Ruger Super Blackhawk problem

[au_prospector]

I have a Ruger Super Blackhawk stainless .44 mag.

It seems to lock up fine, however when the loading gate is open the cylinder rotates freely in either direction. My understanding is it should spin freely in one direction and lock up in the opposite direction. Mine spins freely in either direction. This makes for loading hassles, but otherwise the revolver shoots with no problems.

It this a big deal? A simple fix or do I need a gunsmith?

Comments appreciated.
~GP

 

[Salmoneye]

"Spins" freely backwards, or backs up a bit to the stop?

All New Models will back up a bit, but they 'should' stop...This does put the chamber out of alignment for loading, but you simply realign, load, and go on...

If it is indeed capable of reversing more than one chamber distance, then call Ruger...

 

[kanook]

It's called "free spin"

As long as it ONLY does it when the loading gate is open. you and the Ruger will be fine.

 

[CraigC]

Did you buy it used? If bought new, it needs to go back to Ruger. If you bought it used, somebody probably did the freespin pawl modification or installed the Power Custom freespin pawl.

Take the cylinder out, close the gate and cock the hammer. Does your pawl look like this, with the beveled corner?

 

[highlander 5]

Just went to the Ruger forum and the current production run of Blackhawks/Super Blackhawk/Vaqueros have free spin pawls so it ain't broke and nothing to panic about.

 

[CraigC]

Sigh, you should've read a little deeper. Only the 50th anniversary Blackhawks, .44Spl and .45Colt flat-tops and the New Vaquero have the freespin pawl. What they also have is what they call a "reverse indexing pawl", which is a spring loaded plunger that engages the ratchet on the rear of the cylinder. It stops the cylinder so that the chambers line up with the loading gate. So no, they do not spin freely in both directions like the common "freespin" mod or pawl does.

The rest of the Blackhawks, Super Blackhawks, Bisleys and Single Sixes are like every other New Model.

 

[au_prospector]

Sorry, I think I mistated the problem

My apologies, I did not state my problem correctly. :banghead: Remember to have firearm in front of me when I make posts like this:banghead:

Anyway, my pawl is NOT beveled.

With the gate open, the cylinder rotates freely clockwise. It locks up counterclockwise and when it stops the cylinder is not lined up with the gate as shown in the picture. I would think having it lined up at the counterclockwise stop would make loading/unloading easier as one could gain leverage to keep the cylinder in the proper position.

As it is, I have to steady the cylinder with my left fingers to keep the open chamber in the proper position for loading/unloading. It appears my cylinder isnt exactly balanced and tends to want to turn on its own one way or another so holding it steady is necessary to keep the chamber centered in the gate. As is, in counterclockwise lock up, I cannot get a round in/out of the chamber.

Is this normal or is there something wrong? I just think it would be quicker/easier to load/unload if the cylinder locked counterclockwise with the chamber centered on the gate. Sorry if I tend to repeat myself.

 

[kanook]

It would be nice if they lined up, but they don't. That is one of the reasons for the "free spin" mod. If you were to go past the desired hole, it could be reveresed and loaded, emptied, or whatever.

In time you will get use to it, as most of of have, or you will modify it, like a large number of folks have done also.

 

[au_prospector]

Thank you for everyone's input

I think I get it that this 'flaw' (if it really is a flaw) is inherit to the new model Ruger Super Blackhawk. I think I was questioning it in my mind because I also have a old unaltered three screw Blackhawk in .45LC/.45acp. On that revolver, the action locks counterclockwise with the chamber to be loaded in line with the loading gate so I figured something might be wrong with the Super Blackhawk because it didnt do it that way.

Thanks again, and just for grins I attached a picture of my kids side by side.

~GP

 

[CraigC]

This is normal operation for a New Model Ruger, unfortunately. One of the biggest complaints about the platform and it took Ruger 32yrs to correct it. Even so, like I said, they only equip a handful of models with the "reverse indexing pawl" solution. The freespin mod, PC freespin pawl and the various half-cock conversions and kits are all solutions to this problem. My preference is for a half cock notch but the freespin mod works well.

 

[BCRider]

The old three screw models were more faithful to the Colt action pattern in that you had to go to half cock. The cylinder then indexes on the hand when rotated back which happens to line up with the ejector for loading and unloading. Somehow Ruger managed to mess that up when they went to the loading gate activated bolt retraction system.

 

[CraigC]

Somehow Ruger managed to mess that up when they went to the loading gate activated bolt retraction system.

They sure as hell did!

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

It locks up counterclockwise and when it stops the cylinder is not lined up with the gate as shown in the picture.

That is their normal operation. You have to turn and hold the cylinder where you want it.

 

[Old Fuff]

Somehow Ruger managed to mess that up when they went to the loading gate activated bolt retraction system.

They sure as hell did!

Ah... Not exactly. His intention was that a user could load and unload the piece while the hammer was fully down, and if they had their finger off the trigger (as they should) then the transfer bar safety would insure that an accidental/unintended discharge couldn't happen.

Now this didn't go over well with those that preferred the original Colt system, as it was designed in 1873, but in those times Colt didn't have to worry about lawsuits being brought by bottom-feeding lawyers that were representing some brain-dead client who had shot himself because of the revolvers' alleged “defective design.”

His other option would have been to discontinue his whole line of single action revolvers and go on to something else...

But I suppose that wouldn't have made some folks too happy either.

 

[BCRider]

Old Fuff, I have to agree with you about our current suit crazy world where no one is supposed to be held responsible for their own stupidity. And certainly if it was a choice between oddball transfer bar safety gun and no SA guns at all that this is certainly the lesser of the two. But I also agree with Craig that we don't have to LIKE it....

Unfortunetly the transfer bar safety goes hand in hand with the gate activated bolt retraction and the "out of time" indexing due to the lack of the half cock position. While we could have had a transfer bar AND a half cock there's still the risk of a dropped hammer during the de-cocking step. And then you're right back in the courts. So that's why we've got SA revolvers with gate retractors and no half cock position.

 

[CraigC]

IMHO, the transfer bar and the loading issue are mutually exclusive, even if they are linked in design. Ole Bill should've designed it so that the chambers lined up with the loading port at the audible "click". I know that I have had it "fixed" in every New Model I own, except of course the late model flat-tops. A half cock notch is my preference, so that it does not seem so foreign compared to my many traditional sixguns.

As for the legal issues, anybody ever see the movie "Idiocracy"?

 

[Master Blaster]

Anyone notice the billboard on all Ruger barrels that tells you where to get a manual and to read it, they moved it to the bottom on some guns recently, but its there because of a lawsuit. Same reason they send out literature with new guns offering to convert your old model to a safer new model for free.

 

[au_prospector]

Who would know I could create such an interesting discussion just because I didnt understand my New Model Ruger and I thought there was a problem?!

Thanks guys for all your input. Eventually I will get used to my firearm and its cylinder that doesnt line up where I want it to. I dont think I will have it modified, I like things original.

 

[Old Fuff]

IMHO, the transfer bar and the loading issue are mutually exclusive, even if they are linked in design. Ole Bill should've designed it so that the chambers lined up with the loading port at the audible "click".

At the time I don’t think he was particularly concerned about the loading issue, and as I said in my previous post those that preferred the older 1873 way of doing things were never very happy about the changes. To be honest I prefer the Colt design, simply because I’ve been using it for well over a half-century. People generally don’t like to change from a way they’re used to, no matter what the “something” is.

But stop and think for a moment, “How many revolvers do you have to sell to make enough profit to cover multimillion-dollar court judgments plus associated legal fees?” For example, in Alaska of all places, Ruger got nailed when a 14-year-old boy got his father’s unsecured (old style) .44 Super Blackhawk, and proceeded to shoot himself. The court concluded that the youngster’s death occurred because of defects in the Blackhawk’s design because the revolver could fire if it was dropped.

So someone might ask,” Why wasn’t Colt being sued into the ground?” The answer they had was that the Single Action Army was being produced exclusively for collectors, and as such was not expected to be used.” In fact for a time the owner’s manual carried a statement to the effect that,” Do not shoot your new Colt!! Doing so will reduce its value.”

As for the European made clones and replicas, the lawyers could sue the U.S. importers, but they wouldn’t get much. In Europe the courts would have tossed such suits.

So that left Ruger. :banghead:

 

[CraigC]

At the time I don’t think he was particularly concerned about the loading issue...

Obviously and I understand all that but it doesn't make manipulating these guns any easier. I also prefer the traditional lockwork but not because I'm set in my ways. I find them to not only have much lighter and crisper triggers with no creep necessary for proper function (like NM's) and smoother actions but they are also easier to run fast. IMHO, one less round is a small price to pay.

Only bummer is that it is expensive to convert an OM to the Bisley configuration and that is only a recent development. I love my NM's but would like them better if they had a half cock notch.

 

[BCRider]

Old Fuff, was the kid killed because the gun dropped and discharged or was the trigger pulled normally?

I suppose I could see the reason for the suit if it were dropped and went off. After all, S&W dealt with dropped gun issues back in WWII as a result of that Navy incident. And that would have set the stage for similar improvements in all handguns. But if the kid actually pulled the trigger then the gun did exactly what it was designed to do.

Getting back to the original issue. Au P', you soon get used to holding the frame and cylinder in the left hand and using your thumb to index the cylinder around while your right hand ejects the casings or loads in fresh rounds. And if you index a little far to spin it around a full turn minus a bit.

 

[Old Fuff]

Old Fuff, was the kid killed because the gun dropped and discharged or was the trigger pulled normally?

Enough time has passed so I've forgotten the exact details, but lawyers on the Ruger side proved beyond question that the revolver had been left unsecured, and that the boy couldn't legally have if unless under adult supervision - which he wasn't. He apparently loaded the gun, and then did something that caused it to go off. They also showed that the basic pattern dated from 1873 and had been in wide use since then. The court ruled against the company, saying that the shooting had happened because of a defect in the revolver's design.

There had been several other cases where someone dropped the gun while the hammer was down on a loaded chamber.

At this point Bill decided he'd had enough, and went forward and designed what is as close to a foolproof single action as one could likely get.

Still, there ain't no cure for stupid... :banghead:

 

[BCRider]

There sure isn't.

It seems like for a while the courts were finding for the plaintiff in all manner of silly judgements out of pity and awarding bogus decisions at the bigger companies out of compassion for loss to the plaintiff even if it was shear idiocy that caused the death or injury. I'm not sure why but it seems like there was a very "liberal" attitude at the time. But it set the precident that we've had to live with for years now.

The same nonsense is why we need reminders that coffee is hot and why Piper and Cessna stopped making private aircraft for many years while still needing to carry massively expensive insurance coverage to protect them from suits related to old product. Hell, I remember hearing about a case where they tried to accuse the company of today for "defective design" related to a fabric covered plane from the 30's when some fabric failure due to neglect and lack of proper upkeep caused a crash. Total idiocy....

Anyhow, back to firearms....

 

[cpt-t]

Ruger super blackhawk

AU_PROSPECTOR: I am glad nothing is wrong with your RUGER. YOU have just bought your self a real treasure that will last you forever and then you can give it to your grand kids. I bought mind in 1975 I belive and have shot it and hunted with it a lot. The SS in GEORGIA will be great. FT Benning was our home of record for a long time and my Son was born there. I got to deer and hog hunt both on and off post and had a lot of fun in your part of the country. I hope you enjoy your ruger as much as I have mine. You can`t beat a RUGER !
Good luck to you. ken

 

[Eb1]

Lipsey Rugers stop the chamber hole at the gate. The .44 Special I looked at did anyway, but my .44 Mag SBH does not. It is the only feature that I do not like about the revolver.