The Ruger "Carryhawk"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah, me too. Thinking about selling a (insert another gun here..lol) I don't shoot to fund it. Not big on getting rid of nice guns but it's worth it for a fun gun I'd shoot a lot.

Omg, too funny. "Yeah me too", must be a common thing for some of us. This is totally the struggle for me as well. I am contemplating trading in/selling another I really don't shoot much nor plan to in the future. I hate getting rid of guns as well but one for one (trading thought compared to just straight selling) makes it more acceptable as I try to justify... That said, I just made up my mind... Thanks! :D
 
I’ve always wondered why the appeal of the convertible? I can load 45LC down to ACP levels.

Seems it would appeal to those who don't hand load, and therefore basically 2 guns in one. Typically (my experience for example) it's usually easier to find and pay for .45 ACP rounds, but might find some .45LC from time to time for a Sunday drive so-to-speak.
Then there's also going to the range with my .45 ACP 1911, I can share rounds with another cool single action gun.
Just a more versatile gun for some.
 
Last edited:
I’ve always wondered why the appeal of the convertible? I can load 45LC down to ACP levels.
Sure you can but the at .45ACP levels, the .45Colt is a lot of wasted case capacity. Not only is the .45ACP more efficient, doing the same thing with less powder but those short cases sure do eject quickly and easily. Not to mention that I'm sure a lot of folks handload the .45ACP and have a lot of ammo on hand anyway. Plus you have the option of shooting cheap hardball.
 
Sure you can but the at .45ACP levels, the .45Colt is a lot of wasted case capacity. Not only is the .45ACP more efficient, doing the same thing with less powder but those short cases sure do eject quickly and easily. Not to mention that I'm sure a lot of folks handload the .45ACP and have a lot of ammo on hand anyway. Plus you have the option of shooting cheap hardball.

Valid points.
 
Well CraigC I finally got mine last week, but don't think I had as good a luck as you had with yours out of the box. The base pin is about .090" short and front sight was rattly major movement loose from the pin hole in the blade elongated and one side broke thru the thin mtg tab. Also, the front sight barrel block mount (brazed on?) is noticeably canted to one side. Barrel is straight, just the sight mount. The matt finish is really inconsistent and even missing on some areas of both cylinders.

I contacted Ruger, and a new base pin is on the way. No word on the sight blade though. The canted sight mount block and inconsistent finish I can live with if it shoots straight.

Any probs with yours so far?
 
Well CraigC I finally got mine last week, but don't think I had as good a luck as you had with yours out of the box. The base pin is about .090" short and front sight was rattly major movement loose from the pin hole in the blade elongated and one side broke thru the thin mtg tab. Also, the front sight barrel block mount (brazed on?) is noticeably canted to one side. Barrel is straight, just the sight mount. The matt finish is really inconsistent and even missing on some areas of both cylinders.

I contacted Ruger, and a new base pin is on the way. No word on the sight blade though. The canted sight mount block and inconsistent finish I can live with if it shoots straight.

Any probs with yours so far?
That's terrible. I would just send the whole gun in, I think you'll be glad you did. Rugers CS is very easy to deal with and fast. They rebarreled a super redhawk for me and sent it back in 1 week (a couple years ago) and it was 100% fixed. Don't just accept it as is, rugers got plenty of $, it isn't going to hurt their feelings one bit to take care of you if your guns screwy.
 
Thanks Obturation for the kind thoughts and advice. Honestly that was my first thought having sent back lots of new guns back to their 'Motherships' with real honest to goodness quality and or functionality warranty issues going back wow over 4 decades now. Remembering Colts, AMTs, S&W's, Kel Tec's, (even a Wildey .45 Win Mag - arghh bad year for that one..lol) a Sig Sauer, and sadly 3 new Rugers to date not including this one. I fixed many others when I was able so in fact there would be more. I used to think I was jinxed to get the lemons..lol Also, too many times I had to pay a transfer fee to receive the returned guns thru my local FFL's.

So last week when I'd finally got this one, many things besides this gun went wrong like my closest uncle passing, my dad taking a bad turn health wise, and putting our great old dog down. Bad week for me overall, (not to mention others) and I just didn't want to send the gun back if I could get the parts and fix it myself. The canted sight mount block (omg not the first I've had from Ruger..lol) I'll see if it shoots straight with a decent sight picture, and if so I can deal with it. Ruger is sending a new base pin, and I can pretty much fix the sight blade if they don't replace it. Normally I have had no issues sending guns back, but if I can make this work I'm gonna try.
After my being upset about it, I looked at it this weekend and realized it was as messed up as I felt. Maybe working on it is meant to keep me busy through my current situation? Well, so far it's helping a bit.

Sorry for the OT CraigC, but I just wanted to explain why I'm not sending mine back just yet. That said, if mine doesn't shoot well, it's going back come hell or high water.
 
Craig,

Have you measured the cylinder diameter of a 3-screw Blackhawk in 38/357 to see if it will take six 45 caliber chambers? I haven't owned an OM Blackhawk in a number of years but I would have thought it was maxed out at 43 caliber (44 Special) and too small for the 45.

Dave
There are 3 screw 45s. I dont think any early flat tops though? Never made too many so prices are premium. Awesome guns.
 
The Old Model .357's were built on a smaller frame than the Old Model .45's. The .357's can be converted to .45's and used with Colt-level loads.

No OM flat-top .45's, they didn't come about until 1971 so they have the "ears".
 
The Carryhawk is starting to tempt me, increasingly, of late. I had initially been relatively uninterested, due to the rounded, bird’s-headed grip frame, as I have come to prefer handguns with squared grip frames, but there is a possibility I may actually like this particular weapon, as is, and, if not, this aspect is relatively inexpensive to resolve satisfactorily, by replacing the grip frame, fabricating a spacer, for a set of standard stock panels, or, having either or both done for me. This same principle already exists, with conversion stocks/grips to use on rounded-butt S&W revolvers.

One reason that I prefer squared-grip-frame handguns, is because my aging right hand is vexed by muzzle flip. A squared grip frame, that reaches all the way to the “heel bone” of my relatively long right hand, stabilizes the entire weapon, much better, resulting in much less trauma to the base joint of the thumb, and the wrist. Well, though I started carrying on my right hip, in 1983, it was because I throw right-handed, so drawing an L-frame revolver from the then-mandated low-slung duty holster felt like a natural thing to do, from the right hip. I am actually left-handed, with fine motor skills, such as pressing a single-action trigger, and, am left-eye dominant, so, SA sixgunning, and, for that matter, SA auto loading, are natural things to do left-handed. The heel of my healthier left hand has more flesh over the bone, so it may actually “like” a rounded bird’s-headed grip frame, and the better conceal-ability may well be nicely convenient.

The SBH hammer is something that I do like. The V-notch rear sight is a “well, maybe,” but is easy to change. The black finish, is, well, appropriate for a “carry” weapon, and, now that I am retired from peace officering, can carry any handgun I want, rather than have to abide by PD restrictions, which applied to what I carried, 24/7/365. (I could legally CARRY any handgun, per state law, but would have to be careful to only defend myself, or others, with an “approved” weapon, with which I had qual’ed, for the record, until retirement removed that restriction.)
 
@CraigC given this is a large frame blackhawk, do you think it is up to .45 LC + P loads? Thinking of the 330 grain Buffalo Bore rounds comparable to .44 Magnum. Some discussion way back about the .45 LC new vaqueros on the medium frame reportedly not designed for those pressures so curious as to your opinion after handling the Carryhawk as compared to say a Super Blackhawk.

Second question, RE: ACP, any crimp jump on cartridges you have noticed? Do you think it is ready to go with factory ACP ammo or do we need to be paying special attention to the crimp?

Really love what you have done with it

Best,

TTT
 
@CraigC given this is a large frame blackhawk, do you think it is up to .45 LC + P loads? Thinking of the 330 grain Buffalo Bore rounds comparable to .44 Magnum. Some discussion way back about the .45 LC new vaqueros on the medium frame reportedly not designed for those pressures so curious as to your opinion after handling the Carryhawk as compared to say a Super Blackhawk.

Second question, RE: ACP, any crimp jump on cartridges you have noticed? Do you think it is ready to go with factory ACP ammo or do we need to be paying special attention to the crimp?

Really love what you have done with it

Best,

TTT
Thanks! Absolutely on the Ruger only loads. It's a large frame Blackhawk and mine will see some serious loads once I get it converted to a Bisley. Haven't noticed any crimp jump and don't really figure it'll be a problem with ACP loads.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top