Also to add to the Redhawks strength is the notches in the cylinder are offset, so the cylinder is exceptionally strong. I know of folks who have loaded the 44 mag redhawks to well beyond Ruger levels. Not at all recommended, just to point out the immense strength of the gun. The cylinder is stronger, the cylinder lockup is stronger and the frame is stronger.
I’ve often wondered if the offset cylinder notches are the big deal Ruger used to make them out to be. There’s a lot more to the “strength” (however one might wish to define it) than the amount of material between point “A” and point “B”. There’s the matter of what alloy is used. Ruger uses a proprietary alloy developed to investment cast well. Also, the grain structure of parts machined from forgings or rolled bar stock will be substantially different than that of investment castings. There’s a reason Ruger revolvers tend to be big and heavy by design and I suspect much of it has to do with compensating for the metallurgy of their products. I have also wondered, for a long time, if their reputation for endurance isn’t largely a product of the fact that their greater weight tends to mitigate the effects of recoil somewhat. I’m not an engineer, I haven’t done the math. I started working in manufacturing in 1967 and, as a journeyman tool and die maker have been involved in untold numbers of projects involving product or tooling failure and the solutions of those failures.
Just food for thought.
I don't think Ruger used extra metal to compensate for their metallurgy, they just build their guns with a higher factor of safety.
A redhawk cylinder will take loads that will blow an S&W cylinder apart. I've heard this said before, but I've never seen any proof of the fact. What is this statement based on?
The durability has nothing to do with less recoil, the added weight has minimal effects on recoil. It just comes down to the stress from firing a load and the amount of steel in the gun to withstand those loads. With all due respect, this statement makes no sense. A heavier gun recoils less than a lighter gun when both are shooting the same load. The more intense the recoil, the more wear and tear on the mechanical components of the gun.
I know it's popular to crap on investment casting,
but if you understand the process and the alloys use, it does not produce an inferior product, on the contrary when done properly it can produce a superior product. It all comes down to the engineer understanding the process and alloys to design the part properly. Having worked in the area of manufacturing that involves die casting, investment casting, forging, machining and a number of other processes, as well as having worked in tool and machine design, I'm guessing that I probably have a better understanding of the processes and alloys than the average lay person. I'm not "crapping on investment casting." It's a great process when done right, and Ruger is one of the best in the field. The fact remains, however, that forged parts are going to display higher levels of ductility and malleability, shear strength, tensile strength and fatigue resistance than cast parts. There is no overcoming that. Forging creates beneficial grain structure alignment that just can't be duplicated in a cast part.
This isn't to say S&W's are bad or week, both guns are well designed and work well. But if you look at the history, the mdl 29 is really a beefed up 44 special while the Redhawk was purpose built as a 44 magnum.
If you like to shoot 1000's upon 1000's of full power rounds, IMHO the Ruger is the superior gun.
