SP 101 Barrel blown off gun

S&W had some similar barrel departures.
Same efficiency expert recommending a cost saving method that was not suitable for gun barrels?

I have never heard of a modern hand held firearm using a cast barrel. Of course I haven't heard of everything but seriously doubt Ruger would do so. Cast frames, yes, barrels, no….

Click to expand...

This brings up an interesting point. Since their introduction, Ruger has always been very proud of their “cold hammer-forged” barrels. Their website makes a point of highlighting the forged barrels on their Redhawks, Super GP100s and Blackhawks - but that claim is suspiciously missing from their description of the SP101. Why isn’t it even mentioned, if not because the barrels are cast rather than forged. My 27-year old SP101 does not appear to have the barrel liner inside a cast shroud like those used in the Redhawks, I always assumed it was cast.



.

JohnKSa said:

The Redhawk issue had to do with a lubricant that was being used on the barrel threads during assembly. By all accounts, this issue was corrected once discovered and has not been a problem since. SP101s were not in production during that timeframe, so this is unlikely to be a related issue.

This issue with the SP101 sounds like a freak occurrence. A defective barrel made it through the quality checks and was found by the owner...

This article briefly mentions the Redhawk issue.
http://www.sixguns.com/range/454_super_redhawk.htm

Click to expand...

Great article; thanks. It seems like the same thing that affected my Redhawk affected 357 Terms' Speed Six and the OP's SP-101: over-torqueing of the barrel. In the case of the Redhawks, it was traced back to defective lubricant on the barrel threads. That caused over-torqueing the next day.

In the case of the Speed Six and SP-101, who knows, but it seems like over-torquing too, as they were EXACTLY the same as my Redhawk.

357 Terms said:

That's was the same failure I experienced with my Speed Six barrel.
1982 production.
Ruger replaced it a no cost (-transfer fee) with a gun of my choice (Super Blackhawk Hunter) Ruger will take care of the OP.


View attachment 1107859
View attachment 1107860

Click to expand...

Yep, mine looked just like that.

Dave T said:

Ruger has been telling us for years that "cast" is just as good as forged. Posts and stories like these make me wonder. And yes, I know forged guns have failed too. My pistol smith friends tell me that in the case of S&Ws it usually from over torquing the barrel.

YMMV,
Dave

Click to expand...

Cast can be as strong as forged, but not in the same thickness. Cast has to be thicker. People assume that thicker = stronger and that got Ruger a reputation of making really strong guns that they maybe don't deserve 100%. I think they make them thicker because casting is not as strong as forging per thickness and also they probably built a little cushion in, in case there are voids or something here and there in the casting.

Someone mentioned earlier in the thread that S&W has also had issues like this that can be traced back to over-torqueing. In that case, either forging or cast will break.

doubleh said:

I have never heard of a modern hand held firearm using a cast barrel. Of course I haven't heard of everything but seriously doubt Ruger would do so. Cast frames, yes, barrels, no.

Anyway I am glad that you weren't injured and also finally learned to wear safety glasses.

Click to expand...

Barrels have to be gun drilled, so they are not heat treated. Then they are rifled or hammer forged and who wants to do that on a heat treated piece of steel? Barrels whether they are hammer forged or rifled are soft, and they are not heat treated later, one reason is warping. I don't see a reason to cast a barrel when rolled bar stock would work just as well. Post WW2, casting worked well for complicated shapes that took too much time to machine with single stage machines. Now days with CNC, it turns out many parts are cheaper and made more precisely by machining.

The talk of over torquing barrels makes me wonder if soft barrel shanks developed cracks due to installation.

Oh, one thing I forgot to comment on: In the link in JohnKSA's post I quoted just above here, it said Ruger started making the Super Redhawk with the beefed up barrel support area before they had traced the problem back to over-torquing the barrel threads due to dried-out or defective barrel thread lube. Then, they figured out the issue, so they kept making the more svelte Redhawk. By then, the Super Redhawk was already building its reputation of being super-strong. (and I'm sure it is)

My take-away is that the Super Redhawk would probably not exist if not for this dried-out lube issue they couldn't figure out for awhile in the Redhawk. If they had figured it out sooner, there might not even BE a Super Redhawk.

The Redhawk design was by Bill Ruger. I'm not sure about the GP-100/SRH design. I'll have to crack into my Ruger and His Guns book again...

JohnKSa said:

It's actually probably just the reverse. The Super was already in the works when the Redhawk barrel issue surfaced. It was likely going to replace the Redhawk like the GP100 replaced the Security/Speed Six series. But they modified the Super design because of the barrel issue and then it wasn't really a good replacement for the Redhawk so they kept both.

That said, I have no proof that the Super was definitely going to replace the Redhawk or that the resulting difference due to the Super's frame extension is what led them to retain both pistols in their lineup.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the article you linked confirms it; it's just a question of whether you question the source. (or if I'm recalling incorrectly!)

351 WINCHESTER said:

I called Ruger today and they wanted to charge me $45. shipping by FEDEX (I believe). I asked why and she said it was due to the gun being so old. It was made in the early 90's. I told her the round count and she put me on hold and came back and they emailed me the ppd shipping label. This ain't my first rodeo. I have dealt with S & W numerous times and all but one were done on their dime. Glock was the same way too. I'm not superstitious at all, but when a gun does something like this I have a hard time trusting it going forward.

Click to expand...

If you can't trust it moving forward, have Ruger fix it and move it down the road.
Personally I think the chances of this happening again are about 0, but if you don't trust it, let it go.

Weren't the first SP101s in .357 chambering, limited to 125gn loads?? Maybe that's something--maybe not?

…I don't see a reason to cast a barrel when rolled bar stock would work just as well.…

Click to expand...

Odd, I believe that most posters do see a reason. Machining rifled bar stock to the profile of an SP-101 barrel costs $$$. Investment casting instead of significant machining is the reason Ruger firearms meet the price-point they do. No one has offered proof that SP-101 barrels are not cast. I don’t know the answer, but evidence suggests that they may be. Either way, mine continues to perform just fine.




.

Shooting .357 Magnum loads at a piece of plywood from a distance of one yard with no eye-pro?

Maybe the gun figured it would go ahead and sacrifice itself before you really hurt yourself.

351 WINCHESTER said:

I called Ruger today and they wanted to charge me $45. shipping by FEDEX (I believe). I asked why and she said it was due to the gun being so old. It was made in the early 90's. I told her the round count and she put me on hold and came back and they emailed me the ppd shipping label. This ain't my first rodeo. I have dealt with S & W numerous times and all but one were done on their dime. Glock was the same way too. I'm not superstitious at all, but when a gun does something like this I have a hard time trusting it going forward.

Click to expand...

I wouldn’t have a hard time trusting it after it’s fixed. On the contrary, you will know it’s no longer affected by a possible barrel fault. (Where a used replacement could be)

What would make me mad about that call is that they tried to not honor their warranty. Fixing it should be all on them, including shipping both ways.

I just wonder if it was just mis sized, stripped or the frame was over sized and stretched. Two sets of threads, it can be more than just the barrel. I have never even heard of this happening. I have seen barrels removed that were cross threaded but they were just damaged not launched. Crazy! I would love to see Rugers explanation if they give one.

JohnKSa said:

Ruger makes a point of noting that they do not provide a written warranty. Instead they say that they wish to "assure its customers of their continued interest in providing service to owners of Ruger firearms."

Click to expand...

I don’t believe that was the case in the 90s, when that gun was bought.

When I search, I find a lot of threads on how good Ruger’s “non-warranty” is, but cannot find out whether they EVER had a proper warranty.

I found that they didn’t want to call it a Limited Warranty, as would be required by law for something that would have to be returned to the manufacturer so they went to their current non-warranty.

I don’t believe that was the case in the 90s, when that gun was bought.…

Click to expand...

And your belief would be incorrect. The Instruction Manual for my SP-101 is dated 1991, here is what it has to say about the warranty.

I had to pay for shipping to Ruger in order to repair an older Redhawk and Blackhawk, both .41 magnums. I am happy with the fixes, both were bought used and now work fine.

S&W has done the same, had me pay shipping (and also repair costs) for an older Model 48-3 and 66-1. Again, I am happy with both fixes

Stay safe.

I had to pay shipping to Ruger for an older SBH with a broken firing pin. They repaired it and shipped it back with no further charges. I found the entire gun polished and in perfect working order on return.

351 WINCHESTER said:

What is a SBH?

Click to expand...

Super Blackhawk

25-20 WCF said:

Odd, I believe that most posters do see a reason. Machining rifled bar stock to the profile of an SP-101 barrel costs $$$. Investment casting instead of significant machining is the reason Ruger firearms meet the price-point they do. No one has offered proof that SP-101 barrels are not cast. I don’t know the answer, but evidence suggests that they may be. Either way, mine continues to perform just fine.

Click to expand...

GP100/SP101 barrels are machined from "outsourced blanks" then button rifled. See here:



I'm pretty sure the "outsourced blanks" are forgings, since as you note machining that barrel profile from round stock doesn't make sense and if they were castings they would be done in house. Since they are button rifled they are not cold hammer forged, which is why they aren't advertised as such.