Ruger 57-First Impressions

[barnetmill]

A Ruger 10/22 in 5.7 would be pretty nifty.

BSW

Is it mechanically possible to make a 10/22 like gun in 5.7 without giving it a massive breech block.
Ruger no longer makes it in .22 magnum. The center fire case of the 5.7 would work better in a blow back, but there is still a need likely for a heavier bolt and a delayed blow back action. Big question is if sales would justify the cost of the design changes and tooling up to make such a rifle.
A retarded or delay blow back might have worked. Problem is a 22 mag rimfire case head is much weaker than a 5.7 solid head center fire case. The 22 mag is already pushing the design envelop and adding blow back to the equation is really pushing things.
10/22 magnum- Internet rumors are like the following from rimfire central https://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=443662

The official answer from Ruger was lackluster sales. It was manufactured for 9 years and only about 50,000 units sold. Compare this to over 5,000,000 sold of the 22 LR version.

Then there is the other assumed answer that the 22WMR was discontinued due to extraction issues and breaking bolts. We'll never know for certain most likely.

Bolt Mass
I have no experience with the 10/22M, but I believe there was an inherent design problem. For blow back actions, the mass of the bolt is what gets the job done and I don't think Ruger could get enough weight in there. Calculations show the bolt mass needs to be close to one pound for the .22 magnum cartridge.
Some designers make the error of thinking heavier spring pressure through heavier or numerous springs will compensate, but that doesn't work.
Regards, Ray

 

[Zaydok Allen]

If I save $20 or $30 for an hour at the loading bench, I'm actually losing money.

Yeah, that's how it was for me up until recently. Now funding has dropped and overtime is gone. So I consider the savings a must.

I don't miss the hours, but I sure miss the extra funds. Fortunately I enjoy loading as well.

Thanks for sharing your impressions. It's an interesting round and the Ruger offering looks to me to be a much better platform than FN's.

 

[briansmithwins]

The P90/PS90 is setup with a simple blowback action. I haven’t weighed the bolt but it isn’t absurdly heavy. Heavier than you’d want for a pistol to be sure, which explains why FN and Ruger chose a delayed blowback.

I am curious as to why Ruger went with delayed blowback on the 57 instead of the ubiquitous Browning short recoil system.

BSW

 

[barnetmill]

The P90/PS90 is setup with a simple blowback action. I haven’t weighed the bolt but it isn’t absurdly heavy. Heavier than you’d want for a pistol to be sure, which explains why FN and Ruger chose a delayed blowback.

I am curious as to why Ruger went with delayed blowback on the 57 instead of the ubiquitous Browning short recoil system.

BSW

The barrel on the ruger if i got it right while not locked does recoil back a short distance with the fired empty cartridge providing the temporary lock up. The barrel does not tilt, but just goes back a tiny distance.
I have never compared the breech block of the P90 to that of a ruger 10/22.

 

[briansmithwins]

The FN disassembled looks very similar to the 57, except the recoil spring is wrapped around the barrel instead of being separate. The slide front rail on the FN is in the dust cover as well.



BSW

 

[barnetmill]

The FN disassembled looks very similar to the 57, except the recoil spring is wrapped around the barrel instead of being separate. The slide front rail on the FN is in the dust cover as well.

View attachment 915915

BSW

Does the barrel also recoil slightly.

 

[barnetmill]

Does the barrel also recoil slightly.

Yes I see it does also recoil back a short distance.

 

[briansmithwins]

Does the barrel also recoil slightly.

Yep, it comes straight back. The lever transfers energy from the barrel to the slide at a mechanical disadvantage to keep from opening too soon and blowing the cartridge case.

BSW

 

[zaitcev]

I am curious as to why Ruger went with delayed blowback on the 57 instead of the ubiquitous Browning short recoil system.

Everyone calls it a delayed blowback, but to me it clearly is a fairly mundane locked breech system, just like Beretta 92 or Achron/Stryk. The only difference I'm seeing is that once the lever no longer serves as a locking block, it continues as an accelerator. Perhaps there's not enough energy in the recoil of 5.7 to begin with. Therefore, the kinetic energy saved in the motion of the barrel is transferred to the slide once they disconnect. In a traditional pistol action, that energy is dumped into the deformation and/or recoil motion of the frame once the barrel hits its stop. This is a post-factum explanation, but it seem plausible to me. without doing any calculations.

It is not without precedent for the very designer of the gun mixing the terms up.

One of the most celebrated and controversial cases is Benelli B76. It clearly operates on a delayed blowback principle. It even has 2 parts (bolt and slide), like any proper delayed blowback system. However, the text of the patents uses the word "inertia" to describe the mechanism, in the direct contradiction to what is being described. Because of that, a number of proper experts describe B76 as "inertia operated". What's not helping here, Benelli was the foremost developer of true inertia operated guns, and one of their designers literally defined the modern inertia gun that works (unlike Mauser Selbstlader). You would think they know better than anyone, which gun is inertia operated and which is not, and yet!

A more recent example is LWRC SMG-45, which LWRC describe as "short recoil delayed blowback", a straight-up oxymoron. My theory is, they came to call it that because the customer spec called for delayed blowback. Someone wanted a .45 caliber MP5, so they wrote "delayed blowback" into the spec in order to prevent vendors of straight blowback guns from entering. Ergo, all of LWRC's documents spell it like that, even though it's a short recoil operated design.

 

[briansmithwins]

In the FN pistol the barrel and slide aren’t locked together, their relative motion is controlled by the cam lever. The slide starts moving back immediately upon firing, which I’ve always taken as being definitive of a blowback action. The fast opening of the slide relative to the barrel results in the telltale blown forward shoulder (the bane of reloaders) on the fired cartridge cases.

The Beretta 92 is very much a locked breech pistol as the locking block absolutely prevents relative barrel and slide motion until the locking block is moved out of the way by the unlocking stud.

BSW

 

[Coyote3855]

I own a bunch of ugly Kel Tecs, but the Ruger 57 hurts my eyes. I'd buy one at 5 Benjamins, used or new. LGS is asking over a grand for a used FN 57.

 

[whm1974]

I own a bunch of ugly Kel Tecs, but the Ruger 57 hurts my eyes. I'd buy one at 5 Benjamins, used or new. LGS is asking over a grand for a used FN 57.

I thought handguns are supposed to look ugly...

 

[MachIVshooter]

Finally took the time to make the protoype can today. Wasn't sure how well it would work out, but it proved reliable with a firm grip, and the volume is just a little louder than a suppressed .22 pistol. Decibel-wise, I think it's probably similar to 9mm subsonic suppressed, but higher pitched. I'm hoping to meter it soon. Anyway, still in natural finish, the can is 100% 17-4 H900 stainless, measures 1.25 x 6.5", weighs 8.7 ounces (including booster assembly):





The tubeless baffle stack is basically a scaled down version of what I would typically do for a centerfire rifle, except I used more uniform baffle spacing on this critter. Before welding:



The booster assembly is a little different, moreso the piston, since it has to extend into the slide. I chose to do it this way rather than make an adapter to more conventional threads to help minimize weight. The piston is quite dinky, the body of it only .500" diameter.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

Finally took the time to make the protoype can today. Wasn't sure how well it would work out, but it proved reliable with a firm grip, and the volume is just a little louder than a suppressed .22 pistol. Decibel-wise, I think it's probably similar to 9mm subsonic suppressed, but higher pitched. I'm hoping to meter it soon. Anyway, still in natural finish, the can is 100% 17-4 H900 stainless, measures 1.25 x 6.5", weighs 8.7 ounces (including booster assembly):

View attachment 923531

View attachment 923530

The tubeless baffle stack is basically a scaled down version of what I would typically do for a centerfire rifle, except I used more uniform baffle spacing on this critter. Before welding:

View attachment 923528

The booster assembly is a little different, moreso the piston, since it has to extend into the slide. I chose to do it this way rather than make an adapter to more conventional threads to help minimize weight. The piston is quite dinky, the body of it only .500" diameter.

View attachment 923529

That is mechanical art! I wouldnt even shoot it, just stare at it under glass.....

 

[FL-NC]

I want one to go with my P90. I'll wait until the novelty wears off and they start hitting the used market.