No more 45 Colt Redhawks

[RealGun]

I see that Ruger's site is no longer listing any Redhawk models in 45 Colt. They had already dropped the 5.5" like mine. Without my gun I would have to give up heavy "Ruger only" loads and heavy bullets. I don't need another Blackhawk and don't trust them to get the cylinder and barrel dimensions working together. Even the Redhawk was producing high pressure with stuck cases and had to be reamed.

 

[PapaG]

Regardless of what the "writers" say, for whatever reason, each gun has its own individual limit. My Blackhawk is fine up to a certain point, a little below the "Ruger only" loads. My Contender is all right right up to the limit. (both 45 Colt). If I want to go for top, I simply use the 44 mag in Ruger, Contender, Marlin, or Smith form. (And here again, I go by the book.) Sixty plus years reloading without a stuck bullet or a kaboom.

 

[CraigC]

There is still the 4" cut for moon clips.

Sticky extraction is a pressure sign in rifles, not revolvers chambered for straight wall cartridges.

 

[Charlie98]

I don't need another Blackhawk and don't trust them to get the cylinder and barrel dimensions working together.

You got that right. I've been through about 5 different Ruger SA's in 20 years, never had one that shot well. Knowing now what I didn't know then... I had my last remaining Ruger, a 5.5" .45 Vaquero, reamed out. This particular pistol doesn't seem to have a torque bulge (like my last .44SPC did...) so I'm hoping it will shoot a bit better now. I'll know in a week.

As far as Ruger taking the .45 Colt off the menu, they produced a BUNCH of them the past few years, I'm guessing they are just taking them out of production rotation for a while, until inventory slims down.

 

[RealGun]

There is still the 4" cut for moon clips.

Sticky extraction is a pressure sign in rifles, not revolvers chambered for straight wall cartridges.

I didn't find any 45 Colt on the Redhawk page. We must mean different things, because cases stuck in the chambers is a pressure problem, which I relieved by reaming tight throats or moderating a load.

 

[MEHavey]

Sticky extraction is a pressure sign in rifles, not revolvers chambered for straight wall cartridges.

Sticky case/cylinder extraction is very much a pressure problem in revolvers,
as the pressure has expanded the steel cylinder walls beyond design limits, and
upon recovery, the brass case's recovery dimensions are oversize, leaving it
stuck to the steel walls.

 

[MEHavey]

 

[CraigC]

Ruger Redhawk .45Colt/.45ACP.

https://ruger.com/products/redhawk/specSheets/5050.html

Sticky extraction in revolvers can have a number of causes, completely unrelated to pressure. I've had sticky extraction with loads I knew were nowhere near maximum. I've had sticky extraction with .22LR in a K-frame, is that a pressure sign? No. As John Linebaugh wrote, after testing guns to destruction, so-called pressure signs in revolvers are at best very unreliable. That includes sticky extraction and flattened primers. They had guns show so-called pressure signs well below maximums. They also had guns show ZERO pressure signs whatsoever before they blew the cylinder and topstrap.

 

[MEHavey]

No matter else is involved, sticky extraction is caused by the fired case being left in an interference fit in relation to the cylinder walls. If a load combination is causing extraction issues -- particularly in more than one cylinder -- you've got a systems problem.

Deformed milling, ridges in the cylinder, corrosion/deep pits, over-pressure residual effects in an otherwise perfect the brass/steel interface . . . that load and its pressure is producing results causing the case/cylinder release design function to fail.

 

[CraigC]

As I said, that's highly debatable and you're only assuming it's pressure. The evidence doesn't support it.

 

[MEHavey]

Nothing else causes the deformation that results in interference.
That interference may occur at lower pressures than you expect, or that would cause ultimate failure.
But pressure is the systems driver in the load combination -- at whatever level.

 

[CraigC]

Sticky extraction can be caused by roughness in the chambers. Dirty chambers, undersized throats, bullet lube in the throats or chambers, carbon buildup, etc.. Ruger has used gang reamers since the beginning and that causes issues related to extraction. Tooling wear can cause run-out resulting in a reverse taper in the chamber. The .45Colt cartridge is also notorious for over-sized chambers, which causes an overworking of the brass and can lead to sticky extraction.

As to the topic at hand, you are NOT going to see pressure signs using .45Colt "Ruger only" loads in a Redhawk. A revolver that is rated to 50,000psi. If cases are sticking, the cause is something other than pressure.

https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_list&c=180

 

[Master Blaster]

Actually they are making and selling this one .45 auto, .45 Colt model. Can it take ruger only loads? My sugestion get a .44 magnum and shoot whatever power level you want safely for sure.

https://www.ruger.com/products/redhawk/specSheets/5050.html

 

[Walkalong]

Over pressure can cause sticky extraction with revolver rounds, period.

Can other things besides pressure cause sticky extraction? Sure can.

Your job when it happens is to carefully look at what is happening in your situation with your loads and your revolver.

 

[MaxP]

The Redhawk can absolutely take steady diet of “Ruger-only” .45 Colt loads. There is quite a bit of a safety margin built into these revolvers and 30,000 psi loads will not tax it.

Garrett makes a Redhawk Only (RHO) load that goes about 50,000 psi. The Redhawk can handle them with aplomb.

 

[DPris]

Better than your hand.
The voice of experience.
Denis

 

[RealGun]

Actually they are making and selling this one .45 auto, .45 Colt model. Can it take ruger only loads? My sugestion get a .44 magnum and shoot whatever power level you want safely for sure.

https://www.ruger.com/products/redhawk/specSheets/5050.html

They listed it as only 45 Auto in the title. Since I reasonably took that to mean 45ACP only, they should probably update the website. It is primarily 45 Colt, since 45 Auto requires moon clips. Either way, this is not the configuration I would want to shoot up to 30K psi in 45 Colt.

 

[DPris]

That gun will easily handle anything in .45 Colt every bit as well as a dedicated .45 Colt-only Red would.
I've done it, with heavy stuff I had to put a bigger grip on to shoot through it.
Zero concerns.
Denis

 

[RealGun]

That gun will easily handle anything in .45 Colt every bit as well as a dedicated .45 Colt-only Red would.
I've done it, with heavy stuff I had to put a bigger grip on to shoot through it.
Zero concerns.
Denis

That's what I meant. You changed the configuration with a different grip (or did you mean you changed the grip frame?). Either way, speak for yourself. I had a 4" Redhawk 45 Colt and now have a 5.5" ported one and absolutely prefer the longer barrel and weight for heavier loads. No question that the gun would hold up under heavy loads. It's the same frame. and I don't know how the new barrel treatment would change that. I still made a change in that the big one has the rubber grip of the shorter barrel version. My smallish hands required that. It's just not the gun I would pick for heavy loads. As it stands now, I would go with something in 454 Casull and fire 45 Colt in it.

 

[MaxP]

Or as I posted elsewhere, stick a .454 SRH cylinder in a .45 Colt Redhawk....works like a charm. Then you can really ramp it up if need be.

 

[RealGun]

Or as I posted elsewhere, stick a .454 SRH cylinder in a .45 Colt Redhawk....works like a charm. Then you can really ramp it up if need be.

While Ruger apparently is more comfortable offering .454 Casull in a Super Redhawk along with the other big cannons..

 

[MaxP]

Same frame strength and dimensions between the SRH and the Redhawk so it’s a natural. Grip frame is vastly superior on the SRH, but it does make for a nice trail gun with some horsepower.

 

[RealGun]

Same frame strength and dimensions between the SRH and the Redhawk so it’s a natural. Grip frame is vastly superior on the SRH, but it does make for a nice trail gun with some horsepower.

I don't see how you can say the strength is the same, since the whole premise for the SBH was to beef up the barrel joint for the big stuff, with a few other bonus features included. That's how they created one of the world's oddest looking revolvers.

 

[MaxP]

The barrel extension was intended as an optic mounting point as they determined optics mounted on the barrel were too far forward (way too much relief). They came out with a .44 Mag version long before even considering the .454.

 

[RealGun]

The barrel extension was intended as an optic mounting point as they determined optics mounted on the barrel were too far forward (way too much relief). They came out with a .44 Mag version long before even considering the .454.

Yet they reserve offering support of the most powerful rounds for the SRH. Seems like there is more to it than a scope mount.