CraigC
Sixgun Nut
BFR's are better, better fitted and stronger than Rugers but not on a level with FA. FA's "cost a heck of a lot more" because they're a heck of a lot better. Last I checked, BFR's were not offered in .357 so it's moot anyway.
What is the strongest framed 357 magnum
- Thread starter sonier
- Start date
- Status
Fishman777
Member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2007
- Messages
- 520
Redhawk...
My vote is for the .357 Ruger Redhawk. I think that it is the most overbuilt .357 magnum ever produced.
My vote is for the .357 Ruger Redhawk. I think that it is the most overbuilt .357 magnum ever produced.
wad
Member
One additional problem with pushing .357 to such high pressures is top strap cutting 
mjb
Member.
The Colt King Cobra is the strongest .357 double action, the Ruger Blackhawk the strongest single action revolver.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Wrong on both counts.
MCgunner
Member
Not even close.
I'm quite happy with my Blackhawk, but the Freedom Arms is out of my reach budget wise. And, I'll take a redhawk or even a M27/28 N frame over any Colt in DA for strength. The Smith is debatable, the Ruger isn't.Even the New Service?
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
As an aside, I'd love to see Colt reintroduce the New Service just as it was back then. Only in modern steels with proper heat treating in both classic and "modern" chamberings like the .44Mag. It would be on par with the Redhawk for strength.
Yeah, flame cutting is just a non-issue. It is self-limiting as once it hits a certain level, it stops as the flame front cant reach any further. It might be a tad unsightly, but it's just not a serious concern.
Honestly, I have thought about this issue of a strong .357 and I was out riding on the 4th and my mind suddenly said, "Titanium." Then my horse noted I was not paying attention and reigning him in so he took the opportunity to leap up to a gallup and rapidly re-acquire my attention. So were I want the toughest .357 cylinder I could find, I'd get the S&W 520, the forged-steel framed variant with the titanium cylinder (meaning the L frame variant, not the earlier all-steel N-frame NYSP model, both were named "520").
One of them went for about $450 on GB over the holiday while I was away; I was an idiot for not bidding on it aforehand; I've wanted one of those for years for some testing and play. I don't love the looks or the ECM two-piece barrel, but that titanum cylinder is a marvel of engineering and machining. I'm confident a titanium L-frame is stronger than any Ruger and likely at least a competitive match against any out-sized cast or forged steel SA specialty gun that you need a third arm to stabilize and an atv to help lug around.
Harmonic:
I'd like to agree with your quote, and much of it indeed solidly factual, but that it's only partially correct and not attributed makes me want to see the whole argument. It has an assertion embedded in it that violates some basic physical laws (that a lighter weight bullet with shorter bearing surfaces lets the powder work longer against the top strap - that's just so obviously wrong). The fact it has one serious error in it makes it subject to further scrutiny rather than accepting it as-is.
While the fact is that the lighter bullets used larger charges of powders like 2400, they did not result in higher peak pressures - the bullets reacted according to what physics dictated and moved out more quickly; there's no linear correlation of pressure when using 16gr. of 2400 and a 158gr. bullet and using 19gr. of 2400 with a 125 gr. bullet. In fact from careful observers of the time it was noted that the extreme flame cutting and fc cracking came only from a very specific commercial bullet loading that was widely suspected not be standard pressure.
In full disclosure, I think I know the source of that quote and the author, while prolific, is not the most knowledgeable about ballistics or physics.
Honestly, I have thought about this issue of a strong .357 and I was out riding on the 4th and my mind suddenly said, "Titanium." Then my horse noted I was not paying attention and reigning him in so he took the opportunity to leap up to a gallup and rapidly re-acquire my attention. So were I want the toughest .357 cylinder I could find, I'd get the S&W 520, the forged-steel framed variant with the titanium cylinder (meaning the L frame variant, not the earlier all-steel N-frame NYSP model, both were named "520").
One of them went for about $450 on GB over the holiday while I was away; I was an idiot for not bidding on it aforehand; I've wanted one of those for years for some testing and play. I don't love the looks or the ECM two-piece barrel, but that titanum cylinder is a marvel of engineering and machining. I'm confident a titanium L-frame is stronger than any Ruger and likely at least a competitive match against any out-sized cast or forged steel SA specialty gun that you need a third arm to stabilize and an atv to help lug around.
Harmonic:
I'd like to agree with your quote, and much of it indeed solidly factual, but that it's only partially correct and not attributed makes me want to see the whole argument. It has an assertion embedded in it that violates some basic physical laws (that a lighter weight bullet with shorter bearing surfaces lets the powder work longer against the top strap - that's just so obviously wrong). The fact it has one serious error in it makes it subject to further scrutiny rather than accepting it as-is.
While the fact is that the lighter bullets used larger charges of powders like 2400, they did not result in higher peak pressures - the bullets reacted according to what physics dictated and moved out more quickly; there's no linear correlation of pressure when using 16gr. of 2400 and a 158gr. bullet and using 19gr. of 2400 with a 125 gr. bullet. In fact from careful observers of the time it was noted that the extreme flame cutting and fc cracking came only from a very specific commercial bullet loading that was widely suspected not be standard pressure.
In full disclosure, I think I know the source of that quote and the author, while prolific, is not the most knowledgeable about ballistics or physics.
Last edited:
mjb
Member.
I thought the Ruger Redhawk was in .41 and .44, not .357
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Yes, one more time, the Redhawk 'was' produced in .357Mag. They are now mostly relegated to collector status and priced accordingly. They're so big and heavy, I really don't know why anybody would want one but different strokes for different folks I reckon.
Don't forget the .45Colt as well.
Don't forget the .45Colt as well.
content
Member
Hello friends and neighbors // I'd say N-Frame S&W ....in .357 My Model 28 highway Patrol would be hard to beat.
As a big plus the cylinder makes the frame look like a whimp.
I believe S&W could safely use this same size cylinder bored out for the .41/.44 rounds.
As a big plus the cylinder makes the frame look like a whimp.
I believe S&W could safely use this same size cylinder bored out for the .41/.44 rounds.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Uh, they do and have been for over 100yrs, long before the advent of the .357Mag.
content
Member
Thought so but was not sure so did not post it ... thanks
Last edited:
- Status
