Another 454 Redhawk is born!

I've been looking for a SRH 454 cylinder for about a year. I screwed up a bid on gunbroker last spring and missed one and haven't come across another one since.

Well, thanks to a guy on another forum I now have a 454 Cylinder for my Redhawk conversion, oh, it came in this like new SRH



I've been researching this for quite some time and wanted do the swap out myself and not have to have a smith do anything. The neutered SRH will find a home with someone wanting to do a 475 or 500 bigbore project. I'll probably keep the 45 Colt cylinder at least for a while until I'm satisfied.

Preliminary quick measurements showed headspace within .001 on the two guns. Cylinders are the same length and distance from frame to barrel is the same as well. After talking to guys who have done this conversion, timing is right on as is bore alignment. Evidently Ruger uses the same specs for bolt notches, timing, etc. on the cylinders.

A .452 boolit pushes through the 454 cylinder so it's good to go. I wonder if this is because it's a newer Ruger or if it's because it's a 454. I had to ream the throats on the 45 Colt to .4525. They were at about .4515, the Redhawk is a couple years old.

Cylinder/star extractor assemblies will come off the cranes, 454 Cylinder goes back on the Redhawk. Cranes will stay with the proper frames. The Redhawk has .003 cylinder gap, .005 endshake and that after it going back to Ruger last winter. The 454 was the same. Little less endshake.

This was a lot easier than I thought it would be. It was nothing more than a cylinder swap and all critical measurements are within spec. Wow... The 454 Redhawk lives!!

Step 1. Pull cylinder/crane from Redhawk and pull cylinder/extractor off of crane.



Step 2. Do the same to the SRH.



Step 3. Parts are ready for reassembly.



Step 4. 454 Cylinder is on the Redhawks Crane.



Step 5. Install the crane with the new cylinder and check cylinder gap, endshake, headspace, timing, cylinder/bore alignment. Everything is right on. B/C is .003, endshake is .005 and headspace is within spec which it should be since headspace is set by Ruger on the cylinder. It's the same as the 45 Colt cylinder. Maybe .001 tighter.



The chambers on the 454 Cylinder are tighter than the 45 Colt. I don't have a set of pin gauges but here is a pic with some non-resized brass from rounds fired in the Redhawk. This is all the farther the 45 Colt brass would go in the 454 Cylinder. It slips right in the 45 Colt cylinder as you can see. Neither of these two pieces of brass would go in the 454 cyl any farther. They are a pretty snug fit as is.



Timing. Here is a pic of the gun that shows timing. The cylinder/bolt is in full lockup in this pic. Just a little more pressure and the hammer falls. It's the same on all cylinders. I looked down the bore and went through all cylinders and the chambers line up with the bore no prob. I don't have any rods to measure this but it looks good and others have done this swap before me.



The 454 Redhawk is born!

I guess the part that is gonna blow is the cylinder, and you've eliminated that part. I can't really see a reason why this swap wouldn't work out. I prefer the grip of the Redhawk, but the SRH isn't bad by any means, I just don't like the look of the "frame extension."

:mrgreen: WOW! :mrgreen:
:mrgreen: Non-Fruited Cylinder Redhawk :mrgreen:
:mrgreen: COOL! :mrgreen:

Good job Snyd, I may have to give that a try myself. Now the job begins of getting another 454. Where did you get the grips. They look a little rough for the recoil. Tell us more.

Snyd, glad it finally worked out. When I get mine back, we can exchange experiences with the changes.

Bear Paw Jack said:

Good job Snyd, I may have to give that a try myself. Now the job begins of getting another 454. Where did you get the grips. They look a little rough for the recoil. Tell us more.

Click to expand...

Ya, I got lucky finding this SRH right here in Fairbanks for a great price. And stainless to boot. Grips are Nill Griffe and fit my hand perfectly and allow a good firm grip. I've shot quite a few heavy 355gr 45 Colt loads and they handle the recoil better than the Pachmayrs I have and the factory Hogues that came with it. These Nills fit my hand properly which makes all the difference. We'll see how it is with some 454 loads. I may be singing a different tune. I may get it mag-na-ported to tame the muzzle flip of the short barrel.

I wonder why they put the frame extention on the SRH? Is it needed for those Big bore souped up calibers? Hope it's safe. Is my assumptiom that all the high presures are contained in the cylinder?

Not trying to say anything just wondering if it is a safe conversion. Inquiring minds want to know. Very nice looking I personnaly never liked the looks of the SRH. ps

Yup, it's safe. The frame can handle it. Bowen does all kinds of big bore conversions with Redhawks. Including fitting these SRH cylinders.

Very nice... now you can put that little 45 Colt cylinder in the Super Redhawk :wink:

OR, send the Redhawk back to Ruger and have it fitted with a new Cylinder which is what I would do!

Kinda makes me want to look for a one of these new stainless SRHs and see if I can do this with my 5.5-inch 45 Colt Redhawk. Not that I need anything more then my hot 45 Colt +p loads in that gun so likely a temporary thought!

I know what you mean about hot 45 Colt loads being enough. I wanted this 454 "just cuz" but I also have a 454 Puma levergun and now I have a pair. I'll probably shoot mostly 45 Colt in it and with the tighter chambers it should be easier on brass, etc. But, I'll probably try and work up a 400gr 454 load between 1000-1200 and see how it feels.

I've got someone interested in the SRH without the cylinder for a bigbore project. But, you make me wonder what Ruger would charge to re-cyliinder this one. He may or may not want the 45 Colt cylinder.

I've had a 454 cylinder sitting on my workbench waiting for me to put it on a Redhawk for over a year.

How hard was it getting the cylinder off the crane?

I have the tool needed and know the threads are reversed but was told it had some loctite on it and would impossible to take apart. I guess that's not true.

No special tool is needed! You do not remove the extractor from the cylinder, that's where you would need a special tool. You just depress and hold in the spring loaded pivot lock pin on the bottom of the crane and then push the pivot pin out from the backside of the crane. This will allow you to pull the pull the ejector rod out along with the little lever that holds the crane in the frame and it's spring (see my pic above). Then, just pull the cylinder off the crane. If it's a little snug give a little tap on the crane arm while holding the cylinder. I used wooden dowel and a very small hammer. Just a little tap is all it takes. The cylinder is held on by two ball bearings in the crane tube that are pushed outward and held in place by the ejector rod. It's easier to pull the cylinder off the crane than it is to take the rest of the Redhawk apart and put back together! Like I said, I was surprised at how easy this was to do. Just check all your measurements.

I see how you did it now. I have a 454 cylinder and extractor star so I'd need to disassemble the 45 cylinder to get the rest of the parts.

Good looking project. Something Ruger should've done back when.

Is your 454 Cylinder and extractor star intact? If so that's all you need. Use the crane, extractor rod, latch, spring and pins from your Redhawk. That's what I did.

Snyd said:

Bear Paw Jack said:

Good job Snyd, I may have to give that a try myself. Now the job begins of getting another 454. Where did you get the grips. They look a little rough for the recoil. Tell us more.

Click to expand...

Ya, I got lucky finding this SRH right here in Fairbanks for a great price. And stainless to boot. Grips are Nill Griffe and fit my hand perfectly and allow a good firm grip. I've shot quite a few heavy 355gr 45 Colt loads and they handle the recoil better than the Pachmayrs I have and the factory Hogues that came with it. These Nills fit my hand properly which makes all the difference. We'll see how it is with some 454 loads. I may be singing a different tune. I may get it mag-na-ported to tame the muzzle flip of the short barrel.

Click to expand...

I use the Pachmayer Decelerators on my Redhawks and they are a little big for my hand also. I had a Ruger Alaskan in 454 and seriously considered swapping out the cylinders but talked to Tim Sundles a few times about the 45 Colt Buffalo Bore and he convinced me the 45 Colt with the hard cast bullets he uses could do anything most of the 454 ammo would do so I finally lost interest and sold the Alaskan. Now you have me thinking again. I've got enough 45 Colt Buffalo Bore ammo that there is no hurry, guess it will depend on what other guns come along, and the various temptations I end up having to deal with. I'd certainly think twice about mag-na-porting it, they are plenty loud enough with out it. I shot my 454 Alaskan with some 454 and the flip didn't bother my like the longer barrel SRH's did. My Redhawks are all 4" and the flip doesn't bother me on those. If you head down this way I'd be curious to give yours a try. I think the SRH has a better grip angle, than the Redhawk but like the looks of the Redhawk a LOT better. Are you going to SHOT?

Snyd said:

Is your 454 Cylinder and extractor star intact? If so that's all you need. Use the crane, extractor rod, latch, spring and pins from your Redhawk. That's what I did.

Click to expand...

All I have is the cylinder and star. I'd have to disassemble and use the parts from the 45 cylinder to fit the 454 cylinder.

powder smoke said:

I wonder why they put the frame extention on the SRH? Is it needed for those Big bore souped up calibers?

Click to expand...

As I understand it, the frame extension goes back to the first batch of Redhawks that suffer from the barrel thread/lubrication issues. Ruger's initial remedy was the extended frame. But once the lube issues were corrected and Redhawk production resumed, the extended frame version was far enough along in development that Ruger finished it and the Super Redhawk was born.

Donaldjr1969 said:

powder smoke said:

I wonder why they put the frame extention on the SRH? Is it needed for those Big bore souped up calibers?

Click to expand...

As I understand it, the frame extension goes back to the first batch of Redhawks that suffer from the barrel thread/lubrication issues. Ruger's initial remedy was the extended frame. But once the lube issues were corrected and Redhawk production resumed, the extended frame version was far enough along in development that Ruger finished it and the Super Redhawk was born.

Click to expand...

Yup.... http://www.sixguns.com/range/454_super_redhawk.htm

Snyd,

Thats a great looking conversion. I have a Redhawk with a Anaconda barrel that Jack Huntington rechambered, rebored and rifled for me.

I would love to convert to the "fluteless" 454 cylinder.

Anybody out there know where I can get one short of buying a stainless SRH.

Again, great looking conversion.

Ray

jetray said:

Snyd,

Thats a great looking conversion. I have a Redhawk with a Anaconda barrel that Jack Huntington rechambered, rebored and rifled for me.

I would love to convert to the "fluteless" 454 cylinder.

Anybody out there know where I can get one short of buying a stainless SRH.

Again, great looking conversion.

Ray

Click to expand...

And the pictures of this rebarrelled Redhawk are ...........?