Which is stronger, Redhawk or N-frame Smith?

[MCgunner]

Reading up on it, there are some design changes in the super redhawks frame beyond the locking system and barrel attachment method, find quotes of beefier frame, didn't know that, but it weighs similar. I'm not real familiar with the guns beyond that, but Wiki lists the super redhawk's weight at 42 ounces. I'm thinkin' maybe that's the Alaskan, though. Seems awfully light considering they list the Redhawk at 48 ounces. Yeah, I know, Wiki, but they're the easiest to source while comparing the guns.

I own neither gun. I prefer my Blackhawks. I do feel the redhawk is a stronger gun than an N frame, though, by a long shot. The frame design is the deal, no side plate. Ruger's are built rugged and strength is by design. These guns, redhawk and N frame, are way too heavy for me to be interested in, though. I just like single actions for outdoor uses. My DA guns are carries in smaller calibers like .38 or .357. The heavy .45 Colt loads I have for my Blackhawk, when I feel the need, are beyond what I'd feel safe shooting in an N frame, but in a Ruger Redhawk, okay, Super Redhawk assuming I couldn't get a Redhawk in .45 colt, no problem.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Wiki lists the super redhawk's weight at 42 ounces. I'm thinkin' maybe that's the Alaskan, though. Seems awfully light considering they list the Redhawk at 48 ounces.

SRH is 53 or 58 ounces (7.5", 9.5"). They're bulky and cumbersome, especially with that long tube. I find my Desert Eagle, despite weighing another pound, carries easier than my .454 SRH. They should have offered them with a 6" pipe (The Alaskan is too short, kills the .454 cartridge). And along this line of reasoning I don't, and likely never will, own an X-frame (besides, I refuse to have an ILS gun)

IMO if you're comparing toughness and you're comparing a Ruger to just about anything else, the Ruger is going to be tougher. They're built like tanks.

I don't think anyone's arguing that, although Freedom Arms guns put Rugers to shame. Much more expensive, though.

I believe the intent is if revolver A can withstand heavier loads for a longer period of time than revolver B, then typically it will withstand lighter loads for a longer period of time.

Flawed logic. Lasting doesn't just mean not blowing up. There are still small parts that are subject to wear regardless of load.

I am not saying that I don't believe a Ruger will last several lifetimes, just that I know a S&W will. Like I said, I have and like both, each has their place. My little SP-101 .32 H&R mag is a great sidearm when praire dog shooting, for blasting the close-in ones. But I much prefer to carry the smaller and lighter weight M37 as a CCW. Before I had my L-frames, the Security was a better test platform for working up .357 loads than the K-frames. But the K's are by far the better range guns for both accuracy and not tearing up my thumb on the roughly cut and over sprung hammer of the Security.

 

[SDGlock23]

The Ruger is tougher, no doubt. I have a 625-9 Mtn Gun in .45 Colt and it will handle hot loads, but not nuclear hot. Really I think most of it has to do with the frames. The Ruger's frame is a lot more stout than the Smiths. Plus due to the grip, I wouldn't want to shoot many hot loads out of my Mtn. Gun, I save those for my Bisley .45 Colt.

 

[MCMXI]

More SEM analysis from last night with fascinating results. First, I looked at one of the .45 Colt cylinders that came with my Bisley Blackhawk convertible. The pattern/structure of the steel in the bottom of the cylinder notch is incredible. Any ideas on the mechanism responsible for its formation? I think it's some form of crystalline structure inherent to the casting process. Based on the "mud cracks" in the bottom of the cylinder notch I'd say that this cylinder was cast too, but again, I'm not a metallurgist.

The "machine" scrolling looks neat under the SEM!

Cylinder notch:

Maching scrolling under higher magnification:

 

[MCMXI]

Next up was the cylinder from my S&W 629. I looked at the cylinder notch to see if it was markedly different from the Ruger cylinder notches. It's obvious from the images below that the S&W cylinder is very different from both Ruger cylinders analyzed. The "mud crack" structure isn't visible at all but unlike the Ruger cylinders, tooling marks are clearly visible indicating that the notch was machined in place rather than cast. So at this stage I'd say that the S&W cylinder was machined from a billet or round stock, and the Ruger cylinders from my Blackhawk were cast and then machined to some extent. Agree/Disagree?

 

[MCMXI]

For ease of comparison .... tooling marks are clearly visible on the S&W cylinder but not on either of the Ruger cylinders.

S&W cylinder notch at 300x

Ruger .45 ACP cylinder notch at 370x

Ruger .45 Colt cylinder notch at 300x

S&W cylinder notch at 500x

Ruger .45 ACP cylinder notch at 700x

Ruger .45 Colt cylinder notch at 500x

 

[oneounceload]

Without reading all of the responses, if you really want to shoot hot 45LC, get a 454 Casull, maybe a Freedom Arms version and have a great time shooting

 

[MCMXI]

Without reading all of the responses, if you really want to shoot hot 45LC, get a 454 Casull, maybe a Freedom Arms version and have a great time shooting

I don't agree with that. My philosophy is to use a firearm for what it's designed for. I bought my Super Redhawk "Alaskan" to shoot .454 Casull loads only. What's the point of shooting .45 Colt through it? I bought two Bisley Blackhawks and a Redhawk to shoot HOT .45 Colt loads since they're designed for that ... if so desired. I have a pair of USFA Rodeos for light CAS type loads.

I was seriously considering buying a S&W 625-6 Mountain Gun but riddleofsteel's comment in THIS thread made perfect sense to me ...

So far all of my .45 Colt guns are the Blackhawk variety. I had a .45 Colt S&W Mountain gun but I eventually sold it because no matter when I was packing it I was thinking I might as well been packing my Ruger.

... the only difference being that I might as well be packing my Redhawk.

 

[Marshall]

Buy the Redhawk if you want to shoot a steady diet of HOT loads.

I have two Redhawks in .44 Mag and had a S&W MG in .45 Colt. The Redhawks are clearly made to handle the HOT loads better. That being said, the MG is one sweet gun! But for big power, a lot, the Redhawk is the better choice.

 

[Oro]

I bought my Super Redhawk "Alaskan" to shoot .454 Casull loads only. What's the point of shooting .45 Colt through it?

Because the loads being described are not actually .45 Colt. I believe what oneounceload is getting at is that when you want to vastly exceed the standard loadings of .45 Colt, but still pretend it's a ".45 Colt" - you'd better get enough gun for it. Claims that the .45 Colt can deliver near-magnum power levels are based on taking the SAAMI data for the cartridge and throwing it out the window, along with the security that the gun is safe for them. These aren't .45 Colt loads, but rather wildcat cartridges in .45 Colt cases.

Oneounceload has a valid point.

 

[rmfnla]

Originally Posted by rmflna
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.

Well, article was written so that is a fact.

I don't really think you need electronics to blow up a gun, but you sound real sure of yourself so who knows...

 

[rmfnla]

When I read this I actually thought it was a joke.

Yes of course the Redhawk is stronger, much much stronger when it comes to "Ruger Only" 45 Colt loads.

Thats why they are called... "Ruger Only".

This is so well known and accepted as to be "Bible Truth" in the .45 Colt reloaders world.

I think in this case it means: "Ruger Only...NOT Colt SAA"

 

[Antihero]

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.

Until i see the article im gonna say this is bull, its well known that redhawks are stouter built than the 29.

 

[MCMXI]

Because the loads being described are not actually .45 Colt. I believe what oneounceload is getting at is that when you want to vastly exceed the standard loadings of .45 Colt, but still pretend it's a ".45 Colt" - you'd better get enough gun for it. Claims that the .45 Colt can deliver near-magnum power levels are based on taking the SAAMI data for the cartridge and throwing it out the window, along with the security that the gun is safe for them. These aren't .45 Colt loads, but rather wildcat cartridges in .45 Colt cases.

So what are we to make of the SAAMI "maximum average pressure" rating for the .45 Colt (Ruger) listed at 25,000 CUP compared to Hodgdon load data for .45 Colt (Ruger, Freedom Arms and T/C only) with a maximum allowable pressure rating of 30,000 CUP? Is the Hodgdon data considered to be "wildcat" data?

 

[CraigC]

Because the loads being described are not actually .45 Colt. I believe what oneounceload is getting at is that when you want to vastly exceed the standard loadings of .45 Colt, but still pretend it's a ".45 Colt" - you'd better get enough gun for it. Claims that the .45 Colt can deliver near-magnum power levels are based on taking the SAAMI data for the cartridge and throwing it out the window, along with the security that the gun is safe for them. These aren't .45 Colt loads, but rather wildcat cartridges in .45 Colt cases.

Call it what you want and bury your head in the sand if you like, the potential of the .45Colt in guns stronger than those originally designed for the cartridge are WELL proven. Myths about weak cases and safety concerns are all moot. The large frame Ruger Blackhawk .45Colt is PROVEN safe to 32,000psi. The Redhawk .45Colt is proven safe to pressures well beyond that (I always forget, 45-50,000psi). Then there are the custom five-shot guns that go up to 55,000psi and the Freedom Arms guns beyond that at 65,000psi.

 

[RyanM]

1858, very great, interesting pics.

I'm not sure if I'm reading the scales right. The scale given is the length of the entire dashed section, right? If so, the "mudstone" cracks are completely normal, IIRC. I'm fairly sure that around 50-100 um is a completely normal grain size for heat-treated steel.

On cast vs. forged vs. extruded (billets), here's my take anyway.

Forging squishes down those grains you can see in the magnified pictures, depending on how it's beaten. Sort of like if you have something made of lead pellets that are just barely melted together, and hammer on it, the pellets will change their shape, becoming flat. That's roughly what happens to the grains when metal is forged. You end up with a product that's a little weaker in certain directions. It's overall a lot like particle board, but on a smaller scale.

Extrusions, like bar stock, rod stock, etc., are similar in that they change the grain size and shape, though it depends on the specific process. Hot-rolling will give you something similar to a forging. Drawing (which is usually used for round stock, square stock, wire, etc.), however, makes the grains elongate. Basically like wood grains.

Casting gives you "virgin" metal grains, that haven't been squished or stretched at all, and should be equal strength in all directions.

But the effect of metal grain on strength in different directions is nowhere near as pronounced as it is for wood. IIRC, wood is something like 3 to 5 times stronger against the grain. Steel is something like 10%.

The main reason for strength differences between the processes, for steel at least, are the alloys used. With casting, you need an alloy that has favorable properties for that; adhesion to the mold, how much it shrinks, how well it flows and fills the mold, all kinds of things. Forging, hot rolling, etc., are more forgiving of strange behaviors in the steel, and let you work the stronger alloys without having to worry about whether it will cast well.

So for a pretty long time, cast steels have all used relatively weak alloys, because the older steels just couldn't have good casting properties and still be strong. Machined bar stock has traditionally been weaker than forgings for a similar reason. Bar stock steels have to be soft enough not to wear out the extrusion or rolling equipment (drop-forging dies are more forgiving of tough steel). And starting with bar stock means more machining processes, which means more tooling wear, unless you use better bits (which are only possible thanks to modern coatings) or a weaker steel (a lot of steels have sulfur added, which makes the steel a little "crumbly," for the sake of machinability).

With modern metallurgy and modern manufacturing techniques, a cast part can easily be as strong as a forged or extruded one.

I feel like mentioning that Seecamp pistols use cast frames and slides. Look at how incredibly thin all the parts on the LWS380 are! There's definitely nothing inherently bad about castings, as long as you use high quality materials and manufacturing processes.

 

[Oro]

So what are we to make of the SAAMI "maximum average pressure" rating for the .45 Colt (Ruger) listed at 25,000 CUP compared to Hodgdon load data for .45 Colt (Ruger, Freedom Arms and T/C only) with a maximum allowable pressure rating of 30,000 CUP?

Nope, those are different measurement scales. Things WITHIN the SAAMI range are indeed 'standard' loads. SAAMI loads that can be defined as ".45 Colt" stop at 14,000 psi. After that, you are onto "hot" and on the very high end, real "wildcat" cartridges.

The Redhawk .45Colt is proven safe to pressures well beyond that (I always forget, 45-50,000psi). Then there are the custom five-shot guns that go up to 55,000psi and the Freedom Arms guns beyond that at 65,000psi.

Since a polite personal response escaped you, I'll respond in kind. You are sticking your head in the sand if you think those pressure levels are .45 Colt standard rounds. They are wildcats beyond it, and they are safe in certain, but not all guns. No big mystery here.

 

[MCgunner]

I don't WANT a .454 to shoot 25,000 CUP loads in .45 colt. My Blackhawk is only 40 ounces and that counts on the trail. It's as light as a .45 colt Mountain Gun and can push 300 grain bullets to 1120 fps from a 4 5/8" barrel....quite safely. I see nothing wrong with this logic. The .454s are big, heavy guns. they have to be to push 65,000 cup. And, I simply don't NEED that much gun. I don't live in Alaska. The Blackhawk is a relatively light trail gun. It's not like I'm shooting the heavy loads in it every day, either, but it handles them well. I've had it for a couple of decades, now.

 

[Walkalong]

I think we are getting off track here. I believe everyone understands the "hot loaded" .45 Colt loads being discussed are beyond SAMMI specs for .45 Colt.

I would say they are still .45 Colt loads, just loaded over SAMMI max for guns that can handle it.

Experienced reloaders understand there are two levels of .45 Colt, standard, which meet SAMMI guidelines and are safe in any sound gun, and what are routinely called "Ruger only", which are safe in only a few guns.

I too don't want a .454 to shoot hot .45 Colt loads from. I have my Redhawk if I want to do that.

 

[CraigC]

Since a polite personal response escaped you, I'll respond in kind. You are sticking your head in the sand if you think those pressure levels are .45 Colt standard rounds. They are wildcats beyond it, and they are safe in certain, but not all guns. No big mystery here.

I don't think anyone here misunderstands that the pressures we discuss are WAAAY above SAAMI pressure standards, currently 14,000psi. Maybe it is YOU who misunderstands what a wildcat is. A wildcat is a non-standard cartridge that is not loaded by commerical ammunition manufacturers nor chambered in standard factory guns. "Wildcat" status is not hinged upon the amount or type of powder loaded into the case. The .45Colt is the .45Colt whether it's loaded with blackpowder and a 255gr RNFP at 950fps or H110 and a 360gr LFN at 1200fps.

Exactly what point are you trying to make with your "it's a wildcat" argument anyway? You just trying to pin a label on it???

 

[oneounceload]

MY point was that, for ANY cartridge, a STEADY diet of HOT loads WILL weaken the gun prematurely. The Ruger is beefier due to cast metals - it's not any better or worse than the Smith, just differently made. However, a steady diet will put a lot of stress on all of the parts - does that mean catastrophic failure on the first shot? No. But it DOES mean that fed that load, frames may stretch, cylinders get out of tune, springs and other small parts will wear moreso than not. Analogy - a tuned 4-banger may run real fast at Daytona for a little bit, but a steady diet of hotrodding at its maximum will shorten its life span. Same thing here.

Don't try and turn this into a Ruger/S&W fan-boy bashing thread

The FA is better built than either of them anyway.

 

[JohnKSa]

The "mud crack" structure isn't visible at all but unlike the Ruger cylinders, tooling marks are clearly visible indicating that the notch was machined in place rather than cast.

I think you will find that the notches are machined on both cylinders. In a situation like that where a precise fit is required machining is typically required even for cast parts.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Thanks, 1858. I've been looking forward to seeing that one. Amazing how under that kind of magnification on the S&W cylinder, you can see that the friction from the cutter has dragged and laid over some of the metal before removing it, even though the notches look perfectly clean cut to the naked eye.

I think you will find that the notches are machined on both cylinders. In a situation like that where a precise fit is required machining is typically required even for cast parts.

Well, it was my understanding that Ruger machines them after casting. BUT......the whole point of investment casting and MIM is minimal or no machine work. I know they index them for chamber drilling based on the cylinder notches, but maybe they've taken to casting the notches into them to save a step. Maybe time for a trip to the Pine Tree facility to see it first hand

On cast vs. forged vs. extruded (billets), here's my take anyway.

Ummm, not to nitpick too much, but a billet can be extruded or forged. Billet just means chunk'o'metal.

I doubt many firearm manufacturers are doing much with billet these days, anyway. The cost of worn out cutters, the tremendous amount of scrap and the time it takes to turn generic blocks of metal into a gun would be astronomical for large scale production. The complex shapes are best done from forged or cast blanks.

 

[rmfnla]

Until i see the article im gonna say this is bull, its well known that redhawks are stouter built than the 29.

I said Super Blackhawk; this was before the Redhawk was introduced. I realize I'm talking apples to oranges; I just remember being surprised by the results since the Ruger seemed so much more robust.

I'd love to find the article but this was literally 40 years ago.

 

[rustysragsinc]

The Redhawk!