Rechamber 357 or 41 Redhawk Cylinder to 44mag

[mtnbkr]

I was wondering if this is worth the effort or not. I thought about getting a smaller caliber Redhawk cylinder, have it rechambered to tight 44mag specs and fitted to my 44mag Redhawk. I would probably send it to Bowen and have the entire gun tuned at the same time. I know having a 44 cylinder rechambered tight 45Colt specs delivers good results, but I've never heard of anyone doing the same for 44mag.

I want to keep the gun as a 44mag, just want to improve it a bit.

Am I crazy or is this a good idea?

Chris

[Aggie01]

One big trouble will be finding the cylinder.

I doubt you will get much performance increase from a "tighter" chamber. The .44 mag has not been plagued by chamber inconsistency like the .45 Colt. I would expect it to not be worth the hassle.

When people talk about a "tight" .45 Colt, they are talking about the .480 chamber popularized by John Linebaugh. "In spec" .45 Colt chambers can run up to about .490, making the brass work way more than necessary on standard .45 colt ammo, which typically runs about .476-.478.

The .002 to .004 clearance in the "tight" .45 Colt is essentially already there for standard .44 mag.

If you want more performance out of your .44 mag redhawk, I would recommend utilizing bullets with .5" Nose to crimp lengths and taking advantage of the long cylinder.


If you don't handload -
www.garrettcartridges.com/44mag.asp
www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=54

If you ABSOLUTELY must modify it and make it yours (and I know that feeling),- you might think about deepening that chamber about .10 and using cut down 445 supermag brass for a 1.4" .44 mag. Same effect as seating bullets way out in .44 mag brass, but it's special.

[mtnbkr]

Dec 1, 2009 10:49:01 GMT -5 Aggie01 said:

One big trouble will be finding the cylinder.

They pop up from time to time. I haven't pulled the trigger on one yet because I wasn't sure if it was worth the expense.

I doubt you will get much performance increase from a tighter chamber. The .44 mag has not been plagued by chamber inconsistency like the .45 Colt. I would expect it to not be worth the hassle.

When people talk about a tight .45 Colt, they are talking about the .480 chamber popularized by John Linebaugh. In spec .45 Colt chambers can run up to about .490, making the brass work way more than necessary on standard .45 colt ammo, which typically runs about .476-.478.

The .002 to .004 clearance in the tight .45 Colt is essentially already there for standard .44 mag.

I was aware of the reasoning behind the job in the 45, but wasn't sure if there was enough slop in the 44 to get a similar (if lesser) improvement. Doesn't sound like there is.

If you want more performance out of your .44 mag redhawk, I would recommend utilizing bullets with .5 Nose to crimp lengths and taking advantage of the long cylinder.

I'm not so much looking for velocity as I am accuracy. I'm finding 300@1300 to be my limit, so going faster or heavier isn't part of my plans.

If you ABSOLUTELY must modify it and make it yours (and I know that feeling),- you might think about deepening that chamber about .10 and using cut down 445 supermag brass for a 1.4" .44 mag. Same effect as seating bullets way out in .44 mag brass, but it's special.

Yeah, you got me pegged.

By "special" do you mean as in "well isn't that special" or as in "it does something unexpected and desirable"?

Chris

[Aggie01]

Let's replace "special" with "unique and engaging".

There is a fine line between "unique and engaging" and "why the h*ll did you do that?"
I don't judge. We will see which side of that line my CCH and stainless gun comes in on...

IF (big IF) your gun shoots poorly, AND the culprit is found to be cylinder alignment, AND taylor throating won't fix it, THEN it might make sense to linebore a new cylinder to the gun...

[nicholst55]

One of the Bowen's sells take-off parts periodically on Gun Broker; I bought a .44 Redhawk cylinder from him for cheap. It will eventually become a 'tight' .45 Colt.

[mark]

I also have wanted to do this "upgrade." I think the chambers in my Redhawk are sloppy enough and the throats large enough to make a difference. I have a reamer and 357 cylinder but I can not find a local gunsmith that I trust and money is a little tight at the moment. Of course, after all of that, you would still have to get rid of the barrel constriction to get good use of your cast bullets.
I called Gunparts Corp. for the cylinder about 3 years ago. They didn't list it, but I gave them an amount that I was willing to spend and they "found" one for me. I recall the amount was something like $60.
Mark

[AxeHandle]

Sounds like line boring a cylinder for your 44 might be your best bet.... We don't really hear that term used for the double action guns do we? Have you considered selling that Redhawk and taking the $$$s from the sale and the money to be spent on the modifications and buying a nice second hand 44 Mag FA 83?

[mtnbkr]

Dec 5, 2009 9:42:03 GMT -5 AxeHandle said:

Have you considered selling that Redhawk and taking the $$$s from the sale and the money to be spent on the modifications and buying a nice second hand 44 Mag FA 83?

I'm not really a SA kind of guy.

Chris

[jimmarch]

The 357 Redhawks are rare and highly desirable. I strongly suggest not butchering one for this project. I don't know as much about the 41s.

[mtnbkr]

Dec 6, 2009 1:43:11 GMT -5 jimmarch said:

The 357 Redhawks are rare and highly desirable. I strongly suggest not butchering one for this project. I don't know as much about the 41s.

I would not be butchering a complete one, merely buying a cylinder alone.

Chris

[carl]

I have zero experience with Redhawks, however with the Blackhawks the cylinder lengths are directly proportional to the calibre. This is done so a .44 cylinder cannot be dropped into a .357 frame and fired.

Just food for thought.

Carl

[mark]

Dec 10, 2009 5:06:02 GMT -5 carl said:

I have zero experience with Redhawks, however with the Blackhawks the cylinder lengths are directly proportional to the calibre. This is done so a .44 cylinder cannot be dropped into a .357 frame and fired.

Just food for thought.

Carl

I can confirm that my 357 Redhawk cylinder is the same length as my 44 Magnum Redhawk cylinder.

MTNBKR, have you decided to get the cylinder and try this?

Mark

[mtnbkr]

Dec 19, 2009 9:16:17 GMT -5 mark said:

MTNBKR, have you decided to get the cylinder and try this?

Mark

Not yet. If I did this, it wouldn't be until late in 2010. At this point, I'm just wondering if it's possible and worthwhile. If I find a cylinder for a good price (less than $100), I'll probably pick it up "just in case".

Chris