Has Anyone Seen a Stress Crack Like This Before?

[November]

I'd like to hear from anyone with experience with this type of problem or has seen it before. This is a close-up of a little crack in the breechface of my stainless 357/9mm Blackhawk next to the firing pin hole bushing. I don't know if it's new or has always been there. I think it's new as I've never noticed it before. My question is: Is this pistol still safe to shoot? Has anyone seen this kind of thing before? I don't think there's any way that the crack could grow much longer seeing as how thick that part of the gun is. This is one of the roughest breech faces I've seen, so for all I know it could just be a casting flaw or the casting is weak in that area. It looks like a stress crack in the frame as it terminates at the firing pin bushing and doesn't effect the bushing itself. Normally, I'd just send it back to Ruger, but this gun is somewhat special. It is a 4-5/8" .357 stainless Blackhawk with a 9mm stainless cylinder fitted at the factory. I think they may have goofed when they agreed to fit my gun with a stainless 9mm cylinder as they won't do that to a gun unless it was a catalog item at some point. Ruger has never cataloged such a gun, and I'm afraid that if I send it in and the gun needs to be replaced that they won't re-fit a 9mm cylinder. Again, I'd really like to hear from anyone with experience with this type of problem or has seen it before. Thanks.

 

[sgt127]

That strikes me as a really bizarre place to have a crack. I can't imagine it started on a radius like the firing pin bushing, but starting from a solid steel block is even stranger. Can you see it from the other side? I would think its just a rather shallow casting flaw, but, if you are sure its a crack, I don't think I would feel comfortable shooting it any more.

 

[November]

sgt127, yeah, I'm afraid it's a crack. My guess is that since it is a high pressure area, the porous casting of the frame cracked instead of the bushing which might have been a stronger casting or forging.

 

[Gordon]

THAT is a porous casting! You WILL get a free replacement by Ruger.

 

[sgt127]

Thats a really crappy looking breechface. I have several Rugers and love them to death, and, they certainly aren't Colt Pythons..but...that almost looks like it wasn't hot enough...cooled to fast...something...Ruger owes you another frame. Best of luck, though I'm sure they will replace it, might not mention the spare cylinder and let a local Smith fit it up for you...when you get the frame back. I assume its interchangable and you still have the original cylinder...

 

[LiquidTension]

Huh? If they fit it at the factory the first time, there's no reason that they wouldn't do it again to fix a problem that appears to be their fault. This coming frome someone that's never had to deal with Ruger's customer service

 

[JohnKSa]

Not only can I not see the pic, but the thread listing doesn't show an attachment...

 

[grey9551]

poor work

That frame should have never made it through inspection. It is loaded with porosity (air pockets) and there is no way of telling how deep they are. Also the surface was never even polished or smoothed out.

This is the worst case of quality control I have ever seen.

Gary

 

[texagun]

"That frame should have never made it through inspection. It is loaded with porosity (air pockets) and there is no way of telling how deep they are. Also the surface was never even polished or smoothed out. This is the worst case of quality control I have ever seen."


I agree with Gary. I just went and took a look at my stainless Blackhawk in .357 and it looks smooth compared to yours. It is slightly rough but looks like it was buffed fairly smooth.....for a Ruger!

 

[steveno]

I have a SST Blackhawk in 45 Colt. I bought a 45 acp blue cylinder from a friend and it works just fine with no fitting of any kind required. it might even shoot better than the 45 Colt cylinder. on a mass produced handgun like a Ruger Blackhawk I don't think that there is much fitting required. that would be something else again on a Freedom Arms

 

[George S.]

You should at least call Ruger and tell them about your problem. Offer to e-mail them the pic.

If they fitted the 9mm cylinder, they should do the repairs to return the revolver back to its new condition.

 

[shermacman]

I am not a metallurgist, nor do I play one on TV, but that is not a crack. That is a casting void. See the straight parallel line of smooth metal, symmetrical in size and shape above it? Some piece of something (probably a 'piece' of air) caused the void to appear and shoved the liquid metal into place above. Looks safe to shoot, there is quite a mass of metal around it. Keep the photo, compare after a few rounds.

But that is one fugly cast job, I am glad the gun has sentimental value!

 

[P95Carry]

I'm rather with shermacman here - that is not a stress crack - more likely all part and parcel of the awful casting - voids, probably inclusions ... even for Ruger that's bad .... and I have many Rugers! Like as not, initially there was a thin layer of metal concealing the void beneath. I personally would have little problem continuing to shoot it but - OTOH Ruger should put that to rights.

John - the pic was hot linked ... not attached - the URL for it is

http://www.imagehosting.us/imagehosting/showimg.jpg/?id=397456

Showed up for me and I usually have probs when probs occur!

 

[BigG]

Agree it's a casting flaw.

 

[BluesBear]

Based on the original photo that is not a crack. That is simply a void. An air bubble, if you will, that's been there since it was originally cast.

 

[November]

First let me say thanks for the insights. I'm gonna try to take another close-up to see if I can show the "crack" a little differently. Anyway, I've decided to send it back to Ruger as I just don't feel comfortable shooting it anymore. I'll hope for the best regarding the rarity of the gun and see what happens. Thanks again for the help.

 

[sfhogman]

Please let us know how Ruger deals with the problem.

Jeff