Redhawk barrel/frame separation
- Thread starter Lastround
- Start date
contender
Ruger Guru
Welcome to the Forum.
First off,,, RELAX!!!!!!!!!! It's NOT a big problem.
To my knowledge,,, I was the first person to experience the barrel/frame separation. And since mine,,, only a SMALL few have happened. And as far as I know,, nobody hurt either.
It took the folks at Ruger 3-4 years to discover the cause. Basically, is was an odd chain of events that all combined made it happen. Barrels are lubed prior to being screwed into a frame. Apparently,, a FEW barrels were pre-lubed,,, and left in the rack,,, while the company was on an extended shut down,, for a few weeks. During that time,, the lube,, exposed to air, dried & changed properties enough to where it created a "stress point" once assembled & torqued into place. And,, not all of them had a bbl separate from the frame. Just the way the lube dried, followed by the torquing.
But it sure was a puzzle to the engineers at Ruger.
Resulted in them building the Super Redhawk thinking they may have a problem.
It was corrected LONG ago.
First off,,, RELAX!!!!!!!!!! It's NOT a big problem.
To my knowledge,,, I was the first person to experience the barrel/frame separation. And since mine,,, only a SMALL few have happened. And as far as I know,, nobody hurt either.
It took the folks at Ruger 3-4 years to discover the cause. Basically, is was an odd chain of events that all combined made it happen. Barrels are lubed prior to being screwed into a frame. Apparently,, a FEW barrels were pre-lubed,,, and left in the rack,,, while the company was on an extended shut down,, for a few weeks. During that time,, the lube,, exposed to air, dried & changed properties enough to where it created a "stress point" once assembled & torqued into place. And,, not all of them had a bbl separate from the frame. Just the way the lube dried, followed by the torquing.
But it sure was a puzzle to the engineers at Ruger.
Resulted in them building the Super Redhawk thinking they may have a problem.
It was corrected LONG ago.
Is it funny or sad that this subject still lingers?
Can't blame a new shooter for asking ...... just the way it is.
And Lastround ..... welcome to the Forum!
Can't blame a new shooter for asking ...... just the way it is.
And Lastround ..... welcome to the Forum!
Thanks for the help guys. I have three Redhawks, 1984, 1995, and 2009. Just wondered if a couple of them, just recently purchased, might fall into this timeframe. I know the 1984 model is good because I have fired it thousands of times with no problems.
I was told by a Ruger rep that the problem was only in 1980 - 81 redhawks. Contender---can you confirm???
contender
Ruger Guru
I'd have to dig into my old paper records,, and see if I still have the purchase date of mine. Since I went to a computer spreadsheet,,, my old paper stuff has "moved around" a few times & I'm not exactly sure where it's at. BUT,,,, if my faded memory is correct,,, I'm thinking it was more likely made in 1984 or 1985. I had it a while before it separated. And it never saw a factory load. It's preferred load was actually a mid-range load. Deadly accurate,,, & fun to shoot. It had seen about 1500-2000 or so rounds before it turned loose.
steve8261948
Single-Sixer
I don't know if I can buy this? Oil is a rust preventative while grease is a lubricant.
Maybe , but I'm doubtful of this explanation.
Steve
Maybe , but I'm doubtful of this explanation.
Steve
steve8261948 said:
OK, consider this. While the barrels sat for a long while with lubricant on the threads, said lubricant attracted dust. After being screwed together and shot a thousand times, the fine dust particles acted like sand paper and ground off enough thread metal to loosen the once torqued barrel.
contender said:
Contender,
I appreciate all your info, but now I'm wondering about my 1984 model. As I previously stated, I have probably fired this gun a few thousand times since I purchased it new, mostly with factory equivalent handloads. Both with jacketed and cast bullets. My gun has the 7.5" barrel; would be interested what your failed barrel length was.
DeletedMember275
Hunter
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2002
- Messages
- 2,759
SteelBlue said:
The barrels didn't unscrew, they sheared off! Big difference!
steve8261948
Single-Sixer
Enigma said:
Sounds like a metal failure problem to me?
Steve
Jimbo357mag
Hawkeye
Exactly. They were over tightened because of the lube drying problem.steve8261948 said:
contender
Ruger Guru
All I can say is what I was told by the person I spoke with long ago,,, when I inquired about it. I had called about a different issue,, then asked that question,, and was told to call an engineer,,, who explained it to me in simple terms of the lube drying and changing properties. That those changes created an over-torque stress point. It happened so long ago,, that I do NOT remember the guy's name,, and I truly wish I'd kept better records back then. It was long before the internet.
In fact,,, I was reminded of it by an article in a gun magazine on the Super Redhawk,,, that made a reference to a single example of a Redhawk having a barrel separate that prompter my call about it & the other minor issue I had a question about. I called & was given that basic info.
Now,,, Lastround,,, relax & enjoy your Redhawks. The cases of this are VERY few,, and your gun is not likely to be a problem. My gun was a 7-1/2" bbl. But as I say,,, VERY few had the separation.
In fact,,, I was reminded of it by an article in a gun magazine on the Super Redhawk,,, that made a reference to a single example of a Redhawk having a barrel separate that prompter my call about it & the other minor issue I had a question about. I called & was given that basic info.
Now,,, Lastround,,, relax & enjoy your Redhawks. The cases of this are VERY few,, and your gun is not likely to be a problem. My gun was a 7-1/2" bbl. But as I say,,, VERY few had the separation.
steve8261948
Single-Sixer
Jimbo357mag said:
Sounds good think as you like? This is still America, land of free speech and thought.
Steve
chet15
Hawkeye
There were two Redhawks on Ruger's 1995 SHOT Show display that had pinned barrels. They were serial numbers 503-03087 and 503-03088.
Presuming this was their immediate temporary fix at the time, so the problem Redhawk era would be just before that.
I don't know if there was a hiatus in Redhawk production at the time in order to get it figured out or not.
I do know there was never a recall on the Redhawk for any problem, so the problem was evidently very small.
Chet15
Presuming this was their immediate temporary fix at the time, so the problem Redhawk era would be just before that.
I don't know if there was a hiatus in Redhawk production at the time in order to get it figured out or not.
I do know there was never a recall on the Redhawk for any problem, so the problem was evidently very small.
Chet15
