Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

.454 Redhawk barrel errosion - "nonsense" or real

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • .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
    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?"

    Comment


    • #3
      While you're at it tvfinak, google up lil'gun forcing cone erosion. then you'll get the rest of the story... :boring:
      A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and donít have one, youíll probably never need one again

      Comment


      • #4
        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.

        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... :boring:
        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

        Comment


        • #5
          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?

          Comment


          • #6
            Tvfinak -- you are a real piece of work. I really think you need to step away from the computer for awhile.

            Comment


            • #7
              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

              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

              Comment


              • #8
                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."
                A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and donít have one, youíll probably never need one again

                Comment


                • #9
                  Where are you coming up with Ruger using cast steel in their barrels?????????????????????????
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        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.


                        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

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          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

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            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.


                            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

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              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.

                              Comment

                              Footer Adsense

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X