Ruger Forum banner

1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
273 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
So I'm researching the new Redhawk 45LC/ACP, and it very much appeals to me. I fully plan on getting this gun in the very near future. I reload both .45acp and .45Colt, so cost isn't too much of an issue for me.

The question I have is this: I've seen a few YouTube reviews on this gun which mention that the recess in the cylinder which allows the moon clips to sit flush when shooting .45acp means that, when shooting .45 Colt, part of the casing near the rim is unsupported. The implication was that this could lead to premature brass wear, and also potentially a case failure.

What say actual Redhawk owners about this issue?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,356 Posts
I don't think it would be an issue, people have, I'm sure, fired "max level" .45 LC loads through these "hybrid" .45 LC-ACP Redhawks and I've never heard any reports of case failures.

I still think it was a mistake for Ruger to "dual chamber" these, it makes for mediocre accuracy with .45 ACP, I think a dedicated .45 ACP Redhawk would have been a better option.......since Ruger still makes 4" and 7.5" .45 LC Redhawks, they should have given .45 ACP fans a dedicated revolver. If people want a 4" .45 LC, there's that gun available........S&W makes a .45 ACP revolver, Ruger fans need one too.....

I posted a mini-range report on my .45 ACP-LC Redhawk on this forum for more of my opinions of this gun.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
I don't own this particular revolver, but as a reloader I wold expect someone to present fired brass with obvious bulges if this really is a problem. Early-gen Glocks had a similar problem: the cut on the feed ramp left part of the case unsupported, and the brass ended up with a really awful "Glock smiley" near the head. You could probably google for that term to this day and get plenty of example images.

Lee sells a "bulge buster" set to help reloaders address this, but I never bothered picking it up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
319 Posts
Early-gen Glocks had a similar problem: the cut on the feed ramp left part of the case unsupported, and the brass ended up with a really awful "Glock smiley" near the head. You could probably google for that term to this day and get plenty of example images.
the part of the case left unsupported is miniscule compared to those glocks. actually i've got mine in hand now and have a fired case in the cylinder, the case is supported all the way to the recess just before the rim. my loads were pretty stout and after a couple of firings show no imperfections. in my mind i see no danger.

i think the concept is sound on the redhawk being a dual caliber 45 colt/45 acp revolver. i haven't found a factory loading for 45 acp that is right yet but getting there with handloads. i don't know how many would sell as a stand alone 45 acp, i doubt i would have bought it, but the appeal was tremendous as it's configured now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
273 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Right - to me the dual chambering was the biggest selling point. I've owned a dedicated .45acp revolver before (a S&W Mod. 1917) and it was loads of fun. I also currently have a Blackhawk convertible that has the .45acp and .45Colt cylinders, and I do like it very much, but was really keen on a double-action gun like that.

As far as the potential case bulges, it was one of the YouTube videos I watched where the reviewer specifically mentioned it. He fired some .45 Colt, and mentioned that he could feel a definite imperfection in the brass that wasn't apparent either on the video or to his naked eye. He mentioned that he was not a reloader, however, and I was guessing that he bought the revolver primarily to shoot .45acp out of it and was just shooting .45Colt to test it, but was otherwise unfamiliar with the caliber.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
273 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Just jailed one today!

[creepy voice on phone] Ten....Days....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
273 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
She's home! She's home!
[/URL]


First impressions:

• Geez - they must be using black powder .45Colt loads to test fire this gun. It is the filthiest brand new gun I've ever seen.
• boy is this thing big! In overall dimensions, not terribly bigger than my Smith 620, but the big fat cylinder and big fat bore make a strong impression
• The double action pull is fairly smooth, but it's amusing to me how, when slowly stroking the trigger through the double action pull, there's a definite "Ka-Chunk" when the cylinder locks into place.
• The single action pull is very heavy. Like, probably 9 pounds heavy. I'm hoping this will smooth out with dry firing.
• The ejector rod looks like it's barely attached! I'm used to the Smith ejector rod, which is robust and can be used to spin the cylinder. Is the loosely attached ejector rod just a quirk of the Ruger design? It pushes in and ejects casings just fine, but I was surprised to see that the end of it isn't supported by a ball detent or something when the cylinder is closed, as with Smith revolvers.
• I like the look of the grips, and the checkering is nice, but I think I will eventually opt for something a little more hand-filling
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,887 Posts
Re the ejector rod that is normal. On a Ruger (except the old Six Series) the rod is solely for ejection. The lockup in the front is at the crane which allows a better lockup and one need not worry about the ejection rod unscrewing itself. You have a nice looking gun there. In the past lived to the East of La Habra in Brea and to the West in Whittier. Not now. No 10 day waiting period here. As the gun wears in and with some internal polishing and shims should be able to get the single action down to around 4 lbs or so. The cylinder on the RH is massive compared to a Smith N frame and with all the weight in it one notices when it locks up.
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top