.004" Endshake Too Much?

[Sport45]

I finally had the opportunity to check out my new Redhawk last weekend (too much business travel). Anyway, the barrel cylinder gap is .006" with the cylinder back and a very tight .002" with the cylinder forward. This is the most endshake I have in any of my revolvers but it's the only double action Ruger I've ever had. Is this normal for Rugers? It's a 45 Colt, if that makes a difference.

 

[P95Carry]

Just checked my 2 SRH's (44mag and .454) - neither is new any more. The 44mag has almost no detectable end float - the .454 a little. Both have a default gap which is I guess in the 2 thou region.

Too lazy to get the feeler gauges but - seems like you may have a bit more than usual, for a new piece - that said I doubt it is worthy of calling excessive. Let's see if others can chime in here - get a wider comparitive sample. If later it proves necessary - I will do a feeler test so we have accurate figures.

 

[Old Fuff]

The trouble with end shake is that once started it progresses and gets worse. This is especially so if (you have a heavy cylinder) and (it is chambered and used with Magnum cartridges) At .006" the gap isn't excessive, but if you keep shooting it soon will be. I would call Ruger and see what they say. Getting it fixed will delay or even prevent future damage.

 

[Sport45]

Thanks! I'll give Ruger a call tomorrow and see what they have to say. Would I be just as well off (cheaper, I'm thinking than shipping to Ruger) to just buy endshake bearings from Brownells and fix this myself? I would end up with a .006" cylinder gap, which seems acceptable.

 

[unspellable]

end shake cures

I've done the end shake shim thing on a S&W. What other revolvers have relatively easy fixes for endshake?

 

[Old Fuff]

Check and be sure that Brownells has endshake bearings for the Redhawk. I don't remember that they do.

 

[P95Carry]

I am thinking with Fuff here. Plus - if unsure and a new gun, despite the hassles - it maybe best to go back.

What about where it was bought too? Sounds like you had not shot it yet.

 

[Old Fuff]

The Old Fuff's mindset is stuck in another revolver generation. I sometimes forget that they make 'um out of stainless steel now...

Anyway, The cylinder yoke in Smith & Wessons is (or was) individually fit to a particular frame, and replacing one could be a hassle and even include refinishing the gun. At Ruger, I think things are a lot easier.

Ruger calls the "yoke" a "crane" and end-shake is caused when the crane barrel (the part the cylinder revolves on) is too short. This may be because it wasn't fitted correctly in the first place, or because it was battered by the cylinder.

Now there is a number of ways to accomplish a fix, but the best one would be to have a new yoke fitted that had a barrel with the correct length. I have a feeling that If they decided that the crane was short in the first place they would replace it-free of charge. On stainless steel, any polishing to get a perfect frame-to-crane fit would be easy.

Consequently if the revolver was mine, I would be strongly tempted to return it to the factory. But if you should do so, be sure to remove any aftermarket parts or springs. Anything that isn't factory standard will be replaced, probably at you're expense.

They're lawyers insist on it.

 

[Sport45]

Thanks for the replies! One thing's for sure. If it wasn't for the internet and forums like this, I wouldn't even know I might have a problem. I would have just assumed a new revolver was "like new".

Here are the Brownells bearings I was considering. Part number 713-200-002 here.

I have only put 80 rounds through the gun, all standard pressure lead. I haven't noticed any loosening, but I didn't measure before I shot it. I'll still call Ruger tomorrow, just wondering about the bearings.

Ruger calls the "yoke" a "crane" and end-shake is caused when the crane barrel (the part the cylinder revolves on) is too short. This may be because it wasn't fitted correctly in the first place, or because it was battered by the cylinder.

I'm having trouble picturing this in my mind. It seems like if the crane barrel was too short the cylinder would bind, and endshake would result from the barrel being too long.

 

[Old Fuff]

Here are the Brownells bearings I was considering. Part number 713-200-002 here.

O.K., so you are good to go as far as bearings are concerned.

I'm having trouble picturing this in my mind. It seems like if the crane barrel was too short the cylinder would bind, and endshake would result from the barrel being too long.

The end of the crane barrel pushes against a shoulder in the back of the cylinder and prevents the cylinder from moving forward toward the gun's barrel, and closing the gap. But if you have a crane barrel that too too short the cylinder can move back & forth under recoil and batter the end of the crane, making the condidion worse because the cylinder can continue to move forward until it closes the gap, and the cylinder face ends up against the revolver's barrel.

The "bearing" is like a small washer, and fills the excessive space between the shoulder at the back of the cylinder, and the back end of the crane barrel.

Clear as mud?

 

[Sport45]

Thanks Old Fuff for the short course. I think I've got it now. The crane barrel is the axle the cylinder spins on, but it doesn't go all the way through. The endshake doesn't have anytrhing to do with clearance at the end of the cylinder, but rather clearance inside the cylinder between the end of the crane barrel and a shoulder inside the cylinder. I thought the endshake bearings would be visible in front of the cylinder, but now it sounds like they are stacked on top of the barrel and buried in the cylinder. I'm still calling Ruger, but if they say that .004 enshake is within "spec" I think I'll get the bearings and see how it feels with one or two installed. Do I gather right from other posts that I'll need a special screwdriver to remove the cylinder from the crane?

 

[Stainz]

My 5.5" SS .45 RH was bought new 3/04 - and went home for a visit within days for QC problems (Burst casting bubbles on the cylinder's exit side, etc.). It came back in fine shape, as it should have been delivered. I just measured it's 'resting' b/c gap - I can force a .008" gage through. With the trigger pulled and held back (Which secures the cylinder...), only a .004" gage makes it through, and it has no shake then.

I called S&W 6/04 re my much used 4" 625-8, my first S&W with 'The Lock', bought new 9/02, which I had shot many, many 230gr FMJ's through - probably 8k+. I had even dropped the cylinder several times in fast reloads during competition, the yoke screw having backed out due to the large number of rounds shot (I check sideplate screws regularly now.). S&W told me their allowable b/c gap was .004-.010", with very little variation from cylinder bore to cylinder bore. Mine was less than .002" max, and drug on two cylinders - oops. I considered the shims - but a call to S&W, and they said 'Let us fix it right!'. They sent me a pick-up label, and I had it back, like new, in just over a week - gratis! It was so nice, a range friend offered me $100 over a new one's local cost - which I took. Of course, the pusher was out of the 4"-ers when I stopped there on the way home - and my wife found the money... which paid for a nice pre-hurricane trip to Gulf Shore's. I later (2/05) lucked out and bought a new 625JM, having missed that frugal/lite recoiling big bore. I no longer embarass myself by competing. S&W has a great waranty.

Stainz

 

[Old Fuff]

With the trigger pulled and held back (Which secures the cylinder...), only a .004" gage makes it through, and it has no shake then.

This is a bit misleading. While holding the trigger back seems to lock the cylinder, and you don't feel any movement, the end shake is still there. When you fire the revolver (especially with hot Magnums) the recoil forces will still cause the cylinder to move first forward, (battering the end of the crane barrel), and then backwards.

Smith & Wesson, and maybe Ruger, prefer to use a tool to streach the yoke/crane barrel, but I have seen some that cracked where they were streached. For this reason I prefer the bearing method that doesn't impose and stress on any part. However I won't start a flame war about which way is best, and note that both ways work. Without question, "the best way" is to replace the yoke/crane with a new one with a barrel that's the correct length. But this is also the most expensive and difficult way too do it.

Because end-shake is a progressive condition (once started it continues to get worse) a new revolver should not have any perceptable end-shake. This of course is a perfect ideal, and in today's production that doesn't always happen. But to their credit, both S&W and Ruger will quickly fix it, if or when it's called to they're attention.

 

[Sport45]

I called Ruger and they said the endhake was within tolerance. They thought the .002" barrel/cylinder gap was on the tight side, and would look at it if I wanted them to. I figure if I really polished the crud off the face of the cylinder it would probably make their .003" minimum and won't worry about it. There b/c gap tolerance by the way is .003" - .010". She didn't say what the tolerance for endshake was but .004" is not supposed to be a problem. A google search last night turned up the following on an old post at the Ruger forums.

I get this very question from time to time, mostly from paranoid S&W owners. Endshake in a S&W can be devastating and will worsen considerably if not promptly taken care of (gun shoots loose). This will continue to a point where the cylinder will unlock when fired. In S&W revolvers, the bearing surface that dictates endshake is the skinny little yoke tube end. With constant use and especially hot loads, this tiny surface gets pounded down thus increasing endshake.
Rugers are a similar design, just more massive where it counts. Although a few thousandths endshake would be optimum, it doesn't hurt a thing to have as much as .006". GP-100's yokes have a much larger bearing surface so shooting a lot of full power loads won't have much effect on endshake.
Actually, GP-100s function better when there are a few thousandths endshake. When they are too tight, the cylinder/yoke's ball bearings will bind making DA trigger pull harsher.

Ruger DAs are well designed for strength and longivity. S&Ws may be more "precision" but they can't stand up to the pounding that a Ruger will take. Even the large N-frame S&Ws have the skinny little yoke tube and will shoot loose.

Most shooters think the frames on a Ruger are the reason for strength. Yes, they are a bit thicker but the real strength comes from their yoke tube's surface area which is about 4 times larger than a S&W.

Bottom line: if your cylinder gap still has a couple thousandths clearance when you hold the cylinder forward, your endshake is OK.

That makes sense as well. I think I'll just monitor the situation and if it gets any worse I'll go for the bearings or send it to Ruger.

Thanks again to all for the education, insight, and suggestions.

 

[Old Fuff]

I think you are right in watching the situation to see what happens, but at the same time I wonder about the expertise of the individual that made the post you cited. Endshake is never good news, regardless of who makes the revolver.

And if there isn't any problem why do they make bearings for your model?

 

[Sport45]

Good question. Here is the entire thread from the Ruger forum from which I quoted an individual post. I hope I didn't take things out of context. I had a similar thread going over there and heard the same concerns until this individual (Iowegan) posted today. I gather he is as well respected there as you (Old Fuff) are here.

If I was left with any worry after talking to Ruger I would send it in. As it is, I think it wise just to monitor the situation and take action if it gets worse. If it was easy (it doesn't appear to be) to put the bearing(s) in I would try it. I just don't want to be tearing that deep into a brand new gun if it's really not necessary.

 

[unspellable]

end shake i nvarious revolvers

So a Ruger DA controls cylinder end shake in the same manner as a S&W?

Why doesn't S&W beef up this point a bit or go to neck locating like a Colt?

A Colt DA limits forward movement of the cylinder vie the cylinder neck bearing on the yoke. Theer's more bearing area than on the yoke tail of a S&W.

How about the Dan Wesson? The ball detent at the rear of the cylinder pushes the cylinder forward with some force and would tend to cushion rearward movement. I'd like to know what the corrrect endshake picture is on a DW.

We might as well say how this works on a Taurus while we're at it.

 

[Old Fuff]

At one time S&W flame hardened the end of the yoke barrel after it had been fitted to the cylinder, but those days are long gone.

I think the greater problem is that at S&W, as well as Ruger, hand-fitting is long gone so far as fitting yokes/cranes and cylinders. Now we have acceptable tolerances that wouldn't have passed muster before.

If the posted information is correct, Ruger will accept end-shake up to .004" and a cylinder/barrel gap up to .010" in a new gun - which is something I wouldn't.

One thing I haven't discussed and should, is to point out as the front of the cylinder can move forward, closing the cylinder/barrel gap, the back is moving forward and away from the firing pin. So in effect the headspace is being increased. If you have a .010 gap, and the cylinder eventually ends up against the barrel, then you will have in theory .010 less firing pin indention in the primer... and likely misfires, at least some of the time.

I admit that the Old Fuff is fussy about such things...