A different Ruger DA frame size

[WrongHanded]

I've often thought that Ruger should consider a new frame size, between the GP100 and the Redhawk. It strikes me that a frame more suited to .41 mag, .44 Special, and .45acp, might do quite well for them. The GP is too small for 6 chambers of any of those cartridges, whilst the Redhawk seems a little over built for them. I guess we could throw 10mm in that pile too.

What do you all think?

 

[Striker]

I'd also like to throw in .45 Colt as an option on that new frame.

 

[WrongHanded]

I'd also like to throw in .45 Colt as an option on that new frame.

I hesitated to add that, based on the diameter and how it seems a popular cartridge to hot rod. But I suppose at standard pressures it wouldn't be an issue. So why not!

 

[CraigC]

Ruger should build an N-frame?

 

[Alaskan Ironworker]

Id buy one in .41 or .44!

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

The Redhawk must still be a money maker for them since they have continued it's production long after the Super RH came along.

Personally, I greatly prefer the traditional Redhawk's full grip frame and barrel profile.

All of Rugers revolvers are a shade bigger or smaller than the nearest S&W frames- I think this is a good thing for both customers and companies as it gives them less direct competition and us more variety!

 

[CajunBass]

Ruger should build an N-frame?

Sounds like it to me.

Actually, I like their standard Redhawk. I don't have one, but that's more because I'm a "Smith & Wesson guy" than anything else. I've got/have owned N's in all the cartridges mentioned, including 45 Colt. Never saw any reason to buy a Ruger.

Which might be why they've never made one like it. With the Redhawk being bigger, and the GP being smaller, why try to fit yourself into a niche that's pretty well filled already.

 

[bannockburn]

So something between a S&W L and N frame...how about Ruger makes their version of an M frame? Bigger than a GP100 but smaller and more compact than a Redhawk. Call it the Gray Hawk or Eagle or just Hawk. I would go for that in a .41 magnum, .45 Colt, or .44 Special.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

So something between a S&W L and N frame...how about Ruger makes their version of an M frame? Bigger than a GP100 but smaller and more compact than a Redhawk. Call it the Gray Hawk or Eagle or just Hawk. I would go for that in a .41 magnum, .45 Colt, or .44 Special.

Ooooooh, "Grey Hawk" I like it!

 

[expat_alaska]

I concur with all of the above comments.

I also think that most of us here are getting somewhat long in the tooth, and the younger folks seem to be drawn to semi-autos rather than revolvers. The Ruger marketing people/bean counters seem to see that also.

Just my $.02 worth.

Jim

 

[Zaydok Allen]

I'd be interested in a 41 magnum version. If they can cram it into a GP100 I'd definitely be down, but I'm guessing it isn't the best idea in the world since they haven't done it yet.

So a little larger frame gun is welcomed in my home.

 

[BSA1]

Having seen firsthand shooters using handloads that would have grenaded S&W revolvers I think Old Man Ruger made and management are making the right decision with their waaaay overbuilt guns.

 

[WrongHanded]

Ruger should build an N-frame?

Well, kinda, yeah. Just not for .44 Mag. The way I'm lookin at it, if the gun was build to chamber and safely handle .41 Mag, but not much more, there might be enough extra diameter in the cylinder to handle the .45ACP and .45LC diameter at standard pressures, and therefore the .44 Special with some "room for experimentation". But without being as obviously overbuilt as the Redhawk would be for those cartridges.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the .45LC New Vaquero's had a small cylinder diameter than the previous version of Vaquero. Isn't the cylinder of the old Vaquero still smaller than the Redhawk's?

 

[beag_nut]

A new frame size would be completely unnecessary, considering how over-built and over-designed (compared to others with side plates) the current Ruger revolvers already are.

 

[WrongHanded]

A new frame size would be completely unnecessary, considering how over-built and over-designed (compared to others with side plates) the current Ruger revolvers already are.

By that logic, there is no point having any DA frame size other than the Super Redhawk.

 

[WrongHanded]

Further more, I presume that all the various flavors of the GP100 and Redhawk made for Lipsey and Talo distribution must surely be selling, or else why are they even produced? So if putting different sights, a different grip, or high gloss finish on an otherwise standard GP100 in .357 Mag will sell it; wouldn't a new frame size, more favorable to certain calibers, also sell?

I don't know how they build the guns, but it seems like sizing up the GP, or sizing down the Redhawk, can't be all that difficult.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

I don't know how they build the guns, but it seems like sizing up the GP, or sizing down the Redhawk, can't be all that difficult.

Well their designers may have an easy time developing a working design but there is still a lot of time and money investment regarding actually producing something new. If for a limited interest market, especially one already covered by the GP and RH, I doubt it'd be a great use of money.

Don't get me wrong. I'd like to see it happen, I just doubt at this point they'll tool up to do it. The revolver market isn't likely to grow at this point in time. That's an assumption on my part though.

 

[RugRev]

From a financial perspective I don't see it happening. If anything, a few changes could be made to the GP100 to create a 5 shot .41 mag, .44 mag, a 6 shot .41 Special and with a bit larger cylinder a .45 cal. 5 shot. Taurus already has offered a 5 shot .45 in their medium/large frame and Smith the .44 mag
in the L frame. I they did this it could solve their present problems with the 7 shot .357 GP's also.

 

[Mixed Nuts]

A little off topic but... I've always thought that Ruger could make a .357 Blackhawk that was drilled for 7 or even eight rounds. If the blackhawk cylinder can hold 6 .45s it can hold 8 .357s a-la the new Redhawks.

 

[Tallball]

"Grey Hawk"

That's a pretty good name for a revolver. When I am shooting them with my shooting buddies, we're typically the greyest hawks at the range.

 

[gotboostvr]

Well, kinda, yeah. Just not for .44 Mag. The way I'm lookin at it, if the gun was build to chamber and safely handle .41 Mag, but not much more, there might be enough extra diameter in the cylinder to handle the .45ACP and .45LC diameter at standard pressures, and therefore the .44 Special with some "room for experimentation". But without being as obviously overbuilt as the Redhawk would be for those cartridges.

That's exactly the niche the N frames fill already. Some people claim the 44mag is too much for a steady diet on an N frame, not that I agree, but that opinion exists. No one argues it's longevity in 41mag, 357, 10mm, 44 special or either 45 cartridge.

The N frame is probably my favorite sized handgun, so even though I think the market is well served, I'd like to see another player. It'd be interesting to see what Ruger's take would be.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

A little off topic but... I've always thought that Ruger could make a .357 Blackhawk that was drilled for 7 or even eight rounds. If the blackhawk cylinder can hold 6 .45s it can hold 8 .357s a-la the new Redhawks.

Ruger already produces an 8 round .357 Magnum on the Redhawk frame so I see no reason why they couldn't do the Blackhawk too.

 

[rbernie]

I've often thought that Ruger should consider a new frame size, between the GP100 and the Redhawk. It strikes me that a frame more suited to .41 mag, .44 Special, and .45acp, might do quite well for them. The GP is too small for 6 chambers of any of those cartridges, whilst the Redhawk seems a little over built for them. I guess we could throw 10mm in that pile too.

Ruger does make a six-shot 10mm GP100.