BehindBlueI's
Grandmaster
- Oct 3, 2012
- 25,971
- 113
Yes, but supposedly the firing pin rebounds to where you see it.
It looks to me the hammer is falling too early in double action. I can't think of any other reason for the difference.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Quick Review: Redhawk .45 ACP / .45 Colt
- Thread starter BehindBlueI's
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Yes, but supposedly the firing pin rebounds to where you see it.
It looks to me the hammer is falling too early in double action. I can't think of any other reason for the difference.
Their CS department ought to be terribly embarrassed about not getting it right.
FWIW, I will say that I had to send my own S&W 1006 back to Smith & Wesson twice, all because there was poor polish on the part of the barrel at the breech above the feed ramp that was catching some of the rounds, resulting in occasional feeding failures; and also because there was a burr around the firing pin hole that would actually scrape the brass from the case heads and putting shavings in the hole, resulting in ever tenth or so round failing to fire on the first hammer strike and requiring a second hammer drop, with an obvious blob of the shaved brass now welded inside the firing impact dimple on the primer.
I shipped it to them, explaining the problem, and they had it for about six weeks before sending it back.
I took it back to the range, hopign for the best, but this time studiously examining the case heads for the telltale scratches, and sure enough the scratches were there and the failures to fire were still happening.
I called them and told them no dice again, and they had it another four-six weeks.
This time, when it came back, they finally had done it right, so much so that I haven't had a single failure of any sort after several thousands of rounds fired since.
Hell, it's so reliable now that I can show off with it by loading a full magazine of fired brass, then manually rack the slide, feeding and ejecting each empty flawlessly.
I wouldn't give up on it just yet, but I don't think it would be unreasonable at all to request that Ruger pay for the shipping this go round!
The sheer shame they should feel for their failure should be more than enough to compel them to do that.
FWIW, I will say that I had to send my own S&W 1006 back to Smith & Wesson twice, all because there was poor polish on the part of the barrel at the breech above the feed ramp that was catching some of the rounds, resulting in occasional feeding failures; and also because there was a burr around the firing pin hole that would actually scrape the brass from the case heads and putting shavings in the hole, resulting in ever tenth or so round failing to fire on the first hammer strike and requiring a second hammer drop, with an obvious blob of the shaved brass now welded inside the firing impact dimple on the primer.
I shipped it to them, explaining the problem, and they had it for about six weeks before sending it back.
I took it back to the range, hopign for the best, but this time studiously examining the case heads for the telltale scratches, and sure enough the scratches were there and the failures to fire were still happening.
I called them and told them no dice again, and they had it another four-six weeks.
This time, when it came back, they finally had done it right, so much so that I haven't had a single failure of any sort after several thousands of rounds fired since.
Hell, it's so reliable now that I can show off with it by loading a full magazine of fired brass, then manually rack the slide, feeding and ejecting each empty flawlessly.
I wouldn't give up on it just yet, but I don't think it would be unreasonable at all to request that Ruger pay for the shipping this go round!
The sheer shame they should feel for their failure should be more than enough to compel them to do that.
BehindBlueI's
Grandmaster
- Oct 3, 2012
- 25,971
- 113
They've paid shipping both times. I'm fully aware S&W CS is no better. I won't buy a S&W revolver as long as they keep installing the Hillary Hole anyway. Ruger is my last option for new revolvers. The take away is simple. The used market.
I hear you.
You might want to express to them that they're dangerously close to losing a loyal customer who will have no choice but to resort to either the used market or one of their competitors for any future purchases if they can't get this one resolved completely and quickly.
It wouldn't hurt to also explain to them that there are thousands of people on a major gun forum who are watching to see how this finally pans out, with their future purchases also hanging in the balance.
The left two are double action, the right two are single action. Noticeably lighter strikes in DA.
I'm guessing that the 2 DA shells didn't fire and the 2 SA shell's did fire. That is not a accurate way to judge the hammer strike power as when the round fires the pressure in the case sets the primer back against the recoil shield and the still protruding firing pin making it look deeper.
As per a couple of your other posts. Yes the DA hammer travel is slightly shorter than the SA hammer travel, all modern revolvers are this way.(that I'm aware of)
There are several problems that could cause these misfires and FWIW you are not the only one that has had this problem with this gun.
You are correct that the firing pin does travel farther than it sticks out of the recoil shield. But the firing pin is light and has to overcome the firing pin return spring(Rugers have a very heavy firing pin return spring) so it doesn't do much good after it leaves the face of the hammer. There should only be a few thousands of clearance between the recoil shield and the primer anyway.
I'm not wanting to get political here but have to say that not buying a S&W with the Hillary hole is your decision of course.
If I felt that way I would walk everywhere because the Automakers have pulled political things before and I wouldn't buy gas because the oil company's are the devil. I would live off the grid because the utility company is also the devil. The list goes on including Ruger that pulled some crap years ago that cost them some customers.
Must resist.......................
Haw I can't help it.....
I would bet that if you had a S&W with the Hillary hole it would be going bang everytime you pulled the trigger
Whew that feels better.
Good luck with the Ruger I still say send it back to them.
BehindBlueI's
Grandmaster
- Oct 3, 2012
- 25,971
- 113
I'm guessing that the 2 DA shells didn't fire and the 2 SA shell's did fire. That is not a accurate way to judge the hammer strike power as when the round fires the pressure in the case sets the primer back against the recoil shield and the still protruding firing pin making it look deeper.
As per a couple of your other posts. Yes the DA hammer travel is slightly shorter than the SA hammer travel, all modern revolvers are this way.(that I'm aware of)
There are several problems that could cause these misfires and FWIW you are not the only one that has had this problem with this gun.
You are correct that the firing pin does travel farther than it sticks out of the recoil shield. But the firing pin is light and has to overcome the firing pin return spring(Rugers have a very heavy firing pin return spring) so it doesn't do much good after it leaves the face of the hammer. There should only be a few thousands of clearance between the recoil shield and the primer anyway.
I'm not wanting to get political here but have to say that not buying a S&W with the Hillary hole is your decision of course.
If I felt that way I would walk everywhere because the Automakers have pulled political things before and I wouldn't buy gas because the oil company's are the devil. I would live off the grid because the utility company is also the devil. The list goes on including Ruger that pulled some crap years ago that cost them some customers.
Must resist.......................
Haw I can't help it.....
I would bet that if you had a S&W with the Hillary hole it would be going bang everytime you pulled the trigger
Whew that feels better.
Good luck with the Ruger I still say send it back to them.
I sent it back today.
I fired a moon clip single action and a moon clip double action, then pulled two from each and photo'd them. All 6 fired single action. 2 did double action. That tells me it's not hitting as hard double action.
My aversion to the Hillary hole is aesthetics and memory, mostly. S&W has new owners from the time they sucked up to the Clintons, no big deal there. However every time I see it it reminds me of the dark days, and it's just flipping ugly. If they'd put it on the bottom of the grip or on the hammer or something, maybe. A gaping sore on the side plate, though, and an engraving of which way to turn? Pass. It's also a reason I'm not a big fan of older stainless Rugers. I don't need the owner's manual engraved and visible from 50y away on my barrel. The other reason is I like standardization. I don't want 2 or 3 types of cylinder releases. I want one. I really like the LCR, so I stick with Ruger.
Kirk Freeman
Grandmaster
Thank you for your service as a Beta Tester.
I now promote you Chief Beta Tester or, if you prefer, Master Beta.
You may add gold stripes to your Ruger hat and your Copstache.
I now promote you Chief Beta Tester or, if you prefer, Master Beta.
You may add gold stripes to your Ruger hat and your Copstache.
BehindBlueI's
Grandmaster
- Oct 3, 2012
- 25,971
- 113
I miss my mustache. It was thick and luxurious. It spoke of a nobler era. The closest thing I ever had to a Ruger hat was a Hank Jr concert hat, though.
indiucky
Grandmaster
Must resist.......................
Haw I can't help it.....
I would bet that if you had a S&W with the Hillary hole it would be going bang everytime you pulled the trigger
Whew that feels better.
He had the same conversation with me in the shop BBI....I too was complaining about the "hole" and he made a very valid case from the standpoint of someone who works on Smith and Wesson Revolvers every day and explained the benefits (from a gunsmithing standpoint....) of MIM parts.....
I have two with the hole (629 4 inch and a NRA custom 442) and I am too embarrassed to say how many I have without the hole...I do not love them but I like them strongly and the 629 has become my "go to" 44 magnum...It's extremely accurate and with shooter grade 29's going for $1000 plus on gunbroker I feel more comfortable blasting away with the Hillary Holed 629 than I do my others....
If you ever have the chance to dry fire one of BossHosses Smith's please do so.....It will redefine your definition of a smooth trigger......
indiucky
Grandmaster
BehindBlueI's
Grandmaster
- Oct 3, 2012
- 25,971
- 113
Yeah...but they are ugly. I've got that base covered with Glock. I don't know enough about MIM to have an opinion one way or the other. I'm sure it's either awesome or terrible or irrelevant.
Just shows that looks are subjective.
I can't believe a Ruger revolver owner would call a S&W revolver ugly because of a hole in the side of it. The Irony.
I have had this discussion many times before and I will say it again if you are seeing the hole in the side of the gun you are doing it wrong.
You are supposed to be looking at the front sight imposed on the target.
I know how you feel though as years ago I wouldn't own a Ruger or sell one out of the shop as they pissed me off when they put their agenda ahead of our rights. That Ruger is gone and I don't have a problem with them now. I still don't care much for the looks of their revolvers(subjective again) but they are strong and durable.
I would work on Ruger revolvers but they won't sell parts to the public or gunsmiths.
Keep us posted on what Ruger does to fix your gun.
BTW Thanks Rick for the kind words.
indiucky
Grandmaster
Yeah...but they are ugly. I've got that base covered with Glock. I don't know enough about MIM to have an opinion one way or the other. I'm sure it's either awesome or terrible or irrelevant.
This chick is missing two arms and half a nipple and is still considered one of the greatest symbols of feminine beauty in all of the world.....Just sayin'....
Yes the hole is there........
Yet the lines remain the same....
Come back to the dark side.....We have got side plates.....And Elmer Keith.....
OMG!!!!! You can get Elmer Keith hats now....Someone let Kirk know....BBI...I think THIS should be your new hat...
Last edited:
BehindBlueI's
Grandmaster
- Oct 3, 2012
- 25,971
- 113
Just shows that looks are subjective.
I can't believe a Ruger revolver owner would call a S&W revolver ugly because of a hole in the side of it. The Irony.
I have had this discussion many times before and I will say it again if you are seeing the hole in the side of the gun you are doing it wrong.
You are supposed to be looking at the front sight imposed on the target.
I know how you feel though as years ago I wouldn't own a Ruger or sell one out of the shop as they pissed me off when they put their agenda ahead of our rights. That Ruger is gone and I don't have a problem with them now. I still don't care much for the looks of their revolvers(subjective again) but they are strong and durable.
I would work on Ruger revolvers but they won't sell parts to the public or gunsmiths.
Keep us posted on what Ruger does to fix your gun.
BTW Thanks Rick for the kind words.
Ruger certainly makes some ugly ones. I just don't buy those. The big ugly rubber finger groove grip on the regular 4" Redhawk, for example.
However, I'll put this up against S&W any day:
BehindBlueI's
Grandmaster
- Oct 3, 2012
- 25,971
- 113
Yet the lines remain the same....
OMG!!!!! You can get Elmer Keith hats now....Someone let Kirk know....BBI...I think THIS should be your new hat...
I'd pay the extra for the one with no hole.
The lines may be the same, but....
indiucky
Grandmaster
I'd pay the extra for the one with no hole.
The lines may be the same, but....
Touche' brother....LMAO......
indiucky
Grandmaster
Ruger certainly makes some ugly ones. I just don't buy those. The big ugly rubber finger groove grip on the regular 4" Redhawk, for example.
However, I'll put this up against S&W any day:
Okay....Get the stag inserts.....That gun looks seriously cool with stag inserts...I find myself strangely attracted to that Ruger..
RustyHornet
Grandmaster
FWIW, the hole is ugly. I prefer the Ruger trigger and cyl latch. Colts look the best .
With that said, I may own a smith someday, but it will not have a hole. Just plain ugly and that's a perfectly good reason.
. With that said, I may own a smith someday, but it will not have a hole. Just plain ugly and that's a perfectly good reason.
