Strength of NM Blackhawk vs Redhawk?

I bought a NM Blackhawk convertible in 45LC/45ACP, thinking it would be strong enough to withstand a lifetime of hot loads. Lately, though, I've been reading that the Redhawk is a sturdier firearm, and that has me a little concerned. I have some Buffalo Bore 325gr @ ~1300 fps (if I remember correctly). Is that too hot of a round for my Blackhawk? Will it eventually shoot loose at that pressure? Granted, I don't plan on shooting many, but I like the idea that I can if I need to. Are there hotter rounds that the Redhawk will handle that the Blackhawk can't?

You need to locate & read the articles written by John Linebaugh & Brian Pierce on the various levels of 45 Colt loadings.

The original 45 Colt SAAMI loading is designed for Colt Single Action Army sized cylinders & frames.

The original Ruger Blackhawk known as the Old Model, has a larger cylinder & frame. They can handle heavier loadings.

The first Ruger Vaquero revolvers shared dimensions along the lines of the Old Model Blackhawk.

Now here is where it gets tricky.

The New Model Ruger Vaqueros & Blackhawks are smaller than the Old Models. They fall between the Old Models & the Colt SAA sized revolvers.

You need to determine what size cylinder & frame you are working with & load accordingly. You NEVER want to have heavy Ruger only loads find their way into a Colt SAA sized revolver. It will most likely cause the top of the cylinder & top strap of the frame to blow off.

I believe the Redhawk is stout enough to handle any of the heavy 45 Colt loads intended for a 6-shot cylinder.

There are also custom 5-shot cylinder Single Action revolvers in 45 Colt that can handle even heavier loadings.

Check these out:

http://www.customsixguns.com/writings.htm

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=brian+pierce+%2B+45+colt&t=osx&ia=web

As was stated above, it depends on which NM BH you acquired. The regular convertible BHs are basically as stout as the RH, and will shoot anything appropriately labelled .45 Colt. Over the lifetime of the gun, you'd probably be better with the BH and hot loads since there are fewer wear points on a SA revolver. HOWEVER, if your gun is one of the midframe/Vaquero/flattop BHs that have been released recently, it is not rated to handle these loads at all, let alone on an extended basis.

My Blackhawk is a Model 00446 / Catalog Number BN-44X, not a flattop. I believe that is the stronger of the Blackhawks, correct? And you're saying it should handle anything a Redhawk can handle?

I look at it like this: the (full size) Blackhawk is built like a John Deere tractor; the Redhawk is built like an Abrams tank. Unless you're into some serious, serious abuse, you'll never wear either one out.

That's the large frame BH. Should handle anything the RH does.

People think the RH is stronger because the cylinder diameter is larger. That is an incorrect metric. The weakest part of the cylinder is the walls between the chambers. My .45 BH: .0660"; my .45 RH: .0665". Both measured with calipers, so that's within the margin of error for being the same. Barring a change in materials (and I have good reason to think they are the same), the cylinders are of equal strength. The DA has more wear vulnerable wear points than the SA: smaller ratchet area, smaller contact area between cylinder and yoke/frame. All other things being equal, the BH should hold up better to heavy loads than the RH, even though you will probably get to that point.

NikA said:

That's the large frame BH. Should handle anything the RH does.

People think the RH is stronger because the cylinder diameter is larger. That is an incorrect metric. The weakest part of the cylinder is the walls between the chambers. My .45 BH: .0660"; my .45 RH: .0665". Both measured with calipers, so that's within the margin of error for being the same. Barring a change in materials (and I have good reason to think they are the same), the cylinders are of equal strength. The DA has more wear vulnerable wear points than the SA: smaller ratchet area, smaller contact area between cylinder and yoke/frame. All other things being equal, the BH should hold up better to heavy loads than the RH, even though you will probably get to that point.

Click to expand...

Thank you for clearing that up.

Thank you for clearing that up.

Click to expand...

He didn't clear it up. He's wrong. The Redhawk is stronger.

Buy a copy of Handloader #292 and read the article by Brian Pearce.

And look at the ammo that Garret Cartridges is selling for the Redhawk.

I think the Garrett recommendation might be based on cylinder length: the RH cylinder is a bit longer (0.05" or so?) than the BH one, and those 405gr bullets are LONG. In any case, I'll take a measurement and data about the materials over pretty much anything but a destructive test with a statistically representative number of samples.

No. the Redhawk is much stronger. Capable of much higher presssure than the BH. RUGER built this gun around the 44 mag cartridge. I believe there are published load data with pressures you would never light in a BH.

NikA said:

I think the Garrett recommendation might be based on cylinder length: the RH cylinder is a bit longer (0.05" or so?) than the BH one, and those 405gr bullets are LONG. In any case, I'll take a measurement and data about the materials over pretty much anything but a destructive test with a statistically representative number of samples.

Click to expand...

Nope, Garrett Cartridge considers the 405 RHO to be a +P+ loading. I've shot quite a bit of that ammo and it's stout. They fit in my .454 SBH and shoot well. The water buffalo in my avatar was taken with Garrett 405 RHOs. I concur that the Redhawk is stronger platform than the SBH. They are hell for stout (that's a technical term).

SBH has a longer cylinder than the BH, and I bet if you measured, you'd find that 405 RHO won't fit a BH cylinder at 1.705 length.

I believe you probably have a representative sample of each .45LC gun yourself, Max. Measure the wall thickness between the cylinders on each, and then tell me why one wouldn't anticipate that a pressure vessel would fail at its weakest point. The alternative is that the bolt notches are thinner than the wall thickness between the cylinders, and that would just be sloppy engineering.

Just because everyone has always said that it is so, doesn't make it so. If you're going to make a statement on strength, I think it would be appropriate to back it up with data.

NikA said:

SBH has a longer cylinder than the BH, and I bet if you measured, you'd find that 405 RHO won't fit a BH cylinder at 1.705 length.

I believe you probably have a representative sample of each .45LC gun yourself, Max. Measure the wall thickness between the cylinders on each, and then tell me why one wouldn't anticipate that a pressure vessel would fail at its weakest point. The alternative is that the bolt notches are thinner than the wall thickness between the cylinders, and that would just be sloppy engineering.

Just because everyone has always said that it is so, doesn't make it so. If you're going to make a statement on strength, I think it would be appropriate to back it up with data.

Click to expand...

Read the warning on the label. I know Ashley Emerson, the proprietor of Garrett Cartridge and know that he increased the length of the bullet nose of the RHO load specifically to keep it out of Blackhawks chambered in .45 Colt. He also kept the nose of the 365 LFR long to make sure the OAL is long enough to keep it out of Colt SAAs (or the derivatives) and N-frames.

I don't base decisions or make declarations without testing the veracity of any claim. My credibility would suffer if I took things at face value and accepted conventional wisdom without challenging it. The Redhawk platform and to the same extent the Super Redhawk (only the grip frame and the frame extension differs from the parent Redhawk) is stronger. The cylinder in all directions is larger to include the cylinder walls and the bolt notches are cut between the holes in both cases. The bolt hole circle of the Redhawk is substantially larger than the Blackhawk, adding to the wall thickness between chambers and the cylinder diameter for the Redhawk is .050 larger than the Blackhawk ensuring more outer wall thickness as well. The only potentially weak area of the Redhawk would be the cutout for the crane, but it is also substantially beefed up (unlike the Smith & Wesson and a lesson learned from Smith & Wesson's N-frame). Keep in mind that Ruger saw fit to build the .454 on the Super Redhawk as a six-shot while when finally released in the SBH it is a five-shot. Why do you think that is?

The only reason I can use those particular loads in my .454 SBH is that the cylinder is a touch longer.

Max, I think you've made an assumption without measuring as many have and that is the source of your misunderstanding.

You say "bolt hole circle of the Redhawk is substantially larger than the Blackhawk."

The pictures below show this is not true. These are .45 snap caps in a RH moon clip, dropped in the cylinder out of a .45 Bisley BH. Further, measurement shows that all the extra "meat" the Ruger has added to the RH cylinder is on the outside, not between the chamber walls where it would matter. I think people have been comparing these based on cylinder diameter for so long, they've lost sight of what is most likely: in terms of manufacturing and setup, it's probably easier for Ruger to set up a limited number of cylinder patterns, and it seems the BH and RH are drilled on the same chamber pilot diameters. I would bet that custom gunsmiths like Bowen would be able to confirm this since they provide cylinders with pilot holes already drilled.





I suspect the reason for the 5-shot SBH is either because it doesn't necessitate the more expensive steel that the 6-shot SRH does (the cylinder and barrel of .454 and .480 SRH guns are not Ruger's typical 410SS), or a marketing decision to make the gun more like the 5-shot customs that famous gunsmiths have produced.

So anyways, as I said before, go measure the samples you have and come back with something different, and I will believe you. AFAIK, .45 RHs have always been drilled on the same cylinder pilot circle, as evidenced by the TK Custom moonclip conversions that match Ruger's current production.

Thought about the cylinder notch issue as well and took a measurement there too. I suspect it doesn't matter because smart design would make the cylinder walls the weak point, but for the curious, my basic measurements put them at .047" on the BH and .069" on the RH. That's pretty much your .05" diameter difference divided by two, and I'm too lazy to get out a depth micrometer to take a true measurement.

I suspect (based on my knowledge of manufacturing and Ruger) that Ruger takes 410SS roundstock, puts it in a CNC lathe that has hole drilling capabilities, and has one basic program for their large revolver cylinder shapes. That makes cylinders, chambered in the same caliber, made of the same steel, the same strength. Someone will have to tell all the .357 RH fans that it's only as overbuilt as the .357 BH.

I feel at this point I've done my due diligence in dispelling this myth perpetuated by people that insist on measuring non-critical dimensions due to their lack of engineering expertise. If anyone comes back with data to the contrary, I'd be happy to recant my position. I'd be pretty happy to do destructive testing on this issue, but I suspect both ultimate strength and fatigue strength are issues here, and I reckon at this time I have more important things to work on.

NikA said:

Max, I think you've made an assumption without measuring as many have and that is the source of your misunderstanding.

You say "bolt hole circle of the Redhawk is substantially larger than the Blackhawk."

The pictures below show this is not true. These are .45 snap caps in a RH moon clip, dropped in the cylinder out of a .45 Bisley BH. Further, measurement shows that all the extra "meat" the Ruger has added to the RH cylinder is on the outside, not between the chamber walls where it would matter. I think people have been comparing these based on cylinder diameter for so long, they've lost sight of what is most likely: in terms of manufacturing and setup, it's probably easier for Ruger to set up a limited number of cylinder patterns, and it seems the BH and RH are drilled on the same chamber pilot diameters. I would bet that custom gunsmiths like Bowen would be able to confirm this since they provide cylinders with pilot holes already drilled.





I suspect the reason for the 5-shot SBH is either because it doesn't necessitate the more expensive steel that the 6-shot SRH does (the cylinder and barrel of .454 and .480 SRH guns are not Ruger's typical 410SS), or a marketing decision to make the gun more like the 5-shot customs that famous gunsmiths have produced.

So anyways, as I said before, go measure the samples you have and come back with something different, and I will believe you. AFAIK, .45 RHs have always been drilled on the same cylinder pilot circle, as evidenced by the TK Custom moonclip conversions that match Ruger's current production.

Click to expand...

I went back, pulled a .45 Colt Redhawk and a .45 Colt Blackhawk out of the safe, broke out the calipers and took some measurements. I stand corrected on the bolt hole circle diameter which comes out to about .550 per gun. The increase in cylinder bulk is about .050 in length and diameter. I will take my crow barbecued please!

However, there is more material in areas of the frame that Ruger felt were important for longevity under the abuse meted out by these big cartridges. For example, the shank diameter of the Redhawk is .750-inch while the SA is .687. Andy Canon, a gunsmith that is no longer of this world, made a bit of a splash in the '80s re-chambering (and rebarreling) .44 Mag Redhawks to .454 Casull -- re-chambered stock .44 Mag cylinders. I recently shot an example (not built by Canon) that was built in '88 that had digested thousands of 60,000 + PSI .454 loads over the course of 25 years that had been used to hunt Africa and all over the United States that has not shown any unreasonable signs of wear and is as tight as the day it rolled off the assembly line (or the gunsmith's bench). When I jury tested a .454 Bisley it experienced teething problems due to its petit stature. While the DAs in .454 are not as readily susceptible to the wear and tear of bench endurance testing. While this is anecdotal, it is a documented issue. The one-piece frame seems to take the abuse much more readily than the single-action platform (a two-piece frame), excluding (in my testing) both BFR's and Freedom Arms' offerings in the same caliber. There is a reason why the likes of Hamilton Bowen, John Linebaugh, Jack Huntington, etc. will typically not build a single-action in the violent .454 caliber.

I still stand by my assertion that the Redhawk is an overall stronger foundation on which to build a big-bore revolver.

Oh, and Ruger did use 465 Carpenter to build the five-shot .454 and .480 single-actions just like they did with the Super Redhawks in the same calibers.

What I call the Andy-Canon commemorative .454 six-shot Redhawk.

The Redhawk is stronger. Once he stops being lazy, does some reading, and/or measures the chamber wall thickness over the locking notches, he'll realize what the rest of the world has known for a long time.

The Blackhawk/Super Blackhawk, by design, should stay tight and in time longer than the SRH/RH, and is cheaper to bring back to life once loose or out of time, but that is a comparison of durability, not strength.

That measurement is posted in my previous thread posts. I've read plenty, particularly on the strength of materials, and not just speculation, to understand the issue. The cylinder weak point is the same, so the ultimate strength is the same.

On the threading issue:
.687-24 threads have approximately 20% less tensile area then the .75-20 threads. Given a yield strength of 100 ksi (lower end of strength for the 410SS according to Ruger's own data), that still gives 3500 lb.f before the threads start to yield. For context, a 405gr bullet accelerated/decelerated by 1400 ft/s in 1 ms generates around 2530 lb.f, so there'd still be an ~40% safety margin on welding the barrel shut with the +P+ LC load and not having it remove the barrel.

I will never likely fire enough hot rounds through either platform to wear one out unless hired to do so, but ultimately, in terms of long term strength, I believe a closely fit BH will beat a closely fit RH in terms of durability. There are larger bearing areas on surfaces that are likely to be battered by cylinder movement during the firing cycle, and less cylinder mass, which should result in lower deformation rates in these areas. Whether production guns from Ruger are fitted to this level is another question entirely, and I think where we can agree to disagree on which platform is better.

FACT #1 -In independant testing @White Laboratories the Ruger New Model Blackhawk chambered in .45 Colt blows up at 60000psi chamber pressures.

FACT #2- In Rugers testing of .44 Magnum size Super Redhawk 410series SS cylinders that were chambered in .454 Casull before they but the .454 SRH into production the cylinders blew at .454 PROOF LEVELS between 93000 & 100000psi.
END RESULT-
The Redhawk/SuperRedhawk wins all day long on strength

The article I've seen states specifically that the 410 cylinders did not hold up to the 92ksi proof loads, and I don't know the standard for failure HP White used (ultimate versus yield strength). If you have more specific information, I'd like to see it.

http://www.modernapplicationsnews.com/articles/m0401stainless.htm

https://www.cartech.com/en/alloy-techzone/technical-information/technical-articles/advanced-stainless-offers-high-strength-toughness-and-corrosion-resistance-wherever-needed

ETA: the thin-wall radial stress approximation for pressure vessels that are closed at both ends is P=-P_int/2. Given a 100ksi yield strength for the cylinder steel, that gives an internal pressure of 50ksi before yield. Seems pretty appropriate given Ruger lists yield conditions up to 160ksi for their 410SS; this corresponds to a heat treat yielding a yield stress of 120ksi for a yield failure at 60ksi. There could be heat treat differences in strength here, but overall, based on measurements that I have access to, there is not reason to say that the RH is stronger than the BH, particularly in the area of the cylinder.