454 Redhawk

[Snyd]

I posted this on another forum but figured I'd put it here as well for fun. Plus, I'd like to hear from anyone who has sized .457 400 gr boolits down to .452 for use in a 454. I'm thinking 400gr at 1000-1100 would make a good "up close and way too personal" bear protection load.

I've been looking for a SRH 454 cylinder for about a year. I screwed up a bid on gunbroker last spring and missed one and haven't come across another one since.

Well, thanks to a guy on another forum I now have a 454 Cylinder for my Redhawk conversion, oh, it came in this like new SRH :)

http://web.mac.com/perryschneider/pics/srhrh_01.jpg

I've been researching this for quite some time and wanted do the swap out myself and not have to have a smith do anything. The neutered SRH will find a home with someone wanting to do a 475 or 500 bigbore project. I'll probably keep the 45 Colt cylinder at least for a while until I'm satisfied.

Preliminary quick measurements showed headspace within .001 on the two guns. Cylinders are the same length and distance from frame to barrel is the same as well. After talking to guys who have done this conversion, timing is right on as is bore alignment. Evidently Ruger uses the same specs for bolt notches, timing, etc. on the cylinders.

A .452 boolit pushes through the 454 cylinder so it's good to go. I wonder if this is because it's a newer Ruger or if it's because it's a 454. I had to ream the throats on the 45 Colt to .4525. They were at about .4515, the Redhawk is a couple years old.

Cylinder/star extractor assemblies will come off the cranes, 454 Cylinder goes back on the Redhawk. Cranes will stay with the proper frames. The Redhawk has .003 cylinder gap, .005 endshake and that after it going back to Ruger last winter. The 454 was the same. Little less endshake.

This was a lot easier than I thought it would be. It was nothing more than a cylinder swap and all critical measurements are within spec. Wow... The 454 Redhawk lives!!

Step 1. Pull cylinder/crane from Redhawk and pull cylinder/extractor off of crane.

http://web.mac.com/perryschneider/pics/rhProj_01.jpg

Step 2. Do the same to the SRH.

http://web.mac.com/perryschneider/pics/rhProj_02.jpg

Step 3. Parts are ready for reassembly.

http://web.mac.com/perryschneider/pics/rhProj_03.jpg

Step 4. 454 Cylinder is on the Redhawks Crane.

http://web.mac.com/perryschneider/pics/rhProj_04.jpg

Step 5. Install the crane with the new cylinder and check cylinder gap, endshake, headspace, timing, cylinder/bore alignment. Everything is right on. B/C is .003, endshake is .005 and headspace is within spec which it should be since headspace is set by Ruger on the cylinder. It's the same as the 45 Colt cylinder. Maybe .001 tighter.

http://web.mac.com/perryschneider/pics/rhProj_05.jpg

The chambers on the 454 Cylinder are tighter than the 45 Colt. I don't have a set of pin gauges but here is a pic with some non-resized brass from rounds fired in the Redhawk. This is all the farther the 45 Colt brass would go in the 454 Cylinder. It slips right in the 45 Colt cylinder as you can see. Neither of these two pieces of brass would go in the 454 cyl any farther. They are a pretty snug fit as is.

http://web.mac.com/perryschneider/pics/rhProj_06.jpg

Timing. Here is a pic of the gun that shows timing. The cylinder/bolt is in full lockup in this pic. Just a little more pressure and the hammer falls. It's the same on all cylinders. I looked down the bore and went through all cylinders and the chambers line up with the bore no prob. I don't have any rods to measure this but it looks good and others have done this swap before me.

http://web.mac.com/perryschneider/pics/rhProj_07.jpg

[Snyd]

Now... where are those 400gr boolits!! :D

http://web.mac.com/perryschneider/pics/rhProj_08.jpg

http://web.mac.com/perryschneider/pics/rhProj_09.jpg

[Whitworth]

Wow, that looks oddly familiar to me, Snyd! LOL! Nice job!

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f196/MarkoR/P1000690.jpg

[Snyd]

I've got some of those pachmayrs as well. I like the way the Nill Griffes fit my hand but maybe the pachmayrs with a little more padding will be in order. We'll see. I haven't shot it yet and this weekend it's supposed to drop down to 25 below.

[Whitworth]

Snyd, the Pachmayrs are pretty painful with full-tilt loads (particularly the 400 grainers). I am still seraching for a grip solution. Really wish Hogue would make a Tamer-type grip for it. Otherwise, the gun handles really well and is fairly compact.

[Snyd]

With my 45 Colt 355gr @1150fps I think I like the Nill Griffes better. I attribute that to fitting my hand. I'm leaning toward magnaporting my 454 Redhawk. Mainly to tame the muzzle flip. I think that's what the main issue is. The gun really wants to flip in the hand. I will say these Nills helped control it some. I got em off ebay for half of retail. 65 bucks shipped if I remember right and they sure fit nice.

[Whitworth]

That's the problem with the Pachmayrs -- they don't fill my hand. Those grips you have look nice! Too bad Hogue hasn't stepped up....... The muzzle flip isn't so bad for me, but my 400 grain loads just beat your hand up mercilessly!

[jwp475]

The Redhawk cylinder can be re-chambered to 454, I have had it done to a couple of Redhawks. Angy Cannon was the first to do so that I knew of.

Ross Seyfried tried the 400 grain bullets a few years ago and found that the penetration on game was not as good as expected and he reasoned that the twist rate was to slow to properly stabilize the bullet

The 360 WLFN is a superb penetrator in the 454

[Snyd]

Interesting. I asked Bowen about re-chambering my 45 Colt cylinder and he would not do it.

The 4" Redhawk barrel is 1/16 twist like the 454 BFR's, which I understand are scary accurate. The 454 SRH is 1/24.

Whitworth. What does your 400gr load chrony at and what boolit/load are you using? How does it group at say 25yds.

[jwp475]

Here is my last one it is a switch caliber from 44 mag to 454


http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d62/jwp475/SwitchCaliberRedhawk.jpg

[Whitworth]

Interesting. I asked Bowen about re-chambering my 45 Colt cylinder and he would not do it.

The 4" Redhawk barrel is 1/16 twist like the 454 BFR's, which I understand are scary accurate. The 454 SRH is 1/24.

Whitworth. What does your 400gr load chrony at and what boolit/load are you using? How does it group at say 25yds.

Rechambering stock Redhawk cylinders used to be a common practice.

That particular load is a factory offering from Double Tap. It's a 400 grain WFN that went 1,250 out of my Redhawk. I think they went 1,400 out of a 7.5-inch FA 83. I shot a 200-lb hog with that load a number of years ago and it was impressive. Accuracy was good out of my 7.5-inch SRH. I haven't started load development for the Redhawk yet, but I don't think I'll be using a bullet over 360 grains.

[Snyd]

Thanks for the 411. I've just gotta try a 400 grainer at 1000 or so so I know.

[Whitworth]

Snyd, I think Mike over at Double Tap sells that 400 grain bullet -- I know he produces them in-house. I'll inquire......

[NHlever]

For those of you considering rechambering Redhawk cylinders, you should be very much aware that they do not use the same kind of stainless steel, or heat treat in them that they do in the Super Redhawk .454 cylinders. Please be safe, and stick with heavier 45 Colt loads in Redhawk cylinders. There is a good reason why GOOD gunsmiths like Hamilton Bowen will not do this conversion.

[dk17hmr]

The heaviest I have shot out of my 454 is a 370gr SWC, but I do have some 410gr 454 diameter I am going to load up just to see what happens. What powder are you guys running for the heavies?

[Whitworth]

There is a good reason why GOOD gunsmiths like Hamilton Bowen will not do this conversion.

I don't think it is a safety consideration as much as factory .45 Colt Redhawks have notoriously sloppy and inconsistent chambers -- something you can't fix by turning it into a .454. When there were no factory options available, the common practice was converting Redhawks -- inclding .44 mag Redhawks. I never heard any tales of failure.

[44man]

Interesting. I asked Bowen about re-chambering my 45 Colt cylinder and he would not do it.

The 4" Redhawk barrel is 1/16 twist like the 454 BFR's, which I understand are scary accurate. The 454 SRH is 1/24.

Whitworth. What does your 400gr load chrony at and what boolit/load are you using? How does it group at say 25yds.
True, you have a better twist rate. The BFR .454 is also 1 in 16". This will allow you to find accuracy without over loading and increasing pressure. You should be fine with a heavy boolit because you don't have to load real hot. Remember that boolit weight alone does not mean more pressure unless you need to drive it for a slow twist.
If you use 2400 powder you can do a lot but if you go to H110 or 296, DO NOT DOWNLOAD AT ALL because of the SR primer. I cut the primer pocket for a LP mag primer or use cut down .460 brass to eliminate primer problems.
Some will not agree but by going to a LP mag primer we have been able to work loads with 296 for extreme accuracy with reduced pressure.
Believe it or not, even a standard LP primer will ignite a starting load of 296 but it is not as accurate as the mag primer.
I have taken the LP mag primer (Fed 155) to 55,000 psi in the ,454 without a flat primer so don't let anyone tell you that you need a SR primer.
A SR mag primer can fail to ignite a starting load of 296 and leave the boolit stuck in the barrel while primer pressure will push the boolit and powder from the brass into the bore.

[targetshootr]

Small rifle primers and nasty recoil made me sell all my 454 stuff. After 45 colt, I'm going to 475.

[Whitworth]

Small rifle primers and nasty recoil made me sell all my 454 stuff. After 45 colt, I'm going to 475.

Yeah, you might as well get bigger holes for your recoil!

[NHlever]

I don't think it is a safety consideration as much as factory .45 Colt Redhawks have notoriously sloppy and inconsistent chambers -- something you can't fix by turning it into a .454. When there were no factory options available, the common practice was converting Redhawks -- inclding .44 mag Redhawks. I never heard any tales of failure.

Kind of makes you wonder why the factory would buy much more expensive cylinder blanks, and spend more money processing them when they have a stack of Redhawk cylinder blanks lying around doesn't it? I'm not doubting your experience, or making fun at all, but I do have very strong, and conclusive evidence that the margin of safety we look for just isn't there in that combination.

[Whitworth]

Actually, the yield point of the standard Redhawk 416 steel cylinder is 93K psi if I can recall correctly. They are plenty strong. That said, the 465 carpenter steel SRH .454 cylinder's yield is 160K or thereabouts -- again, if I can recall correctly. Those figures come from a report submitted by a Ruger engineer to an engineering journal. When Ruger decided to built their first production .454, they obviously decided to pul out all stops.

You would have to be a complete moron to blow a Redhawk up -- not putting it past someone in the populace! :bigsmyl2:

[NHlever]

It looks like you have done your homework, and understand the steels involved, but I still have to say that I have seen cracked .454 cylinders enough not to do that myself. There is a price to be paid for staying with a six shot cylinder.

[Snyd]

You guys may know this already but others may not so I'll post the link regarding the Carpenter Steel used in the 454 Cylinder. I guess there are those out there who can blow anything up.

http://www.cartech.com/techarticles.aspx?id=1608

[Frank]

That SRH cylinder; top load it and it would stick brass. I read on other forums many others complained about the steel used. The suggestion was to not load it to the 454's full potential. Put it in the RH and maybe you can download it with the faster twist. Or shoot the heavier boolit. Look forward to seeing the groups.

[Lloyd Smale]

ruger had trouble with this with even the harder steel they used in the 454s. I would think a rechambered 45 cylinder would give even more troubles. I know that in my alaskan if i load full power rounds they just wont extract at least not without pounding them out. I guess my opinion is that the 45colt in a redhawk can be loaded up to the bottom end of 454 ballistics as is so to go through the expense of converting it to 454 and having to deal with the small primer brass and the more expensive brass just didnt make sense.Another option with the 45 is to find a bullet that has a crimp grove that allows it to be seated out farther and you end up with the same case capasity as a 454 anyway. I guess part of it is that ive never been a big 454 fan. Ive got a nice fa 454 but dont use it much and when i do its usually loaded at levels a big framed 45 colt ruger will take anyway. Ive just never seen a use for velocitys past 1300-1400 fps in revolvers anyway. But then thats just me and everyone has there own likes and opinions.
That SRH cylinder; top load it and it would stick brass. I read on other forums many others complained about the steel used. The suggestion was to not load it to the 454's full potential. Put it in the RH and maybe you can download it with the faster twist. Or shoot the heavier boolit. Look forward to seeing the groups.

[Whitworth]

That SRH cylinder; top load it and it would stick brass. I read on other forums many others complained about the steel used. The suggestion was to not load it to the 454's full potential. Put it in the RH and maybe you can download it with the faster twist. Or shoot the heavier boolit. Look forward to seeing the groups.

This was a machining issue and not a strength issue. All cylinders, no matter the steel expand when shot and retract. Ruger had used the same tooling over and over and many cylinders came through with a reverse taper resulting in sticky extraction.

I have owned SRHs that have exhibited sticky extraction, and some that didn't -- using the same loads. It's a machining issue.

[NHlever]

I have a friend that loads the snot out of his NEF 45-70 with 350 grain bullets to "flatten the trajectory". He has killed deer, bears, and a good sized moose with that little single shot, but all kills were less than 70 yards, as is normal here in NH, and Maine where he hunts. It is my feeling that handguns kill by bullet diameter, meplat size, and bullet weight for penetration, and that velocities above what is attainable in normal 44 mag loads, or Ruger only 45 Colt loads really doesn't do much. If I remember right, John Taffin shot clean through a good sized Bison using a 400 grain bullet from a short barreled 480 Ruger. I'm not sure what is useful beyond that. High performance handguns, like high performance engines in race cars demand more, and more precision as the power, and pressure goes up. Manufacturing tolerances in normal production handguns sometimes fall a bit short. One nice thing about the 454 is that the SAMMI chamber dimensions are much tighter than the 45 Colt, and I would use a 454 reamer to cut a 45 Colt chamber any day.
In other parts of the country, I understand that many handgun kills are 100 yards, or more, at least when you read about them. Still, knowing your gun, and being able to shoot it well are more important than how flat the trajectory is (if that is important get an Encore in a caliber that really shoots flat).
I have shot .454's, 480's, 500 S&W's etc., and found it an interesting experience, and was really surprised at the small group sizes that were possible with the Ruger Alaskan, etc. but really see very little actual need for the extra velocity. Diameter, bullet weight, accuracy, etc. are all more important in the end. Given the right bullet shape, most would agree that a standard 45 Colt load will kill as well as a very hot loaded .357 mag. Having a gun that is controlable for repeat shots is sometimes very important too. Stopping a bear for example requires more precision, and straight penetration than sheer power. One 357 180 gr. round straight to the brain will sure work better than a fringe hit with a 475 Linebaugh, or 500 S&W.
So, bottom line for me is that I would rather have a precision chambered 45 Colt Redhawk than a 454 conversion for any purpose besides conversation. It is easier on the gun, and on me, and just as hard on anything I should shoot.

[Whitworth]

Very well said, NHLever!

[jwp475]

I have a friend that loads the snot out of his NEF 45-70 with 350 grain bullets to "flatten the trajectory". He has killed deer, bears, and a good sized moose with that little single shot, but all kills were less than 70 yards, as is normal here in NH, and Maine where he hunts. It is my feeling that handguns kill by bullet diameter, meplat size, and bullet weight for penetration, and that velocities above what is attainable in normal 44 mag loads, or Ruger only 45 Colt loads really doesn't do much. If I remember right, John Taffin shot clean through a good sized Bison using a 400 grain bullet from a short barreled 480 Ruger. I'm not sure what is useful beyond that. High performance handguns, like high performance engines in race cars demand more, and more precision as the power, and pressure goes up. Manufacturing tolerances in normal production handguns sometimes fall a bit short. One nice thing about the 454 is that the SAMMI chamber dimensions are much tighter than the 45 Colt, and I would use a 454 reamer to cut a 45 Colt chamber any day.
In other parts of the country, I understand that many handgun kills are 100 yards, or more, at least when you read about them. Still, knowing your gun, and being able to shoot it well are more important than how flat the trajectory is (if that is important get an Encore in a caliber that really shoots flat).
I have shot .454's, 480's, 500 S&W's etc., and found it an interesting experience, and was really surprised at the small group sizes that were possible with the Ruger Alaskan, etc. but really see very little actual need for the extra velocity. Diameter, bullet weight, accuracy, etc. are all more important in the end. Given the right bullet shape, most would agree that a standard 45 Colt load will kill as well as a very hot loaded .357 mag. Having a gun that is controlable for repeat shots is sometimes very important too. Stopping a bear for example requires more precision, and straight penetration than sheer power. One 357 180 gr. round straight to the brain will sure work better than a fringe hit with a 475 Linebaugh, or 500 S&W.
So, bottom line for me is that I would rather have a precision chambered 45 Colt Redhawk than a 454 conversion for any purpose besides conversation. It is easier on the gun, and on me, and just as hard on anything I should shoot.




Spot on, +1.........

[Snyd]

I agree with you there NHlever. I hope to work up a 400gr round and keep it down around 1000-1100fps. But for now, I have a 355gr LBT wfn and a 335-340 Lyman so that's what I'll start with. And I want to come up with some heavy 454 loads for this Redhawk that will also cycle 454 Puma levergun. This 454 cylinder has much tighter chambers than the 45 Colt. It seems like a better setup.

[bearcove]

I have a friend that loads the snot out of his NEF 45-70 with 350 grain bullets to "flatten the trajectory". He has killed deer, bears, and a good sized moose with that little single shot, but all kills were less than 70 yards, as is normal here in NH, and Maine where he hunts. It is my feeling that handguns kill by bullet diameter, meplat size, and bullet weight for penetration, and that velocities above what is attainable in normal 44 mag loads, or Ruger only 45 Colt loads really doesn't do much. If I remember right, John Taffin shot clean through a good sized Bison using a 400 grain bullet from a short barreled 480 Ruger. I'm not sure what is useful beyond that. High performance handguns, like high performance engines in race cars demand more, and more precision as the power, and pressure goes up. Manufacturing tolerances in normal production handguns sometimes fall a bit short. One nice thing about the 454 is that the SAMMI chamber dimensions are much tighter than the 45 Colt, and I would use a 454 reamer to cut a 45 Colt chamber any day.
In other parts of the country, I understand that many handgun kills are 100 yards, or more, at least when you read about them. Still, knowing your gun, and being able to shoot it well are more important than how flat the trajectory is (if that is important get an Encore in a caliber that really shoots flat).
I have shot .454's, 480's, 500 S&W's etc., and found it an interesting experience, and was really surprised at the small group sizes that were possible with the Ruger Alaskan, etc. but really see very little actual need for the extra velocity. Diameter, bullet weight, accuracy, etc. are all more important in the end. Given the right bullet shape, most would agree that a standard 45 Colt load will kill as well as a very hot loaded .357 mag. Having a gun that is controlable for repeat shots is sometimes very important too. Stopping a bear for example requires more precision, and straight penetration than sheer power. One 357 180 gr. round straight to the brain will sure work better than a fringe hit with a 475 Linebaugh, or 500 S&W.
So, bottom line for me is that I would rather have a precision chambered 45 Colt Redhawk than a 454 conversion for any purpose besides conversation. It is easier on the gun, and on me, and just as hard on anything I should shoot.

Love this thread, but agree with snyd heavy is good for what he and I want from a 454. Penetration is the key to stoping power. If you have a bear problem you will be shooting center of furry blur. Not a calculated head shot.

Bump up for fun!