So if you had a vote at Ruger, what would you like to see them build next? Here are my votes...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sure but the frame on the Redhawk is massive in comparison to the N frame Smith, particularly the top of the frame.

I’m not suggesting Ruger does a bad job of investment casting, but that for the ultimate in durability assuming dimensions stay the same a forged part will typically have an advantage in material strength when properly engineered and manufactured. Sure the extra strength is largely directional, so the forging process needs to impart that extra strength in the direction that the part will see operational stress.
 
But it doesn’t. Even the oversized X-frame isn’t immune to the design weaknesses of the N-frame. The Redhawk isn’t really “massive” next to an N-frame. Sure, it’s got some more meat on its bones compared to the waif-like N-frame, but S&W fans like to exaggerate the differences in my experience. Keep in mind I have both and the Smiths never do the heavy lifting.

Keep in mind that the Redhawk didn’t have to be bigger because it’s a casting, it just follows the philosophy of Ruger, designing products that have a large safety margin built in. As Hamilton Bowen so succinctly notes, the Redhawk was the first double-action revolver to be built to handle the .44 Magnum, I like the N-frame which was adapted to the more powerful cartridge.
 
Last edited:
There is a such a broad difference in capability, the N-frame and Ruger DA .44's are almost like two different guns in two different chamberings. The N-frame is really just a slightly stronger .44Spl. Whereas the Redhawk/Super Redhawk allow one to fully explore the potential of the cartridges they chamber. That extra beef is not for nothing.

The strongest revolvers on the market, pound for pound, have cast frames. The X-frames are overly huge to overcome the inherent weakness in the sideplate design. They still shoot loose in 5000rds or less.
 
CraigC said:
The X-frames are overly huge to overcome the inherent weakness in the sideplate design.
Click to expand...

AHA! Revelatory moment! Thanks for saying that, I've been curious for a long time how folks could brag about how much stronger Ruger's design is. Now, I understand! It isn't just material, it's the design engineering! That lack of a cutout in the frame really makes a lot of sense.

Probably could have found that info somewhere else, but thanks for understanding the "why" of these things and mentioning it.

I still just want a three inch .327 LCRx.
 
Had some lengthy conversations with gunsmith Jack Huntington whilst he was rebuilding a 629 into a five-shot .475 (900-1000fps only). He's rebuilt dozens of N-frame .44Mag's and not only did he confirm what we've always heard about them but added a few more nuggets. Like the fact that S&W leaves their "forged" frames a little soft so they can be slapped back into shape with a lead babbitt.

It seems to be easy for folks, especially die-hard S&W fans, to fall into the forged is better than cast trap but that's a low information argument, often based on either S&W's marketing campaigns of the 1980's or whatever they've heard about wheels or pistons. In truth, it only takes a tiny a mount of extra material to make up the difference and a tiny bit more to exceed it. Plus the parts must be designed with investment casting in mind. So some areas might be thicker than is structurally necessary just so they can get the material into every nook & cranny but some folks take that to mean the material is inherently weak and requires a lot of extra beef. The design aspect is critical and often ignored, because it doesn't fit the "forged is better than cast" narrative. The S&W design dates back to the 19th century, when pressures were 10,000psi or under. They were merely adapted to high pressure cartridges at a time when the concept was brand new and nobody planned on shooting them much. When silhouette shooting exploded in the 1970's, the shortcomings of S&W's designs became painfully obvious. Even Elmer Keith didn't shoot more than 600rds a year of heavy loads. Now guys were doing that weekly. N-frames begun shooting loose because they were just not designed for that volume of heavy loads. Silhouette shooting is what allowed Dan Wesson to get a foothold in the market and it was the major reason for the development of the .357, .375, .414 and .445 SuperMags. Note that they have cast frames and don't have a sideplate either. When Bill Ruger set out to design his large frame .44 Redhawk, he was able to eliminate those weaknesses that had become a problem for S&W. The lockwork is more robust, the frame is larger and stronger, the barrel shank is larger, the cylinder is larger and stronger, he offset the bolt notches in the cylinder, there is no sideplate, there are no leaf springs. The result is a sixgun that is not only plenty strong for the .44Mag at standard pressures but also safe to 50,000psi, even when chambered in .45Colt. People also think the Super Redhawk is larger and beefier but it really isn't. The outer dimensions are the same except for the frame extension. All it took for Ruger to adapt them to even higher pressure cartridges like the .454Casull but still maintain six-shot capacity, was to change the alloy used in the cylinder and barrel. That says a lot for the design and construction. S&W had to build their X-frame even beefier than that and reduce capacity to five to accommodate the .460 and .500.

So there's really nothing to be gained in building a forged frame Redhawk or Super Redhawk.
 
CraigC said:
Then what you really want is for Freedom Arms to do a double action. ;)
Click to expand...
Or, Dan Wesson to do a hand fitted action.
For what it's worth, Craig, as much as I love S&Ws, I have NEVER wished any of my Ruger revolvers were S&Ws. The reasons why not are the reasons you listed.
I love my Redhawk, Blackhawks, GP100, Speed Six, Single Six .32 H&R, and Single Six .22 LR.
My 586 does have a nicer action than my GP100.
That said, it's a LOT older and has smoothed up a lot in use.
If I want N frame sized .44 mag, I have my 1994 Taurus 44 with it's factory hand fitted action. Smoother action than any stock N frame I've shot.
If I want to unleash the fury, I have my 7.5" Redhawk .44 Mag and my large frame Blackhawk .45 convertible.
As much as I prefer a forged frame, it is largely for sentimental and nostalgic reasons.
Rugers are hell for stout. If I want to shoot a lot of hot .357s, I have my GP100 and DW 14-2.
In short: I agree completely.
If Ruger's investment cast frames were not at least as strong as a forged frame, then the M77 never would have made it past the prototype stage..
I luvz my Rugers. Of course, I luvz my Smiths and all the other brands.
Do my Smiths have better actions out of the box, than my Rugers and Tauri?
Some of them do. Some of them have a long way to go to catch up.
Let's not forget, investment casting is not some relatively new process that Bill Ruger pulled out of his butt. The Roman empire utilized investment casting. Bill Ruger had the foresight to recognize the value of investment casting in the gun making business.

I wish I still had my first Speed Six .357. It was blue with a 4" barrel. A PO had an action job done on it and it was glorious.
I shot thousands of rounds of full power .357 mag ammo through it.
By the time I sold it, it was still as tight as when I bought it. To this day, I miss that one.
 
Last edited:
MaxP said:
But it doesn’t. Even the oversized X-frame isn’t immune to the design weaknesses of the N-frame. The Redhawk isn’t really “massive” next to an N-frame. Sure, it’s got some more meat on its bones compared to the waif-like N-frame, but S&W fans like to exaggerate the differences in my experience. Keep in mind I have both and the Smiths never do the heavy lifting.

Keep in mind that the Redhawk didn’t have to be bigger because it’s a casting, it just follows the philosophy of Ruger, designing products that have a large safety margin built in. As Hamilton Bowen so succinctly notes, the Redhawk was the first double-action revolver to be built to handle the .44 Magnum, I like the N-frame which was adapted to the more powerful cartridge.
Click to expand...

Maybe you’re assuming that I want a side plate design like a S&W? Not the case at all.

Maybe you think I’m making a material call out or hear treatment call out for a forged frame like S&W would do? Again not the case at all, think less S&W grade alloys and heat treatment, and more Manurhin MR73 or Korth alloys and heat treatment.

Also not sure where you made the assumption that I was looking for a frame with the same relatively svelte dimensions as a S&W N frame. I’m not at all. I want Ruger to build a Redhawk sized frame with a GP/SR style grip frame, and machine it out of a tool steel forging similar in quality to a classic Manurhin MR73, and then heat treat it properly. Not a comparatively weak S&W.

I guess I could have made that more clear. Not sure why you’re so worked up over this anyway? My idea is without any merit from a marketing or feasibility standpoint. The number of people who would buy this revolver I’ve envisioned is one person. Not exactly a compelling reason for Ruger to change their normal design and manufacturing practices.
 
Coal Dragger said:
Maybe you’re assuming that I want a side plate design like a S&W? Not the case at all.

Maybe you think I’m making a material call out or hear treatment call out for a forged frame like S&W would do? Again not the case at all, think less S&W grade alloys and heat treatment, and more Manurhin MR73 or Korth alloys and heat treatment.

Also not sure where you made the assumption that I was looking for a frame with the same relatively svelte dimensions as a S&W N frame. I’m not at all. I want Ruger to build a Redhawk sized frame with a GP/SR style grip frame, and machine it out of a tool steel forging similar in quality to a classic Manurhin MR73, and then heat treat it properly. Not a comparatively weak S&W.

I guess I could have made that more clear. Not sure why you’re so worked up over this anyway? My idea is without any merit from a marketing or feasibility standpoint. The number of people who would buy this revolver I’ve envisioned is one person. Not exactly a compelling reason for Ruger to change their normal design and manufacturing practices.
Click to expand...


You're making a lot of assumptions about my assumptions. I am not worked up in the least. This is merely a discussion on a forum and we're all slinging opinions. Also, when anyone brings up Korth revolvers, I immediately think of the costs associated with them. Ruger isn't really in the business of building high-end. They can however be customized to a high-end level...
 
Yeah I think got you. We may have been talking past one another a bit here.

I readily admit that such a build by Ruger would be way outside of their normal market and that actual demand would be so low it would never happen.

Just wishful thinking of what a major manufacturer with actual engineers and metallurgists could do if those guys and the revolver enthusiasts within the company were told to build the best DA revolver possible, and it would cost whatever it cost.
 
I'm nuts about blue steel & wood! ;)
How about a blue 3' GP100 in .41 Mag?
I have a S&W 58, a GP companion would be nice.

Seems like I have at least 2 of all the other calibers in my collection
 
Last edited:
Coal Dragger said:
Yeah I think got you. We may have been talking past one another a bit here.

I readily admit that such a build by Ruger would be way outside of their normal market and that actual demand would be so low it would never happen.

Just wishful thinking of what a major manufacturer with actual engineers and metallurgists could do if those guys and the revolver enthusiasts within the company were told to build the best DA revolver possible, and it would cost whatever it cost.
Click to expand...
If it was as strong as a Ruger (or stronger) and looked as good as a Triple Lock Target or Colt Shooting Master and finished like a domestic USFA, I'd be in for one. :D
 
CraigC said:
If it was as strong as a Ruger (or stronger) and looked as good as a Triple Lock Target or Colt Shooting Master and finished like a domestic USFA, I'd be in for one. :D
Click to expand...

Wish in one hand, %#@& in the other, see which one fills up first.... :D:D
 
I wasn't going to respond to this thread but since a number of others have done some "wishful thinking" I decided to go ahead with my impossible dream. I'd like to see Ruger bring back the 3 screw single action. Colt offers a Series 70 1911 without the firing pin block of Series 80. Why couldn't Ruger do the same thing with 3-screw Blackhawks and Vaqueros?

Nah, ain't gonna happen. (smile)

Dave
 
MaxP said:
Wish in one hand, %#@& in the other, see which one fills up first.... :D:D
Click to expand...

As the father of a toddler son, and owner of an adult female GSD, and a 4 month old Rottweiler puppy I already know the answer to that quandary.

Hint: You’re going to need a pair of gloves, or a lot of anti-bacterial soap. Probably both.
 
Coal Dragger said:
As the father of a toddler son, and owner of an adult female GSD, and a 4 month old Rottweiler puppy I already know the answer to that quandary.

Hint: You’re going to need a pair of gloves, or a lot of anti-bacterial soap. Probably both.
Click to expand...

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Thanks for the levity!
 
I would like to see the larger vaquero come back in .45 Colt capable of handling +p pressure.

Also, they should make a lever gun for the cowboy action crowd chambered in .45, .357, and .44

And then also have a lever action in the same old west style but chambered in .45/70 for us adventurous folks.
 
What I would love to see from Ruger:

Revolvers:
- Just a regular GP100 in 10mm. Not a match champion or a 5 inch half lug barrel, just a regular gun in that chambering.

- if they can fit 7-8 rounds of 357 in a gp100, then I bet they could fit 6 rounds of 38 special in the sp101.

- or I’ll take six rounds of 44 special in a GP100

Rifles:

- mini 30 or 14 that is set up for en bloc clips like a mini garand.

- pc carbine in 10mm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
Here's a partial list of the S&W Revolver Models
Replies
12
Views
2K
Moonclip
M
O
GP100 Outdoorsman, 357 Magnum, 6" barrel, would you like to see it manufactured?
2
Replies
29
Views
941
P89DCSS
P89DCSS
O
  • Locked
Ruger GP-100 & Blackhawk now in .327 Magnum
2 3
Replies
51
Views
5K
sthomper
S
G
  • Locked
A partial list of S&W Model Changes was requested.
Replies
1
Views
758
HammerBite
H
G
  • Locked
New Revolver Designs Wanted
Replies
7
Views
939
Gun Master
G
Back
Top