Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22

Thread: Something Odd re: Super Blackhawk

  1. #1
    Member Darreld Walton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Arco, Idaho
    Posts
    782

    Default Something Odd re: Super Blackhawk

    Customer came in yesterday with a Super Blackhawk. Asked me to look it over and see if I saw anything odd about it. Barrel had unscrewed itself, front sight cocked over, enough that the ejector rod would not enter hole in frame. Barrel was loose enough to turn easily with a couple of fingers, didn't see any excessive wear or damage at the forcing cone or anywhere else.....Sent it back to Ruger yesterday, have to wait and see what they have to say about it. I've never encountered such a thing. Makes me appreciate my P&R Smiths!

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default Loose barrel

    I've read that the Redhawks had the same problem so Ruger re-enforced that portion of the frame on the Super Redhawks. My gunsmith told me they also locktite the barrels now as he found out when he tried to remover one.

    I think it is an inherent weakness of using investment castings - less dense metal vs. a forging -but fortunately isn't that serious or occure that often anymore.

    P&R= ??


    Quote Originally Posted by Darreld Walton View Post
    Customer came in yesterday with a Super Blackhawk. Asked me to look it over and see if I saw anything odd about it. Barrel had unscrewed itself, front sight cocked over, enough that the ejector rod would not enter hole in frame. Barrel was loose enough to turn easily with a couple of fingers, didn't see any excessive wear or damage at the forcing cone or anywhere else.....Sent it back to Ruger yesterday, have to wait and see what they have to say about it. I've never encountered such a thing. Makes me appreciate my P&R Smiths!
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  3. #3

    Default right

    Ruger reinforced the front end of the frame because of the higher pressures used with the heavier calibers. As far as castings vs forgings causing the barrels to come loose, that is a crock. Barrels would loosen up on forged pistols way before castings were used. A matter of proper fitting. Using heavy loads can also cause the condition. I am not wanting to open the casting vs forging thread again, so please TVFinak, don't start again.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Kenai
    Posts
    1,888

    Default

    P&R = pinned & recessed (S&W used to pin the barrels (so they couldn't loosen. Why did they have to do that on a forged frame?) & recesses in the cylinder for the cartridge rims)
    The P&Rd Smiths were sweet guns, but unfortunately don't like steady diets of heavy loads. My 29-4 is a bit better for that (post P&R era).
    Vance in AK.

    Matthew 6:33
    "But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you."

  5. #5
    Member Big Al's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Palmer,Alaska
    Posts
    1,737

    Default

    The threads in the frame are cut, just like on the barrel. What I would be surpriced to hear was they found some time of casting flaw to be the cult prate. More than likely it will be and out of limit interference fit that was the cause. The newer non pin S&W frames have a press fit for the barrel. Early in the new style of frame to barrel fit, Smith&Weesion had major problems with the barrels coming loose. This was a major source of concern in the early 1980's. One that S&W quickly addressed and repaired.

    I know it would not do any good to discuss the different class of threads and the fit of these different threads.
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tryants." (Thomas Jefferson

  6. #6
    Member Darreld Walton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Arco, Idaho
    Posts
    782

    Default Well,...

    This is the only Ruger that I've seen with this particular ailment. I don't have a clue what it's past has been like, only know that it was used when it came in, and the new owner who bought it from us was surprised. He states it was his fifth SBH, and fell in line somewhere around his 30th Ruger. He'd never encountered it, either. Be interesting to see what the work sheet looks like when it comes back for authorization.
    In the meantime, a young Widow lady came in today wanting to sell another tempting piece. This one a 7 1/2" polished stainless Vaquero with the faux ivory factory grips. Right nice looking piece, though a bit on the gaudy side of the fence for my tastes, but still, it's talkin' to me.
    If I could find the right 'graver, it might make up into a dandy BBQ piece, if it was hanging in the 'right' rig.......
    I've always thought that the huge frames on the Redhawks and Super Redhawks was to support the first part of the barrel, especially the forcing cone, and to add mass to the topstrap, as well as add enough meat to make the 'triple' lock system viable. Seems to have worked out well, though I can't see me packing one around for long without a gun carriage and a caisson to haul it and ammo around!
    I DO like my older S&W's, the P&R revolvers just seem to be a bit nicer to use, and are a whole lot nicer to have hanging around. I pick 'em up whenever I can, and live with the limitations.

  7. #7

    Default great engraver

    Darreld,

    You probably know of him already, but there is a great engraver up here in Anchorage, Jim White. He does world class engraving. I believe he was or is a master engraver for S&W. I've seen his work and it is truly superb.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default Pinned and recessed

    I knew that - somehow it just didn't strike me at the moment!

    I think the metals, quality control. and heat treating have improved considerably on all the handguns. Unfortuantley the hand finishing and personal touch have long since departed.

    I have a 4 screw Mdl 29 that is truly a work of craftsmanship but I don't shoot it with heavy loads - my 629 gets that honor. The early 29 is a joy to handle and shoot - the double action is something the Ruger guys can only envy in their dreams.

    I don't know if S&W now uses locktite or just a very close fit to keep the barrels from unsrewing. I've never had one come loose and I've owned a lot of S&W magnums over the years.


    Quote Originally Posted by Vance in AK View Post
    P&R = pinned & recessed (S&W used to pin the barrels (so they couldn't loosen. Why did they have to do that on a forged frame?) & recesses in the cylinder for the cartridge rims)
    The P&Rd Smiths were sweet guns, but unfortunately don't like steady diets of heavy loads. My 29-4 is a bit better for that (post P&R era).
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default SRH barrel extension

    Wonder why Ruger used the barrel extension on the SRH and no one else apparently needs it?

    It does add bulk and weight and appears to be unneeded judging by all other makes of revolvers.

    Quote Originally Posted by mauserboy View Post
    Ruger reinforced the front end of the frame because of the higher pressures used with the heavier calibers. As far as castings vs forgings causing the barrels to come loose, that is a crock. Barrels would loosen up on forged pistols way before castings were used. A matter of proper fitting. Using heavy loads can also cause the condition. I am not wanting to open the casting vs forging thread again, so please TVFinak, don't start again.
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  10. #10

    Default

    Easy...it's all about marketing...the SRH top-strap makes it look like a real man's gun...

    "Gun control is a proven failure in fighting crime. Law abiding citizens should not be asked to give up their rights because of criminals."
    -John McCain

  11. #11
    Moderator Paul H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    5,594

    Default

    I think folks are missing the point of the frame extension on the ruger SRH, it's there to provide metal for Rugers integral scope base.

  12. #12
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    4,431

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vance in AK View Post
    P&R = pinned & recessed (S&W used to pin the barrels (so they couldn't loosen. Why did they have to do that on a forged frame?) & recesses in the cylinder for the cartridge rims)
    The P&Rd Smiths were sweet guns, but unfortunately don't like steady diets of heavy loads. My 29-4 is a bit better for that (post P&R era).

    I think I remember hearing that before but could you explain why this is the case. Why do the older guns not take the hevier loads of the new(er) guns?
    Is there nothing so sacred on this earth that you aren't willing to kill or die for?



  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Kenai
    Posts
    1,888

    Default

    I don't know what exactly was changed Murphy, but was told that beginning with the -4s some lockwork items were made heavier for extra strength, & then there was another improvement later with the -5 or -6s. They'll never be a SRH, but then again a SRH will never be a 29 :-)
    Vance in AK.

    Matthew 6:33
    "But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you."

  14. #14
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    4,431

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vance in AK View Post
    I don't know what exactly was changed Murphy, but was told that beginning with the -4s some lockwork items were made heavier for extra strength, & then there was another improvement later with the -5 or -6s. They'll never be a SRH, but then again a SRH will never be a 29 :-)

    Well the cylinder frames have never really changed. The four screw guns had a screw in front of the trigger guard that held the spring for the cylinder stop bolt. It had a tendency to snap or bounce under heavy recoil and unlock the cylinder after the shot. Sometimes the hand would not pick up the cylinder and turn to index correctly. The right hand threads on the ejector rod could unscrew under recoil. And the earlier stainless guns had some heat treat problems but all in all I cannot say there is a strength difference from what I have observed of these guns. I have heard others say that also without specifics.

    The pinned barrels were threaded into the frame and indexed (front sight turned up) by a pin through hole in frame and slot in barrel. The recessed cylinders were just done for the magnums and I think that was to add strength for the higher pressure of the magnums, fully encapsulating the case. I think it was found to be unnecessary and it was a costly machining operation so it lowered cost to stop that operation. The later barrels were interferrence fit or crush fit and this too was less machining and lower cost.

    I have a solid 40 years with S&W revolvers and have over loaded old and new guns and found little difference in their performance other than the small issue I pointed out.

    As for the dash numbers they are at different times for each frame series. K frame dash two isn't the same as N frame dash two, etc. I'm sure heat treatment on later guns as well as the steel composition is better than the older guns and as you say they are not going to take the abuse of the RH/SRH/BH guns but they are still fine S&W revolvers.

    My preference for the S&W's as a gun to use and carry are those that had the improvements but were still P&R'ed guns. The three screw models with left hand threads on the ejector rod would be my choice of guns.

    I have M15, 19's, 13's, in the K frames and M58, 57, 29, 25, and 24's in this category. I also have some of these models in stainless. The most problems I've had have been with the stainless guns and most were not P&R'ed. Problems have been sticking ejector, sticking cylinder, ejector rod deformation, timing problems and other small things. Most of the problems I've seen have been with the later guns and most of them were stainless. I've owned a few hundred of them and have had at least that number in my hands to fix or slick up or load ammo for and virtually no problems come from the older guns. This isn't a strength issue it is more of a lower quality control issue in the later guns so it does't attest to the strength either way but certainly from what I see, the older guns were better. There is nothing sweeter than an old slick S&W revolver. No better lock work was ever made.
    Is there nothing so sacred on this earth that you aren't willing to kill or die for?



  15. #15
    Member alaskamonte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    101

    Default Smith vs Smith?

    The pinned barrel 29s I owned managed to unscrew into the barrel recess, seen dozens at shows and auctions. It's easy to spot, just look at the rib alignment between frame and barrel.

    Murph, I believe the older guns had far softer hands, remember the first time ya stretched one with the peening hammer on the anvil? The new hands don't seem to stretch as readily IMO.

    The enhanced models have a longer bolt cut/slot that helps the bolt from jumping time (which BTW S&W didn't do to the.500!!??)

    I like to believe that the enhanced line of STS guns have a better metal strength than the blued models, my 25-13 got loose quickly shooting the same loads I run through the enhanced 625s (not exactly scientific but just saying). BTW, the 25-13 doesn't have the slot cut for the hand widget like the STS guns, odd.

  16. #16
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    4,431

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alaskamonte View Post
    The pinned barrel 29s I owned managed to unscrew into the barrel recess, seen dozens at shows and auctions. It's easy to spot, just look at the rib alignment between frame and barrel.

    Murph, I believe the older guns had far softer hands, remember the first time ya stretched one with the peening hammer on the anvil? The new hands don't seem to stretch as readily IMO.

    The enhanced models have a longer bolt cut/slot that helps the bolt from jumping time (which BTW S&W didn't do to the.500!!??)

    I like to believe that the enhanced line of STS guns have a better metal strength than the blued models, my 25-13 got loose quickly shooting the same loads I run through the enhanced 625s (not exactly scientific but just saying). BTW, the 25-13 doesn't have the slot cut for the hand widget like the STS guns, odd.

    Haven't seen barrels unscrew but I would agree, generally, with the rest of it. The heat treatment and metallurgy has improved and the innards have benefited. Also the changes which called for a new dash number were well known but the subtle things like the cylinder stop bolt and opening for it aren't mentioned in the fourth screw elimination and that did help the timing. I think the hand was changed then also. Those were both a long time ago. Maybe these changes made the guns more durable but not really stronger. I think the early Stainless 629's had some problems but were quickly fixed with better steel/ heat treat.

    Also the N frame guns aren't just scaled up K frames and there are differences in them. The heavier mass of the cyllinder rotating and stopping wears the hand and bolt very quickly and that required attention. Many little changes made through the years have made them very good guns.
    Is there nothing so sacred on this earth that you aren't willing to kill or die for?



  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Kenai
    Posts
    1,888

    Default

    Murphy, here are the changes that a gentelmen what who supposedly knows, told me on a S&W forum.
    By the way, while I said they changed the items for extra "strength", what I actually meant was longer life. I believe S&W called hem "Endurance" upgrades.

    "29-4 and 29-3E; New yoke retention system and radius stud package. Roughly 1988

    29-5; Longer stop notches and new bolt block. Roughly 1990"
    Vance in AK.

    Matthew 6:33
    "But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you."

  18. #18

    Default

    In the late 1980's I had the barrel unscrew on two Ruger .44 magnums, one blued Redhawk I bought new, and one stainless Super Blackhawk that was used when I purchased it.

    With each the problem became apparent when the POI shifted significantly.

    I sent both back to Ruger and both were repaired and returned within three weeks at no charge.

  19. #19

    Default

    In all of my years of shooting revolvers, I have only experienced one loose barrel. That was on a 629-1.

    I unscrewed the barrel the rest of the way and then peened the threads with a cold chizel and hammer. Leaving enough of the threads in their original state so as to get the barrel started onto the receiver a couple of full turns before engaging the peened threads.

    I shot several thousand rounds through that gun after that without it coming loose again.

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vance in AK View Post
    I don't know what exactly was changed Murphy, but was told that beginning with the -4s some lockwork items were made heavier for extra strength, & then there was another improvement later with the -5 or -6s. They'll never be a SRH, but then again a SRH will never be a 29 :-)
    The endurance package included with the 29 starting at the -4 engineering change was intended to address a problem where the cylinder would unlock and rotate backwards when heavy bullet loads were fired. From what I've read there were also some changes which fixed stress cracking at some points in the frame. I think one of John Taffin's books gave some detail on this, but I don't remember which one.

    Mike

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •