanks for the link to the old thread. From the last post there: 0.01" barrel/cylinder gap is an acceptable tolerance in a new Ruger?! That's a bit of a surprise. I'd have expected only half of that.

Sounds like installing one or two of those 0.002" bearings would be a good idea. But that just holds the cylinder gap consistently wide-open, right?

JRH6856
May 9, 2013, 03:18 PM
Sounds like installing one or two of those 0.002" bearings would be a good idea. But that just holds the cylinder gap consistently wide-open, right?

Not just that. It also reduces the distance the cylinder can move under fire thus reducing the force of impact when it stops moving. As noted in the old thread, this is more important on S&Ws than Rugers, but it is still a benefit.

The only way to reduce the gap would be to install a new barrel with a longer forcing cone.

FWIW, I also think a bit too much can be made of minor differences in barrel/cylinder gap. A .01 gap really shouldn't have much effect as long as the cylinder and forcing cone are in good alignment. At the point of highest chamber pressure, the bullet is crossing the gap and the gap is sealed so there is no pressure loss via the gap. After the bullet crosses the gap, pressure is dropping but the momentum of the gasses carry them across the gap without significant loss though there will be some.

98Redline
May 9, 2013, 04:44 PM
The only way to reduce the gap would be to install a new barrel with a longer forcing cone.

What most smiths will do is remove the barrel and turn down the shoulder the distance of one thread. This has the effect of lengthening the forcing cone section, allowing them to cut it down to provide the desired B/C gap. The actual forcing cone then needs to be re-cut. Not a new barrel but a similar result.


Regarding the Redhawk, I would simply shoot it. It sounds like the gun may be on the higher end of endshake but still within acceptable limits.

As someone stated above, a Redhawk is built like a tank. The frame, crane and cylinder are more than up to the task of anything the 44 mag can dish out. There are conversions on this frame that go all the way up to 500 Linebaugh which makes the 44mag look like a pop gun by comparison. You could shoot full snort, 44 mag max loads in that gun from now till the day you die and not have any problems with it.

Where endshake becomes a problem is when it begins to grow. The more it grows, the worse the battering of the crane becomes which starts the downward spiral. Measure it now, keep and eye on it and if it starts to grow send it back to Ruger under warranty.

As to accuracy, endshake does not necessarily lead to poorer accuracy, There are a host of other things I would be concerned with regarding accuracy before this becomes your limiting factor.

To the seller of the gun, if the gun arrived in good cosmetic/functional condition, then the seller should get 5 stars. Not every person who owns a gun goes over it with a micrometer and a set of feeler gauges to determine if everything is in factory tolerance. If his communication was good, and the gun was received in the condition it was advertised, and in a timely manner, then he did his job. Now if the barrel crown was dinged or there was some butchered kitchen table trigger job, then yes, 2 stars is deserved, but certainly not for a gun that is in factory tolerance.

Remember, Rugers are production guns, not one off customs. If you must have something that is perfect, there are a whole host of awesome gunsmiths that can turn that gun into your perfect vision but not for Ruger prices.

Buck13
May 10, 2013, 01:51 AM
Sheesh, I must have been smoking meth last night when I was looking at it! ;) Or I was back-lighting the gap with an overly-bright flashlight that made the gap look huge and incandescent. I fetched the feeler gauges from the garage, and the gap seems to be about 0.0035". I guess I owe them a 5-star review instead!

Oh, well, another embarrassing mistake. I learned some things from the comments, so thanks!

Hondo 60
May 10, 2013, 01:57 AM
I have 2 S&Ws - neither has more than .001 or .002" end shake - both are 40+ years old.
I have 2 Rugers, and both (fairly new - 2009 & 2012) have considerably more than that.

I don't have any Colts, so I don't have anything to say about them.

If you enjoyed reading about "How much endshake is acceptable on a Redhawk?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!