New Caliber in the Ruger Super Redhawk.

[Onty]

Might run afoul of the .500Special, don't recall its length. I would go for it but it would be a good bit more than that pressure wise. The JRH is 50,000psi and is already factory offered in the BFR.

50 KSI is a lot! I wouldn't pull the trigger without best earmuffs money could buy. That is the reason why I prefer 45 Colt over 44 Magnum; same bullet weight, same velocity, same punch, but 45 Colt will do it with less pressure.

BTW:

.500 S&W Special

Case length 1.274 in (32.4 mm)
Overall length 1.733 in (44.0 mm)

.500 S&W Special - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[CraigC]

It's nasty with full loads (440gr at 1350fps). If you're not paying attention, it will hurt you.

I see no difference between .44Mag and .45Colt with equivalent handloads.

 

[KansasTrapper77]

50 KSI is a lot! I wouldn't pull the trigger without best earmuffs money could buy. That is the reason why I prefer 45 Colt over 44 Magnum; same bullet weight, same velocity, same punch, but 45 Colt will do it with less pressure.

BTW:

.500 S&W Special

Case length 1.274 in (32.4 mm)
Overall length 1.733 in (44.0 mm)

If a SRH can run 1.38” 454 Casull is 1.4” 500 JRH too long?

 

[westernrover]

OS/N wrote they took the rim off Maximum and call it Legend now. I get it, I know it was more of a cynical remark. In a rifle, the Legend probably is better, but the advantage of the Max is it fits in cylinders that fit in a SRH. A Legend would require something like the X frame. The JRH or other non-ludicrous length big bores would be ok, but wouldn't a 50 cal be 5-chamber? That's fine for hunting, but concerning for any kind of defensive use, hence one reason more people are going for 10mm autos.

I know some people carry the Alaskan for defense, even outside bear country. I dislike short barrels. I like a longer barrel like the Toklat or even 6 or 6.5". 7.5" might be a bit much for everyday carry, but it's valuable for hunting.

 

[JohnKSa]

Id send one of my p97 dc for a 10mm version. Back in the day I really wished for one and I'm pretty sure Ruger did make a few for trials.

Ruger Sr. apparently did not like the 10mm for some reason. He was asked about making a P Series 10mm and this was his response.

"We would be able to make it (10mm P-Series Pistol) at the drop of a hat, but with as much as we have to do, I don't really feel like making it.

And as a matter of fact, I must say that I'm a little bit offended by these firearms (cartridges) that have exaggerated performance.

You know, why stop at the 10mm, why not go on and make the thing a .45. I mean it gets to be kinda to the point of bearing on the absurd, and the 10mm is just about there."

 

[Anchorite]

A Ruger Redhawk or Blackhawk in .500JRH would have me drooling.

I had Jack build mine off a Ruger BH frame. Love it.

 

[highlander 5]

Does anyone know if there's case set back as in the S&W Model 53 in 22 Remington Jet.
I believe Taurus makes a Raging Hornet as well.

 

[OS/N]

I had a super blackhawk 44 back in 83-85 with an 8 or so inch barrel. I enjoyied shooting it but couldn't hit with it very well. I killed one deer with it but shot at its vitals and hit it in the head at about 50 yards. I'd like to have it today but let it go after the head shot.

I have a 357 uberti and a 45 new vaquero today and they suit me better. Both have 5-1/2" barrels. I don't load very hot though - just enough to get to point of aim and not get shotgun patterns. Only shoot cast in those but can land them all on a pie plate at 25 yards which isn't to bad with my old eyes.

I have a scoped Mrk II Target and it shoots like a rifle but don't think a hornet handgun would get much use with the cost of ammo today - although it could be handloaded I suppose.

 

[crestoncowboy]

.223 would require a much longer cylinder, which would require a new frame, but they would probably sell 100X more. Of course .223 in a revolver would be a big headache with typical problems encountered when shooting bottlenecked cartridges in a revolver.

I'm kind of surprised they haven't come up with something that can handle 460 and 500 S&W, but I guess that market is pretty small. But if they are willing to put out something in 22 Hornet...

No doubt. I can't imagine this will be a top seller.

I'd rather see Ruger legitimize the .500JRH than build some long frame monstrosity for the absurd S&W cartridges. However, if they did, it would be the best platform for them and measurably lighter than the X-frames.

I don't think it would be any lighter in a Redhawk if the barrels were equal. Even this 22 hornet is listed at 66 oz and the 8.5 460 inch xvr with a brake is only 72.

I've enjoyed my 460. Great range for a handgun. The 500 is just foolish for me but I got one cheap well after I got my 460. When I bought read an article on the 460 talking about mpbr being 250 i knew id have one. Same for the 44 eagle vs the 50. I greatly prefer the 44 but at least it's easy to convert. The noise from the 460 is a killer though. Id bet this hornet is an ear ringer too

 

[TTv2]

I'd rather see Ruger legitimize the .500JRH than build some long frame monstrosity for the absurd S&W cartridges. However, if they did, it would be the best platform for them and measurably lighter than the X-frames.

While the .500 is always going to have the allure of being a .50 caliber, I don't see what the JRH is offering that makes it better than .480 Ruger, which has Ruger's name in it and Ruger currently produces revolvers for.

I would have some interest in it if there was a conversion cylinder for .50 GI, but that caliber has no mainstream appeal thanks to Guncrafter Industries keeping it a highly guarded secret and factory ammo will never be affordable or decently common.

 

[TTv2]

Ruger Sr. apparently did not like the 10mm for some reason. He was asked about making a P Series 10mm and this was his response.

"We would be able to make it (10mm P-Series Pistol) at the drop of a hat, but with as much as we have to do, I don't really feel like making it.

And as a matter of fact, I must say that I'm a little bit offended by these firearms (cartridges) that have exaggerated performance.

You know, why stop at the 10mm, why not go on and make the thing a .45. I mean it gets to be kinda to the point of bearing on the absurd, and the 10mm is just about there."

That's Ruger's bias against high capacity magazines coming thru, that and general .45 fanboyism.

He may have been right tho on not making it because 10mm fell out of favor for decades and by the time it started to resurge the P series had already been retired.

Speaking of which, since this is the thread for asking Ruger to make more "absurd" guns like the .22 Hornet Super Redhawk, they should bring the P series back.

 

[adcoch1]

A Ruger Redhawk or Blackhawk in .500JRH would have me drooling.

Me too. I'd buy one for sure

 

[CraigC]

While the .500 is always going to have the allure of being a .50 caliber, I don't see what the JRH is offering that makes it better than .480 Ruger, which has Ruger's name in it and Ruger currently produces revolvers for.

I would have some interest in it if there was a conversion cylinder for .50 GI, but that caliber has no mainstream appeal thanks to Guncrafter Industries keeping it a highly guarded secret and factory ammo will never be affordable or decently common.

Same thing the .480 has over the .45, it's bigger. A .500 would inject much needed enthusiasm into Ruger's >.45 line-up and the Super Redhawk specifically. I'd buy one because I want a .500 I can put an optic on.

 

[crestoncowboy]

That's Ruger's bias against high capacity magazines coming thru, that and general .45 fanboyism.

He may have been right tho on not making it because 10mm fell out of favor for decades and by the time it started to resurge the P series had already been retired.

Speaking of which, since this is the thread for asking Ruger to make more "absurd" guns like the .22 Hornet Super Redhawk, they should bring the P series back.

Had nothing to do with Bills high capacity hate since the p97 only held 8 rounds. The 10 wouldn't have been but 9 or 10 rd

 

[TTv2]

Same thing the .480 has over the .45, it's bigger. A .500 would inject much needed enthusiasm into Ruger's >.45 line-up and the Super Redhawk specifically. I'd buy one because I want a .500 I can put an optic on.

I'm of the opinion that 90% who want a .500 has already owned or currently owns one; the market would certainly be bigger for it than a .22 Hornet Redhawk.

Ruger tho hasn't really been focused much on the large frame revolvers, all their work the past 15 years has been .327, LCR, 10mm, 7 shot GP100, and Wrangler/Super Wrangler. They did the .44 Spl GP for a few years, but they've dropped a number of the Single Six calibers.

Ruger's recent track record is they're focusing on the lower end of the market and I think they are going to try to do a .38 only Ultra Wrangler before they do a .500 anything.

 

[CraigC]

That's Ruger's bias against high capacity magazines coming thru, that and general .45 fanboyism.

He may have been right tho on not making it because 10mm fell out of favor for decades and by the time it started to resurge the P series had already been retired.

Speaking of which, since this is the thread for asking Ruger to make more "absurd" guns like the .22 Hornet Super Redhawk, they should bring the P series back.

Did you just call Bill Ruger a "fanboy"??????

I'm of the opinion that 90% who want a .500 has already owned or currently owns one; the market would certainly be bigger for it than a .22 Hornet Redhawk.

So S&W and Magnum Research should just stop making them? Uh, okay. Apparently there was enough of a market for S&W to develop a whole new frame size for it. A Super Redhawk .500 would be the most useful and practical on the market. It will appeal to DA shooters who turn up their nose at single actions. It will be significantly lighter and more packable than the goofy X-frame. All Ruger has to do is

It's only been a few years since Ruger shocked people with .454 and .480 Bisleys. Nobody knows what Ruger is up to. Those who do have insight keep their lips sealed. Been there, done that.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

Did you just call Bill Ruger a "fanboy"??????



So S&W and Magnum Research should just stop making them? Uh, okay. Apparently there was enough of a market for S&W to develop a whole new frame size for it. A Super Redhawk .500 would be the most useful and practical on the market. It will appeal to DA shooters who turn up their nose at single actions. It will be significantly lighter and more packable than the goofy X-frame. All Ruger has to do is

It's only been a few years since Ruger shocked people with .454 and .480 Bisleys. Nobody knows what Ruger is up to. Those who do have insight keep their lips sealed. Been there, done that.

I've gotta gree with TT on this. The only really new ideas I see coming out of Ruger these days are how do we push more cheap plastic and pot metal.

 

[Anchorite]

I've gotta gree with TT on this. The only really new ideas I see coming out of Ruger these days are how do we push more cheap plastic and pot metal.

I still remember buying my first Glock around 1987 or so, IIRC. No one believed there was a “plastic” pistol. Who would have thought we’d come this far? And back then no one had an AR. Now it’s all about plastic and tacti-cool, it seems.

 

[TTv2]

I've gotta gree with TT on this. The only really new ideas I see coming out of Ruger these days are how do we push more cheap plastic and pot metal.

I'm not saying that the Security .380 and 9 are bad, I actually think Ruger made a good call with the .380 because it fills a niche of a cheap, very light recoil pistol for people on a fixed income, but it's quite obvious that Ruger is trying to hit a competitive price point with their new product offerings and a reason so many of them are semi autos. It's difficult for them to compete with Taurus in price, so they have to choose new designs carefully and large frame revolvers are on the back burner.

I do wonder if they'd be willing to do a smaller version of the LCR which is built around 5 shot .32 H&R Mag, 7 shots of .22 instead of 5 for .38, 8 shots for .22. IDK, you think a 9oz 7 shot .22 revolver would sell?

The Wrangler appears to be popular, so if they can do it, I wouldn't be surprised to see an Ultra Wrangler the size of a Blackhawk that shoots .38 and costs $300.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

I'm not saying that the Security .380 and 9 are bad, I actually think Ruger made a good call with the .380 because it fills a niche of a cheap, very light recoil pistol for people on a fixed income, but it's quite obvious that Ruger is trying to hit a competitive price point with their new product offerings and a reason so many of them are semi autos. It's difficult for them to compete with Taurus in price, so they have to choose new designs carefully and large frame revolvers are on the back burner.

I do wonder if they'd be willing to do a smaller version of the LCR which is built around 5 shot .32 H&R Mag, 7 shots of .22 instead of 5 for .38, 8 shots for .22. IDK, you think a 9oz 7 shot .22 revolver would sell?

The Wrangler appears to be popular, so if they can do it, I wouldn't be surprised to see an Ultra Wrangler the size of a Blackhawk that shoots .38 and costs $300.

Like a Rossi Princess?
I've often said it would do well if it were just reproduced using quality matrials. Heck, I think a modern Mossberg Brownie would sell- Id buy one in a heartbeat.

I can't believe NAA hasn't introduced a DA model yet....

 

[crestoncowboy]

It will be significantly lighter and more packable than the goofy X-frame

Again this 9.5 inch redhawk 22 is 66 oz and the xframe in 460 (8.5 with an inch brake) is only 72. I can't imagine the ruger would weigh much less than the xframe

 

[CraigC]

Again this 9.5 inch redhawk 22 is 66 oz and the xframe in 460 (8.5 with an inch brake) is only 72. I can't imagine the ruger would weigh much less than the xframe

I'm talking about a .500, not a .22Hornet. A 7.5" .480 weighs 52oz, 20oz less than an 8 3/8" X-frame. Stretching the frame and cylinder would add very little.

 

[TTv2]

Like a Rossi Princess?
I've often said it would do well if it were just reproduced using quality matrials. Heck, I think a modern Mossberg Brownie would sell- Id buy one in a heartbeat.

I can't believe NAA hasn't introduced a DA model yet....

NAA has the production quality, they just don't have the engineering team to come up with anything new. That and they have to buy machines, tool them up, and that's at least 500k for something that IDK if people would want to spend the $400 it's going to cost for a DA revolver made by NAA.

Was thinking H&R Young America, but the Princess with the frame stretched for .32 Mag, yup. Do that and could also offer a .22 Mag model that would probably be a 6 shot, so people looking for very small have their choice of 5 shots of .32, 6 .22 Mag, or 7 of .22 LR.

I don't have a name for it tho. I thought maybe the Baron, since Ruger's all about using Western themed names for revolvers now, but then I consider the types this would gun would have appealed to for people in the 60s and 70s when the Princess was around and I think the Pimp would work too. Ruger likes their acronyms these days, so PIMP stands for "Personal ImMediate Protection"; the Ruger PIMP revolver: buy one from your dealer today and watch that cylinder turn like a trick!

 

[Onty]

NAA made also their cal. 45 version of 5 bore SAA revolver:



This one comes with 3 cylinders, 45 Colt, .45 Winchester Magnum & .450 Magnum Express. Looks like well built revolver https://lsbauctions.com/8219/north-...-12-single-action-revolver-3x-cylinders-ammo/

Too bad they made 530 only.

 

[gnappi]

And I thought .480 brass was hard to find.