Which is stronger, Redhawk or N-frame Smith?

[CraigC]

Redhawk, hands down, without question. The N-frame in .45Colt just over 20,000psi is at its limit while the Redhawk will withstand loads in the 45,000-50,000psi range. Now ask me which one I'd rather pack on my hip.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

The thing about your excellent comparison pics Walkalong (thanks), is that although the Redhawk has much more *exterior* wall thickness, the S&W has slightly more *interior* wall thickness between cylinders, it would appear.

Craig, which one would you rather pack on your hip?

By the way, I'm looking to buy a 5.5" Redhawk, if anyone is selling (.45 Colt).

 

[Oro]

Years ago one of the gun rags (I think Guns & Hunting) did a blow-up comparison between the S&W Mod. 29 and Ruger Super Blackhawk (this was before the Redhawk was introduced).

The S&W held together after the Ruger let go.

Thanks for interjecting facts in this age-old debate. Bottom line is that one would have to strap several examples of each gun in a fixture, test them to failure with a piezo-electric pressure transducer on the cylinder to know the truth.

Arguing about apples and oranges based on conjecture and supposition is kinda silly.

 

[Walkalong]

the S&W has slightly more *interior* wall thickness between cylinders, it would appear.

About .066 on the Redhawk, and about .068 on the Smith. The ejector star on the Redhawk is thinner than the walls. I spoke with Ruger about it, and they say it should not be that way. I may send it to them one of these days.

 

[Oro]

About .066 on the Redhawk, and about .068 on the Smith.

I think the weak point is going to be the cylinder notches on the S&W. ArmedBear mentioned this I think earlier. This is why, perversely, a 7-shot 686 is stronger than a six-shooter of the same model. The notches are thinner than either the exterior or lateral wall thickness. The offset notches on the 7-shot make their thinnest point (lateral walls) thicker than the thinnest point on the 6-shot (cylinder notches).

Edit: You know you are getting older when you forget you have some micrometers and an N-frame in .45 Long Colt less than 30' away...

I mic the lateral cylinder walls on mine as .067", and the cylinder wall thickness at the notch at about .026".

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

This is why, perversely, a 7-shot 686 is stronger than a six-shooter of the same model. The notches are thinner than either the exterior or lateral wall thickness. The offset notches on the 7-shot make their thinnest point (lateral walls) thicker than the thinnest point on the 6-shot (cylinder notches).

That's just....weird. Cool but weird.

 

[ArmedBear]

That's just....weird. Cool but weird.

Remember: the S&W N Frame dates to the Hand Ejector of 1908, when modern high pressures were not an issue. The problem with the centered notch arose when early tinkerers (Elmer Keith being the best-known) developed modern Magnums. AFAIK all the older guns, from the first Colts, had centered notches.

The Redhawk was designed in the late 1970s, with the .44 Magnum in mind, so the notch is offset on purpose; the frame and internal mechanism were tweaked for this purpose. The 7-shot L-frame gives the same result, without changing the frame or internals.

 

[MCMXI]

Walkalong, you have a typo in your photo showing the exterior wall thickness of the S&W. You have it labelled as .65" but you mean 0.065".

Here's a shot of the cylinder of my Redhawk in .45 Colt ... just because. I could show photos of the cylinders from my two Blackhawks (.45 Colt) or Super Redhawk (.454 Casull/.45 Colt) but those cylinders don't have any flutes!

 

[MachIVshooter]

Regardless of how they are made, and of what, the Ruger is rated for higher pressure loads. I do not believe the cylinder is the only factor in the differences

Correct.

For the record, I've never suggested that the S&W was the stronger gun.

I've been told by a source I trust that the type of investment casting Ruger uses and their metallurgy dictates that they need 20-30% more metal to equal the strength of the forged steel in a S&W or Colt. That would mean that for the cast Ruger cylinder walls to be as strong as the .065" forged S&W walls, they'd need to be .845" thick at 30% increased. Well, measured at .105", that makes them 60% thicker, which, using a margin of error (this not being an exact science) and assuming a linear equation, should make the Ruger some 25% stronger or so.

Obviously, it would take actual lab tests to figure out what the difference really is, but just playing with some good faith numbers, yes, we can see that Ruger typically more than compensates for the slightly weaker materials they use with substantially increased mass.

 

[Oro]

Remember: the S&W N Frame dates to the Hand Ejector of 1908, when modern high pressures were not an issue.

The N-frame is based on the hand-ejector lock-work design finalized in 1905 in the K-frame. It was scaled up to N-frame dimensions in 1909. You point about not being high-pressure is spot-on. Just clearing up the tiny details as I know them.

I've been told by a source I trust that the type of investment casting Ruger uses and their metallurgy dictates that they need 20-30% more metal to equal the strength of the forged steel in a S&W or Colt.

That is about consistent with what I have observed in finished material products. But there are dynamics about failure characteristics in material which vary based on how the materials are "loaded" and in which direction. The arch or "vault" shape that prevails in the top semi-hemisphere of a cylinder, for example, is one of the more complicated ones, and one I'm not able to calculate - my professional training in those physical sciences wasn't that thorough. Another issue is that cast materials are prone to porosities which make prediction of a large number of samples predictable, but of any single sample less so. I have personally used a number of investment cast products from Ruger's NH facility which have had random and sometimes surprisingly large porosities and voids in the material after working them.

That is one of the major things that worries me about investment cast cylinders on revolvers. I've encountered voids in products from the process (Ruger's, not some cheap non-firearms applications). Perhaps Ruger uses sophisticated X-ray techniques to check each cylinder, but I don't know that they do and intuitively doubt it.

Ruger products work, and work well. But when you dig into the details and try to make judgments about different construction techniques, you have to talk about these things.

 

[Walkalong]

Walkalong, you have a typo in your photo showing the exterior wall thickness of the S&W. You have it labelled as .65" but you mean 0.065"

Whoops. I'll fix it.

 

[MachIVshooter]

That is one of the major things that worries me about investment cast cylinders on revolvers. I've encountered voids in products from the process (Ruger's, not some cheap non-firearms applications). Perhaps Ruger uses sophisticated X-ray techniques to check each cylinder, but I don't know that they do and intuitively doubt it.

I, too, have seen the voids you mention. Perhaps they're just more careful with the critical parts, like cylinders. I don't know either. But the lack of blown up Rugers would suggest they have it figured out.

I'd love to know more about their technique, for sure. The greatest weakness of casting has always been tensile strength/ductility. I don't see how it can be avoided in any casting process, no matter how sophisticated. And that's an important aspect in buidling small metal parts that have to contain thousands of pounds per square inch of pressure. Maybe someone who knows more about Ruger's materials and techniques could chime in?

 

[CraigC]

Craig, which one would you rather pack on your hip?

My sweet, svelte and Mundenized 629MG, of course.

Ruger casts their frames, their cylinders are cut from barstock. Repeat, Ruger does not cast their cylinders. All this discussion about cylinder dimensions and metallurgy is really moot. We "know" what these guns can handle and when chambered in .45Colt, the Redhawk can withstand about double the pressure of the S&W.

 

[Antihero]

Redhawks and Blackhawks are stronger than pretty much anything from other companies in comparable sizes. By this i mean the Redhawk is stronger than the N Frames but not the X Frame and the Blackhawk is stronger than pretty much any SA that isnt a Freedom Arms 5 shot.

Ive owned both and found that SA's are better for hot loads and woods walking. I own a Blackhawk in 45 colt that is loaded with Buffalo Bores 325 HC that hits a bit over 1350 in my gun and couldnt be happier.

You really might want to look into a Blackhawk instead on A Redhawk. The Blackhawk feels like less recoil( i do want to mention that the Redhawk i had was a 44mag firing comparable loads) and there really is no difference in follow up shots, you are not going to be doing double taps with a heavy 45 colt load anyway.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Ruger casts their frames, their cylinders are cut from barstock. Repeat, Ruger does not cast their cylinders

Source? You may be right, but that's not congruent with the information I have found.

 

[Blue Brick]

http://www.rugerforum.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=19158&highlight=casting

To cover this subject would take a book. Both forgings and castings have their place in industry. It depends on material, processes used after the initial operation and the configuration of the part being made. The blanket statement that all forgings are stronger than castings just isn't true. It depends on the application.

Forging produces a dense, tough material, but has its limitations for configuration. It is a relatively simple, inexpensive process, but can only produce simple shapes which still require a significant amount of machining. Today's investment castings aren't what we all remember as pot-bellied stoves and engine blocks that were quite brittle. Today's investment castings are just as tough and flexible as any forging. In addition, castings can be made from materials that are not suitable for forging.

In both cases the raw part requires stress relieving due to internal stresses induced in their formation and cooling. This is normally done by annealing. Annealing relieves the internal stresses so distortion is minimal during the machining processes. Also it allows the parts to be straightened more easily for the machining process. Straightening also induces internal stresses, but normally not to the extent of the original ones.

Because forging is limited to relatively simple configurations, more machining is required, increasing the cost and very often results in an additional straightening operations due to the residual internal stresses relieved by the machining operations. Castings, on the other hand, because of the ability to produce complex shapes, require very little machining, and therefore, rarely require any additional straightening.

Today's metallurgy and casting/heat treat techniques produce a part equal to and in some cases stronger/tougher than a forging. In the casting process, custom recipies for the material are the norm. It's not just mill run material that is melted down and poured into a mold. I know, at Ruger anyway, that very few castings were made of standard materials. Most base alloys were modified to obtain different characteristics than the original base material. It may have been an addition for strength, toughness, machinability, castability or a number of other reasons. Forging doesn't allow this unless you purchase full mill runs made to your specification. The auto industry can afford to do this, but the smaller operations, such as gun manufacturers, often must use standard available alloys.

Both castings and forgings have their place in the industry. Forged parts are cheaper to make than castings, but require more finishing, Whereas cast parts are more expensive to produce, but require less finishing. The difference in strength/toughness between the two when you get down to the finished part no longer exists. It's all a matter of economics. If you have your own foundry or forge, that's what you're going to use. If you must purchase the raw parts from an outside source, you're going to go with what is most economically feasible for you. Machining/labor is very expensive today. Ruger went into the casting business because it was more economical to produce a complex part that required very little finishing than to buy a less complex forging or billet that required a lot of finishing.

Ruger firearms have always had a reputation for being the toughest kid on the block. That should speak for itself as to the integrity of castings being used for structural applications. I'm not knocking forgings by any means. Forgings have their place, too. But as for any difference in strength/toughness of a finished part between the two today, it just doesn't exist.

Chet15, I hope this is what you were looking for in an explanation of the two processes. They are both applicable to the firearms industry. How/where they are used is strictly dependent on application and economics.
_________________
Coffee Pot

 

[MachIVshooter]

Thanks for posting, bluebrick, but I'll take the word of the double PhD metallurgist who schooled me on the subject over internet chatter every time.

 

[Hawk]

Redhawk, hands down, without question. The N-frame in .45Colt just over 20,000psi is at its limit while the Redhawk will withstand loads in the 45,000-50,000psi range. Now ask me which one I'd rather pack on my hip.

Welcome to the darkside! I've enjoyed your posts at TFL (that is you, isn't it?).

As to the OP, the S&W is laboring under, for lack of a better term, "legacy issues". Which is to say that whatever might be fed to a -10 M29 is not the same as might be reasonably fed to a "pre-2E" M29. A modern MIM festooned, L-word, EDM rifled, sandpaper-finished M29 will cheerfully swallow loads that would turn a Bangor Punta gun into a "backward cylinder spinning, frame stretched wreck" (r) Tamara.

Any published loads for the 29/629 will have to be usable in the early models which, I suspect, is largely why .45-70 is still loaded to trapdoor specifications.

The 29 can handle more now than it could though still probably less than the RH when introduced which is not conspicuously different today.

If you're looking to launch Epic Supreme Galactic Overlord of Doom rounds, a Freedom Arms 83 might be a better choice than either.

 

[MCMXI]

Talking of the S&W Mountain Gun, what are the differences between the 625-6 and 625-9 other than the addition of an internal lock on the -9? Does the -9 have a higher pressure rating?

 

[MachIVshooter]

A modern MIM festooned, L-word, EDM rifled, sandpaper-finished M29 will cheerfully swallow loads that would turn a Bangor Punta gun into a "backward cylinder spinning, frame stretched wreck" (r) Tamara.........If you're looking to launch Epic Supreme Galactic Overlord of Doom rounds, a Freedom Arms 83 might be a better choice than either..

Man, you'd owe me a keyboard if the one I was typing on actually belonged to me.

 

[Slamfire]

If you are launching sub 1000 fps loads, the Smith just might hold up as well as a Redhawk.

If you are launching sub 1500 fps loads, the Redhawk is the way to go.

A Mountain Gun is a lightweight revolver. Its a wrist snapper with the heavier loads. You might give out before the revolver gives out.

 

[slick6]

Here is a photo I took of my Smith & Wesson Model 27-2 .357 versus my Ruger Redhawk .357, to illustrate their cylinder size deifferences. Also, note the offset bolt notches in the Redhawk's cylinder:

 

[CraigC]

Welcome to the darkside! I've enjoyed your posts at TFL (that is you, isn't it?).

Thanks, yep, that's me. We won't go into why I'm not on TFL anymore.

Source? You may be right, but that's not congruent with the information I have found.

Didn't remember but this was the only reference I could find that looked familiar. Chet15 is the publisher of the Red Eagle News Exchange and what he says about the economic viability of casting cylinders is right on. They are too simple a part to cast. What source have you got that they are cast?
http://www.rugerforum.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=436334

Thanks for posting, bluebrick, but I'll take the word of the double PhD metallurgist who schooled me on the subject over internet chatter every time.

Unless I'm mistaken, "Coffee Pot" is a Ruger employee.

 

[MachIVshooter]

What source have you got that they are cast?

Well, that had been a phone call to Ruger about 2 years ago, with the initial inquiry being about obtaining a .327 Cylinder for my .32 H&R SP-101. It was my understanding that they are cast in the Pine Tree facility (where they cast almost every part, except the forged barrels), then are turned on a CNC lathe, then put in a jig to cut the notches, flutes and ratchet teeth, and finally go to chamber reaming machines before being heat treated.

I suppose, however, that casting is no more economical with those extra steps than cutting them from round stock would be. But it also doesn't seem that it would be any more involved, since the casting facility is already set up, and all that would be needed is the molds.

I called Ruger again, but the guy who handled my call kinda bumbled through the answers, and couldn't give me anything more than "we do CNC the cylinders", which does not actually answer the question at all, since I had been told that when I was informed they were cast. I also had to reiterate twice that I was talking about the cylinder, not the frame. It would seem that their CSR's who handle inquiries are not very knowledgeable beyond what's stated on the website or in catalogs.

We may never know for sure, I guess. lol

 

[Blue Brick]

We may never know for sure, I guess. lol

Ask for a manager or technician next time. They will call you back if need be.