|
|
Post by bradshaw on Feb 7, 2019 8:12:39 GMT -5
That was my next thought, is this an Alaskan thing or a SRH thing or both ? Haven't heard of the SRH's having an issue with 480 extraction. ***** Straight chamber walls in a single action must be straight. Straight chamber walls in a double action must be straight and smooth. Smith & Wesson developed roller burnishing a long time ago to facilitate simultaneous extraction from the double action revolver. I have never known a Redhawk or Super Redhawk made as originally designed to have stiff or hard extraction. To make a 6-shot cylinder for the Alaskan in .454 Casull and .480 Ruger, a Carpenter alloy was selected. From my perspective, it seems the steel selected for the .454 & .480 cylinders amplifies tooling challenges, with a potential for wavy chambers. In my view, a 5-shot cylinder is a better fit for these cartridges. Ultra high pressure, at which Dick Casull developed his .454 Casull to operate----in order to generate ultra high velocity----requires tighter tolerances. Likewise, the rule applies to thin chamber walls----such as .480 Ruger----at below standard magnum pressure. (Example: a Smith & Wesson in .45 Colt.) David Bradshaw |
|
|
|
Post by bula on Feb 7, 2019 8:47:57 GMT -5
Thank You, your perspective valued. I don't push the limits with the 2 BSBH 480's here now. i do want to use the good stock of Hornady brass here and and would consider having the chambers polished if ya'll think that wise. The 480 is "enough gun" and figure my hottest loads close to Hornady's reduced pressure loads. I guess a small stock of Starline brass could be added to the mix, kept separate but that would be awkward, rather not. Of the 4-500 Hornady cases here have segregated out 25 or so for larger or thicker rims. Figure early made from 45-70/475 ? Could this be contributing to peoples problems ?
|
|
|
|
Post by firedude on Feb 7, 2019 11:09:14 GMT -5
I did put a very nice polish on my chambers to try and help and it did to a small degree. Still will not extract Hornady, even mid loaded. I do not have pin gauges but pushing in fired brass after cleaning the gun you can feel a lot of resistance in the middle of cylinder pushing them in. My sized .476 bullets fall through without even touching also.
|
|
|
|
Post by bula on Feb 7, 2019 11:25:06 GMT -5
Am not feeling lucky. Fair percentage of the new to household Rugers here in last decade have issues, known issues. Bad grip fit, crooked front sights, thread choke etc.. Am not feeling the love, not wanting to give about 4 figures of legal tender and feel like I've pulled the lever on a slot machine. I may trade the 4.2" M69 that is flawless for it's snubbier version. My first Ruger SA's bought as I turned 21 in the early '80's. Not sure I'm buying from the same company..now. I don't want to send a NIB gun back, a not buying a "donor gun".
|
|
|
|
Post by firedude on Feb 7, 2019 17:46:35 GMT -5
Am not feeling lucky. Fair percentage of the new to household Rugers here in last decade have issues, known issues. Bad grip fit, crooked front sights, thread choke etc.. Am not feeling the love, not wanting to give about 4 figures of legal tender and feel like I've pulled the lever on a slot machine. I may trade the 4.2" M69 that is flawless for it's snubbier version. My first Ruger SA's bought as I turned 21 in the early '80's. Not sure I'm buying from the same company..now. I don't want to send a NIB gun back, a not buying a "donor gun". I feel the same way. Last few have been terrible. Worst QC I have seen. I have bought and owned Rugers and Smiths ( and just about all the others) since I was sixteen years old. That was forty one years ago. My first handgun was a 44 Super blackhawk three screw. Loved that gun. Have had to many to count since. Have seen both manufactures through ups and downs through the years. This is as far down as I have seen both go. My last two smiths bought new have been very bad also. Both manufactures have great customer service. Just shouldn't have to use it so much. Going back for the same reason is getting way old also. By the way, I have both versions of the model 69. Have not even shot the 4.2 since getting the snubby. Great gun. It was not one of the bad one's I was talking about by the way. |
|
|
|
Post by Rimfire69 on Feb 8, 2019 8:47:41 GMT -5
Bula, if that M69 4.2” is perfect, you better not be trading it off, just get the snubbie when funds permit.
|
|
|
|
Post by bula on Feb 8, 2019 10:11:29 GMT -5
Rimfire69, you are of course correct. Later in the eve had that thought. Think the Beretta Nano a better choice to part with. That 4.2" M69 has a taller/thinner F/O front sight and likes Missouri Bullets "Hammers" .
|
|
