Unique 45 colt Redhawk

[mobius]

After several years of hunting I finally found my Redhawk. I fired it some and the barrel came off at the range.
Story here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpffcfJ78h4 and picshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SdcwsValkg

I finally got the replacement yesterday, after a 9 month wait, more or less.
It has some pretty unique features, starting with a current production 2013 serial number, on a discontinued model.

It's a 4.20 barrel but it doesn't have the flat top the 4 inch usually has. Rather it has a raised boss the site sits on like the longer ones.
"45 colt" is stamped on the extractor housing instead of the barrel centerline.

Ruger Redhawk on the left side under the cylinder, without the little trademark stamps.

No stamp on the left side. "read instruction manual" etc. but a partial one underneath the barrel. They left off the middle line that says Ruger.

The front of the extractor housing appears to have a different angle than usual.

The finish buff of the stainless is very rough, as if they didn't hit the fine very hard or very long maybe.

Cylinder throats are .452
Barrel at throat is .452
Barrel is .4498 give or take a very small amount. (Old micrometer)
Still has machining oil in all the nooks and crannies with a fair amount of metallic(?) residue.
The cylinder latch is a little loose.
One shot fired through it by Ruger.

I'm a happy camper, except for the cylinder latch.
I notice the website no longer says "discontinued," though there are still none available.

I usually only buy used guns and shoot the heck out of them, but I hesitate to diminish what may be a collectable, even though I have no use for a safe queen. Some things just shouldn't be done.

You guys have any thoughts on this?

Fred

MOLON LABE

 

[Bear Paw Jack]

SaaaWheeeeet

 

[mobius]

Ruger tried hard to get me to accept something else as a substitute. I just couldn't imagine what that would be.
I'd already spent a grand on it.

 

[Chuck 100 yd]

COOL !! I would shoot it...... LOTS!!

 

[mobius]

I'm itchin' to. Don't want to do anything I'll regret later.
Will power............. I did load it finally.

 

[KWYJIBO]

That is an interesting gun. A unique one, to say the least--certainly one of a kind.

And it may be collectible, but I doubt it's highly valuable. Seems to me you now have one you can shoot, carry, show off, and enjoy for a lifetime.

 

[mobius]

That is an interesting gun. A unique one, to say the least--certainly one of a kind.

And it may be collectible, but I doubt it's highly valuable. Seems to me you now have one you can shoot, carry, show off, and enjoy for a lifetime.

Thank you!! That's what I wanted to know. Never was and never will be a collector but I'd hate to ruin a valuable collectable.
If you know what I mean.

Fred

 

[Arisin' Wind]

Now that is nice.

 

[contender]

I find it interesting that we have a Redhawk of much later vintage than the 1980's era that has had a barrel separation. And it's in a different caliber than the original 44 mags.
As I was one of the first ones, (if not THE first one) to have a Redhawk barrel separation, this is a bit odd. The problem was figured out many years ago & was traced to assembly & a lubricant. To see this again, and in a different caliber, many years after the initial issue is intriguing.

 

[Timbo22]

That's the way the 4 inch Redhawks should have been made from the begining; with a changable front sight set-up like the 7 1/2 and 5 1/2 inch model Redhawks, GP100s and Super Blackhawk Hunters and Bisley Hunters.
I hope this is an engineering change and not a "one off" so I can get one too. I have stainless Redhawks with 5 1/2 inch barrles in 357, 41 and 44 Mag plus 45 Colt so I don't need anything in 4 inch. But if I saw one like yours in 45 Colt at the store it would come home with me and would soon be wearing a nice set of factory wooden grips.

 

[Arisin' Wind]

I find it interesting that we have a Redhawk of much later vintage than the 1980's era that has had a barrel separation. And it's in a different caliber than the original 44 mags.
As I was one of the first ones, (if not THE first one) to have a Redhawk barrel separation, this is a bit odd. The problem was figured out many years ago & was traced to assembly & a lubricant. To see this again, and in a different caliber, many years after the initial issue is intriguing.

You bring up a good point. I wonder if the cause is the same as before and there was just a lapse in procedures.

 

[captainkirk]

Just looking at your gun, I'd say they shortened an existing 5.5 inch barrel and re-marked it. That is the only way I can reconcile the front sight issue.

Extremely odd to have a barrel separation this late in the game. I hope they found the cause.

Original cause was dealt with in the 80s...

captainkirk

 

[98Redline]

Just looking at your gun, I'd say they shortened an existing 5.5 inch barrel and re-marked it. That is the only way I can reconcile the front sight issue.

I don't think that was the case. If they shortened a 5.5" barrel they would have had to cut off the front of the barrel (sight and muzzle) in order to meet the 4.2" length and keep the underlug of correct length. That would have left you with a sight installation similar to the current 4.2" pinned sight.

As stated above the shaping on the underlug also appears a bit odd. The taper seems a bit more shallow than the stock gun configuration.

To be honest I haven't the foggiest idea where they got that barrel. It's features simply don't lend themselves to a modification of a longer barrel. I wonder if it was some sort of prototype barrel. Is the actual barrel length 4.2" or is it 4.0"? If 4.0 it may have been a holdover from one of the very early RH runs before they lengthened the barrel to conform to Canadian requirements. Who the heck knows.

Regardless, just shoot it and have fun.

 

[mobius]

I don't think that was the case. If they shortened a 5.5" barrel they would have had to cut off the front of the barrel (sight and muzzle) in order to meet the 4.2" length and keep the underlug of correct length. That would have left you with a sight installation similar to the current 4.2" pinned sight.

As stated above the shaping on the underlug also appears a bit odd. The taper seems a bit more shallow than the stock gun configuration.

To be honest I haven't the foggiest idea where they got that barrel. It's features simply don't lend themselves to a modification of a longer barrel. I wonder if it was some sort of prototype barrel. Is the actual barrel length 4.2" or is it 4.0"? If 4.0 it may have been a holdover from one of the very early RH runs before they lengthened the barrel to conform to Canadian requirements. Who the heck knows.

Regardless, just shoot it and have fun.

Good points. It is 4.2 BTW

 

[captainkirk]

Just looking at your gun, I'd say they shortened an existing 5.5 inch barrel and re-marked it. That is the only way I can reconcile the front sight issue.

I don't think that was the case. If they shortened a 5.5" barrel they would have had to cut off the front of the barrel (sight and muzzle) in order to meet the 4.2" length and keep the underlug of correct length. That would have left you with a sight installation similar to the current 4.2" pinned sight.

As stated above the shaping on the underlug also appears a bit odd. The taper seems a bit more shallow than the stock gun configuration.

To be honest I haven't the foggiest idea where they got that barrel. It's features simply don't lend themselves to a modification of a longer barrel. I wonder if it was some sort of prototype barrel. Is the actual barrel length 4.2" or is it 4.0"? If 4.0 it may have been a holdover from one of the very early RH runs before they lengthened the barrel to conform to Canadian requirements. Who the heck knows.

Regardless, just shoot it and have fun.

Yes, having given it some more thought, I agree. I don't know what I was thinking when I said that about the 5.5...

captainkirk

 

[98Redline]

So I looked as some more pics of your gun and pics of standard redhawks and I want to retract my comment about the barrel lug shaping. It seems pretty consistent with normal shaping. The sight is still a mystery, however I prefer that sight to the pinned in one.