Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Ruger Super Redhawk 4" frame extended mock-up

  1. #1
    Member RainGull's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    The S.E. of the N.W.
    Posts
    950

    Default Ruger Super Redhawk 4" frame extended mock-up

    I know I am not alone in wishing that Ruger would produce the Super Redhawk in this configuration:


    (Pardon the poor, Paintbrush 5 minute mock-up)
    Science has a rich history of proving itself wrong.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Between two lakes in Alaska
    Posts
    952

    Default Nice Concept

    I sure like the idea. .480 with 4". I might like a 6" even better!

  3. #3

    Default

    Stretch that cylinder and it would probably take a bite out of the S&W market. I was shooting a friends X-frame yesterday. I'm surprised they kept with the boxed frame. A stretched 5-shot SRH would be interesting.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    505

    Default That's what I said.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beer:30 View Post
    Stretch that cylinder and it would probably take a bite out of the S&W market. I was shooting a friends X-frame yesterday. I'm surprised they kept with the boxed frame. A stretched 5-shot SRH would be interesting.
    I suggested on a RugerForum a week or two ago that Ruger should produce an extended frame Super Redhawk that would accept a 500 Smith & Wesson (and a little longer) so that Ruger could one-up Smith's offering with a .500 Ruger.

    I like the .500 S&W cartridge. I have been shooting one almost every week (I have a friend who has a brand new one and I am teaching him to reload). Softer shooting than my .454 Casull SRH, but I prefer Ruger's construction and lockwork to the Smith's.

    Name the cartridge "Bill's 500".

    I know I would buy one.

    Lost Sheep (Larry)

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    idaho
    Posts
    591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RainGull View Post
    I know I am not alone in wishing that Ruger would produce the Super Redhawk in this configuration:
    Nice mockup, I'd love to have one just like it. For now I'll have to live with a cut down SRH.

  6. #6
    Member aa7jc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sierra Vista, AZ
    Posts
    14

    Default Nice gun

    Very nice!

    I tried to email Ruger about it but they seem to have no email addr. I will fax them instead. If you want this gun, Tell Ruger!

    Don't be surprised if they offer at least a four inch (Super?) Alaskan SRH in a year or so!

    Ken

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default 4" Ruger

    I just wish Ruger would make a forged frame for their revolvers and get rid of some of the bulk and weight that is apparently required for the investment cast frames they use.

    I guess it is just against their culture to use the stronger forgings; they pretty much based their sucess on using investment castings and selling cheaper stronger - although somewhat clunky and bulky - guns.

    Forged machined guns are more appealling to me but I am of the old school that appreciates such things.
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  8. #8
    Member RainGull's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    The S.E. of the N.W.
    Posts
    950

    Default

    they pretty much based their sucess on using investment castings and selling cheaper stronger - although somewhat clunky and bulky - guns.
    clunky? bulky? compared to what? Show me the 454 Casull (or 460/500 S&W) that is less clunky/bulky.
    Science has a rich history of proving itself wrong.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default Buky clunky cast frames vs. forged frames

    Clunky and buky as compared to the way as to the way the frame or any other part could be made as a machined forging.

    For a good example of excess metal and bulk on the Redhawk / Super Redhawk compare the right side of the frame behind the recoil shield or plate ( the location where a single action is cut for the loading gate) to the S&W design. S&W machines most of this metal away where Ruger leaves a big "blob" of metal they can leave as pretty much as cast.

    Machined forging are just stronger on a weight and bulk basis than castings - no getting around that fact. Ruger could make a lighter less bulky gun if they forged and machined their parts like S&W and other manufacturers.

    Note that I am not arguing that S&W is a better gun - just that the manufacturing process that S&W and other manufacturers use can produce guns that are stronger on a weight and volume (bulk) basis. Ruger could produce a lighter less bulky gun IF they used forged machined frames and other parts.

    Incidently Ruger does (or did) use extrusions for some critical parts like the hammers on the single action guns. Extruding the metal gives it greater strength similar to forging by aligning the grain of the metal.





    Quote Originally Posted by RainGull View Post
    clunky? bulky? compared to what? Show me the 454 Casull (or 460/500 S&W) that is less clunky/bulky.
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    I just wish Ruger would make a forged frame for their revolvers and get rid of some of the bulk and weight that is apparently required for the investment cast frames they use.

    I guess it is just against their culture to use the stronger forgings; they pretty much based their sucess on using investment castings and selling cheaper stronger - although somewhat clunky and bulky - guns.

    Forged machined guns are more appealling to me but I am of the old school that appreciates such things.
    One consideration is that the casting vs forging thing is no longer as relevant as it once was. I work in an industry that involves a ton of metal work, and current casting technology is such that the distinction between it and forging has been blurred. Ruger's SRH in 9" is 14 oz. lighter than the X frame in 8".
    Hunting, camping & shooting goodies. http://www.laksupply.com

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default Casting vs. forging frames

    Casting has came a long way but for critical parts were strength and weight are most critical forged parts are still being used. Aircraft landing gear, race car suspension parts, high performance engine parts - crankshafts, connectiong rods, etc. were still using forgings last time I checked.

    Even Ruger doesn't use castings for their cylinders but instead uses bar stock that is basically forged to round shape and then machines it as needed. An investment cast cylinder - it it were sufficently strong- would save Ruger a lot of money in production. Barrels are a similar component that are basically forged and machined rather than cast.

    A large portion of the weight in a X-frame is the massive cylinder required for the cartridges and the steel in the longer length of the frame - pick one up and the loook at the cylinder and where the weight is located. I'm betting a SBH in .500 S&W is going to be even heavier and bulkier. If it is produced in .500 S&W a SBH could be lighter and less bulky with a forged and machine frame.

    Again note that I'm not trying to comparing Rugers to S&W or anyone else - just pointing out that Ruger could make a lighter and less bulky gun IF they used forged and machined frames rather than cast frames.


    Quote Originally Posted by LAK Supply View Post
    One consideration is that the casting vs forging thing is no longer as relevant as it once was. I work in an industry that involves a ton of metal work, and current casting technology is such that the distinction between it and forging has been blurred. Ruger's SRH in 9" is 14 oz. lighter than the X frame in 8".
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default .500 S&W cylinder

    To follow up on my curosity I pulled the cylinder out of .500 S&W and weighted it.

    The weight of the cylinder with the ejector rod and yoke- they don't seperate on the this gun - is 1 lb, 3.7 oz. - almost 20 oz!

    The .460 Cylinder is even heavier at 1 lb. 5.6 oz- nearly 22 oz.

    By comparison the cylinder and yoke on my 629 .44 Mag is only 11.4 oz. or half the weight of the .460 cylinder.

    A SBH in .460 or .500 is going to be a big heavy gun when you add in a cast frame.
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Livingston, TX
    Posts
    11

    Default

    I don't know why Ruger is apposed to listening to its customers. I think a lot of folks love the SRH and hate the looks. I would jump on this band wagon in a heart beat, been telling my wife for 2yrs that I wish Ruger would tool up and complete pistol such as your design. I bought the Alaskan in 480 but really wanted a 4in. hate the way a 4in looks when the barrel of a 7.5 is lopped of to 4in. just my two cents. IMO your are right on, nicely done.

  14. #14
    Member RainGull's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    The S.E. of the N.W.
    Posts
    950

    Default

    I actually really dislike the thin S&W frame metal around the hammer lock work. I really like the "blob" on the Ruger. There isn't an extra ounce on the Ruger that I would shave and as my first post on the thread indicates I would add a bit to it, and by the responses here and elsewhere I am very much not alone in that opinion.

    Heck I would have gladly added a few ounces to my old S&W m.60 357 chiefs special. But I guess I should have looked at the Rugers?

    The Rugers "flaw" is their salvation! They have a reputation for strength.

    One of the biggest reasons I dislike the X-frames is that to me they look ridiculously bulky deserving of a butt stock and forearm even on the shorter models.

    I have never heard of anyone expressing a concern about the bulk of a Super Redhawk. My Alaskan fits easily in my jeans pocket and would easily carry that way but for the lack of integrity of the pocket lining.

    Is there anyone here that would want to shave weight off their Ruger Alaskan? Anyone concerned about it's strength? It just strikes me as a total non-issue.

    A SBH in .460 or .500 is going to be a big heavy gun when you add in a cast frame.
    The S&W already is a big heavy gun. I am not convinced that Ruger couldn't pull the same off in a new "X frame" Super Redhawk.
    Science has a rich history of proving itself wrong.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default Forged SRH?

    My point was that the Rugers SBHs are heavier and have more metal in them than would be required for the same strength in a forged machined frame. SRH and other Rugers are undoubtably strong- I've shot them off and on for some 40+ years and never questioned their strength. However, forgings are stronger for their weight than casting - i noted that no one uses cast cylinders because of the strength issues for the size required.

    If you like the bulk and weight of a casting that is fine; for shooting at the range it is great - I like to shoot a heavier gun myself. I do however carry my guns a lot while fishing and hiking and less weight and bulk is important to me. The heavier the gun I carry the less beer I can carry out and less fish I can carry back. The added weight and bulk issue required by using casting rather than forgings is why I added a forged machine frame to the "wish list" I'd like to see on SRH. It was not intended to "dis" the exisiting SBH - although its not exactly to my taste that is not important.

    I also like machined and well finished and fitted surfaces inside and out; many people could care less as long as it works. Of course fit and finish are different issues that cast and forged; I probably shouldn't mention it here.

    As noted when you get to the large cartridges of the .460 and .500 magnums the guns are by neccesity already BIG and HEAVY by virtual of the massive cylinders required for those cartridges. I think the cast frame on a SRH in a .460 or .500 S&W cartridge would be just add even more weight and bulk to an already huge gun. Ruger like S&W is stuck with the large cylinder for these cartridges - it would be about impossible to make the cylinders any smaller or lighter with existing steels.

    I posted weights of my S&W 44 629, .460, and 500 cylinders in an earlier posting. The weights below are for some S&W frames with barrels:

    6" 629 Classic frame w/ full lugged barrel: 2 lb., 5.6 oz
    4" &W .500 - 2 lb. 4.4 oz.

    If someone will post the weights of some SBH frames and cylinder we might be able to figure out an educated guess as to what a cast frame "X" frame SBH would weight. I don't currently own a SBH or I'd check one myself.


    Quote Originally Posted by RainGull View Post

    Partial Quote - some sentences deleted:

    The Rugers "flaw" is their salvation! They have a reputation for strength.

    One of the biggest reasons I dislike the X-frames is that to me they look ridiculously bulky deserving of a butt stock and forearm even on the shorter models.

    Is there anyone here that would want to shave weight off their Ruger Alaskan? Anyone concerned about it's strength? It just strikes me as a total non-issue.

    The S&W already is a big heavy gun. I am not convinced that Ruger couldn't pull the same off in a new "X frame" Super Redhawk.
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  16. #16
    Member RainGull's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    The S.E. of the N.W.
    Posts
    950

    Default

    I agree with much of what you are saying, I just question how much difference there really is/would be, and how much of what you do not care for is inherent in the design more than the manufacturing process.
    Science has a rich history of proving itself wrong.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default Forged vs. cast frames

    It is indeed hard to seperate the basic design from the design process required for the manufacturing process and how much the two are inter-twined. Some features are inherent in and to be avoided in the investment casting process for certain while forging and machining generally alows for more complicated surfaces and features.

    I was surprised how light the frame is on my .500 when I removed the cylinder yet the gun is undoutably very strong. I've never had in problems with strength on any of the 29s or 629s I owned however. I suspect the "weakness" of the S&W Mdl. 29 compared to the Rugers is more of a myth than reality with 99.99% of the people that shoot them. When you start pushing the limits it is really not a real test of the design as intented to be used. Overloading to get more performance than the gun was designed to delivery is generally not a good idea with any gun. I bought the .500 S&W rather than trying to push the .44 Mag any harder. I did the same thing over 40 years ago when I got bored with the .357 S&W I had and traded some other guns for a Ruger Super Blackhawk. I never shot a .357 much after I got a .44 Mag and compared the performance of the two on various targets. I'll probably do much of the same with the .500.

    I'll certainly be interested to see what Ruger comes out with next- they certainly must be chapped by the sucess of the S&W X frames. A Super Super Blackhawk would probably be the easiest to make.

    What S&W does next with the X frame will also be interesting. How about a very strong 7 shot 44 Mag revolver or perhaps a .44 Maximum along the lines of the .357 maximum?


    Quote Originally Posted by RainGull View Post
    I agree with much of what you are saying, I just question how much difference there really is/would be, and how much of what you do not care for is inherent in the design more than the manufacturing process.
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  18. #18
    Member RMiller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,736

    Default Here is a 475 linebaugh

    Ruger super redhawk in action. http://s47.photobucket.com/albums/f1...nebaughMPG.flv

    No strength issues there.

    A full length lug design would look cool.
    "You have given out too much reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later".

  19. #19
    Member .338-06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,045

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    I'll certainly be interested to see what Ruger comes out with next- they certainly must be chapped by the sucess of the S&W X frames. A Super Super Blackhawk would probably be the easiest to make.

    What S&W does next with the X frame will also be interesting. How about a very strong 7 shot 44 Mag revolver or perhaps a .44 Maximum along the lines of the .357 maximum?
    It is my understanding that Ruger makes the frames for Magnum Research's BFM revolvers.

    Dan Wesson .445 is a longer .44 along the lines of the .357 Max.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •