Ruger Blackhawk question

Status
Not open for further replies.
Shooting "Ruger only" loads in a large frame .45 Blackhawk is no different than shooting standard pressure loads in a Super Blackhawk. Folks act as if we're reloading in the dark and doing dangerous things but this trail is well worn. If Speer, Nosler, Lyman, Hodgdon and a slew of others provide safe data, that should be enough. :rolleyes:
 
Member


Join Date: July 17, 2016
Posts: 56
As a professional engineer myself - who also has to pay Uncle Sam each year for the pleasure of working on guns - I didn't pick "ultimate yield strength" without knowing the consequence of the statement.

Yield strength to me implies a sustained stress, and more of a ductile type failure mode preceeded by some deformation, like bending or necking, etc. For a firearm shooting hot magnums, the concern should be more about low cycle fatigue or brittle overload fracture.

My Superblackhawk is over 30 years old. It eats hot handloads routinely. It went back to Ruger a couple years ago for a worn firing pin. Ruger fixed it for free.

I shot it yesterday, and made this corny video:

https://youtu.be/Aa3sx9fI8ZE
 

Attachments

  • Blackhawk 03.jpg
    Blackhawk 03.jpg
    46.3 KB · Views: 10
  • IMG_20161009_085249991_HDR.jpg
    IMG_20161009_085249991_HDR.jpg
    78 KB · Views: 9
Ultimate yield strength, when considering the strength of a revolver, is actually the ultimate TENSILE strength of the material across the thinnest portion of the cylinder - the chamber wall over the locking notches.

Ultimate tensile strength is the maximum pulling force which the part can resist without breaking. The chamber pressure effectively stretches the chamber wall, pulling it apart. Yield strength is effectively a resistance to a singular stress event, without permanent deformation, or without failure in the case of Ultimate yield strength.

What you are referring to - a resistance to repetitive strain - is elasticity/resiliency. The modulus of elasticity is what dominates here. The two are related, obviously, but very different in and of themselves. In this way, since the metallurgy and heat treat on the Redhawk's and Super Blackhawks are similar enough to class as the same, higher pressure loads will deform, without failing, the Blackhawk or Super Blackhawk before a red or super red. Similarly, since the yield strength is higher, there will be less net proportionate stress for the same old level, so the Redhawk will sustain longer life of "hot but not destructive" rounds before the strain dislocations finally overcome its elasticity.

Again, knowing the metallurgy and the dimensional design of both, the Redhawk/Super Redhawk has the greater ultimate yield strength.

That's not to say the crane won't warp nor the basepin gall and the MECHANISM of the Red's not start failing before the cylinder does for either model in that case of "hot but not destructive loads." I've shot S&W revolvers loose - including the legendary 629, but I have yet to do so with a Ruger. In the event of wearing, replacing the mechanical parts of the Single Actions will be much cheaper than doing so for the Double Actions. In the case of sustained use, the single actions - assuming proper heat treat of the basepin - will stay tight long after a DA has started failing to lock up. Equally, when the Blackhawk does start wobbling, a $20 basepin will rectify the problem, or a $7 hand, a $10 locking bolt, and a $100 take off cylinder (or a trip back to the mothership for all of the above). For the DA, most likely you'll spend $150 on a crane and cylinder, $10 for a cylinder stop, and $7 for a hand - all in take off parts. Send it back to Ruger and these days you're more apt to get a replacement than a repair when you start talking crane and extractor replacement. Just cheaper for them to write off the warranty replacement than fit new parts when it gets that bad.

But again - my statement regarding ultimate yield strength of the two is accurate.
 
Regardless of overly technical engineering vernacular, empirical data from countless sources suggests either the Redhawk or OPs Blackhawk are of sufficient durability to withstand a lifetime supply of full power cartridges.
 
Nope. The .44Mag maintains a velocity advantage across the board, for all bullet weights up to 355/360gr.
Craig,

I've read many of the "45LC vs 44 magnum" thread here on THR and understand you are passionate on the 44 magnum. There are others who've said the 44 magnum needs longer barrel in order to achieve that velocity advantage when compared to the 45 Colt.

I am struggling to understand why that is? Are we not able to use same powder thereby have the same burn rate? If so then it's merely a powder loading vs case volume difference between the two?

I like the 45 Colt in that I can achieve that velocity without having the high chamber pressure of 44 magnum. Able to do this in a shorter barrel is a plus.
 
Just because I said "aguably" the 45colt is capable of more than the 44mag, didn't mean anyone needed to waste time arguing it.
 
Craig,

I've read many of the "45LC vs 44 magnum" thread here on THR and understand you are passionate on the 44 magnum. There are others who've said the 44 magnum needs longer barrel in order to achieve that velocity advantage when compared to the 45 Colt.

I am struggling to understand why that is? Are we not able to use same powder thereby have the same burn rate? If so then it's merely a powder loading vs case volume difference between the two?

I like the 45 Colt in that I can achieve that velocity without having the high chamber pressure of 44 magnum. Able to do this in a shorter barrel is a plus.
I'm really more interested in the truth than championing any cartridge over another. I own several examples of each. I'll be picking up yet another .45 in the form of a used Freedom Arms .454/.45 convertible on Monday. So I have a hard time choosing one over another because I love them all.

In this comparison, we have to keep several things in mind. First, that the popular Linebaugh articles were written in the 1980's. A lot of folks still read those articles and take everything as gospel, not taking into account that things may have progressed. Secondly, they were written by someone who makes a living building custom .45's. Now I have the utmost respect for Linebaugh and we owe a great debt to him and his work but he does have a horse in this race.

The article where the two are compared at equal pressures always seemed a little odd to me. Because the two cartridges cannot be run at the same pressure in comparable guns. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems like manipulating the data to achieve a desired result and reads like a .45Colt ad to me.

I believed all that "more performance, less recoil" until I fired my first cylinderful of .45Colt Ruger only loads. From that point on, I have never been able to detect a difference in recoil for comparable loads. I also believed the "more performance, less pressure" and the business about the .45 handling heavier bullets better until I discovered Hodgdon's heavy bullet data. The proof was right there. The .44 was consistently faster with bullets the same weight and even faster with bullets the same sectional density. Things had changed. Bullet selection was much better than when those articles were written. So is reloading data and the way pressures are measured. The only thing to do was to find out how those loads did in actual guns. I did exactly that in a matched pair of Rugers and found the results correlated with the loading data.

I had also always heard that the .45 was a better penetrator. So I set out to find the truth there too. I spent a bunch of money on SIMTEST ballistic testing media and through a series of tests, discovered the opposite to be true. Here's a table of the top loads tested.

Penetration%20test%20chart.jpg
 
just my 2 cents Steve Cover #25 has the best answer so far.:thumbup:
 
Well, as for "answer #25, folks that feel that way are folks that would have us shooting 44Colt, 38S&W, 38Colt, 32Colt (and a few others) and driving model T Fords cause you don't need to go any faster.

Thank goodness for folks that want to " push the envelope ” (and enjoy doing so! Great ol big hint right here!!)!!! What a dull existence it would be for us all to be "settled" into "good enough". One that is happy with " run of the mill" shouldn't begrudge another that wants better. That is exactly the thought process that made this country the greatest country on earth !!! It's why you've heard of Colt, Remington, Smith & Wesson, Winchester, Browning, Bill Ruger, John Marlin, Casull, Linebaugh, Ford, Chevrolet, Edison, Otis . . . . ( yes, you know, the elevator guy!!) These weren't "settlers" they were "envelope pushers".

So, I guess there is at least two here that just can't see it, so don't worry, there's plenty here that will make a difference in your future . . . . . for you . . . . just sit back and be . . . . comfortable.

Mike
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top