High Pressure Loads - 45 Colt Ruger Redhawk

Status
Not open for further replies.

whatnickname

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2008
Messages
1,004
Location
Oklahoma
Here’s one that I find thought provoking and one where you see quite a big of controversy on sites like YouTube. Very simply put: Will the Ruger Redhawk in 45 Colt stand up to a steady diet of the high pressure loads the reloading manuals designate for the Ruger Blackhawk and the T/C Contender? Chuck Hawks says “No” but stops short of condemning the Colt Anaconda and Redhawk. Instead he just states that “ Blackhawk and T/C Contender as stated in the reloading manuals mean just that.” Ruger is pretty tight lipped about the question too. I called them and lawyer like, they advise that they do not recommend any reloaded ammo in any of their guns...voids the warranty too. When I asked if the Ruger Redhawk in 45 Colt was not as strong as the Redhawk in 44 magnum they emphatically said: “No”. I asked if the Redhawk in 45 Colt was not as strong as the Blackhawk in the same caliber they again said “no”. While I understand that the 45 Colt case is not as strong as the 44 magnum, I also believe that the inherent strength or weakness of the 45 Colt case is taken into consideration in the reloading manuals. I have tried the heavier Blackhawk loads in my 45 Colt Redhawk with no apparent problems. Chuck Hawks, whom I respect greatly, says that while one or two cylinders full of the heavier loads can probably be fired without any adverse result, a steady diet of them will eventually cause something to break. So with Ruger stating that the Redhawk in 45 Colt is just as strong as the Blackhawk of the same caliber, I see no reason the Redhawk will not give comparable service life. I am not advocating a steady diet of the hot stuff. The darn things kick too hard. I do carry the Redhawk in 45 Colt when I hunt and, on occasion, have used it to finish off a deer or hog when necessary. I hope I can hear from folks that perhaps have shot more heavy loads in the 45 Colt Redhawk than I have and would like to know if anyone has experienced any problems.
 
You've received a lot of misinformation. Ruger is going to give you the liability-conscious response and they have no warranty to void. Chuck Hawks doesn't know what he's talking about. The Redhawk .45Colt is STRONGER than the Blackhawk and suitable for loads in the 50,000psi range. Well beyond that of standard "Ruger only" loads. Here's a look at the load data from Handloader #292.

https://loaddata.com/Cartridge/45-Colt-for-Ruger-Redhawk-Revolvers-ONLY/7793
 
This is worth reading: looking at the fatigue curve, and the blown up Ruger pistol.

Fatigue Life of 4140 steel

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?150409-Ruger-om-44-convertible&highlight=convertible

Just a few thoughts on this. For Background I am a mechanical engineer with a heavy background in failure and fatigue.

I wonder if I could request a high quality photo of the fracture zone of the cylinder? I am specifically interested in the grain structure of the bolt notches.

I put fort the following.

1) Firearms in general (the type we plebeians can get our mits one) are not designed for infinite fatigue life.
2) The Factors of safety used in firearms design are in line with low end of fatigue requirements (usually less than 10,000 cycles).
3) One of the funny things about fatigue is that each time you push the material past its original design point, you lower its expected life.
4) I am looking at this as an older gun with an unknown number of rounds through it. but based on its age a substantial round count seems likely.
5) When these firearms are designed it is generally preferable for something else to go before the cylinder lets go and takes the top strap. Generally this takes the form of the gun wearing loose or the barrel wearing out. But they are designed to handle X rounds at standard pressures.
6) I see alot of folks calculate the strengths of Rugers, but these calculations are only ever performing an evaluation on a straight static pressure basis.

This is wrong when trying to determine if a load is safe.

I attached a couple of marked up figures for your perusal

My comment is, obviously the Ruger Redhawk is a massively strong pistol. There are also a number of kaboom threads of Ruger Redhawk's in 45 LC on the web, so it is possible to blow the things. I would be conservative on increasing the loads and would stay as far away from possible from anything that resembles a 454 Casull load.
 
You can wear out any gun faster by constantly feeding it hot loads. But if that’s a difference of it wearing out after 120 years rather than 150 years, will you care?
 
Here’s a clue as to the relative strengths of the Redhawk vs. the Super Blackhawk...

Ruger has been making 454 Casull and 480 Ruger Super Redhawks, with the same crane assemblies as the 44mag version, and the same as the 357, 44mag, and 45 colt Redhawks for many years. All in 6 shot configurations.

When they finally released the Super Blackhawk in 454 and 480, it’s only a 5 shot.

The cylinder is thicker in the Redhawk/Super Redhawk, such the cylinder - the primary critical failure component - is stronger in the Redhawk. In theory, the crane assembly in a DA isn’t as robust as a doubly supported, solid mainpin in an SA revolver, but time has proven the Redhawk/Super Redhawk design to be more than sufficiently robust.

Without question, the Redhawk is stronger than the Blackhawk - this fact has been proven both technically and empirically. They’ll eat Ruger only loads with a smile on their face.
 
This is worth reading: looking at the fatigue curve, and the blown up Ruger pistol.

Fatigue Life of 4140 steel

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?150409-Ruger-om-44-convertible&highlight=convertible



My comment is, obviously the Ruger Redhawk is a massively strong pistol. There are also a number of kaboom threads of Ruger Redhawk's in 45 LC on the web, so it is possible to blow the things. I would be conservative on increasing the loads and would stay as far away from possible from anything that resembles a 454 Casull load.
An obvious overload with the wrong powder, relatively fast burning Unique. Wrong powder for the job. Using powders appropriate to the task, you cannot get enough slow burning powder in the .45Colt case to hurt the Redhawk.
 
I'm going to have to concur with CraigC, the fact is the Redhawk is a great base gun for the likes of the .475 and .500 Linebaughs, some people like our own MaxP, have RedHawks chambered into .454 casull. The gun is incredibly strong and probably the strongest PRACTICAL revolver out there.
Methinks you're getting your "hawks" confused there Cowboy, Linebaugh cals were originally developed in and for single action, not double action. :)
 
Methinks you're getting your "hawks" confused there Cowboy, Linebaugh cals were originally developed in and for single action, not double action. :)

I have had Super RedHawks built in both .475 and .500 Linebaugh. I have also had a Redhawk in .454 Casull. Make no mistake thinking otherwise, the Redhawk/Super Redhawk is tank-like in the strength department.


The late Andy Cannon (shortly after Andy started this, Jack Huntington did the same) was building .454s on .44 Redhawks by rechambering the factory .44 cylinders and swapping barrels. In fact I shot one such conversion (by Huntington) that was more than 30 years old that was as tight as the day it was built after decades of full-tilt .454 Casull abuse. They are that tough.

One more thing. Garrett Cartridge loads a .45 Colt load called the .45 RHO (for Redhawk Only) consisting of a 405 grain bullet loaded to somewhere around 50,000 psi. It was designed for stock six-shot .45 Colt Redhawks and custom conversions.
 
Dumb question time... What makes the Red stronger than the Black? Metallurgy or design... or both? I was always under the impression the Blackhawk frame was the strongest mainstream revolver frame. (Edit: This is prior to the X-frame.)

FWIW, I have an older .45 Colt Vaquero, I've put some big loads in it, with confidence, but I'm not going anywhere near the stuff I'm seeing here. My thought is... if you want that much cartridge, buy that much pistol... don't try to make do.
 
Dumb question time... What makes the Red stronger than the Black? Metallurgy or design... or both? I was always under the impression the Blackhawk frame was the strongest mainstream revolver frame. (Edit: This is prior to the X-frame.)

FWIW, I have an older .45 Colt Vaquero, I've put some big loads in it, with confidence, but I'm not going anywhere near the stuff I'm seeing here. My thought is... if you want that much cartridge, buy that much pistol... don't try to make do.
Metallurgy is the same for a given chambering. Everything is larger. Larger (and longer) cylinder, which is the most important part. Larger frame. Offset bolt notches. Robust lockwork. Three locking points for the cylinder/crane. Solid frame with no sideplate like the S&W.
 
While I understand that the 45 Colt case is not as strong as the 44 magnum,
that is patently false. the 45 colt case design and material are both the same as the 44 magnum case.

the 5-shot custom single action revolvers chambered for the 45 colt cartridge, made back in the mid nineteen eighties, withstood loads generating 50,000 cup pressure. the fired cases fell out of the cylinder when removed. I don't recall how many reloadings the cases would last, but it was more than a few.

ross seyfried wrote a couple of articles about this back in the late nineteen nineties (handloader magazine) about the 5-shot revolvers at 50,000 psi (built by john linebaugh). he shot a nice water buffalo with his 50k revolver. so a lot of people know what can be done with the right revolver chambered in 45 long colt.

and the ruger redhawk is stronger than the Blackhawk because: first, the bolt notch cutout on the redhawk cylinder is offset (not centered on the chamber like the blackhawk) and second, the cylinder diameter is bigger on the redhawk than on the blackhawk.

I would feel more than comfortable shooting "ruger Blackhawk only" 45 colt loads in your redhawk.

luck,

murf
 
I have been shooting my own very hot loads in my Redhawk 45/45acp and in my Rossi carbine for over a year now with zero problems.
I have found a great load with H110 and 250xtp’s .Ruger Blackhawk only is my starting point no cracked cases or primer problems in over 2000 rounds each reloaded several times.I do mostly use star line brass.
On a couple of occasions where friends were shooting someone would start to braig about their 44mag I would hand them my Redhawk 45 after 6 rounds their face would show wow then “that’s not a 45 colt” I pull the rounds and show them.
Don’t worry about the Redhawk’s strength it’s strong.
 
I'm confused. Has Ruger not been building Redhawks in .454 for years? If so, why all the question on strength?
 
Super Redhawks. The Redhawk has never been chambered in .454, but could handle in without a problem.

Could and does - lots of guys have transplanted Carpenter steel 454 Super Redhawk Cylinders into 45 colt Redhawks, and for many years doing so. Same lockwork, same frame, less the thread extension, just needs the stronger Carpenter steel cylinder.
 
Could and does - lots of guys have transplanted Carpenter steel 454 Super Redhawk Cylinders into 45 colt Redhawks, and for many years doing so. Same lockwork, same frame, less the thread extension, just needs the stronger Carpenter steel cylinder.

That was my point. I had a just such a .454 Redhawk but sent it down the road. Here's a picture of it:

264CH6-DACustoms-2.jpg

I posted this elsewhere, but the late Andy Cannon used to rechamber .44 Mag Redhawks to .454 utilizing the factory cylinder and an aftermarket barrel. Jack Huntington did it as well. The factory cylinder is plenty strong. Here's one that Jack Huntington did more than 30 years ago that has consumed thousands of full-tilt .454 loads and is as tight as the day it was built. I spent some time with it and was impressed to say the least.

CH5-Cannon-1.jpg
 
Last edited:
@MaxP - I had HEARD of the early Cannon and Huntington 44 —> 454 rechamber jobs, but had never seen one until you posted that one recently. Wild to think about a 454 in the 44mag cylinder, after shooting the factory Carpenter cylinder wheelguns for so long, but it obviously worked!
 
@MaxP - I had HEARD of the early Cannon and Huntington 44 —> 454 rechamber jobs, but had never seen one until you posted that one recently. Wild to think about a 454 in the 44mag cylinder, after shooting the factory Carpenter cylinder wheelguns for so long, but it obviously worked!

Yeah it is crazy! Goes to show how wide a safety margin Ruger builds into their revolvers.
 
Here’s one that I find thought provoking and one where you see quite a big of controversy on sites like YouTube. Very simply put: Will the Ruger Redhawk in 45 Colt stand up to a steady diet of the high pressure loads the reloading manuals designate for the Ruger Blackhawk and the T/C Contender? Chuck Hawks says “No” but stops short of condemning the Colt Anaconda and Redhawk. Instead he just states that “ Blackhawk and T/C Contender as stated in the reloading manuals mean just that.” Ruger is pretty tight lipped about the question too. I called them and lawyer like, they advise that they do not recommend any reloaded ammo in any of their guns...voids the warranty too. When I asked if the Ruger Redhawk in 45 Colt was not as strong as the Redhawk in 44 magnum they emphatically said: “No”. I asked if the Redhawk in 45 Colt was not as strong as the Blackhawk in the same caliber they again said “no”. While I understand that the 45 Colt case is not as strong as the 44 magnum, I also believe that the inherent strength or weakness of the 45 Colt case is taken into consideration in the reloading manuals. I have tried the heavier Blackhawk loads in my 45 Colt Redhawk with no apparent problems. Chuck Hawks, whom I respect greatly, says that while one or two cylinders full of the heavier loads can probably be fired without any adverse result, a steady diet of them will eventually cause something to break. So with Ruger stating that the Redhawk in 45 Colt is just as strong as the Blackhawk of the same caliber, I see no reason the Redhawk will not give comparable service life. I am not advocating a steady diet of the hot stuff. The darn things kick too hard. I do carry the Redhawk in 45 Colt when I hunt and, on occasion, have used it to finish off a deer or hog when necessary. I hope I can hear from folks that perhaps have shot more heavy loads in the 45 Colt Redhawk than I have and would like to know if anyone has experienced any problems.

I have the Super Redhawk in the 454 Casull, so it can obviously handle very hot loads of up to 65k psi 30k psi for a colt.
I don’t know about just the plain Super Redhawk that’s in 45 colt only. I got the 454 Casull version so that I know it could easily handle the 30k loads.
 
I have the Super Redhawk in the 454 Casull, so it can obviously handle very hot loads of up to 65k psi 30k psi for a colt.
I don’t know about just the plain Super Redhawk that’s in 45 colt only. I got the 454 Casull version so that I know it could easily handle the 30k loads.

There is no Super Redhawk in .45 Colt, but there is a Redhawk in .45 Colt. The only real strength difference between the two is the 465 Carpenter steel cylinder the Super in .454 is equipped with. The Redhawk will safely consume .45 Colt loads in excess of 30,000 psi.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top