Ruger 7 or 8 shot .357 mag???

[gunnutery]

I was going to post this on the "I wonder why Ruger doesn't make..." thread but realized it was specific to .22's.

Why doesn't Ruger make a 7 or 8 shot .357 magnum revolver. Maybe use the Redhawk frame or bigger? I don't know if the dimentions of the Redhawk would allow it, but I'm sure they could figure it out. Anyone else in the market for something like this but don't want to fork the money over to S&W? For the Ruger execs reading this; This is my vote for a new product.

 

[Stainz]

Ruger made a .357 Magnum Redhawk... it was a sixshooter! It is a tad rare these days, too.

Stainz

 

[CraigC]

Couple of observations. Even though I do own and love a USFA 12-shot .22 revolver, most shooters (myself included), don't understand the undying need for higher capacity revolvers. In addition, any more than six flutes on a cylinder looks goofy.

There is probably enough room in the GP for 7-shots, they may offer it as they do a 7-sot .327Federal GP.

The Redhawk is WAAAAAY too much beef for the .357. As such, .357 Redhawks did not sell well and were not catalogued for long.

 

[gunnutery]

I agree that the Redhawk is way overbuilt for .357, but without knowing the dimentions, I naturally figured it would have a bulkier cylinder for the extra chambers. Perhaps the reason it didn't sell well is because they didn't offer it with a higher capacity.

 

[RugRev]

The Redhawk must have about the largest diameter cylinder around. It is larger than the N frames so would be able to take 8 rounds. The gun is heavy to begin with (a 4" .44mag weighs about 46 oz per Ruger) and the small holes for .357 would only make it heavier. It would
need significant modification to cut the weight down I would think in such areas as the barrel and frame.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Perhaps the reason it didn't sell well is because they didn't offer it with a higher capacity.

Same reason N-frame .357's aren't exceedingly popular. With the K & L frames, or the -Six and GP series, the N-frame and RH with the standard 6 shots are unnecessarily large.

Furthermore, the huge mass of a RH or N-frame cylinder with such small holes is very hard on cylinder stops during rapid fire.

A 7-shot GP-100 should be doable. They are basically the same size as an L-frame.

 

[9mmepiphany]

if you want more shots, take a look at the Blackhawk in .327 Mag...it is a 8 shooter

 

[MrAcheson]

There's also the issue of the stop notches on the cylinder.

On S&W 6 and 8 shot revolvers, the notches are cut into the thinnest metal on the gun's cylinder, right above each chamber. When you go to 7 shot revolvers, the stop cuts move so that they are now between the chambers on the cylinder. The cylinder actually gets stronger because of this. Enough to offset a closer chamber spacing.

Ruger realized this was a weak point in 6 shooter design. All Ruger revolvers offset the bolt cutouts so they aren't dead center on every cylinder. They're slightly off to the side. This makes for a stronger 6 shooter. Doesn't really make for a stronger 7 shooter though as you've moved the stop cuts in the wrong direction for the odd capacity models.

Furthermore, the huge mass of a RH or N-frame cylinder with such small holes is very hard on cylinder stops during rapid fire.

I just did the math. The difference in weight between an unfluted 8 shot .357 cylinder and a 6 shot .44 cylinder is almost negligible. It's like 1% of total cylinder weight. Going from 6 shot .44 to 6 shot .357, you have a point. The N frame .357s had a reputation for going out of time because of this. But not if you increase the cylinder capacity while decreasing the caliber. Now maybe once you add the bigger .44 cylinder flutes, you'll get somewhere, but I kind of doubt it.

 

[Stainz]

When I still had my Ruger .45 RH and BHG Vaquero, I measured them - and my .45 Colt 625MG. The RH's cylinder was 1.748" vs the MG's 1.674" OAL. As to cylinder OD, the RH was 1.782" vs the MG's 1.710". The HKS #25-5 6 x .45 Colt Speedloader fits the 25/625 .45 Colt as well as the .45 Colt RH & .454/.45 SRH, thus their chamber bores must be centered on the same diameter in both revolver's cylinders. The same goes for the HKS #29 6 x .44 Magnum speedloader fitting the S&W 29/629 series as well as the RH/SRH .44 Magnums. In addition, the Rugers use cast parts, not the hammer forged & heat treated parts of the S&W, and it simply takes more cast steel to take the same pressure as the hammer-forged/heat treated S&W parts. The largest benefit the .44 RH gains over the 29/629 is cylinder OAL - the Ruger permits longer bullets to be loaded. I don't think an 8-shot RH would work in .357 Magnum due to the weaker metal.

Stainz

 

[MachIVshooter]

I just did the math. The difference in weight between an unfluted 8 shot .357 cylinder and a 6 shot .44 cylinder is almost negligible. It's like 1% of total cylinder weight. Going from 6 shot .44 to 6 shot .357, you have a point.

That's what I was talking about. There is a lot of mass in an M27 cylinder, even more in a .357 RH cylinder.

The 8-shot 327/627, OTOH, is more feasible. But for 6 rounds, I prefer the smaller dimensions of an L-frame.