Which is stronger, Redhawk or N-frame Smith?

[RyanM]

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

True, but in gun parts parlance, like AR-15 receivers (though those are aluminum and a whole different ball game), "machined billet" means machined from an extruded rectangle, usually with a couple pages of hype to go along with the higher prices and heavier weight.

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.

Really depends on the specific part. Most barrels are machined out of thick extruded round stock, and you usually lose a lot of metal. Most boring and rifling machines can only put a bore in the exact center of a round stock, so if the locking lug is say 3/4" from the center of the bore, you need a 1.5" diameter stock minimum. For instance: http://www.kahr.com/KA-2A.html Then if you click next page, their slides are machined from round stock, too. But I believe the frames are cast.

I believe Kel-Tec machines their slides from extruded rectangular stock.

Forging is surprisingly uncommon, at least on autopistols. Most seem to be machined from extruded stock.

 

[MCMXI]

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.

JohnKSa, based on the SEM images, I agree with MachIVshooter on this. It looks like the S&W cylinder notches are cut whereas the Ruger notches are cast in place and then cleaned up (machined). At 500x, tool marks are clearly visible in the S&W notch whereas at 500x the surface is virtually undisturbed in the Ruger notches.

 

[Antihero]

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.

So you did, and i actually meant Blackhawks myself. I still stand behind my statement though.

 

[MCMXI]

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.

Ryan, grain boundaries don't usually show up under the SEM without etching that is. Typically, we polish and then etch the metal surface with an acid to reveal grain boundaries. The acid causes rapid corrosion at the grain interfaces (boundaries) so if you time the "immersion" properly and then neutralize the acid, only the grain boundaries are affected. I'll have my boss look at these images to see what he thinks. He's an expert in many areas of mechanical engineering (MS and PhD from MIT) so it'll be interesting to get his opinion. Of coures, I may be out of a job if he doesn't approve of me using the company SEM for "personal" use .... .

 

[JohnKSa]

JohnKSa, based on the SEM images, I agree with MachIVshooter on this. It looks like the S&W cylinder notches are cut whereas the Ruger notches are cast in place and then cleaned up (machined). At 500x, tool marks are clearly visible in the S&W notch whereas at 500x the surface is virtually undisturbed in the Ruger notches.

Well, guys, I'm no electronmicroscopist so I don't feel qualified to comment on the pictures. But I can tell you that I can clearly see machine marks in the cylinder notches of my Ruger revolvers and what's more I can accomplish that amazing feat without even using a magnifying glass.

 

[MCMXI]

Well, guys, I'm no electronmicroscopist so I don't feel qualified to comment on the pictures. But I can tell you that I can clearly see machine marks in the cylinder notches of my Ruger revolvers and what's more I can accomplish that amazing feat without even using a magnifying glass.

JohnSka, as Coffee Pot states in THIS thread (one that you were active in by the way) ....

"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."

.... castings require very little machining, not necessarily ZERO machining. The SEM images clearly show a SIGNIFICANT difference between the finished surfaces of the S&W and Ruger cylinder notches. Of course you can see machining marks with the naked eye, but notice how the machining marks are visible in the S&W notch all the way up to 3000x. What is happening when you machine a metal or alloy on a microscopic level? The metal/alloy is being plastically deformed past its yield strength and is being "ripped" off the surface. I don't see a "ripped" surface in the Ruger notches but it's clearly visible between the path of the cutting tool in the S&W notch. The parallel paths of the cutting tool are about 15 microns apart

S&W cylinder notch:

The Ruger notches at 1000x, 2000x and 3000x are VERY different with no obvious tool marks and no "ripped" surface. This is consistent with a light machining process to clean up a cast part.

Ruger Blackhawk .45 Colt cylinder notch:

My reason for doing this analysis is because of CraigC's comments and MachIVshooter's response.

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

What source have you got that they are cast?

We may never know for sure, I guess. lol

How would you know if a cylinder is cast with minimal machining or is machined 100% by looking at it with the naked eye? Clearly you can't tell the difference and nor could most people ... me included. With the SEM however, obvious differences can be seen. I have no agenda here since I like Ruger revolvers .... I have four currently and more are on the way. I also have a S&W revolver and like it too. This is purely my attempt to try to show the facts in an objective manner. If you want to explain why you think your Ruger cylinders are machined from bar stock rather than cast then make a case for it. Saying that you can see machining marks without the use of a magnifying glass shouldn't be enough to convince anyone that the part isn't cast, particularly if they've bothered to look at the SEM images.

 

[MCMXI]

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.

Ryan, I forgot to answer your question ... yes ... the scale is the entire length of the dashed section. I think you may be correct that those are grain boundaries and the "ripples" may be slip planes within each grain based on what I've been reading in an old text book. If those are grains and grain boundaries, it's interesting that they're equiaxed i.e. approximately the same dimensions in the x and y directions.

Thanks for your excellent post.

 

[JohnKSa]

Castings, on the other hand, because of the ability to produce complex shapes, require very little machining, and therefore, rarely require any additional straightening."

I don't believe that contradicts anything I have said. "very little machining" isn't the same as none at all and I believe that we are all quite certain that cylinders NEVER require additional straightening.

The SEM images clearly show a SIGNIFICANT difference between the finished surfaces of the S&W and Ruger cylinder notches.

Yup, even my inexpert eye noticed the difference. However, since I don't know a lot about interpreting SEM photos, I have to fall back on my common sense. I know, I know, what a sad state of affairs.

Anyway, my common sense tells me that if you give me two identical pieces of metal I can make them look very different by the finish I choose to give them and the methods I use to achieve those finishes. Unless you're going to treat the samples to reveal the underlying structure of the metal (acid etching, etc.) I think that it's going to be hard to say much other than the two pieces are finished differently no matter how closely you examine them.

I can polish one piece to completely remove all tool marks and leave the other one rough. Does that mean one is cast and the other isn't? Maybe, maybe not. Until you get under the effects of whatever finishing process was used I don't think you know about what's underneath.

How would you know if a cylinder is cast with minimal machining or is machined 100% by looking at it with the naked eye?

What I said from the beginning was that cylinder notches on both guns were machined regardless of whether the cylinders were cast or not.

I believe you're agreeing with that statement although I must admit your brand of agreement is a bit puzzling to me.

And given that I posted a credible source back on page 3 indicating that Ruger machines at least some of their revolver cylinders from barstock, it seems possible that not even looking at them with an electron microscope is providing the right answer.

 

[MCMXI]

What I said from the beginning was that cylinder notches on both guns were machined regardless of whether the cylinders were cast or not.

Well, I shall respectfully disagree with that. I believe that both Ruger cylinders were cast and that includes the cylinder notches and flutes. I also believe that some minimal machining or grinding was performed on the Ruger cylinders to clean up any serious defects inherent to the casting process. How any decent machining process could leave a surface finish as shown in the images below (.45 ACP cylinder notch) is beyond me.

I believe that the "machine engraving" on the .45 Colt cylinder is done with a laser process (or similar) but that's a whole new topic for discussion.

 

[JohnKSa]

LCR cylinder is CNC machined from solid bar stock.

"Ruger manufacturing personnel started with annealed, cutoff lengths of 1.875" bar stock from Carpenter, but found that the material had such clean microstructure that they could reduce its diameter requirements to 1.828", and save on material costs. A slight amount of OD turning and drilling of the pivot hole was done on a CNC screw machine."

In the case of cylinders, bar stock of many feet are loaded into cylinders. From page 23 of a book by Patrick Sweeney. This particular section is called "A visit to the Ruger factory."

Cylinders for the wheelguns are all turned from bar stock. Another quote from page 15 of the same book. This one is a caption to a photograph showing cylinder blanks.

The only credible evidence I could find of a cast Ruger revolver cylinder was that the initial Old Army (Blackpowder Cap & Ball Revolver) cylinder was cast. It wasn't clear if that practice was continued.

 

[MCMXI]

Perhaps the LCR and "Alaskan" cylinders are machined from bar stock and maybe the my .45 ACP and .45 Colt BH cylinders are cast ... who knows!? I don't have an LCR but I do have an "Alaskan". I'll remove the cylinder and take a look at the cylinder notches to see if they're the same or different.

 

[RyanM]

If I had to make some guesses as to why S&W and Ruger cylinder notches look so different, some reasons might be...

S&W may have used a machining bit that was getting past its prime, while the Ruger one was cut with a fresh one.

S&W may be using a less machinable alloy than Ruger. "Smeared" and "ripped" metal usually indicates either too soft of a steel, or too dull of a bit (or both).

Ruger may use some kind of finishing process on their matte stainless guns that S&W doesn't, which brings out the grain and removes some of the tooling marks. Maybe a quick dunk in acid? A little bead blasting? I don't know what the result would look like, but it could be something in the finishing.

Oh, yeah, back on the original topic, don't forget that S&W uses MIM internals. This may or may not cause a gun to fail, but I'd say that Rugers, with more modern designs and no MIM, are stronger in that respect. Also, even if you don't like the idea of buying a .454 to shoot hot-rodded .45 Colt in (and why can't you just use .454 brass and load "moderate" .454s that are identical to super hot .45 Colts?), I like the internals of Super Redhawks better. The single-spring thing that normal Redhawks have makes the trigger feel a little odd, to me.

 

[MCMXI]

RyanM, you may well be right about the finishing process used by Ruger but there is evidence of regions with tool marks and regions without on the same cylinder . "Pickling" in acid which is sometimes used to passivate stainless steel would affect all regions right. The part could be pickled and then machined again I suppose. As for the state of the cutting tool used by S&W, if you look at the S&W SEM images, the distance between the paths left by the cutting tool is approximately 15 microns or 0.0006". It's my understanding that high quality machining processes achieve a finish between 0.0001" and 0.001". The closer to 0.0001" the higher the quality of the finish.

I just removed the cylinder from my "Alaskan" and will take a look at it after work tonight.

As I stated in my initial posts, I'm not a metallurgist and all of my assumptions are based on a comparative approach based on one known parameter ... that the S&W cylinder is 100% machined from bar stock or similar. Ultimately, all of this discussion is conjecture until a metallurgist experienced in interpreting SEM images of stainless steel (or a Ruger engineer or at least someone very familiar with what Ruger does or doesn't do) joins in this thread.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Perhaps the LCR and "Alaskan" cylinders are machined from bar stock

Don't know about the Alaskan, but I remember hearing that specifically about the LCR, and from the same several sources that indicated the others were cast.

This is all very interesting, though.

Oh, yeah, back on the original topic, don't forget that S&W uses MIM internals. This may or may not cause a gun to fail, but I'd say that Rugers, with more modern designs and no MIM, are stronger in that respect.

While I'm no fan of MIM over forged and machined, I've yet to hear of it causing a problem with them. I won't buy the newer ones on account of the lock, anyway. Nonetheless, MIM, like casting, can be very strong when done right. But, also like casting, minor flaws in the process or materials can manifest in a most undesireable fashion.

Ultimately, forged and machined is a low-tech but labor intensive process to make a strong product. Modern casting requires a much greater initial equipment investment, but lowers the production cost and many manufacturers have figured out that it's more profitable when they amortize the equipment cost by product moved. Same for MIM.

 

[RyanM]

RyanM, you may well be right about the finishing process used by Ruger but there is evidence of regions with tool marks and regions without on the same cylinder . "Pickling" in acid which is sometimes used to passivate stainless steel would affect all regions right. The part could be pickled and then machined again I suppose.

Which parts looked like they may be pickled (no tooling marks, mudstone cracks), and which didn't? If the cylinder notches were the main area, then that may well be it, as the outside of the cylinder definitely looked like it had a wire brush finish.

As for the state of the cutting tool used by S&W, if you look at the S&W SEM images, the distance between the paths left by the cutting tool is approximately 15 microns or 0.0006". It's my understanding that high quality machining processes achieve a finish between 0.0001" and 0.001". The closer to 0.0001" the higher the quality of the finish.

I didn't really look at the distance between tool marks, so that rules out that one. I would guess finishing then.

--------

While I'm no fan of MIM over forged and machined, I've yet to hear of it causing a problem with them. I won't buy the newer ones on account of the lock, anyway. Nonetheless, MIM, like casting, can be very strong when done right. But, also like casting, minor flaws in the process or materials can manifest in a most undesireable fashion.

I haven't heard anything about MIM parts causing a failure in an S&W either, but given the number of 1911 safeties and slide stops that have broken, I'd still give the nod to Ruger as far as durability goes, especially in a large caliber revolver.

There's nothing inherently wrong with MIM, of course. Most of the breakages in 1911s are due to attempts to shoehorn MIM parts into guns that were designed from the ground up to use hand-fit machined forgings, without any significant design changes. S&Ws similarly use essentially the same lockwork that they have since Colt's patent on the revolving cylinder expired (or maybe a little more recently than that), with some relatively minor changes, like the firing pin. As far as I know, the innards haven't been redesigned to compensate for the properties of MIM parts.

Whereas Rugers were designed from the ground up to use whatever combination of manufacturing techniques is still used now.

 

[MachIVshooter]

(or maybe a little more recently than that)

Yeah, they've been essentially unchanged for 102 years now. Better alloys and more advanced tooling, but the guns themselves have undergone no significant design changes since Teddy Roosevelt was in office.

 

[WardenWolf]

S&W's frame designations dramatically limit modern innovation because they're stuck rehashing the same basic thing over and over again instead of just designing a new gun from scratch. Ruger designs its guns from scratch. Each model is completely different save for minor things such as springs. Every Ruger revolver is designed specifically for the rounds it's chambered for. They're not adapted from some older design like the S&W revolvers are. This is why the Ruger revolvers can handle hotter loads than the S&W revolvers. A purpose-built gun is always going to be more suitable than one that was adapted.

 

[Hawk]

Cast, forged, PM, WTH ever.

Does it work or does it not?

Sometimes I wonder how firearms enthusiasts manage to remain so insular - they obviously aren't watching design awards going back 13 years. But I guess one's perspective is skewed if one came to firearms from materials and processes rather than vice versa.

http://www.mpif.org/DesignCenter/partpopup.asp?id=8

Nevertheless, the SEM photos are both fascinating and appreciated. I remain unconvinced that they indicate cast vs. machined but, I guess more to the point, I can't make myself care apart from an undeniable intellectual curiosity.

Redhawk vs. 29? Far too broad - let's try 1955 Redhawk vs. 1955 M29.

Oops, no 1955 Redhawk?

Rats! I guess that means that any input on the 29 would have to be at least from about 25 years later to be valid with respect to the 1979 Redhawk.

There may still be numerous valid differentiating factors but I would submit that the forming process, in and of itself, has squat-all to do with any of it.

 

[RyanM]

I'll remember that Taurus won an award for awesomeness, the next time one of their revolvers suddenly locks up solid within the first box of ammo. The main problem with MIM is you need much more stringent QC. Some companies obviously don't do that. S&W might.

 

[Hawk]

The main problem with MIM is you need much more stringent QC.

I will defer to your expertise in the matter.

 

[Magnumite]

It seems comparison of the 29 and Redhawk is completely valid, no matter what year either was produced in. The OP wanted to know the relative strengths of the two revolvers compared to one another. Either one he buys today and shoots tomorrow will be what he has to work with.

If he prefers brutal strength, the 29 can't keep up, even with the late 1990's early 2000's era upgrades. That's established. As a previous poster mentioned, the Redhawk was designed for the 44 Magnum cartridge from the drawing board forward. Years back, one gunwriter said he'd pay to see a blown 44 Magnum Redhawk from a handload. The 29 is a very good upgrade of a low pressure cartridge gun, but it is no Redhawk.

 

[JohnKSa]

Perhaps the LCR and "Alaskan" cylinders are machined from bar stock and maybe the my .45 ACP and .45 Colt BH cylinders are cast ... who knows!? I don't have an LCR but I do have an "Alaskan". I'll remove the cylinder and take a look at the cylinder notches to see if they're the same or different.

Don't know about the Alaskan, but I remember hearing that specifically about the LCR, and from the same several sources that indicated the others were cast.

Come on guys. Didn't you even bother to check all the links in my post?

The first two quotes/links are from credible sources and are specific to particular models.

But the second two quotes/links are from a book written by Patrick Sweeney after visiting the Ruger factory. The quotes both state that Ruger revolver cylinders are machined from bar stock. There is nothing in those quotes specific to the LCR or the Alaskan.

S&W may have used a machining bit that was getting past its prime, while the Ruger one was cut with a fresh one.

S&W may be using a less machinable alloy than Ruger. "Smeared" and "ripped" metal usually indicates either too soft of a steel, or too dull of a bit (or both).

Ruger may use some kind of finishing process on their matte stainless guns that S&W doesn't, which brings out the grain and removes some of the tooling marks. Maybe a quick dunk in acid? A little bead blasting? I don't know what the result would look like, but it could be something in the finishing.

Could be. Your primary point is well taken--examining the surface tells you about the finish. If you want to see anything other than the finish you're going to have to do something to get under the finish to look at the underlying metal.

 

[MCMXI]

Come on guys. Didn't you even bother to check all the links in my post?

I read all the links but just because Mr. Sweeney writes something in a book doesn't make it a fact. According to one reviewer he got a number of things wrong (see below). Maybe he didn't pay enough attention during the tour. Maybe Ruger was making the machined cylinders that day ... I'll get on the Alaskan cylinder shortly.

"As the title says, this is a decent enough book, but it does have some inaccuracies. Right off the bat, the author states that Rugers first gun was the MK1. Not so, it was the Standard Auto, or Standard Model. Now granted, the MK 1 was just the same gun with adjustable sights and longer barrel, but this is a pet peeve of mine. In another place he states that a bobbed hammer on a SP101 will keep dirt out of the action! Now, an enclosed hammer will keep dirt out of the action, but a bobbed hammer will keep no more dirt out of the action than a regular hammer model will. On page 28 there is a picture of what is obviously regular Blackhawk revolvers, but the caption states they are Bisley-gripped Super Blackhawks. No, they are not! They have the regular grip frame and hammer, not Bisley grip frame or Super grip frame and not their hammers either. The author also states that there were no Old Model Convertable Blackhawks, which is not true, and he states the .45 Colt/ACP Convertable was the first, which is not true either, as the .357/9mm was the first. Then, on the very last page he states that the serial #s for the Single Six are on the butt of the gun! No, if the serial #s were on the butt of the gun it would be a simple matter to swap the grip frame, which I am sure the ATF would frown upon. The #s are on the side of the grip frame, just like the Blackhawk. Now, some of you may think I am nitpicking, but if you are going to write a book about a subject, it would be good if you were sure of your facts! Now, that being said, most of the book is pretty enjoyable, the pictures of the Ruger factory being the highlight of the book, in my opinion."

 

[JohnKSa]

...just because Mr. Sweeney writes something in a book doesn't make it a fact. ... Maybe he didn't pay enough attention during the tour. Maybe Ruger was making the machined cylinders that day...

And "Maybe" you're in a huge hurry to dismiss/ignore anything that doesn't agree with your opinion.

As far as the "reviewer" finding errors: It's a 270+ page book. It would be a miracle if it were totally error free.

By that "logic" if I can find a reviewer to nitpick your posts and find that you have made a few errors in your roughly 2500 posts on THR, then readers can safely dismiss anything you've ever posted here that conflicts with their opinions.

For the record, pointing out that an author is fallible is not a valid method for selectively disproving the truth of what they say. The reason is that no author is infallible and if we hold that fallibility is a valid rationale for selectively dismissing what they say then we can selectively dismiss anything ever written by any author we choose.

 

[MCMXI]

JohnKSa, let's not make this personal. I don't care if Ruger cylinders are machined or cast ... and believe it not, I am completely open to any reasonable interpretation that anyone presents. I'm here to learn and because I like this stuff. I stated early on in this thread that I am not a metallurgist and have ZERO expertise in casting and the like so take all of my posts with a bucket of salt. As for the SEM, my dogs could get images of biscuits if they had opposable thumbs ... that's how easy it is to use an SEM. As I am showing beyond any doubt, getting data is easy, interpreting data is hard.