480 Ruger

[Dirty Dan Dawkins]

Anybody have one? I found one local with some extras at what looks to be reasonable price.

[JD Lud]

I have a few...which one looking at?

[Three Foot Johnson]

I bought one of the first .480 Super Redhawks in the state back in 2001 - early enough that the box of ammo I bought with it was headstamped .475 Ruger.  I topped it with a Leupold pistol scope and have taken several deer with it.

[Dirty Dan Dawkins]

I found a Ruger Bisley 5 shot stainless with elk stag grips hardly shot and a box of ammo. 100 star line, 150 400+ grain bullets. Box of Hornady jacketed fodder. It’s 4 5/8 $950. So  price looks reasonable.

Ive been looking at 44 and 45 Bisley Blackhawks. I figure the grips are worth a couple hundred. 

Much rather have a 5 1/2 to 6 1/2 though. Never cared for 4 5/8 or shorter in big bore but thought I’d ask opinions.

[Widder, SASS #59054]

I can hear the deer/bear/hog in the woods having this conversation:

 

HOG:  Hey Mr.Deer, what did you get shot with?

Mr.DEER:   the man in the tree shot me with a .480 Ruger.

 

BEAR:   What was the barrel length?

Mr.DEER:   looked like a shorter barrel, about 4.5" long.

 

HOG:   Don't worry about it.   The pain with go away soon.  

BEAR:  It only hurts when the barrels are 5.5" or longer.

Mr.DEER:   Thanks.  I feel better already.

 

I think you will love the .480 with that 4+ inch barrel.   Easy to carry with plenty of punch.

And I agree, the price is reasonable, if not good, especially with those grips you mentioned.

 

..........Widder

 

 

 

[Dirty Dan Dawkins]

55 minutes ago, Widder, SASS #59054 said:

I can hear the deer/bear/hog in the woods having this conversation:

 

HOG:  Hey Mr.Deer, what did you get shot with?

Mr.DEER:   the man in the tree shot me with a .480 Ruger.

 

BEAR:   What was the barrel length?

Mr.DEER:   looked like a shorter barrel, about 4.5" long.

 

HOG:   Don't worry about it.   The pain with go away soon.  

BEAR:  It only hurts when the barrels are 5.5" or longer.

Mr.DEER:   Thanks.  I feel better already.

 

I think you will love the .480 with that 4+ inch barrel.   Easy to carry with plenty of punch.

And I agree, the price is reasonable, if not good, especially with those grips you mentioned.

 

..........Widder

 

 

 

:-)

I just always liked the balance of a 5 1/2 gun. You have one don’t ya? I know JD said he has a few. That says a lot! What powders y’all load? Expensive to feed? I bet it would’ve awesome with a load of 2f Swiss!

Any quality issues? Are the chambers cut consistent, or are they like any other Ruger? This revolver also comes with a set of Lee Dies. My one reservation is the elk grips fit rather poorly.

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

Didn't Ruger stop making them because of extraction and QC issues?

OLG

[Dirty Dan Dawkins]

Best I can tell the first run circa 2003- in the Redhawk. Maybe I’m wrong. I heard barrels and cylinders were all jacked up and poorly fit in early Bisley Blackhawks. Rugers first attempt at the 5 shot revolver? That and the GP100 5 shot 44 Special had issues I heard with accuracy, fit, finish. I looked long and hard at those GP100, 44 Specials but I guess the internet lies and rumors scared me away. That is about an ideal carry, woods revolver if you ask me.  

 

And for how many years did the shooting/hunting public ask Ruger for 5 shot revolvers? It was always the same rounds: 44 Special, like the Charter Arms, cause surely Ruger could do better than Charter Arms, secondly the 45 Colt/454 Casull cause surely if Linebaugh, Bowen, Clement can build custom ones we can’t afford , Ruger ought to be able to build production ones we can (Of course the assembly line isn’t filled with people as skilled as these guys, probably not in the design department either!)

But that’s all here say and conjecture .....

 

Back to the 480.....Best I can tell they resumed production a few years back and reviews appear positive. So, did they sort out their mistakes?

I think I’ll call and ask.

 

But let’s not kid ourselves, Ruger revolvers are far from complete if ya really want them to hold up or be accurate with lead. It’s not like they have Freedom Arms or Hamilton  Bowen or Linebaugh stamped on them. It’s not like I can afford those either. They are production guns so what’s to expect; but they are probably as good a platform to start with. I’ve owned a dozen or more Rugers and all needed cylinder work. Most needed action work, though some could have simply gotten by with spring kits and self-polishing from use. All seem to have undersized, inconsistent chambers and throats, as well as undersized base pins. I think with a high power load such as 454 or 480, or the 460 or any of the 500’s, these revolvers ought to have a little more attention to how chambers and forcing cones are cut, barrel gap is set, lock up, timing correct. Ruger and Smith know these guns are high performance calibers, subject to being fed heavy loads and a steady diet of hard cast lead (the mostly popular WFN’s with their long bearing surfaces at that).

 

On paper, I really like the 454 and 480. What’s not to like? I think of the 480 in terms of 45-60 WCF performance in a handgun, while the 454 I’d compare more to 45-70 Government (traditional loads in both). And hey, heavy 41/44 Mags and heavy 45 Colts are nothing to be trifled with....

[Alpo]

4 hours ago, Dirty Dan Dawkins said:

Never cared for 4 5/8 or shorter in big bore

I hear you.

 

I sold off the three 4 3/4 clones that I got when I started cowboy.

 

Still have three 6 1/2s and two 7 1/2s, but have two clones, four USFAs, two Bisley Blackhawks, three Single Sixes, and a for-real Colt. All 5 1/2.

 

That size just feels better in my hand.

[Dirty Dan Dawkins]

Just an aside, and it’s a whole other debate on killing power and effectiveness, but I always find it funny folk saying a 45-70 or 30-06 or 30-30 is underpowered but have no qualms about hunting same said critters with big bore revolvers duplicating black powder era ballistics.

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

1 hour ago, Dirty Dan Dawkins said:

Just an aside, and it’s a whole other debate on killing power and effectiveness, but I always find it funny folk saying a 45-70 or 30-06 or 30-30 is underpowered but have no qualms about hunting same said critters with big bore revolvers duplicating black powder era ballistics.

.454 Casull has more 'punch' than a 30-06.

Good SD gun in bear country....

OLG

[Three Foot Johnson]

1 hour ago, Dirty Dan Dawkins said:

Best I can tell the first run circa 2003- in the Redhawk. 

I don't think the Redhawk was ever chambered in .480...?
I bought my Super Redhawk in May of 2001, and it was marked .475 Ruger. The thing was horribly inaccurate and brass was difficult to eject. It was replaced by Ruger in late November of 2001. The replacement is marked .480 Ruger. The first one had a 551 prefix, and the second was 552, followed by a very low five digit number, so I would assume the 551 indicated 2001 production and the 552 would be 2002, even though it was actually made in late 2001...? I've never heard of another one marked .475, and I've only heard of a couple other people claiming to have .475 Ruger headstamped brass.

[Henry T Harrison]

I’m just a lil old PA deer hunter. Either my 41 or 44 mag Ruger have done the job nicely in the past with all the recoil my old arthritic hands can handle 

[Dirty Dan Dawkins]

46 minutes ago, Three Foot Johnson said:

I don't think the Redhawk was ever chambered in .480...?
I bought my Super Redhawk in May of 2001, and it was marked .475 Ruger. The thing was horribly inaccurate and brass was difficult to eject. It was replaced by Ruger in late November of 2001. The replacement is marked .480 Ruger. The first one had a 551 prefix, and the second was 552, followed by a very low five digit number, so I would assume the 551 indicated 2001 production and the 552 would be 2002, even though it was actually made in late 2001...? I've never heard of another one marked .475, and I've only heard of a couple other people claiming to have .475 Ruger headstamped brass.

You may be right and my nomenclature in error

[Dirty Dan Dawkins]

1 hour ago, The Original Lumpy Gritz said:

.454 Casull has more 'punch' than a 30-06.

Good SD gun in bear country....

OLG

 

Going on energy tables I'd call bull*** but Sd and momentum I think weigh heavier than velocity in effective killing power.

30-06 180 at 2900 fps ( ok so I load to about 2800ish) 3360 ft pounds at the muzzle

454 Casull 360 at 1300 fps 1300 ft lbs energy at muzzle.....A 250 at 1600 gets what....2000 ftlbs.....

Depends on if you want a handgun or rifle....I wouldn't feel under-gunned with either.  If I was hunting bear, and in close tight quarters, I think I'd want a 338 or 375 or heavy loaded 45-70.  But then again folks kill'em all the time with 308 and 30-06 and bows and arrows, and I still think an arrow, and spears for that matter, bleed them out and kill critters quick as anything else.. An 06 in bear country, I think I'd have to add weight- 220s at 2500 or 250's at 2400........Basically 358 winchester trajectory and energy levels  with a similar BC but higher SD.  A 358 ain't no slouch.

 

A big heavy WFN is like getting punched in the chest by a man that's far bigger and stronger than you, as opposed to getting punched in the nose by someone your size or smaller. A punch in the nose, you can still keep fightin.......It wont put ya down.

 

[Dirty Dan Dawkins]

1 hour ago, Henry T Harrison said:

I’m just a lil old PA deer hunter. Either my 41 or 44 mag Ruger have done the job nicely in the past with all the recoil my old arthritic hands can handle 

Yeah but a 480 with a full case of BP, don't that sound fun!

[Dirty Dan Dawkins]

1 hour ago, Three Foot Johnson said:

I don't think the Redhawk was ever chambered in .480...?
I bought my Super Redhawk in May of 2001, and it was marked .475 Ruger. The thing was horribly inaccurate and brass was difficult to eject. It was replaced by Ruger in late November of 2001. The replacement is marked .480 Ruger. The first one had a 551 prefix, and the second was 552, followed by a very low five digit number, so I would assume the 551 indicated 2001 production and the 552 would be 2002, even though it was actually made in late 2001...? I've never heard of another one marked .475, and I've only heard of a couple other people claiming to have .475 Ruger headstamped brass.

 What is your opinion of the replacement?

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

28 minutes ago, Dirty Dan Dawkins said:

 

Going on energy tables I'd call bull*** but Sd and momentum I think weigh heavier than velocity in effective killing power.

30-06 180 at 2900 fps ( ok so I load to about 2800ish) 3360 ft pounds at the muzzle

454 Casull 360 at 1300 fps 1300 ft lbs energy at muzzle.....A 250 at 1600 gets what....2000 ftlbs.....

Depends on if you want a handgun or rifle....I wouldn't feel under-gunned with either.  If I was hunting bear, and in close tight quarters, I think I'd want a 338 or 375 or heavy loaded 45-70.  But then again folks kill'em all the time with 308 and 30-06 and bows and arrows, and I still think an arrow, and spears for that matter, bleed them out and kill critters quick as anything else.. An 06 in bear country, I think I'd have to add weight- 220s at 2500 or 250's at 2400........Basically 358 winchester trajectory and energy levels  with a similar BC but higher SD.  A 358 ain't no slouch.

 

A big heavy WFN is like getting punched in the chest by a man that's far bigger and stronger than you, as opposed to getting punched in the nose by someone your size or smaller. A punch in the nose, you can still keep fightin.......It wont put ya down.

 

FA load data for the .454C.

http://www.freedomarms.com/loading/index.html

 

More here.

http://marvinstuart.com/firearm/Manuals/Reloading/Caliber Specific Load Data/Complete Reloading Manual for the 454 Casull.pdf

 

I have never had a problem get'n my FA model 83, 4 3/4" bbl. To crono 300gn Sierra JSP bullets at 1500fps(10 shot avg)with 31.5gns of H-110.

OLG

 

[Three Foot Johnson]

43 minutes ago, Dirty Dan Dawkins said:

 What is your opinion of the replacement?

It is MUCH better than the first one - timing is good, B/C gap is good trigger is smooth, accuracy is good, and empties slide right out - and I've put some real screamers through it. Lee makes a 400 grain mold with two crimp grooves - using the lower groove, case capacity is the same as the .475 Linebaugh. I remember looking up pressure specs years ago and finding the SRH could handle considerably heavier loads than Hornady was making, so I did some more reading and experimenting, and ended up with some handloads in the .475 Linebaugh class. I didn't shoot many of them because they're pretty brutal. Recoil pic is my 5 shot Ben Forkin .475 Linebaugh Bisley Blackhawk being shot by a friend. I think he put three downrange and handed it back.

[JD Lud]

I bought my 4 5/8”  Bisley model maybe 6 months ago for I think around 600 new, model 0872 if I recall correctly .  They are new within the last couple of years.  I think the short barrel balance is fine and don’t think the round loses that much velocity.

 

i have the Ruger Alaskan and the new ruger super redhawk both in 480 as well.  The Alaskan is pretty fun.

 

i also have the ruger toklat in 454.  To me the 480 is a bit gentler to shoot, less snappy and more shove.  For what it’s worth, I found some articles when researching that showed a 400 grain wfn at .475 would have more tko than the 454, forget the grain it compared.  Either way, both will whack something good, probably a similar discussion between the two like Widder’s barrel length.

 

I like the idea of the 454 for hunting for a bit more range and less drop, and the 480 for defensive or closer range hunts.

 

my 2 cents, and no problems with any of the newer 480s.

[Dirty Dan Dawkins]

On 8/13/2019 at 5:15 PM, The Original Lumpy Gritz said:

FA load data for the .454C.

http://www.freedomarms.com/loading/index.html

 

More here.

http://marvinstuart.com/firearm/Manuals/Reloading/Caliber Specific Load Data/Complete Reloading Manual for the 454 Casull.pdf

 

I have never had a problem get'n my FA model 83, 4 3/4" bbl. To crono 300gn Sierra JSP bullets at 1500fps(10 shot avg)with 31.5gns of H-110.

OLG

 

Thanks!

[Dirty Dan Dawkins]

On 8/13/2019 at 5:15 PM, The Original Lumpy Gritz said:

FA load data for the .454C.

http://www.freedomarms.com/loading/index.html

 

More here.

http://marvinstuart.com/firearm/Manuals/Reloading/Caliber Specific Load Data/Complete Reloading Manual for the 454 Casull.pdf

 

I have never had a problem get'n my FA model 83, 4 3/4" bbl. To crono 300gn Sierra JSP bullets at 1500fps(10 shot avg)with 31.5gns of H-110.

OLG

 

I always wanted to find downrange ballistics on the 454 and 480, but never can find it anywhere. All I see is at the muzzle.

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

Just now, Dirty Dan Dawkins said:

I always wanted to find downrange ballistics on the 454 and 480, but never can find it anywhere. All I see is at the muzzle.

I'm sure it's out there-My search foo, sucs..........

OLG