NEW model super blackhawk strength?

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy Again

As I have said many times, there is no logic to model naming at Ruger. The first mistake they made with the Vaquero was to name the newer, smaller one the New Vaquero. Now they have compounded the error by producing a 44 Magnum for limited release through some distributors, on the old large frame, and stamping New Vaquero on it. And stamping Vaquero on the 44 Special version built on the smaller frame.

To make matters worse, the Ruger website refers to the currently produced New Vaquero as simply Vaquero.

Why they did not do something sensible, as they did with their iconic 22 semi-automatic pistols, calling them Mark II and Mark III, is beyond me. That way it is easy to differentiate between models. Some marketing genius must have felt the name Vaquero was sacrosanct, rather than coming up with a new name for the newer models.

[44 AMP]

Always a sad day when a company does not follow their own rules...

I suppose now I'm waiting for their next gen SA with key lock, combination lock, biometric ID and voice print authorization required to operate...

They can call that one the CHICKENHAWK



and then we'll have threads on how strong that one is.....

[Salmoneye]

I suppose now I'm waiting for their next gen SA with key lock,

There have already been New Model Blackhawks with internal locks...

[FrankenMauser]

I suppose now I'm waiting for their next gen SA with key lock, combination lock, biometric ID and voice print authorization required to operate...

They can call that one the CHICKENHAWK

You forgot the polymer frame.

[44 AMP]

You forgot the polymer frame

Ok, with the polymer frame that would be the New Chickenhawk...

or would it be the Super Chickenhawk??

I have one of the New Vaqueros, it has the lock, which, in my opinion is one of the few things Ruger has done right, lately. tis there as a selling point for those who think it is a desirable thing, but its not in the way, or in your face (like S&W) for those who don't like it.

Ruger seriously needs to come up with new names for new versions, not just add (or drop) the word "NEW"...

[Tactical Lever]

I'm well aware of the history of the concept, the published data, and all of the revolvers that Elmer blew up with what became "Ruger Only" loads.

It does not, however, mean that Rugers were designed to take more pressure.
Blanket legal statement, or not, Ruger decisively states that their firearms are not intended for use with any re-manufactured, reloaded, or other non-standard ammunition. That pretty much eliminates "Ruger Only" loads, right off the bat.


Measuring cylinder wall thickness really won't get you anywhere, either. Yes, it's a data point. Yes, more steel should take more pressure. But unless you know what the alloy is, know how it was heat-treated, and know what it can take, it's about as productive as comparing slices of birthday cake.

Case in point:
My S&W M29 (.44 Mag) has 0.088" thick chamber walls between chambers. The outer cylinder wall measures just 0.080".
The Super Blackhawk (.44 Mag) next to it has 0.088" thick chamber walls between chambers. The outer cylinder wall measures 0.095".

Yea, there's more meat on the outside, but wall thickness between chambers is exactly the same.

And if you want to compare to the .480 Ruger in the next safe, you get just 0.040" between chambers, wrapped in 0.110" at the outer wall.

What does it all mean?
Absolutely nothing.
Each one was designed to fire SAAMI-spec ammunition, and nothing else.


The Rohm RG-30 .32 S&W Long (12k psi max) sitting in the bottom of my safe has significantly more steel in the cylinder than any of my .327 Federal Ruger revolvers (45k psi max). Does that mean the Rohm is stronger? I highly doubt it...


And you're way off on the Marlin .45-70 pressure level. The Marlin 336 family of receivers (336, 444, new 1895) top out with .30-30 and .35 Remington. The 1895 chambered in .45-70 was designed for a MAP of just 28,000 psi. It is said to be able to handle up to a little over 40,000 psi, but it was designed for 28,000 psi SAAMI-spec ammunition.
(If you doubt me, and want to do some research on your own, a very good starting point would be a former Marlin engineer that goes by "Tomray" over at the MarlinOwners forums. He has written quite a bit about what the 336 family of receivers can handle and what they were designed to take.)

I am somewhat confused as to your argument on design. The Rugers may not be "designed" to take more, but common knowledge is that they can. Ruger steel has a reputation for being tough. And according to Ruger treated the same. You are now comparing 2 guns designed to take a high pressure round. The original comparison is 120 year old Colt design vs. a Blackhawk. There is no comparison there. There are a few gun companies that say no handloads. That is flat out silly. Even funnier now is the fact that you can get hot factory loads to shoot out of your .45 Colt.

If I were to listen to the original engineer, I would not even buy an 1895, as it's just a 336 action modified so that a bigger cartridge will pass through it! See the 36 was only designed to be a 30-30. Later on the same action came to house the thundering .444 Marlin, with a full 41% more bolt thrust than the 30-30 musters. Mainly though, when a firearm fails, it's due to hoop stress. I do think that bolt thrust is a useful number to examine however, especially on less than strongest actions or actions that are used above their design parameters. Now if we acknowledge that Marlin knew what it was doing when it chambered a 336/1895 in .444 Marlin, then we can also surmise that the action is strong enough for that level of bolt thrust. Coincidentally a 40 000 PSI 45-70 load generates the same level of bolt thrust as a .444. And we are reasonably sure they didn't downgrade the steel when they started making them in 45-70....

Now a few years ago they put a hot version of a 45-70 (or a short version of a .458 Win Mag, if you prefer) in the same gun. The MAP of the .450 Marlin is 43 500 PSI. Maybe the steel is a little better?

Of course I can't predict what your old revolvers actual pressure ceiling is.

[FrankenMauser]

The Model 444 is a modified Model 336.
The (new) 1895 is a modified Model 444.

1893 -> 1936/36 -> 336 -> 444 -> 1895


Not arguing about strength or pressure.


Just wanted to clarify the lineage of the 336 family.

[Slamfire]

I am somewhat confused as to your argument on design. The Rugers may not be "designed" to take more, but common knowledge is that they can.

If I were to listen to the original engineer, I would not even buy an 1895, as it's just a 336 action modified so that a bigger cartridge will pass through it! See the 36 was only designed to be a 30-30. Later on the same action came to house the thundering .444 Marlin, with a full 41% more bolt thrust than the 30-30 musters. Mainly though, when a firearm fails, it's due to hoop stress. I do think that bolt thrust is a useful number to examine however, especially on less than strongest actions or actions that are used above their design parameters. Now if we acknowledge that Marlin knew what it was doing when it chambered a 336/1895 in .444 Marlin, then we can also surmise that the action is strong enough for that level of bolt thrust. Coincidentally a 40 000 PSI 45-70 load generates the same level of bolt thrust as a .444. And we are reasonably sure they didn't downgrade the steel when they started making them in 45-70....

Every one is free to do what they want. If you think your analysis is sufficient for you to procedure forward and operate your rifle arms at higher pressures than factory recommendations, than do so. Understand it is your decision and the consequences of your actions will be yours alone. You are assuming the risk and liability. You have no one else to blame if something goes wrong. That is the way it ought to be.

I have found common knowledge to be wrong on many things and assuming that the delusions of the multitudes justifies unsafe practices is going to be proven wrong more often that it will be proven right.

[Jim Watson]

Even the Brian Pearce Tier 2 loads that he says are safe in USFA SAA clones and S&W N frames are about all the fun I want. And they are themselves 40% overloads vs the SAAMI nitro-for-black standard.

Later on the same action came to house the thundering .444 Marlin, with a full 41% more bolt thrust than the 30-30 musters. Mainly though, when a firearm fails, it's due to hoop stress.

In a bygone era when the .444 was new on the market and the American Rifleman did tech articles, Jac Weller toured Marlin and reported that they even then were in cahoots with Remington and had them heat treat .444 barrels for that round's higher pressure and larger diameter.
Did they keep it up for the lower pressure but larger diameter .45-70? Have to think they did something to contain the .450 Marlin.

[FrankenMauser]

In a bygone era when the .444 was new on the market and the American Rifleman did tech articles, Jac Weller toured Marlin and reported that they even then were in cahoots with Remington and had them heat treat .444 barrels for that round's higher pressure and larger diameter.
Did they keep it up for the lower pressure but larger diameter .45-70? Have to think they did something to contain the .450 Marlin.

I'm sure they did.
Former Marlin employees, including the aforementioned "Tomray", have said many times on the MarlinOwners forums that each model's receiver (and sometimes other parts) were heat treated differently. These 'revelations' were generally in relation to discussions of converting .30-30s to .375 Winchesters, or converting .30-30s to .444 Marlin (like I have done*), or running uber-ultra-super-hot wildcats (like .405 JES) in 336s originally chambered as .30-30s; but the basic message is always the same: The different heat treating was intended more for longevity than higher pressure.
That's what I picked up from the discussions, anyway.







*(I run my hybrid 336/444/1895 .444 Marlin at safe and sane pressures. While I am not a metallurgist, engineer, or firearm designer, I believe the pressures that I am running will give it a life span much longer than my own.)

[jackmoser65]

I'm well aware of the history of the concept, the published data, and all of the revolvers that Elmer blew up with what became "Ruger Only" loads.

Contradictory. For if you were well aware of the history, you would not have made the bolded statement.

Linebaugh is an interesting character, but understand he is selling his cartridge concept, not firearms. I don't think he is a firearm designer and have not seen the sort of analysis I would like to see.

I'd say you're not as well informed as you seem to think. The concept you're questioning is well proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

[44 AMP]

I'm well aware of the history of the concept, the published data, and all of the revolvers that Elmer blew up with what became "Ruger Only" loads.

I'm not sure how many Colt SAAs that Elmer blew up, four or five, I think, before he finally admitted that he could not get where he wanted to go in an existing .45Colt revolver. There simply wasn't enough steel in a .45 cylinder to take the pressure he wanted. So he switched to the .44 caliber, the smaller diameter case body left more steel in the cylinder to support heavy loads.

Remember that Elmer was restricted to guns that existed at the time he was doing his experimenting. There were no Ruger Blackhawks around then for him to work with.

It does not, however, mean that Rugers were designed to take more pressure.
Blanket legal statement, or not, Ruger decisively states that their firearms are not intended for use with any re-manufactured, reloaded, or other non-standard ammunition.

Ruger was expert at cast steel. To most people cast steel meant low quality and strength. Ruger did it differently, better, producing high quality steel. The frames of his Blackhawks were cast. However he also knew that even his best cast is not as strong as forged steel. To match the strength of forged steel frames, cast steel has to be bigger. Thicker. SO, Ruger designed his guns with larger frames than the forged steel guns he was going to compete against. I think he might have thought, "if you have to be a bear, better to be a grizzly" though I've never seen anywhere he actually said anything like that.

So the frames had to be bigger to as strong as forged, why not make them a bit bigger yet? An excess of strength is seldom a detriment.

Bigger frames means bigger cylinders, (which are forged steel) so the strength increases even more. As long as the buying public would accept the size of the gun (compared to what they were used to) it was a win/win. And, the public did.

That pretty much eliminates "Ruger Only" loads, right off the bat.

Ruger might not (and doesn't have to) stand behind any damage you or I do with "non-standard" loads. That doesn't eliminate them, in my book, it just means if you shoot them EVERYTHING that happens is your responsibility.

I think that's quite fair, actually.

[jackmoser65]

Keith only "blew" one sixgun. It was a military surplus SAA (wrought iron frame) that when he fired a caseful of blackpowder under a 300gr cutdown .45-70 bullet, the loading gate blew off. I don't know where the idea that he blew up a bunch of guns comes from.