Blackhawk / Redhawk

...I believe I have heard the metallurgy is different between the redhawk 44 Mag and 45 Colt, and the blackhawks. Our rule around here is if it ain't published don't do it. (But if you do have the camera rolling!)

Welcome to sixguns

Al could be right about differences so if you do load, use a good manual and start low and watch for signs of pressure. Most Rugers are pretty strong but heavy loads don't always give the best accuracy and use more powder. Safety first is a good rule. Chris S

I did a little research and depending on what particular caliber you choose in a standard Redhawk the revolver itself is considered to be plenty strong and bulky even.  A Redhawk chambered in 45 Colt should be at least as strong as a 45 Blackhawk or S&W. That being said it is still not an excuse to overload or max load for that caliber. The 45 Colt is plenty adequate even in it's moderate loadings of 750-1000 fps range. If you really want power in 45 caliber Ruger offers the 454 in the Super Redhawk which is listed as also shooting 45 Colt. I suppose it is all in what one expects in a caliber or given gun. If you really want to learn a bit more and can be safety conscious read some of the stuff about hot loads such as from the Ruger Forum
http://www.rugerforum.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=187083 
I found this section talking about hot loads but I caution common sense when loading no matter what you decide.
 Chris S

I only load whats in the manual for "Blackhawks/TC" only.  I'd always reduce by 10% and move up.  I like the Redhawk better than the Super Redhawk, the grip is more filling and comfortable.  I am looking for a 45 Colt Redhawk if you know of anyone looking to sell one.  

There is a Redhawk .45 Colt, on Gunbroker with about 20 hours to go in the auction, but it has been bid up close to the stratosphere.

Thanks Country, I'm not willing to pay that. one will pop up eventually or maybe ruger will start making them again!
Back to the original post, I found this at Buffalo Bullets,

Heavy .45 Colt +P - 325 gr. L.B.T.-L.F.N.(1,325fps/M.E.1,267 ft.lbs.) - 50 Round Box
These Heavy .45 Colt +P loads are safe in all LARGE FRAME Ruger revolvers.
(includes Blackhawk, Super Blackhawk, all pre-2005 Vaquero, Bisley, Redhawk)

These Heavy .45 Colt +P loads are NOT intended for the New Model Vaquero (small frame)"

These loads are also safe in all modern Model 1892 leverguns
as well as all Winchester & Marlin 1894's

This is the standard Redhawk in 45 Colt. Chris S

KRH-45-4
5027
45 Colt
Hogue® Monogrip®
4.20"
9.50"
 
1:16" RH
46.00 oz.
$989.00

I owned a stainless Redhawk 5.5" bbl. in .45 Colt for a while, and I was not all that happy with the experience.
First problem was the cylinder. It was all over the map. One chamber was cut so tight that only factory RNL would chamber without extra oomph. Two other chambers were so loose that brass ballooned even under factory pressure of 14,000 psi. The throats were all cut to .449", or smaller, and the cylinder did not align correctly with the bore, so it was a horrible lead spitter.
Second was the fit and finish. The stainless had all kinds of buff marks left in it, and the polish was uneven.
Third was the trigger. Double action was long enough to watch a movie.
Fourth was the star ejector. It would slip over the small Colt rim, and jam open with brass wedged UNDERNEATH it.
I even wrote Ruger, and got a reply months later, which basically said-better luck next time.

Needless to say, the gun wouldn't hit anything I tried to shoot, although it had its best showing with XTPs at ridiculously fast  velocities. I tried everything I knew about how to get the thing to at least be tolerable, but after a few years I threw in the towel, and sent it away via a fave sporting goods emporium. 
Since that time I've not purchased another Ruger. I don't know if I ever will.

I've written this before, but it bears repeating. IF YOU WANT A MAGNUM, BUY ONE! Do not attempt to turn the .45 Colt into the next generation of the .44 mag. Very few things will be left standing if you hit them with, say, a Keith bullet at 800-1,000 fps. If you can't get warmed up to that, then you need a .44, or maybe a .454, .475, or a .500.
I wish I had pics of the backstop after shooting my 100 year old Colt with Lyman 454424 Keiths over 8.5 grs. of Unique. Beautiful round full caliber holes showing straight penetration even after driving through water filled plastic jugs. The same setup has turned even full power 44 mag softpoints sideways.
I should mention that I love the 357, and the 44 mags. They have their place. Let the Colt have his.

I cannot agree with  Mak in any stronger terms about the .45 Colt round. I have a Blackhawk that I don't use much because I have .41 and .44 magnums, and .44 specials and have no need to try and make a .45 Colt compete with them. As far as the .45 Colt, my Beretta/Uberti "Stampede" sits right here next to me and is handier than the Backhawk to me. It is loaded with my cast 250 KSWCs at about 900 fps and will handle anything in my State that causes trouble on my place.
In fact, I load my .44 &.41 mags, with 240 -250  and 210-220 grain loads (respectively) down to about 1,100-1,200 fps (depending on the gun's preference accuracy-wise) for my "heavy" loads. I can't think of anything I'd point a handgun at that won't fall over if smacked properly with one of them. If I thought I needed more I'd buy a gun and a caliber designed from the "get-go" to do more.
 
 

I too have mixed feelings about Rugers in general but no lack of love for the 45 Colt! I was stationed in Galveston in the sixties and shot with a friend who had a nice S&W 357, I don't remember the model but it shot nice. I went to a gun shop in Houston and said "I want a 357!" and the guy pulled out a Ruger Blackhawk 357. Being on a modest budget the price looked right and I was off to the range. That gun was a real lesson in knowing what you are getting yourself into if you don't know much about what you're getting into! Didn't lock up right, spit lead out so bad it hurt my hand. Terribly inaccurate or at least it made me terribly inaccurate. Got my pennies together and back to the shop, returned the Ruger and said "I want a GOOD 357". I went home with a Python for almost twice the Ruger cost ($125.00 at that time) and never touched another Ruger until the early eighties. Ran across a new in the box Super Blackhawk and decided to go Dirty Harry. That SBH is still in my stable and it is a decent gun. Shoots good although the rear sight is not a great piece of work but it works. I have put a lot of rounds through it and enjoyed it for the most part and it was priced right, less than $100.00 at the time. So I can't say one way or the other what is what with Rugers but my Colt New Frontier in 45 is the cat's ass.  Chris S

I know that today Ruger has a large following, and Colt, well, almost none. I've read a few articles on both recently, and what strikes me is that Colt is routinely criticized for "rugerizing" their guns, but Ruger is routinely praised for making guns that need gunsmithing right out of the box.
WTF? Ruger advert dollars buying praise?
Idiots writing articles?
I don't know.
I will say this much. I really think much of Rugers' following has to do with their relatively modest cost, rugged ability to take lots of abuse, and handle heavy loads. Maybe somewhere along the way, things fell into place, and Ruger made some good guns. I've heard some good things about the new, midsize single actions, but when I talk with guys who have some real experience with guns under their belts, they generally prefer other manufacturer's offerings.
Colt certainly isn't perfect! They have been promising us a new DA wheelgun for YEARS now, since taking them off the market to satisfy the demented crooks who pretend to be our leaders. Most likely, they deserve criticism for doing the ruger-cutting production costs, cutting the cylinder index for loading/unloading, cutting the hand fitting that defines a great sixgun. Yet when its all said and done, a Colt is still a Colt, and its still the real thing.
The best competition Colt ever has was USFA. For a few years there, USFA made even better SAA guns than Colt. They used to brag about how great they were, and how Colt should have them make Colt guns. I liked USFA, despite their arrogance. What they missed was the fact that they never would be Colt, even though they occupied the old blue dome.  Their prices climbed higher and higher, and soon their price was more than a Colt. Yeah, they made some good guns, but not THAT good, so now USFA is dead and gone, and Colt continues on. 
In the end, everyone has to make their own choice. Go buy several Rugers, or for the same daneiro,  go buy one Colt.

I agree on how expensive Colts are, I luckily bought mine when prices were low. I don't think I would pay what a Python sells for now. As for Ruger, I have no real need for one so I doubt I will get another one. I'm at that stage where I shoot the guns I have and enjoy them so I don't look for new. Chris S

I think the "Python" thing is way over the top today and has more to do with being "trendy" than the gun itself. I PO "Python fans" all the time by mentioning that there are three distinct "versions/eras/generations" of Pythons and a lot of the people who are paying big bucks don't even know which they are getting just that it has "Python" stamped on it.
I thought I overpaid about 4 years ago when I bought a "first generation" ('62) 6" that had been actually used by a highway patrolman. It came with a service holster and a lot of service wear and the $700 I paid made me question my own sanity, but I had a mid 50's Officer's Model Match and wanted to have a Python and get an Officer's Model Target to complete the set (The OMT arrived yesterday). I knew exactly which generation of Python I was getting and I wouldn't have, and still wouldn't, pay that much for a late model Python. They weren't all that great in the last years. The later ones had all the cosmetics but were put together on an assembly line like any other Colt revolver of the time. If the assembly line was the best way to produce the best revolver then they would have been made that way from the get-go.
(I am actually a S&W fan and think the "N" frame "Registered Magnums through about 27-2s are every bit as good as the Python and superior in a lot of ways)
The Python has developed a "cult" following but the logic behind it does not stand up (IMO) to the logic behind other such followed revolvers such as the 3" round but "K" frame .357s, model 13 and 65. They have been going through the roof in the last year but they are a very practical and useful gun I am not too surprised that they have doubled in price almost overnight because I think they were underpriced for years, usually bringing just $25-(maybe) $50 above a similar 4" SB. I am glad I was willing to pay the $25 difference a few years ago. There are others I see rising in value that make more sense than paying a four-digit price for a Colt just because it has "Python" stamped on the barrel.

The Python is probably the most famous of the Colt snakes.
Colt's postwar flagship gun was the model 357. It was a great gun, the forerunner of the Trooper, with a hand fitted action, forged steel throughout. The big west coast distributor, I forget his name, promised Colt that there was a market for a top notch gun, and he would sell them. The Python was nothing more than the model 357 with a full under lug, vent rib barrel. The distributor got his way, and the rest is history.
Yes, CG, Colt is not perfect, and the Python did go through a few different incarnations, some better than others, however, I would point out that its final incarnation, as a custom shop sixgun, was an excellent gun.
I guess I should fess up that I don't have a Python of my own, and at today's prices, I probably won't change this situation any time soon. Most likely, with the high on prices, Pythons are coming out of collections, and amassing handsome profits for their ex-owners. I really don't understand this, because from my perspective a gun is not an investment, it is a tool, and as a tool, it only works if it shoots, not sits in safe forever, all but forgotten.
But then I realize that there are all kinds out there, and they see dollar signs instead of tight groups.

I would say it is more and improvement of the Officer's Model Match than anything, since it uses the same frame and action and initially was released in 6" form. Colt historians have noted that it was initially to be released as a .38 Special target pistol and only chambered for the .357 at the last moment.
The Python went through 3 major "steps" before the very limited Custom Shop incarnation. The first were individually assembled by craftsmen and were stamped with the initials of the builder. The next step was the general assembly being done by assembly line and then they were "tuned" and "fitted" by individual craftsmen. The final production step was assembly line, with supposedly parts of such close tolerance that no "tuning" was necessary. The Custom shop models are much like the Model "P"s from the CS, they don't really fit into a "production" category and are their own critter.
In a way they are a return to the old method surely, but at any point in the later 2 incarnations one could send a Python to the custom shop to have the work done that was standard on the first generation.
In S&W terms, it is like paying the same price for a 27-5 as one would pay for a Registered Magnum and pretending you had the same quality.

CG,
I agree that the Officers' model match and target came first. The OM started as an E frame, which transformed into the I frame, and formed the basis for the Official Police, OM, and Model 3-5-7. I tend to look at it from the angle I do because until the 3-5-7 became the Trooper, it was the only Colt offering in that caliber.
However, it is also correct to say that the OM with the hand fitted action was the predecessor to them all.
In terms of both Colt and S&W, in my view there was a general erosion of quality, with the result peaking back in the 90's, but the quality slipped away from the flagship guns in a more spotty fashion.

I think we both are on a similar page regarding the actual work of skilled craftsmen in the building of fine guns. In my opinion, this is one of the most infuriating things about rugers-they are parts guns thrown together on assembly lines, and frankly, they look and feel and operate like it.

When I take a good, long look at our gun industry, I find a general entropy. Sure, some materials are better-steels, alloys, springs. In general, sights are better-in the sense that most guns come with fully adjustable front and rear sights. BUT, and this is the big deal, tolerances have not improved, they have deteriorated. Parts that don't fit perfectly, or operate crisply just are left that way.

If you worked the trigger on my 100 year old Colt, you would be astounded at just how absolutely crisp the single action let off is, especially if you had just fooled around with a modern parts gun.
Machines might be cheaper than skilled people, but they are inferior when it comes down to the skill of really making things work.

Certainly. I just picked up an Officer's Model Target that pre-dated the OMM. I can't say that the DA pull feels "hand fitted" but I haven't opened it up yet and have a feeling, from the wear and the slightly odd 5" barrel, that it was used as a duty gun and probably has lots of mileage packed in the action but the SA is incredibly crisp (which is what the gun was really built for) and the hand checkering on the backstrap and trigger is impressive by most standards of any time.
I also picked up a "just post-war" M&P .38 that is what the definitive collectors call a "transitional model" with the 5-screw long action but a couple of the upcoming "C"-series changes previewed. I like to think of these guns as "representatives of the days when Colt and Smith & Wesson competed to make the best revolvers instead of competing to make the most profitable ones."

Well after much research the Redhawk is just as strong as Blackhawk and in some cases stronger loads can be used due to the longer cylinders the Redhawk has, especially in 44 Mag. The 45 Colt is a great round to load to its true potential. It is appropriate in cowboy loads and 1000+ fps 260 gr. Loads. It's just one awesome round.

Most people today think that strength=the ability of a gun to withstand a certain pressure threshold.
This is really just one facet of the issue. True strength is the evaluation of what happens to the gun after repeatedly blasting away with top shelf loads. I've seen Freedom Arms 83s', probably the toughest, strongest revolver made today, with cylinders that didn't lock up worth a hoot, from endless abuse with heavy loads. I've seen recoil shields permanently imprinted with the ghost image of the star from the same. Anyone hazard to guess what the actual star looked like? What all this means is that just because a sixgun can digest a certain threshold of pressure, don't expect it to be free from wear and tear.
Of course that wear and tear will also reduce the sixguns' ability to continue to digest over the top loads. Abuse resistance is inversely related to the amount that has been absorbed.

Hot rodding the 45 Colt has been popular for decades. Some people like to claim that the 45 has more top end potential than the 44 magnum. Well, so what? I remember Lee Jurras recommending his top load, and cautioning to use only new or once fired brass, because the intensity of that load precluded firing that brass even three times. No, I won't republish his load.
Ultimately, if you need to turn the 45 Colt into a super magnum, there are plenty of other cartridges to do that with. There is no longer any point in creating a top fuel dragster out of the Colt with the Casull, Linebaugh, S&W, and Freedom Arms cartridges currently available.
While I'm busily offending folks, I might as well point out that the 44 mag. rendered all those over the top 44 special loads obsolete, just like that.
I love the .45 Colt, without a doubt a great revolver cartridge, just as it is.

Mak: I agree, the .45 Colt is a good cartridge as is and needs no defense about it's power. Unfortunately there will always be someone who has to hot rod it or any other cartridge just to see what happens. Somewhere I mentioned a brother in law who bought a new magnum rifle and when I asked what loads he was using he said they were his handloads loaded  max at least? I asked why and the answer was "I wanted a magnum so I will load it hot as I can", so I went away knowing I would never change his mind. I can change my mind but I can't change someone else's. Chris S

I think it doesn't mean what you think it means, MAK. However, this is not a physics forum.
I wonder when Colt revolvers became the "real deal". Was it before they made bore diameters and chamber diameters so far apart in the SAA that they had to use hollow base bullets? Or was it when they designed the Python with a front sight so stubby that there was no possibility for hold over in long range shooting? Or was it when they refused to chamber anything for the 4 Magnum until it was grey haired? The best I can say about them is nice finish.
My one well-done Colt is a Service Model Ace. However, it is very sensitive to ammunition. Only a couple of brands will keep from freezing the floating chamber. But, it is accurate and has a nice finish.

Mike, you are far better qualified than I will ever be to comment on the topic of entropy.
I'm a Colt man, pure and simple. This does not mean that I'm inoculated against their shortcomings, and excessive cylinder throat dimensioning is one of the more frustrating aspect of large caliber Colt guns. This is one of the reasons why USFA found a market share, because they strove to build guns that featured better tolerances, and for a few years, it worked just fine.
I come from a S&W family, and in truth, just about anyone with more than a decade of history with sixguns, who favors revolvers today, is a S&W man or woman. Of course, my pre-model 10, with the original long action threw its timing out the window, and my wonderful model 29, costing far more than it ever should, would lock up and protest a simple return from single action to rest. However, the battered Woodsman owned by the better half soldiers on as long as its kept clean, and my personal 100 year old New Service Loves your cast Lyman pills. Few things are more satisfying than examining very large round holes in the target of choice. BTW, I only have a few left, hint hint.
So, I hear you. I won't try to defend obvious recalcitrance, and knuckling under to gun and ammo banning scum suckers, both of which played big in the sad demise of Colt from a premier outfit to an also ran. However, I offer no apologies for my peculiar allegiance, and for my great desire to obtain my dream, a working model 3-5-7. Ultimately, and critically, no Colt I've had to depend upon has ever failed me, and for long years, until our cowardly government destroyed my home and my mountains, I had to depend on firearms to protect life and limb, rout scallywags, fend off toothed and fanged beasts, and keep unruly "guests" peaceable. 911 was what you had in your hands that went bang.
I miss my life, and I always will, being forced to unsuccessfully return to the world of faded plumage under television skies. I wonder a lot, why things worked out the way they did, and I think maybe I should do some things differently, but I won't renounce my loyalty to Colt.
Ever.

I will be happy when Colt goes back to taking pride in their products. Until then, it's Freedom Arms, USFA, and Cimarron hanging on my single action wall in the gun room.
Mike

I think both Colt and S&W have made "bad hair day" guns. I had a Model 29 Smith that would shoot pins and screws loose with factory pills. On the other side my little 3 inch 60 made in 2011 has held up well to a fair diet of 357's. I have seen some Govt Model colts made back in the late years that  would not compare favorably to the current Philippines competition.

Sad fact #1 is that even Taurus revolvers require more machining and fitting than auto pistols.  The industry is not going to do that type of fitting when they can make more money per gun selling a product that is 50% polymer molding.

Sad Fact #2, is quality control seems to be going downhill on all guns. I bought an SR45 after reading Mr. Taffins Review in Guns Magazine. Great shooting 45 and I like it enough to keep, but there are actually  lap marks where the slide was unevenly polished. I saw a brand new Marlin .357 in a shop last week that had gaps between the wood and metal that would have earned me a C- in 7th grade shop! I really want another pistol caliber levergun but I passed.

If I run across a good sixgun at a good price, I keep it regardless of whether it has a rapant Colt, made in Italy, or a Marcas Registradas on the side. They are getting to be irreplaceable. 

Any gun is getting to be a steal now days no matter what it is. Ammo is too! Chris S

I would, someday, like to have the incentive to write what would be "the world's most boring book" (to non-gun people) about the battle between S&W and Colt. It would be interesting to look back with the benefit of perfect hindsight and see where S&W "Dropped the ball" her and Colt did likewise there. Imagine if S&W had made the Schofield with a long enough cylinder, and strong enough action, to handle the "Colt" .45 round instead of limiting the gun to it's own proprietary round? We might have a different view of revolvers. What if Colt had not neglected the large "New Service" frame by setting the equipment out in the parking lot for other WWII production? What might have happened if they were able to compete quickly for the .44 magnum market instead of waiting until it was too late to really take any of the S&W 29's market share?  Suppose, in response to the S&W Triple-Lock, Colt had put a second crane lock on, or adopted the ejector rod shroud much earlier than they finally did?
 
In such a book I would have to look at what point the two companies decided to quit competing with each other to make "The Best" and started to compete with themselves to make "The Most Profitable".  It seems, in my opinion, to have begun after WWII and the downward spiral reached it's nadir for Colt about the time they had to come out with their "Budget finish" Detective Special models and threw a "Hail Mary" with the "Anaconda". Most might not agree with my opinion on S&W but I consider the "L" frame to be a sort of  "Return Hail Mary". Trying to fix the shortcomings of the "K" frame .357s by copying the Python's cosmetics while making a gun that was as heavy as the "N" frame, who's excess weight had led to the "K" frame being adapted to the .357 in the first place. Not to mention they did this while the handwriting was all over the wall warning of the demise of the revolver as a police service weapon.
 
It seems to me, that without being able to see two industry leaders fighting for the title of "Best quality" a couple of generations have learned to settle for whatever the companies feel like turning out (I could also point to the effect that fights with labor unions had on production for both companies). Now that Colt has thrown in the DA revolver towel I have to say that S&W has had a jolly good time with putting out some crackpot ideas ( How many remember the attempt to make the "L" frame handier with the shrouded "tensioned" barrel") It also seems that their best ideas seem to get lost and mixed in with the bad ideas that get dropped. Price one of the "L" frame .44 specials now that they are out of production. It took a lot of years for the .44 special to get its due respect. It would seem that a new gun for the cartridge should have been given a bit of time to develop a following, even the out of production Rossi and Taurus offerings have developed a "cult" following.
 
I once had an internet set-to with a rannie who claimed all kinds of computer generated engineering education who opined that, today, with all of our great advances we should be able to turn out a Colt Python that would rival the best one ever to have come from Colt, without having to resort to any "special fitting" or hand work because tolerances could be controlled to such a degree just an untrained assembly line could put them together cheaply. I asked "Then why aren't we all shooting $450 dollar Sig 210s instead of Glocks?" . I think the answer may be found in the same conditions that have provided us with the politicians we have today- too many people have grown up never knowing that we could, and should, expect better quality and instead are satisfied taking whatever is served up. We have a lot of folks who never shoot at distances greater than 12 yds and don't have an idea such a thing is possible. They settle for "average" results at "average" distances just like they settle for "average" politicians only complaining and demanding better when either have a critical malfunction. If we demanded better from the get-go, with both, we might find a lot more satisfaction and far fewer critical malfunctions. 
 
Just some ramblings from the cranky, old guy in the peanut gallery
For Gary Cooper fans-- "Now wait a minute Melody,.....You ain't got to be any dumber than necessary."

I don't own a Redhawk, but I have friends that do...and they load them up in .44 Mag as strong as I do for
my Super Blackhawks....not a problem....both are strong as anvils...enjoy!