Ruger shoots 4" high at 30 feet...

[Ultrarunner]

My Ruger Blackhawk Bisley .480 shoots 4" high with the rear sight bottomed out. This is now my 6th Ruger firearm that would potentially be sent back to the factory. I'm getting really tired of the hit or miss reliability of Ruger. Anyway, at this point I'm considering just keeping it and avoiding sending back yet another gun.

If it were you, is 4" high and acceptable margin or would you send it back? (Gun puts rounds through the same hole otherwise)

 

[Lennypeters]

Do you load your own? A lighter or heavier charge and also the weight of the bullet can affect vertical impact.

 

[Ultrarunner]

Do you load your own? A lighter or heavier charge and also the weight of the bullet can affect vertical impact.

This was with 425 Grizzly Cartridge Ammo and 325 Hornady.

 

[fencer]

This is now my 6th Ruger firearm that would potentially be sent back to the factory. I'm getting really tired of the hit or miss reliability of Ruger

I am pretty vocal about my opinion of Ruger firearms. I will say, I admire your loyalty. But my guess is that there is no other product in your life that you would continue to purchase from the same manufacturer, if you had similar results. Five bad Sony tv's and I bet you wouldn't buy a sixth.
I would send it back to them, and when it returned, I would sell it and buy an S&W.

 

[Ultrarunner]

I am pretty vocal about my opinion of Ruger firearms. I will say, I admire your loyalty. But my guess is that there is no other product in your life that you would continue to purchase from the same manufacturer, if you had similar results. Five bad Sony tv's and I bet you wouldn't buy a sixth.
I would send it back to them, and when it returned, I would sell it and buy an S&W.

Great point concerning TVs. At this point I think I could have afforded a Freedom Arms for all my experimentation with Ruger Single actions ..

 

[white feather]

A lighter, faster bullet will print lower as it leaves the barrel faster and is impacted less by muzzle rise upon firing.

 

[mac1911]

At what distance was the intended to shoot at?
Seems 30' is not ?
Sounds like you need a taller front sight
Correction needed 4" x sight radius " ÷ distance in inches

Your issues is not a reliable problem. There are some that would ask why 10 yards? Ruger might also.
Anyway if i where to shoot a 480 at 10 yards with any regularity i would load some light soft target loads with a wad cutter to make nice clean holes.

 

[Ultrarunner]

At what distance was the intended to shoot at?
Seems 30' is not ?
Sounds like you need a taller front sight
Correction needed 4" x sight radius " ÷ distance in inches

Your issues is not a reliable problem. There are some that would ask why 10 yards? Ruger might also.
Anyway if i where to shoot a 480 at 10 yards with any regularity i would load some light soft target loads with a wad cutter to make nice clean holes.

I hike and guide in Alaska and am always experimenting with new "bear guns" although they're mostly range toys. I know that 100 yards the gun is probably dead on, but it just irks me that I can't plink at 30-50 feet without having to adjust my hold since there's no more leeway in the sight.

 

[whacko]

I am pretty vocal about my opinion of Ruger firearms. I will say, I admire your loyalty. But my guess is that there is no other product in your life that you would continue to purchase from the same manufacturer, if you had similar results. Five bad Sony tv's and I bet you wouldn't buy a sixth.
I would send it back to them, and when it returned, I would sell it and buy an S&W.

It's very strange. I've never had a single problem with a ruger fire arm. I own 4 of them. 2 revolvers, a 22-45 and a 10-22. I shoot them weekly. All run like champs. My sp101 357 i put about 50 rounds a week of hot 357 through it....7 years of weekly shooting.....mostly 125 grain. Had it since 2012. The forcing cone is starting to show some wear....I contacted ruger last week and they said I can send it back for a new barrel anytime and they will replace it. With the amount of shooting that gun has done I don't consider it a problem as long as they will take care of it.....and they say they will. The other ones have no signs of wear at all.

Very strange that some folks have issues and some never seem to have issues.

 

[mothybee]

I have a LC9S with less than 1000 rds. that has broken 2 strikers. Mini 14 guide rod spring swallowed the guide rod like an Anaconda in less than 500 rds. Nice people, get the part in the mail in 3 days but, shouldn't happen. Only and last Rugers I'll ever own. 4".....aim for the balls.

 

[76Too]

Look up my rant on my $1200 Ruger red label o/u if you want to see what their ‘lifetime warranty’ covers these days and experience with their ‘customer service’.

I’ll never buy another Ruger firearm as long as I live. I’ve sold all but two and those are going on the chopping block soon so I can replace them with other/more reliable brands that stand by their products.

 

[Freddy B]

I own several Rugers, and have had a reasonable experience with them. But now look to Springfield in the spaces where they compete. Quality seems better for not much more money.

 

[greencobra]

yeah, i recently...last year, had a new model blackhawk in .357 print 3" left at 7 yds. at 25 it was almost off the backing board. gun was rested on sandbag rest. i had the sight blade almost exiting the rear sight housing trying to zero the gun. while not the same issue as the op, seriously disappointing. had to go back for evaluation and they found the sight defective and replaced it. "replaced rear sight" was the only info given on the work order returned to me along with the test target showing 3 rounds center.

my last ruger, the redhawk 45 colt/.45acp, is well documented here and on the ruger forum. horrible gun! from the finish to the cylinder binding to misfires to finally the ejection rod falling off. 3 trips to the factory. i just wouldn't give up on it and was forcing them to get THAT gun up and running if for anything else just to send the message quality sucks, maybe someone should take a look at manufacturing & qc procedures.

i've lost confidence in that redhawk but so far the problems seem behind me. i've been a ruger collector, fan and shooter for years, longer probably than a lot of you here were born. it's very disappointing to see them take the dive.

A lighter or heavier charge and also the weight of the bullet can affect vertical impact.

on the .480, i would think sights would be used that would be calibrated for the heavy bullet, but still dunno. i didn't see anywhere what distance the op shot at and was printing 4" high but i've seen some photos, on other boards, of targets shot with seriously heavy .480 bullets from 25 yds and they were pretty much dead on.

 

[Fritz the Cat]

Two options.
1) set your target at 60'
2) braze a bead to the top of the front sight
C) gently adjust the barrel in a vise

 

[straightshooterjake]

I know that 100 yards the gun is probably dead on, but it just irks me that I can't plink at 30-50 feet without having to adjust my hold since there's no more leeway in the sight.

If the gun is really shooting 4" high at 30 feet, then I doubt it will be sighted in at any realistic range for handguns. 4" high at 10 yards means the gun will be aimed 40 inches high at 100 yards. Even big heavy bullets don't drop that much. This question made me curious, so I played with a ballistic calculator for a minute, and I would guess it is zeroed closer to 200 yards.

I would inspect the gun closely to see if anything about the frame, barrel, or sights is visibly out of alignment. If nothing is obviously wrong with the gun, then you could consider whether you prefer to fix the sights yourself in some way. Ruger really owes you a fix for this problem. But since you said the gun groups very well, you might prefer to keep the gun in hand and have it fixed yourself.

 

[Ultrarunner]

If the gun is really shooting 4" high at 30 feet, then I doubt it will be sighted in at any realistic range for handguns. 4" high at 10 yards means the gun will be aimed 40 inches high at 100 yards. Even big heavy bullets don't drop that much. This question made me curious, so I played with a ballistic calculator for a minute, and I would guess it is zeroed closer to 200 yards.

I would inspect the gun closely to see if anything about the frame, barrel, or sights is visibly out of alignment. If nothing is obviously wrong with the gun, then you could consider whether you prefer to fix the sights yourself in some way. Ruger really owes you a fix for this problem. But since you said the gun groups very well, you might prefer to keep the gun in hand and have it fixed yourself.

This is what I was thinking per bullet drop but there's almost no ballistic data for a 425 grain .475 inch projectile at +/- 1150 FPS. Anyway, off to Ruger it went, will post an update here.

 

[jpm]

Are you using a center hold or 6 o'clock hold? In the manual it should show you which one the sights are set for.

 

[meh]

This is what I was thinking per bullet drop but there's almost no ballistic data for a 425 grain .475 inch projectile at +/- 1150 FPS. Anyway, off to Ruger it went, will post an update here.

With bullet drop factored in, it's probably "only" going to be about 2 feet high at 100 yards. Good move sending it back. With any luck they'll just fix it up right and this will be a memory.

I think it's true that we don't tolerate this level of QC in many industries. I hear what people are saying about Ruger revolvers, but there are a lot of new Smiths at my house, too. I had a lemon SP101 that went back twice and was replaced. Now I love it. I only think about it when these threads come up. We've sent three revolvers back to Smith, too. I'd be sad to give up either brand, and I don't think you can say anything about Ruger QC nowadays that doesn't also apply to Smith & Wesson. That's why a lot of people suggest buying older guns. That's great, though of course there's always the chance you get that lemon that the first owner should have sent back to be fixed but never did.

 

[straightshooterjake]

This is what I was thinking per bullet drop but there's almost no ballistic data for a 425 grain .475 inch projectile at +/- 1150 FPS. Anyway, off to Ruger it went, will post an update here.

Sending it off to Ruger seems like a good choice. They really owe you a working product. And if you don't make them fix their own mistakes, how will they ever learn?

For approximate ballistics, I have used Hornady's ballistic calculator, but if you google for "ballistic calculator," you will find lots of other options. For most of them, you will need to guess about certain options like ballistic coefficient, but you can still get a reasonable approximation.

Also, when I look at the ballistics for the 480 Ruger, my first thought is that it is pretty similar to the ballistics of black powder rifles, both muzzle loaders and cartridges. And until white powder came around in the 1890's, these big heavy bullets at moderate velocities were the standard for long range shooting. So you probably can find lots of references to the ballistics used to shoot many hundreds of yards with bullets only a little heavier and faster than your revolver rounds.

Still, with your iron sighted handgun, you have every right to expect sights that can be zeroed at practical handgun ranges between 15 and 100 yards. I would not settle for less.

 

[Ultrarunner]

Sending it off to Ruger seems like a good choice. They really owe you a working product. And if you don't make them fix their own mistakes, how will they ever learn?

For approximate ballistics, I have used Hornady's ballistic calculator, but if you google for "ballistic calculator," you will find lots of other options. For most of them, you will need to guess about certain options like ballistic coefficient, but you can still get a reasonable approximation.

Also, when I look at the ballistics for the 480 Ruger, my first thought is that it is pretty similar to the ballistics of black powder rifles, both muzzle loaders and cartridges. And until white powder came around in the 1890's, these big heavy bullets at moderate velocities were the standard for long range shooting. So you probably can find lots of references to the ballistics used to shoot many hundreds of yards with bullets only a little heavier and faster than your revolver rounds.

Still, with your iron sighted handgun, you have every right to expect sights that can be zeroed at practical handgun ranges between 15 and 100 yards. I would not settle for less.

Thanks for the data concerning ballistic calculators. It's nice to get some good info here rather than just politics and cat videos.

 

[92G]

most of my ruger firearms have to go back for servicing. the good thing is they will take care of it. personally if you like the bisley that's shooting high - enough such that you'd want to keep it - then send it back to ruger and let them swap out the front sight or whatever is necessary. 4" high at only 30 ft is substantially high. at 50 yards it's probably going to be gnarly high, although at 100 yards it might bring you right back on target. if you're shooting a projectile that's heavy for caliber, that may also account for higher POI. i'm not familiar with .480 ruger.

It's very strange. I've never had a single problem with a ruger fire arm. I own 4 of them. 2 revolvers, a 22-45 and a 10-22. I shoot them weekly. All run like champs.

this comes up everytime someone mentions a problem with their ruger. when did you purchase those 4 rugers? their QC really tanked sometime around 2013 probably due to huge firearm demand and Ruger's desire to increase their production #'s. their castings and machining work have become wildly inconsistent. i can't even begin to list the crazy shit i've seen with BNIB rugers from revolvers, pistols to rifles. it's a consequence of them trying to produce too many firearms and different models. Rugers that were built 10-ish years ago do not exhibit such shotty QC. thankfully they maintain amazing customer service otherwise i would completely avoid Ruger.

a perfect example is the SR9 pistol. it's an excellent design. very glock-ish in terms of trigger-sear mechanism. sits nice and low in the hand. rather than properly building the pistols, they churned them out with shit machining, weak springs, all sorts of cost cutting measures that resulted in garbage. for many of them the barrels and slides could not properly engage in lockup. then they come out with an abomination known as the American pistol (WTF?). and now here they are making an enlarged LCP-2 known as the security 9. it's really sad what happens when firearms are designed by committee rather than a few bright minds. when it comes to autoloading pistols I consider Ruger to be completely lost.

 

[n1bsbri]

Do we have a lot of people here regularly shooting their handguns at 100 yards? If so, you guys are in a different league than me for sure.

 

[mac1911]

I hike and guide in Alaska and am always experimenting with new "bear guns" although they're mostly range toys. I know that 100 yards the gun is probably dead on, but it just irks me that I can't plink at 30-50 feet without having to adjust my hold since there's no more leeway in the sight.

Your going to need a taller sight or send it back.
You likely not to get a proper zero with it anyway.
With the 325 ammo you listed 100 yard zero (this is with a front sight height of .75" from bore center) will be about . 5" high at 10 yards? The heavy slugs will be higher, maybe .75"-90" ???

 

[Wickedcoolname]

Look up my rant on my $1200 Ruger red label o/u if you want to see what their ‘lifetime warranty’ covers these days and experience with their ‘customer service’.

I’ll never buy another Ruger firearm as long as I live. I’ve sold all but two and those are going on the chopping block soon so I can replace them with other/more reliable brands that stand by their products.

I agree. I had a mini 14 for a while. Just long enough to realize that it was the least accurate rifle I've ever shot. You'd have a hard time covering a hundred yard group with a snow shovel. And that was bench rested with sandbags.
Then I tried a security six revolver. I think the metal work was finished with hammer and a bastard file and the trigger was grittier than a sandy clam.
My last Ruger was the 10-22 that the whole world seems to be in love with. That rifle was only kind of accurate with one specific brand of ammo; CCI standard velocity if I recall. Anything else and it grouped like an improved cylinder shotgun. Hell, my $65 Marlin model 60 will eat anything and put all 17 rounds into one ragged hole.
I wouldn't take a Ruger for free. Well, I would, but then I'd sell it and buy anything else.

 

[mac1911]

I agree. I had a mini 14 for a while. Just long enough to realize that it was the least accurate rifle I've ever shot. You'd have a hard time covering a hundred yard group with a snow shovel. And that was bench rested with sandbags.
Then I tried a security six revolver. I think the metal work was finished with hammer and a bastard file and the trigger was grittier than a sandy clam.
My last Ruger was the 10-22 that the whole world seems to be in love with. That rifle was only kind of accurate with one specific brand of ammo; CCI standard velocity if I recall. Anything else and it grouped like an improved cylinder shotgun. Hell, my $65 Marlin model 60 will eat anything and put all 17 rounds into one ragged hole.
I wouldn't take a Ruger for free. Well, I would, but then I'd sell it and buy anything else.

The model 60 is a good platform. Although most became jamatics due to owner mistreatment.
Not sure if still true nut the model 60 at one time was the most selling 22lr semi auto rifle. Pre Remington days marlin had a nack for making inexpensive but good barrels.

 

[Wickedcoolname]

The model 60 is a good platform. Although most became jamatics due to owner mistreatment.
Not sure if still true nut the model 60 at one time was the most selling 22lr semi auto rifle. Pre Remington days marlin had a nack for making inexpensive but good barrels.

I was really expecting the model 60 to be kind of lack luster considering the price, but I was actually amazed at the accuracy. It was stunning how such an inexpensive gun shoots so well.
Mine started having the typical feeding and extraction issues after about 15 years and countless rounds of bulk ammo. I replaced the feed ramp module and tweaked the ejector spring and went right back to shooting thousands of insanely accurate rounds. It really is an amazing little gun. I'm guessing the micro groove rifling gets the credit for the accuracy.

 

[Mountain]

At what distance was the intended to shoot at?
Seems 30' is not ?
Sounds like you need a taller front sight
Correction needed 4" x sight radius " ÷ distance in inches

Your issues is not a reliable problem. There are some that would ask why 10 yards? Ruger might also.
Anyway if i where to shoot a 480 at 10 yards with any regularity i would load some light soft target loads with a wad cutter to make nice clean holes.

I hike and guide in Alaska and am always experimenting with new "bear guns" although they're mostly range toys. I know that 100 yards the gun is probably dead on, but it just irks me that I can't plink at 30-50 feet without having to adjust my hold since there's no more leeway in the sight.

Have to agree with Mac- large bore handgun with what I'll assume to be at least a 6" barrel probably didn't have 30 feet in mind when setting up the sights. Also agree that if you want to shoot primarily at shorter distances with a center hold, a taller front sight would take care of that. I don't see this as a Ruger QC issue nor even a design flaw.

For self defense purposes I think you are GTG. I'm range chairman at my club and I'd be thrilled if people could simply not blow the crap out of target frames at 10 yards.

 

[gerrycaruso]

I have several Rugers both old and new and they all shoot fine. 4" high at 30 feet is unacceptable to me. I'd have someone else shoot it and if it still shoots that far off, send it back.

 

[straightshooterjake]

I few people in this thread have suggested that 10 yards is too close for checking the sights, and that at some longer distance, the gun would be properly sighted in. My thinking is that 10 yards is a common distance for all hangun use, and that even with a longer range zero, the offset at 10 yards should only be an inch or so.

So I spent a few minutes playing with a ballistic calculator. I took the OP at face value that the revolver is really shooting 4" high at 10 yards, which can be approximately translated to 10" high at 25 yards. I made some approximations for sight height over bore and ballistic coefficient.

The ballistic calculator showed that for 425 grains at 1150 fps, 4" high at 10 yards is approximately a 250 yard zero. And with that zero, the round will be 20" high at 50 yards and over 30" high at 100 yards. So pretty much unusable at 50 or 100 yards. And with a 325 grain bullet at slightly higher velocity, the calculations are not drastically different.

For comparison, a 100 yard zero is about .75" high at 10 yards, and a little over 2" high at 25 yards. If someone else wants to check these statistics, I would be perfectly happy to learn about it if I made some mistake. But I have shot handguns a lot at 50 yards, and bit at 100 yards, and all of these numbers seem about right to me.

Assuming that the gun has a replaceable front sight, then changing to a higher front sight should be a pretty straightforward resolution. But as it sits, the gun is distantly off at all practical distances, and I personally would not be satisfied with it.

 

[45collector]

My Ruger Single Six .22 does the same thing. It is a nice .22 revolver other than that. I don’t shoot it often so I just live with it and shoot well below 6hold at 25 yards. Let me know if you find a source for taller front sights! I searched a few years ago but found nothing.