Tried the Redhawk again. Much better.

[feets]

It looks like the biggest problem with my Redhawk rests squarely on the loose nut behind the wheel.
In my "new gun let me down" post I was concerned with the new Redhawk scattering bullets everywhere despite the same loads running tightly in my Super Redhawk.
A close examination showed somewhat undersized chambers and a frame restriction choking the bore down to .4446".
It was suggested that I try some .451 jacketed bullets to see if they would run better than the .452 lead with the bore restriction.

Well, a friend and I took the Redhawk out for a little test drive today. The idea was to plant that sucker solidly and see what it would do.
We brought one of our home made Contender rests and the following loads:
230 FMJ (45 ACP style) .451" over 6.5 grains of Trail Boss.
265 RFN lead .452" over 5.5 grains of Trail Boss.
200 XTP .451" over 17 grains of Blue Dot.
265 RFN lead .452" over 15 grains of Blue Dot.
265 RFN lead over 17 grains of 2400.

We put at target up at 15 yards and stuffed the Redhawk into the rest.

First up was the 230 FMJ/Trail boss load.

That's fairly impressive considering I got 8" groups at 10 yards last time out. Maybe it likes jacketed bullets.

We pastied up the target and tried the same thing with the lead trail boss loads:

He tossed a couple rounds but it still wasn't an 8" group.

We patched the target again and ran the XTP/Blue Dot combo:

That was a bit looser but the target was getting a bit chewed up. I took over so he could get a little IPSC practice. The whole rig was moved to my shooting position for the next set.

This is what happened with the lead/Blue Dot loads:

Out of two cylinders full I managed to toss three rounds out of the group but it still held them together, relatively speaking.
The gun was consistently shooting high so we swapped the front sight between the Redhawk and the Super Redhawk.

Surprise! They were different heights. I was too brain dead to notice that when I shot the Redhawk the first time. I had swapped them because I could not see the factory sight as well as I could see the fiber optic sight I stuck on the SRH.

With the correct height site reinstalled I sent 12 of the 2400 loads down range:

Again, I managed to lump three off to the side but that sure looks like shooter error.

So, the drastic vertical dispersion of the first outing was completely my fault. I wasn't shooting the gun well and swapped sights to see if it would help. Obviously, it didn't.
Both of us are spoiled from shooting high mileage guns with improved triggers and actions. The bone stock low mileage Redhawk has a single action trigger that neither of us really care for. The gun really does have some issues to address but it appears to run better than I gave it credit for the first time around.

I guess I'll go sit in the corner with the dunce cap on. I still plan on calling Ruger about the reduced bore and oversize hammer pin hole that allows the assembly to slop around. If they don't offer to inspect/repair the gun I'll start working the action for a more acceptable trigger feel.

 

[moxie]

Thanks for being honest, and glad it's working out for you.

 

[41 Mag]

I guess I was lucky with the three I have. In most cases i can hold them to groups like your middle three targets off hand at 25yds.

They might not be perfect, but they are built like tanks and I have really enjoyed them for the hunting I use them for.

I have the 41,44, and 45 Colt, and was planning on trying to pick up the 357, but with the way things are now I doubt that will ever happen. Simply isn't worth it to me for the price I have see them go for.

Glad yours is working out, and yep the triggers aren't anything special to say the least. They do get better though after putting some rounds through them.

 

[Walkalong]

That is a cool rest. What is it?

 

[skidder]

From reading online troubles. It seems the majority of complaints lie with the 45 calibers from Ruger. I have the 44 and it is very accurate. Not sure what it is with the 45 caliber Ruger seems to struggle with? Has the 45 diameter changed over time?

 

[Patocazador]

I have a .45 Colt Blackhawk with adj. sights and 7.5" barrel. I finally got a hunting load that works in my gun: (This is done from memory so look it up first to check)
250 gr. Hornady HP-XTP
20.0 gr. of 2400
CCI 350 primers

It's a handful but not as much as a full house .44 mag.

 

[feets]

That is a cool rest. What is it?

Thanks.
It's a home made rest. I have a machine shop in my garage. The rest pictured above belongs to my friend. I cut the aluminum and made the spoked adjusting wheel. He did the assembly.
Mine is similar. It was made for a spoked adjusting wheel like he has but I stuck a knurled wheel in there just to play with it.
My rest is built from pieces fitted together, not just long bolts. I'm thinking of building another one where all the fasteners are hidden from view.

Here are the two rests together:

My rest is fairly smooth and tidy but those bolts out front are like warts on an otherwise clean design.

 

[EnsignJimmy]

From reading online troubles. It seems the majority of complaints lie with the 45 calibers from Ruger. I have the 44 and it is very accurate. Not sure what it is with the 45 caliber Ruger seems to struggle with? Has the 45 diameter changed over time?

.45 Colt is an interesting animal, mostly because almost everyone (Ruger included) likes to cut the chambers really loose (as if we were still driving .454" lead slugs with balloon-head cases stuffed with FFFg) and the barrels really tight (because most 45-caliber bullets these days are sized to .452", as the biggest consumer of 45-caliber bullets are .45 ACP guns.) The end result is you have more wiggle-room in the chamber, and you're aiming for a smaller hole than the cartridge was originally designed with ... which leads to somewhat indifferent accuracy. The .44 Magnum isn't cursed with all that historical baggage.

For example: My most accurate "modern" .45 Colt gun is a Smith and Wesson Triple-Lock Hand Ejector that started out life as a .455 Webley shipped to the Canadians for WWI. It was converted to .45 Colt after the war, but the re-cutting of the chambers left a lot to be desired. I fixed that through judicious polishing; and the end result is a .45 Colt gun whose chambers are all much tighter than the usual mass-market .45 Colt gun. Yes, being that this is an early century gun, the bore works best with .454" bullets; but having no slop in the cylinders helps make it a real tack-driver with modern .452" cast bullets.

My Redhawk isn't quite the tack-driver that my Triple-Lock is ... though it does feature "get the job done" accurate with both my favorite daily-driver .45 Colt load (255 grain bullet at 900 ft/sec) and my favorite heavy .45 Colt load (335 grain bullet at 1100 ft/sec.)

 

[skidder]

EnsignJimmy-- Thanks for the history. I don't have a 45, but I'd like to get one. Since I reload it sounds like I'd be better off buying the .454 bullets to accommodate these modern sized chambers. Correct??

 

[41 Mag]

I don't have a 45, but I'd like to get one. Since I reload it sounds like I'd be better off buying the .454 bullets to accommodate these modern sized chambers. Correct??

Unfortunately that might, only work if your going with lead bullets, but even then your still going to be on the big side. You still have to stick within tolerances of the barrel. Trying to drive a larger bullet into a smaller hole, depending on the powder or bullet weight, or composition, can result in some pretty steep pressures.

Most of the issues with the Ruger's, especially the Redhawk, are where the barrel screws into the frame. On some it actually is screwed in to the point that it squeezes the barrel down some which causes a minor constriction. This in turn will squeeze lead bullets down in size which will result in leading, and horrible accuracy. It can however be fixed, it's just sad they came out of the factory in that condition in the first place.

 

[huntershooter]

Again; cylinder throats will ideally be sized .001" over bore diameter.
In the case of a "modern" .45 Colt this will be cylinder throats of .452" with bore diameter of .451".
Why would you want to load .454" cast bullets with already too tight cylinder throats?

 

[skidder]

Why would you want to load .454" cast bullets with already too tight cylinder throats?

That is exactly what I'm asking. Why does Ruger cut the chambers/throats larger than .452. I've read several threads where people were claiming their .452 bullets were loose in their brand new Rugers. They changed to .454 bullet to match Ruger's over-sized throats.

 

[jack44]

My 44mag.like 2400 also!.

 

[Walkalong]

It's a home made rest. I have a machine shop in my garage.

I am impressed. Very nice. I have a small lathe, but that's it. I have some scrap aluminum pieces I have scrounged. I may try something like yours. I reckin' I need to get a small milling machine one of these days.

Very impressive.

 

[feets]

Thanks.

I've got a wee tiny Pratt & Whitney Model C 12 x 30 lathe.

The mill is an old Gorton duplicator that few people have ever seen.

I had a little fun making the rest. The pillars actually screw into the upper bar and nest into recesses in the lower bar. Bolts and washers are countersunk into the bottom of the lower bar and thread into the pillars to hold everything together. Here's an in-process shot.

When I made the adjusting legs I cut steps into the lock nuts. I knew the steel would dig into the aluminum rest and the steps hide the scarring under the larger outside diameter.

The most annoying part was threading the 3/16 stainless rod to make the 6 spoke wheel used to adjust height on Kirk's rest. Drilling and tapping the nut to accept those spokes without a having dividing head to use came in a close second place.

That's why I knurled the ends of the 1/4" diameter anti rotation rods and pressed them into the stainless plate for the bag. I wasn't interested in tapping shallow fine threads in stainless again. Much simpler.

 

[Walkalong]

Very, very cool lathe.

 

[41 Mag]

Pardon me for sayin so, but you do some damn fine work there.

It's probably best I don't have access to those type tools or no telling what I would be trying to build. I have enough things to play with already.

Thanks for sharing those pics. It's nice to see what great talent folks have once in a while.

 

[feets]

Ha! I have no talent. I'm just a loose nut with machine tools and bad ideas. A really cool design for a rifle rest came to mind when I was driving back to work after lunch today. I really need to explore this one and see what I can do with it.