Super Redhawk Alaskan .454 Casull among other things...

[CraigC]

The 335gr gets up over 1200fps in a 4.5" barrel at only 32,000psi. The 340gr Buffalo Bore .44Mag load hits 1200fps from the Alaskan. With the .454's pressure ceiling, it shouldn't be a problem at all.

That said, Ruger really needs a 4" version of the Alaskan.

 

[MCMXI]

What powder are you using for those load? I use H110 and only get to 1,100 fps with a 340gr according to QuickLOAD and that's after calibrating the powder based on velocity results last weekend and accurately accounting for the amount of the bullet in the case. Typically QL is very close to actual velocity numbers but I'll be able to check once the bullets show up.

That said, Ruger really needs a 4" version of the Alaskan.

Absolutely! As I mentioned in my earlier post, it looks like I can push a 340gr bullet from a .45 Colt load through a 4.2" barrel faster and at lower pressure than a 340gr bullet from a .454 Casull load through a 2.5" barrel. That's messed up!

 

[CraigC]

H110 and those are actual chronograph numbers.

That 2.5" barrel is a real handicap.

 

[MCMXI]

H110 and those are actual chronograph numbers.

That 2.5" barrel is a real handicap.

Thanks ...I'm starting to see that now!


Here are some velocity results from two sources that some might find interesting.

From http://www.gunblast.com/Ruger-SRHAlaskan454.htm where the author tested factory and handloads in a SRH Alaskan.

Ammunition Velocity
Buffalo Bore .454 360 grain LBT GC 1219
Buffalo Bore .45 Colt Heavy 325 LBT 1126
Buffalo Bore .45 Colt Heavy 260 Hollowpoint 1279
Cor-Bon .45 Colt +P 265 grain Hollowpoint 1160
Cor-Bon .45 Colt +P 300 grain Jacketed SP 1036
Grizzly .454 300 grain Belt Mtn. Punch 1205
Grizzly .454 335 grain LBT GC 1001
Grizzly .454 360 grain LBT GC 986.2
Handload 314 grain Belt Mtn. Punch 26 gr. H110 1078
Handload 314grain Belt Mtn. Punch 28 gr. H110 1207
Handload Hornady 250 XTP HP 28 gr. H110 971
Handload Hornady 250 XTP HP 30 gr. H110 1096
Handload Mt. Baldy 270 gr. SAA 8.8 gr. Trail Boss 753.4
Handload Mt. Baldy 270 gr. SAA 10 gr. Trail Boss 1002



Here's some velocity data for bullets ranging from approximately 330gr to 360gr tested in a SRH Alaskan

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/sho...ger-Alaskan-454-Casull-Velocity-Ranger-Report

.454 Casull Star-line cases
335 grain Cast Performance Gas Checked LFN
25.8 grains H-110
Average velocity was 1070 FPS.


***360 grain RFN, 22.5 grains W296, moderate-heavy crimp
FPS
976
938
964
918
901
962
962
906
-----
940 Ave


Accurate Mold 45-360C...362 grains, plain-base, 23 grains W296, LLA mixed with Penetrol.
FPS
953
944
963
930
922
975
-----
Ave-947.8
SD-19.97

Ruger SRH Alaskan .454 Casull
362 grain plain-base boolit
23 grains of W296

FPS:
923
966
919
957
971
------
Ave-947 FPS
SD-24.5

Accurate Mold 45-360C plain-base, straight wheel-weight lead. The bullets were the "rejects" in my last casting. Out of 140 bullets cast 114 weighed in at 362 grains and the remainder weighed anywhere from 364-370 grains.

23.5 grains of W296 and used my Lee Factory Crimp Die.

FPS:
1033
1040
1024
1044
1056
1044
1030
1044
1027
1031
1031
1056
1024
1064
1039
1024
1031
1036
1020
1058
------------
N=20
Hi=1064
Lo=1020
Ave=1037.8
SD=12.8

 

[RecoilRob]

How large of a critter is going to be needed to stop a 360 grain hard-cast bullet at 1000 fps? I'd imagine it would be a pretty darn big one as that bullet should have some decent penetration and bone smashing prowess. Having a cylinder full in the Alaskan should offer you a pretty good chance of hurting a big bear enough to stop it from munching on you.

 

[MCMXI]

RecoilRob,
That's a good question but if my choice is a 340gr at 1,100 fps or a 340gr at 1,225 fps from two revolvers that basically weigh the same I think I'm going to go with the latter. This is all academic at this point but I am going to work up 340gr loads for both the SRH and RH and see how they do for velocity and precision and see which one I shoot better and go from there. I sent an email to Bowen asking about 4" barrels on the Alaskan but such a thing would most likely be prohibitively expensive. Ultimately I'm kicking myself for falling for the incredible looks and idea of the Alaskan without running the numbers beforehand. I don't like it when I do that but hopefully it'll all work out and I end up using both revolvers out in the back country. Worst case is that I don't see any real-world use for the Alaskan over the RH and I end up selling it ... we'll see. I should be able to work up loads in a few weeks once the bullets get here and make a decision at that time.

 

[buck460XVR]

IMHO, the difference in velocity(1100 VS 1225) is not a big deal at the distances one is going to use a gun for bear defense. I'd be more concerned with ease of carry and ease/quickness of drawing and shooting(possibly one handed while shoving the other hand down the bears throat). You are not looking to penetrate shoulders as the bear will not be broadside. Unlike when hunting them, wound channel is not really as important because the truth is, the bear will likely kill you before he bleeds out. You need to incapacitate with a CNS/brain shot or hit them directly in the boiler room. Penetration is important, but not as much as a broadside shot. Quality jacketed bullets like the 300 gr XTP mag will do just fine at the velocities you intend to push them. Odds are you will get very little expansion even @ 1225fps and penetration will be just as good as Hard-cast or monolithic. I prefer Speer's 300 gr Deep Curls in my .460. They too are designed for deep penetration. They seem push a little easier than the Hornady's and felt recoil, in my hand, seems less for similar velocities. Still, even magic bullets won't do you any good if you can't hit where you point, and can't get quick and accurate follow up shots. Hard to get really accurate when the practice needed is particularly unpleasant. You need to be comfortable with whatever gun you decide to carry, and confident with your proficiency with it. That is much more important than another 100 fps. Again, only my opinion because, I have found hand to claw with only as many bears as every one else here.

 

[MCMXI]

buck460XVR, good points for sure. It'll be interesting to see which revolver performs better for me. The bullets will be arriving on Tuesday along with a Hogue Monogrip for the Redhawk to replace the Hogue Bantam grip that it came with. I have XS sights to install on the Alaskan this weekend and hopefully the Simply Rugged holsters show up soon. The Alaskan will most likely be quicker to draw and it certainly feels good in the hand. Once I have loads worked up for each I'll be practicing with both to see which one I can draw, shoot and hit better with. All shooting will be double action and I'll throw in some one-handed strong and weak hand shooting to see how that works out.

Thanks.

 

[Rock185]

This talk about .454, especially in a 2 1/2" gun, is making my wrist hurt
FWIW, I'll just throw in a couple of chronographed results from my 4 3/4" barrel Freedom Arms revolver. Factory Hornady 300 grain XTPs averaged 1585 FPS. My handload of the 300 grain Sierra JSP and 25.5 grains of AA-9 averaged 1470 FPS. The handload was noticeably softer in recoil than the factory load, even though it was only a hundred FPS or so slower. That's all I got. My wrist is startin' to hurt again

 

[CraigC]

You are not looking to penetrate shoulders as the bear will not be broadside.

Uh, what???

Unlike when hunting them, wound channel is not really as important because the truth is, the bear will likely kill you before he bleeds out.

Wound channel is always important, critically.

 

[RalphS]

I have a 4.0 inch Redhawk in 45LC. Using the 345 grain Beartooth bullet, Starline brass, Federal Magnum primers and a carefully worked up amount of H110, I get an average velocity of 1235 fps over my chronograph at about 12 feet from the muzzle.

I too would like to see a 4 inch Alaskan, but in reality, it isn't necessary.

 

[farm23]

I have taken brown bear and you can not always depend how the shot will have to be taken. I use a FA 454 but the Ruger Alaskan will get the job done, I think a 4" would be more practical. As said many times before shot placement is everything. Buck460 I look forward to your handload results. I have several Simply Rugged holster and am sure you will like yours when it arrives.

 

[CraigC]

I have a 4.0 inch Redhawk in 45LC. Using the 345 grain Beartooth bullet, Starline brass, Federal Magnum primers and a carefully worked up amount of H110, I get an average velocity of 1235 fps over my chronograph at about 12 feet from the muzzle.

I too would like to see a 4 inch Alaskan, but in reality, it isn't necessary.

Why is not necessary? A Redhawk was the first big bore I owned and I never could find a grip that was comfortable, so it went down the road. The Super Redhawk is easy. The Hogue Tamers are not bad but the original rubber/wood insert grips are infinitely more comfortable than anything possible with the Redhawk. I would buy a 4" Alaskan .480 in a heart beat. Ruger has produced 4" Redhawks for several years now and they've never been on my radar.

 

[RalphS]

Not necessary in the sense that the 45 Redhawk can handle the hot loads that people assume you need a 454 Alaskan for.

But I agree about the grips. It took me awhile to settle on Pachmayr Presentation grips and the Uncle Mikes grips.

 

[CraigC]

The Redhawk platform is plenty capable but the grips are the deciding factor for me.

 

[MCMXI]

I too would like to see a 4 inch Alaskan, but in reality, it isn't necessary.

Referring to my example above comparing 340gr loads in the RH and SRH, the question for me is whether or not an extra 150 fps or so over the .45 Colt is desirable, above and beyond what Bowen states of his custom SRH with a 4.0" barrel .... "[it combines the] superior action and recoil-handling of the Super Redhawk with the more compact and versatile standard Redhawk" and CraigC's point about the better grip options with the SRH. If my choice is a 4" RH or a 4" SRH I think it's a no brainer and this might be why Ruger doesn't offer a 4" SRH. The choice between a 4" RH and a 2.5" SRH is less obvious.

Ruger Redhawk 4.2" barrel (.45 Colt) - 340gr @ 1,225 fps
Ruger SRH 2.5" barrel (.454 Casull) - 340gr at 1,100 fps
Ruger SRH 4.0" barrel (.454 Casull) - 340gr @ 1,375 fps

 

[MCMXI]

I managed to install XS DXW Standard Dot sights this weekend (see before & after photo below) which was a little more challenging that I expected. The rear sight is simple enough but the front sight needs to be drilled which is challenging for such a small part. I decided to get the sight set in place in the pocket using JB Weld and drill a 1/16" hole for the pin once the epoxy was set 24 hours later. The length (not height) of the front sight is shorter than the factory sight so there isn't much margin for error in fore/aft positioning hence the alumimum tape on the barrel to act as a stop to properly locate the sight. Other than breaking a dull 1/16" bit I was able to get it taken care of and am pleased that the sight "pocket" is full of epoxy so that it won't trap water when out and about. I loaded up 12 rounds of a 300gr FP with 29.5gr of H110 and got the rear sight adjusted to POA at 15 yards. As you can see from the photo below, the XS sights offer more contrast than the factory sights and for me offer a better and much faster sight picture. I really don't know why any manufacturer installs black front sights on a handgun other than cost. I chose the standard dot front sight since the Alaskan has a short barrel and it's the same front sight on my Ruger KLCR revolvers. I also installed the same sight set on a Ruger GP100 with 4" barrel and that was a very easy installation requiring no drilling.
I did have two FTF out of the twelve rounds that I shot yesterday when shooting DA. I was able to shoot one of them SA but the other didn't go off after three or four attempts using SA. I swapped the 10lb hammer spring for the 12lb hammer spring this morning to see if that helps

The spring issues for the Redhawk's and especially Super Redhawk's are largely exaggerated. Unless there's a fitment issue in the action, neither design actually needs all of the spring force with which they leave the factory. A few quick clean ups here and there and all is right in the world, even with a reduced power spring.

I'm going to test the 12lb spring first and then look at "cleaning up" the trigger and hammer. I'd like to have the lightest 100% reliable DA pull possible so even if the 12lb spring works, I'd like to go lighter if possible. Bowen mentions an extended firing pin for the SRH so I'm not sure if he's experienced reliability issues that require a longer firing pin.

One other thing, the Hogue Tamer grip that came with the revolver spreads apart at the top when the screw is barely tight enough to hold the grip on. I'm tempted to replace it with the standard GP100/SRH Hogue grip since I have those grips on a number of revolvers and they don't have that problem. Not sure if the Tamer grip makes a massive difference in terms of felt recoil but it won't be hard to test as I have two GP100s with the standard Hogue grip.


Factory sights on the left, XS sights on the right

Sight installed using JB Weld prior to drilling 1/16" hole

 

[MCMXI]

HA! The 340gr bullets from Montana Bullet Works arrived this morning. I've been ordering lead bullets for 25 years and never had them show up like this!! I'll have to weigh and measure some tonight to see how consistent they are.

 

[RecoilRob]

It was a long time ago that I was playing with the SRH springs, but I think I ended up using the stock hammer with a reduced power trigger return from the Wolff pack. Might have used the 12lb hammer...can't remember, but got spooked with the misfires and wanted total reliability. Actually, IIRC the trigger return spring seemed to be more responsible for the heavy pull than the actual hammer spring and mine would not return reliably with the lighter springs before I smoothed things a bit. Smoothed up it returns smartly with the heavier of the Wolff return springs and is very much nicer to shoot....though in a kicker like that I don't find the heavier pull that much of an inconvenience. With the Ruger staging like it does and my trigger finger making contact with the guard just before it breaks, I can have it ready to fire before it comes back down out of recoil which works pretty well.

 

[MCMXI]

I had a chance this morning to start initial load work up of the 340gr WFN bullets from Montana Bullet Works. QuickLOAD is an incredibly useful tool but it's only as good as the inputs. For revolvers the theory is that you enter barrel length as the dimension from the muzzle to the breech face (like a semi-auto pistol) and subtract 1.5% from the predicted velocity for each .001" of cylinder gap. This gives you accurate pressure data and you can calculate the actual velocity data. My SRH Alaskan has a cylinder gap of .005" based on the feeler gauges that I have which would equate to a 7.5% reduction in velocity compared to predicted values. With the 340gr bullet I had to adjust the COAL +.025" over actual COAL so that the length of the bullet inside the case is accurate. This directly affects pressure predictions and is an important step since QL doesn't know the bullet geometry unless the bullet is already in the data base. QL also doesn't know or account for the throat dimensions of the chambers whereas the barrel groove diameter is an input so there is some tweaking to do, but QL can get you very close and is particularly useful if there isn't any published data for a specific bullet/powder combination. Anyway, after validating the approach based on previous 300gr and 360gr velocity results in combination with today's results I have a high level of confidence in the data shown below.

I put together six rounds each using 25.0gr and 27.0gr of H110 and despite a cluster this morning with the chronograph (I shot one of the IR screens ), I was able to get velocity for the two loads. 25.0gr and 27.0gr produced average velocities of 947 fps and 1,102 fps respectively. Comparing those values to the predicted velocities of 1,047 fps and 1,150 fps the losses are 9.5% and 4.2% respectively. I'm betting that the lack of pressure in the 25.0gr load didn't result in good obturation of the bullet and therefore saw a greater velocity loss. From what I've read, H110 needs to have a 90% or greater fill capacity for consistent ignition so I want to be up in the 28.0gr to 30.0gr range and it will be interesting to see the % velocity loss for 29.0gr and 31.0gr loads along with SD numbers. If the bullet is obturating properly at pressures over 37,000 psi I would expect to see a similar loss as I move up. Anyway, I'm thinking that somewhere around 29.0gr to 30.0gr will be the sweet spot in terms of velocity and SD but I'm not sure about felt recoil.

QuickLOAD has a recoil calculator and the two loads shot today produce something on the order of 16.25 ft-lb and 19.80 ft-lb with that 2.75lb revolver. I installed the standard GP100/SRH Hogue monogrip on the Alaskan and had no problem with either load in terms of felt recoil. The brutal Winchester 260gr Winchester ammunition that I shot earlier produces something like 23.75 ft-lb of recoil which in theory should be very similar to the 29.0gr load shown below but we'll see. Impulse is the derivative of acceleration wrt time so it's possible that a heavier, slower bullet is more pleasant to shoot than a lighter, faster bullet ... I sure hope so because I have no interest in working up a load that produces the kind of felt recoil that the Winchester load has to offer!

One more issue is that I had a couple more FTFs today despite changing to the 12lb hammer spring. I looked back at a post I made about this revolver more than seven years ago and I mentioned FTFs at that time and that was with the factory springs. So now I'm thinking that I need to investigate further and see if the hammer is dragging or if there's some other issue causing FTFs.

The Simply Rugged holsters and harness have shipped along with a replacement Hogue Tamer Monongrip since mine appears to be defective. Personally, I prefer the feel of the standard GP100/SRH Hogue monogrip so may have to order one of those to replace the one that I borrowed from one of my GP100s. On a side note, the grip of the SRH is vastly superior to that of the Redhawk being the same size as the GP100 grip.

QuickLOAD data for MBW 340gr WFN bullet and H110 powder

Another beautiful 50F morning in Montana with .454 Casull rounds casting a long shadow.

 

[CraigC]

That bullet have one or two crimp grooves? I wonder if it's the same bullet as the CPBC/Leadhead 335gr WFN?

 

[MCMXI]

That bullet have one or two crimp grooves? I wonder if it's the same bullet as the CPBC/Leadhead 335gr WFN?

Just one.... see photo in post above

 

[CraigC]

Don't ya hate it when people ask dumb questions?

Very well could be the same bullet as the CPBC 335gr. Which may open up more options for load data.

 

[MCMXI]

Don't ya hate it when people ask dumb questions?

No problem... and it's not a dumb question, just a question that was already answered indirectly.

So I got to shoot some more loads today, 30 rounds in all and my hand is a bit sore. I don't like shooting the Alaskan off a bag and find it very unnatural. Here's the data from today.

340gr MBW WFN
CCI 450 SRM primer
H110 powder
Starline brass, new
COAL: 1.750"

27.0gr > 1,109 fps
28.0gr > 1,146 fps (bullets jumping crimp)
29.0gr > 1,200 fps (stout load, bullets jumping crimp)
31.0gr > 1,350 fps (very stout load, fired cases hard to extract, bullets jumping crimp)

I cleaned up the hammer and frame a bit and the hammer appears to fall just fine but I had more FTF events so I'm going to try CCI small rifle primers next. As for the loads, I think I'll stick with 28.0gr to 29.0gr and probably closer to 28.0gr. I had a hard time with accuracy today which in part was due to the XS sights which are better suited to "combat" than precision target work. I did go back to the Tamer grip after the 28.0gr load since my hand was taking a beating.

 

[buck460XVR]

Good looking heavy crimp and it appears from the hour glass shape where the bullet is seated to, that you have good neck tension. Might just be the nature of the light gun and heavy bullets for making bullets jump crimp. Maybe go with a tad lighter projectile and see if bullet jumps disappears? Not only is there the chance of jamming the cylinder with a jumped bullet, but with H110/W296 it might be enough to affect positive ignition. Until I got the bullet jump under control, I wouldn't stop using magnum primers. I also don't think the cup is thinner on CCIs standard SR primers than they are on their SRM primers, maybe so. Still I'd try something like Federals or Remmies that are known to help with light primer strikes. Do you have the same problem with factory ammo as for FTFs? Is it the primers/spring or could it be primer seating depth? I have gotten so I prefer IMR4227 over H110/W296 in my .460. It does not give me the extreme velocities that H110/W296 does, but it's very accurate, easier to ignite(no need for magnum primers, even in extreme cold) and loves a full case and heavy bullets. Compressed loads give velocities only slightly less than H110/W296. Felt recoil to me is less snappy, maybe because of the pressure curve it produces.