Ruger troubles

[Just Jim]

If it were run over by an auto the would would have shown abuse. There was none. The gun was in excellent condition befor it broke into.

jim

 

[nicholst55]

I've heard of Ruger aluminum grip frames breaking (from people that I believe) as a result of firing many thousands of heavy loads. It is far from common, but it has happened.

I don't currently own a Ruger with an aluminum grip frame, but I wouldn't worry about shooting one if I did.

 

[MAX100]

It had to be dropped on a hard surface like concrete for any chance of the frame to break. That would have cause some damage to some other part of the gun. If the grip frame was run over with rubber tires on grass or while in a holster on a hard surface like a road there wouldn't be any damage to the rest of the gun.


GC

 

[MCgunner]

My Blackhawk is in fine shape. I have wood floors and I put a towel down to avoid scarring anything and pillows either side of it to flop on. I knew nothing would happen from that. If it fell further and hit rocks, well, I don't know, but it wouldn't be good to do with any gun.

Firing enough heavy rounds to BREAK the grip frame? Mmm, I'd have to see that one to believe it, too. The hand is a pretty good recoil cushion. Maybe if you had it chucked up in a ransom rest I could see it. At any rate, mine only has maybe 5K round count, maybe, just guessing really. Most of what I've fired in it is .38, too. My .45 is a stainless gun. I don't think the .357 makes enough recoil to threaten the integrity of the grip frame. It's probably take something in a .44 magnum to have a hope of that, or one of Linebaughs creations and I think he builds his guns with steel grip frames, think I read that somewhere.

The good news for the guy, I reckon, is a new grip frame is not an expensive proposition.

 

[Neophyte1]

aluminum

Just Jim: Sir; the Titanic sank; not an airplane ever built that wont crash. Crap happens. Many of us have had the 'aluminum' handles for many years; shooting crap that may scare the mess out of us. Handles that break from such volatile abolitions; many a Ruger shooter would be without some body part. Many a hot load has been shot throught the 'Ranson Rest' with the grips removed and the 'aluminum' handle bolted directly to the unit. [shooter beware loads] Failures? maybe the shooter was to embarrassed to mention such a happening. His friend would have told the story
Sir; I don't dare think it could not have happened. I do believe your truth.
I do not have a fear of my little bit of mess breaking down because of 'aluminum'
Without a doubt with failure as you describe; 'Ruger' would be called and all the mess would accompany the return box.
Lastly; if the folks would have sold it as is at a decent price I'd have bought it on the spot.

 

[ugaarguy]

and you have to go to a 30 lb X frame to get a Smith as strong as a blackhawk . If you wanna tote your revolver on a hand cart, fine.

Where are the .460 XVR Blackhawks? The X frame is far stronger than a blackhawk.

The loads I shoot in .45 colt are note approved for Smith N frames, either would frag it or wear it out inside a box fired.

If you want .44 Magnum performance buy a .44 Magnum. S&W heat treats their .45 Colts to handle .45 Colt loads. They heat treat their .44 Magnums to handle .44 Magnum loads. A 44 Mag N frame will handle anything a Redhawk will - keeping this a comparison between equivalent frame size DA revolvers.

McGunner you clearly hate S&W, just come on out and say it.

 

[Just Jim]

Yep things break. I had never seen a Ruger break like that so I thought to come here and ask if anyone else has. I appreciate all the replys, even the skeptical ones but the fact remains that the Ruger broke the grip off. I talked to the young man who owned it and his dad and both seemed honest about how it broke. It wasn't like the net where you can't see their face when your told something and I believe what they said.

jim

 

[BlkHawk73]

A 44 Mag N frame will handle anything a Redhawk will - keeping this a comparison between equivalent frame size DA revolvers.

I don't ever recall seeing a loading specifying it as "S&W only". I do however see many loads specificly nated to be "Ruger only". I'd think that says a lot about the inherant strengths.
If we're to keep in comparison using equivilant frame sizes, why was the staemant regarding Ruger not making a 460 brought up? I would bet that since Rugers are being rechambered to chamerings such a the Limbaughs (.475 and .500) there's plenty there in those smaller frames. Were they to bother with a larger frame to accomodate the longer 460 and 500 they'd likely be Ruger-strong and we'd have "Ruger only" loads for those cartridges as well.
And some idiot would try and test 'em. :banghead:

 

[Rexster]

Aluminum stands up to stress and metal fatique in a different way than steel. In bicycle frames, it has long been known that an aluminum frame, when it goes, will be more likely to fail all at once, i.e., catastrophic failure, whereas steel frames will usually show visible signs, such as cracking and tearing. This does not mean that steel cannot have a catastrophic failure. Overall, though, while I use more Ruger products than any other, with confidence, isolated failures of any product will happen. I think the "pot metal" remark touched some nerves among the faithful. There have indeed been zinc alloy firearms produced, but not by Ruger.

 

[Just Jim]

So are you saying that aluminum isn't made in a pot???

jim

 

[ugaarguy]

I don't ever recall seeing a loading specifying it as "S&W only". I do however see many loads specificly nated to be "Ruger only". I'd think that says a lot about the inherant strengths.

How many times do I have to explain that industry accepted "Ruger Only" loads are only in .45 Colt? Did you not read when I said

If you want .44 Magnum performance buy a .44 Magnum. S&W heat treats their .45 Colts to handle .45 Colt loads. They heat treat their .44 Magnums to handle .44 Magnum loads. A 44 Mag N frame will handle anything a Redhawk will - keeping this a comparison between equivalent frame size DA revolvers.

Do you still not comprehend it? I don't know how to spell it out any more clearly.

 

[MCgunner]

They make it in big vats across the bay at the Alcoa plant from sea water. It's similar to the magnesium process and i've seen that in action at Dow Plant A in Freeport. I don't want nothin' to do with it, thanks. Like working inside the gates of hell itself.

I didn't say the Blackhawk was "as strong as" the X frame, I said you had to go to an X frame to have anything Smith makes that is as strong as a Blackhawk. No, I don't hate Smith, but I do get real irritated at some who think nothing else is worthy of owning, the Smith snobs. Fact is, the Blackhawk is a stronger gun than an N frame and comparable in weight. It's not DA, but I don't see a real need for a DA gun in the field. IMHO, the Blackhawk is one FINE choice for handgun hunting or carry in the field where big critters may be encountered. As to why I'd want my .45 rather than a .44, it does what a .44 will do and at less pressure with a bigger bullet. Even have "ruger only" factory loads for it, the Buffalo Bore loads. Don't put 'em in your Mountain Gun, though, they're poison, yet the mountain gun is no lighter or handier than a 4 5/8" Blackhawk. I really prefer it or a Freedom Arms single action to any DA, lighter and easier to tote than a comparable DA gun in strength. While I like Freedom Arms, I have a Ruger budget.:banghead: When it comes to powerful outdoor revolvers, I'm a single action guy, not a Smith hater. And, I do realize there are some fine revolvers out there that won't cost you an arm and a leg to own. Add to that the infamous Smith and Wesson lock, and, well, I can live with only one. Mine don't have a lock, was made in the early 60s.

BTW, wasn't this thread about blackhawks? How the heck did I get side tracked on Smith and Wesson revolvers, anyway?

 

[ugaarguy]

Fact is, the Blackhawk is a stronger gun than an N frame and comparable in weight. It's not DA, but I don't see a real need for a DA gun in the field. IMHO, the Blackhawk is one FINE choice for handgun hunting or carry in the field where big critters may be encountered.

yet the mountain gun is no lighter or handier than a 4 5/8" Blackhawk.

The problem is you're comparing a Single Action to a Double Action. It's not even apples to oranges, it's like comparing fruits to vegetables. Compare a Redhawk to a Mountain Gun and the MG kicks the RH's butt in weight & handling.

As to why I'd want my .45 rather than a .44, it does what a .44 will do and at less pressure with a bigger bullet. Even have "ruger only" factory loads for it, the Buffalo Bore loads.

OK, I can just as easily take a 629 Mountain Gun and download the .44 Mags to
pressure & energy levels equivalent to Ruger/TC Only .45 Colt loadings.

I didn't say the Blackhawk was "as strong as" the X frame, I said you had to go to an X frame to have anything Smith makes that is as strong as a Blackhawk.

Again, comparing SA to DA, it's useless. Redhawk vs. N Frame in 44 Mag and you have equal strength guns. I do think that the Super Redhawk is a really nice intermediate step when you want more than a .44 Mag but don't want to go to an X Frame.

Add to that the infamous Smith and Wesson lock, and, well, I can live with only one. Mine don't have a lock, was made in the early 60s.

None of my Smiths have locks either. I gave my S&W rep an earful about it this weekend. I told him that it enrages me that locks are optional on their autos but a no lock option doesn't exist on their revolvers. I won't buy a new Smith wheelgun until they offer everything with the option to not have a lock. I'm a die hard Smith fan, but I always recommend new GPs over new L Frames on principal because of the lock.

 

[ugaarguy]

BTW, wasn't this thread about blackhawks? How the heck did I get side tracked on Smith and Wesson revolvers, anyway?

People posting false information claiming that Ruger frames are stronger than S&W frames, and me stepping in to correct it. Sorry.

As for Blackhawks, I agree, one freak incident isn't representative of what they are. I sell guns for a living and I think Blackhawks are amongst the best field/hunting SA revolvers out there. Actually I can't think of another heavy duty hunting SA revolver anywhere close in quality until you get into Freedom Arms guns at three times the price.

 

[MCgunner]

The problem is you're comparing a Single Action to a Double Action. It's not even apples to oranges, it's like comparing fruits to vegetables. Compare a Redhawk to a Mountain Gun and the MG kicks the RH's butt in weight & handling.

I prefer SA guns for hunting and outdoor use. I don't even consider a DA. I'm talking use here, not design.

OK, I can just as easily take a 629 Mountain Gun and download the .44 Mags to
pressure & energy levels equivalent to Ruger/TC Only .45 Colt loadings.

Sure, and they wouldn't come even close to the bullet energies that the .45 at that pressure is creating at those pressure levels. According to the Speer Number 11 manual, the Ruger only .45 colt loads are limited to 25,000 CUP. .44 mag SAAMI pressure limit is 43,500 cup. Now, these pressures in both calibers push 1000 ft lbs or a little better from a 6" barrel. The Speer manuals .45 Colt loads are really conservative, but that's the listed SAAMI pressure level max limit. Buffalo Bore, no doubt, adheres to that limit. They're listing 1267 ft lbs for a 325 grain cast bullet. Sure glad I ain't gotta pay for them loads, though. LOL

http://www.buffalobore.com/ammunition/default.htm#45colt

Again, comparing SA to DA, it's useless. Redhawk vs. N Frame in 44 Mag and you have equal strength guns. I do think that the Super Redhawk is a really nice intermediate step when you want more than a .44 Mag but don't want to go to an X Frame.

It's useless if you don't like SA guns. For carry afield with a powerful load, I go SA because it's lighter and carries more punch and is a stronger gun than a comparable DA gun. It don't have any hinges OR side plates. I'll carry a DA .357 hiking a lot when I don't see that I need the .45's power. I'm not THAT stuck on single actions. The .357 is a K frame sized 4" Taurus M66 and weighs a bit less on the hip than the hog leg.

 

[M'bogo]

"A 44 Mag N frame will handle anything a Redhawk will - keeping this a comparison between equivalent frame size DA revolvers."

BULL It will handle what the Ruger will for a lot shorter time.

An N frame Smith is not as strong as a Redhawk. I have never heard of a single Redhawk owner sending one back to the factory because of a timing problem or parts stressed by standard loadings of the .44Mag. I shot IMHSA with N frames and against N frames. I can recall several that needed work. I can not recall a Ruger or Freedom or TC that needed such work.

I love my Smiths but they are not in the same class of strength that the Ruger products are. You are just kidding yourself if you think they are. Apples to apples, N frame to Redhawk - They are not in the same class.

M'bogo

 

[marlin1888]

My expereince with Ruger customer service was fantastic. I purchased a Super Blackhawk that had been abused by the previous owner with an invisible (fix) that didn't beome apearnat until after firing 20-shots. I admittted to Ruger I bought the gun used, and expected to pay full price for the repair. They didn't just fix my gun, they did extra fit and finish to return it to new condition. Then, since I was already a good Ruger customer, they told me to tear up the bill! I worte them a very nice thank you letter, and they then mailed me a "Team Ruger Hat". Although I own guns from various companies, it's always my Rugers I trust with lots of shooting of maximum rated loads (not my Smiths, and definately not my Barettas).

 

[ugaarguy]

An N frame Smith is not as strong as a Redhawk. I have never heard of a single Redhawk owner sending one back to the factory because of a timing problem or parts stressed by standard loadings of the .44Mag. I shot IMHSA with N frames and against N frames. I can recall several that needed work. I can not recall a Ruger or Freedom or TC that needed such work.

Freedom Arms and TC build DA revolvers? Regardless, I'll give the benefit of the doubt with your competition experience. Caveat, a .44 Mag Redhawk of equal barrel length is still considerably heavier than a 629. For example, it's 47 oz. for the Redhawk and 41.5 oz. for the 629 in 4" bbl. lengths. Five and a half onces - nearly a third of a pound. That's a heavy price to pay.

Also, when you shot IMHSA were these N Frames with or without the endurance package you were shooting / shooting against?

 

[M'bogo]

I never said Freedom or TC made DA wheelguns...But dang if they did what a dandy they would be.

When I shot those were the four most common guns one saw. Of those four only the S&W guns were known to me and my fellow shooters as prone to shoot out of time (shaving metal), having end shake too great and one example breaking the bolt. None that I am aware of had an 'endurance package'. IIRC that one with the broken bolt was a 629 Classic DX. It was a hellova great shooter up till that point.

I am not S&W bashing. I feel that the average S&W will out shoot the average Ruger wheelgun and that the reverse is true of the strength of both. My most accurate DA wheel gun is an old 6 1/2" S&W nickel plated .44Mag. It was my IMHSA gun of choice until everyone around here got serious and bought Freedom wheelguns.

M'bogo

 

[MCgunner]

Well, truth be told, an N frame would last me a lifetime and then some considering the round count I put through any one gun in a year has slacked off dramatically lately. I don't own an N frame, but ever since I saw Dirty Harry, I've sorta wanted a 29.

BTW, a Q here, but is the Redhawk they chambered the .480 and .454 in bigger framed than a standard Redhawk or is it just reduced to five shots? I've never picked one up or considered one, not really something I need, but all this talk about N frames vs Redhawks, I was kinda wondering. You don't see N frames in .480 or .454. But, the pictures I've seen of the Alaskan, it don't look like a Redhawk, looks beefier. the barrel looks like (I've been told different) it's cast as part of the frame.

 

[Neophyte1]

built

Built on the "Super Redhawk" frame not the Redhawk

 

[MCgunner]

Okay, two different frames, then. I was thinkin' that.