Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 120

Thread: .454 Redhawk barrel errosion - "nonsense" or real

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default .454 Redhawk barrel errosion - "nonsense" or real

    I caught a lot off flak on other threads over suggesting that a Ruger RH or a Bisley Hunter converted to a .454 could have issues with barrel errosion. Turns out my concerns - and those of the Ruger engineers - are very valid. Check out: http://rugerforum.net/ruger-double-a...lem-maybe.html There are a lot more references but this one has some good pictures and is on the Ruger (not the S&W)forum.

    The cast barrels of the Redhawk (and the Bisley if they are a casting) are almost certainly going to be less dense and errosion resistant that those of the SRH.
    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

  2. #2

    Default

    You caught alot of flak because you are full of ish.
    "When the time comes for a man to look his Maker in the eye, where better could the meeting be held than in the wilderness?"

  3. #3
    New member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    5,417

    Default

    While you're at it tvfinak, google up lil'gun forcing cone erosion. then you'll get the rest of the story...

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default How about factory ammo?

    Looked at that also - but it isn't just Lil'gun powder.

    Ruger engineers were concerned about errosion when they developed the Redhawk - and that was long before reloaders starting using Lil'gun.

    Quote Originally Posted by Snyd View Post
    While you're at it tvfinak, google up lil'gun forcing cone erosion. then you'll get the rest of the story...
    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

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    Looked at that also - but it isn't just Lil'gun powder.

    Ruger engineers were concerned about errosion when they developed the Redhawk - and that was long before reloaders starting using Lil'gun.
    Where are you coming up with "Ruger engineers"? Have you spoken to any?

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    526

    Default

    Tvfinak -- you are a real piece of work. I really think you need to step away from the computer for awhile.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default Ruger engineers' concern about barrel errosion

    Many remember the Cartech steel used in the cylinder of the Redhawk but the barrel also required a better steel:

    "Ruger had to deal with several increased power issues in designing the barrel for its new .454 Casull revolver. Designers were concerned with the throat erosion that might occur when the big cartridge would exit the chamber and slam into the interior surface of the barrel. They knew the higher velocity bullet would have greater impact force, causing high-velocity gas cutting and potential erosion problems. That potential could be magnified if the steel selected for the barrel did not have the correct microstructure for these new requirements.

    The first material considered was stainless Type 410, the standard alloy used with great success for other revolvers in the Ruger line of revolvers. Ruger was able to gun drill a 0.480" dia. hole in a 1ľ" OD x 19" long bar in 17.27 minutes at 1.1 IPM. However, the material was unable to meet the newer, more strenuous requirements for strength, ductility and corrosion resistance imposed by the higher pressure .454 Casull cartridge.

    Also note that the Ruger engineers rejected bar stock 410 steel - it is a better barrel material than the less dense cast steel used in the Redhawk.

    I guess the Ruger engineers were full of "nonsense" also!

    Full article: http://www.cartech.com/techarticles.aspx?id=1608

    Quote Originally Posted by evandailey View Post
    Where are you coming up with "Ruger engineers"? Have you spoken to any?
    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

  8. #8
    New member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    5,417

    Default

    I see you finally figured out that the standard Redhawk barrel does not meet Rugers proof testing of 92000psi! Please keep googling and tell us what Ruger has proof tested the standard Redhawk barrel at. Also, since you obviously care about this issue so much I suggest you email Hamilton Bowen right away and let him know of all the research you have done so he can recall all of the SRH Alaskans that he's chopped the frame off of and installed a Redhawk barrel on....454's, 475's, 500's, etc.

    http://www.bowenclassicarms.com/NEW/..._Super_Redhawk

    "This is all changed with the advent of the new Super Redhawk 'Alaskan' model with it plain topstrap. We have devised the tooling and procedures to remove the original barrel and shorten/recontour the receiver snout to accommodate standard Redhawk barrels which results in a giant GP-100. Now, we have a receiver suited to virtually any modification available for the standard Redhawk. We can build in calibers from .44 Magnum to .500 Redhawk in barrels from 4 to 7 1/2 inches (5 1/2 in. length maximum in .475 and .50 cals.). The only fly in the ointment is the barrel situation. Standard Redhawk barrels are unavailable from the factory so we have to depend on an uncertain supply of take-off and scrounged parts."

  9. #9
    Moderator Paul H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    5,594

    Default

    Where are you coming up with Ruger using cast steel in their barrels?????????????????????????

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    526

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul H View Post
    Where are you coming up with Ruger using cast steel in their barrels?????????????????????????
    Paul, he has decided that all things Ruger are bad.

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

    Default

    I think the thread should read, anything posted by this author, nonsense or real?
    Those that are successful in Alaska are those who are flexible, and allow the reality of life in Alaska to shape their dreams, vs. trying to force their dreams on the reality of Alaska.

    If you have a tenuous grasp of reality, Alaska is not for you.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default errosion

    Since I don't shoot proof loads I don't too concerned about the ultimate strength - we rarely see a barrel fail on any revolver.

    I am concerned - as were the Ruger engineers - about barrel errosion and flame cutting. As they discovered - the standard barrels aren't suitable for the the high pressure .454 cartridge. Ultimate strength was just one of the concerns of the Ruger guys - not the only one.

    I suspect I shoot my gun more than the average guy that plunked down $3000 for a Bowen shoots it. Also - the larger cartridges don't operate at the pressures of the .454 so barrel errosion is significantly reduced. In short - a Redhawk barrel that is fine for a Bowen conversion isn't suitable for the .454 - again according to the Ruger engineers.

    I suspect that is also the most likely the reason we don't have a .454 Redhawk or Bisley Hunter.


    Quote Originally Posted by Snyd View Post
    I see you finally figured out that the standard Redhawk barrel does not meet Rugers proof testing of 92000psi! Please keep googling and tell us what Ruger has proof tested the standard Redhawk barrel at. Also, since you obviously care about this issue so much I suggest you email Hamilton Bowen right away and let him know of all the research you have done so he can recall all of the SRH Alaskans that he's chopped the frame off of and installed a Redhawk barrel on....454's, 475's, 500's, etc.

    http://www.bowenclassicarms.com/NEW/..._Super_Redhawk

    "This is all changed with the advent of the new Super Redhawk 'Alaskan' model with it plain topstrap. We have devised the tooling and procedures to remove the original barrel and shorten/recontour the receiver snout to accommodate standard Redhawk barrels which results in a giant GP-100. Now, we have a receiver suited to virtually any modification available for the standard Redhawk. We can build in calibers from .44 Magnum to .500 Redhawk in barrels from 4 to 7 1/2 inches (5 1/2 in. length maximum in .475 and .50 cals.). The only fly in the ointment is the barrel situation. Standard Redhawk barrels are unavailable from the factory so we have to depend on an uncertain supply of take-off and scrounged parts."
    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

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wasilla, Ak
    Posts
    3,900

    Default

    Wow so many engineers here you all should get together and design the perfect pistol. For one if I was going to do any work I would ditch the ruger cylinders cause everhole is **** near different! Order a cylinder I should say a 5 shot cylinder from reeder... The barrel doesn't concern me. Far as smiths I wouldn't do anything to them, if the n frame was do perfect why go to the x- frame. On the ruger redhawks/black hawks they put the 475 linebaugh on them. You cannot do that to an N frame. The smith is a great pistol shoot 255 through it and you have a pistol for anything! For the guys who have no sense and like fire the cannons then rugers are great, you don't have to sacrifice much with a std redhawk versus an x frame. Some singing the merits of the smiths but smith had to design a whole new pistol to accomodate a new cartridge with rugers all you need is a new cylinder and barrel! Again I like both

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default Engineering compromise

    Engineering design is full of compromise and considerations. For pistols, cost, weight, size, power, strength, and marketability are big factors.

    I think a workable 454 Redhawk would be a good compromise for an Alaska carry gun - if they made one. To me it would be a good comromise of weight and pwer and maybe cost. At the present combined cost of a Redhawk + a SRH .454 they are too costly for me and many others. A 5 shot .480 won't be a bad deal either if they were affordable $2500 - $3000 is just too dang expensive IMO.

    I'm beginning to suspect that S&W tried an N+ frame .454 and found out like that barrel errosion was an issue regardless of the steel used - just too much powder at too high a pressure too close to the cylinder / barrel gap. By making a much longer cylinder and chambering it for an enlarged .454 - the .500 - they solved the issue of barrel errosion AND had a very marketable product that also boosted their other sales. Remember that the .460 came along years later and they had to beef up the .500 frame and use gain twist EDM rifled barrels to get it to work.


    Quote Originally Posted by 323 View Post
    Wow so many engineers here you all should get together and design the perfect pistol. For one if I was going to do any work I would ditch the ruger cylinders cause everhole is **** near different! Order a cylinder I should say a 5 shot cylinder from reeder... The barrel doesn't concern me. Far as smiths I wouldn't do anything to them, if the n frame was do perfect why go to the x- frame. On the ruger redhawks/black hawks they put the 475 linebaugh on them. You cannot do that to an N frame. The smith is a great pistol shoot 255 through it and you have a pistol for anything! For the guys who have no sense and like fire the cannons then rugers are great, you don't have to sacrifice much with a std redhawk versus an x frame. Some singing the merits of the smiths but smith had to design a whole new pistol to accomodate a new cartridge with rugers all you need is a new cylinder and barrel! Again I like both
    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

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Between two lakes in Alaska
    Posts
    952

    Default

    I'd dig into my pocket for a 5 shot 480 with a 4 or 5 inch barrel for about the same $ as the SRH.

  16. #16

    Default

    I picked this baby up on a trade valued at $500. A .454 Redhawk in all but name.
    It throws a 335 grain .452 caliber bullet at about 1300 fps at a pressure of about 28,000 cup(not even max pressure). If that isn't enough for a non-hunter, I really just don't know what to say.
    By the way, finding a .454 cylinder and a Redhawk frame doesn't take much money, just time and some social skills.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    "When the time comes for a man to look his Maker in the eye, where better could the meeting be held than in the wilderness?"

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default

    Interesting - my latest Lyman handbooks show their best load with a 325 gr bullet out of the larger .454 case in a 6' universal barrel at 1300 fps and 32,600 cup. What load are you using?

    Better remind Snyd and others to brush up on their social skills - Snyd was the one who said he couldn't find a cylinder and had to pull one out of SRH. I really haven't looked - just took others' word for it.


    Quote Originally Posted by tailwind View Post
    I picked this baby up on a trade valued at $500. A .454 Redhawk in all but name.
    It throws a 335 grain .452 caliber bullet at about 1300 fps at a pressure of about 28,000 cup(not even max pressure). If that isn't enough for a non-hunter, I really just don't know what to say.
    By the way, finding a .454 cylinder and a Redhawk frame doesn't take much money, just time and some social skills.
    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

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    I caught a lot off flak on other threads over suggesting that a Ruger RH or a Bisley Hunter converted to a .454 could have issues with barrel errosion. Turns out my concerns - and those of the Ruger engineers - are very valid. Check out: http://rugerforum.net/ruger-double-a...lem-maybe.html There are a lot more references but this one has some good pictures and is on the Ruger (not the S&W)forum.

    The cast barrels of the Redhawk (and the Bisley if they are a casting) are almost certainly going to be less dense and errosion resistant that those of the SRH.


  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    Looked at that also - but it isn't just Lil'gun powder.

    Ruger engineers were concerned about errosion when they developed the Redhawk - and that was long before reloaders starting using Lil'gun.


  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    Many remember the Cartech steel used in the cylinder of the Redhawk but the barrel also required a better steel:

    "Ruger had to deal with several increased power issues in designing the barrel for its new .454 Casull revolver. Designers were concerned with the throat erosion that might occur when the big cartridge would exit the chamber and slam into the interior surface of the barrel. They knew the higher velocity bullet would have greater impact force, causing high-velocity gas cutting and potential erosion problems. That potential could be magnified if the steel selected for the barrel did not have the correct microstructure for these new requirements.

    The first material considered was stainless Type 410, the standard alloy used with great success for other revolvers in the Ruger line of revolvers. Ruger was able to gun drill a 0.480" dia. hole in a 1ľ" OD x 19" long bar in 17.27 minutes at 1.1 IPM. However, the material was unable to meet the newer, more strenuous requirements for strength, ductility and corrosion resistance imposed by the higher pressure .454 Casull cartridge.

    Also note that the Ruger engineers rejected bar stock 410 steel - it is a better barrel material than the less dense cast steel used in the Redhawk.

    I guess the Ruger engineers were full of "nonsense" also!

    Full article: http://www.cartech.com/techarticles.aspx?id=1608



Page 1 of 6 123 ... 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
  •