A Ruger SRH in 10mm Auto? WHY!?! Am I MISSING something?

[Kosh75287]

Ruger takes a revolver frame capable of withstanding pressures and recoil generated by hot loads in a .454 Casull round, then rechambers the frame for a 10x25.2mm automatic round. a round which can be safely shot in 1911, Clock, and other large automatic pistol platforms. What POSSIBLE value does such a round have in a foot-long, 3 pound, 6-shot revolver with the portability of of a B-flat flugelhorn? An analogous achievement would consist of an N-Frame S&W being rechambered to shoot the over-hyped .327 Federal Magnum. The result would be a sidearm with 6 rounds that could deliver ballistics somewhat inferior to the .32 WSL caebines, But boy, gee, GOSH would THAT sound like the thing every one needs for...er...for...uhm...What did we need it for, again?
If Ruger wants to make a splash somewhere, let's see them convert a GP-100 to 10mm auto, with no loss of cylinder capacity, and similar or improved ergonomic features! THERE'S the winner! Even if the GP-100 is deemed inadequate to withstand 10mm auto pressures & recoil, (a situation I find difficult to accept), there remains the Standard RedHawk platform, originally stressed for .454 Casull Magnum pressures, which would likely tolerate all SAAMI spec 10 mm auto revolver loads that anyone could get past SAMMI/C.I.P specifications with little controversy.

What Ruger is proffering for sale at the moment, however, is too bulky, too expensive, too heavy for caliber, and A LOT TOO expensive for any contemplated practical application! Sorry, guys at Ruger. If i didn't give you an honest assessment, I would do neither you nor the would-be consumers a service by suggesting that such a piece of ....ahem....ORDNANCE would be anything but troubling for its owner. JUST not SEEING the point of THIS one...

Best.

Mike
'

 

[V-Tach]

One of our Reps tried to get me to buy one today.....

I passed........

I'm scratching my head on this one....

 

[Kosh75287]

Okay, good to know that someone with a bit more credibility and an ear closer to the public's heart might also have similar feelings.

 

[Dawico]

There are many guns on the market that I scratch my head over.

That doesn't stop them from making them though.

 

[Dawico]

Realistically you get an easily scopeable, reliable and accurate handgun that delivers plenty of power with very little recoil.

Probably not of much interest to most hunters but the recoil sensitive handgun hunters or younger hunters may be interested.

 

[V-Tach]

No doubt they believe there is a market for it.....

10mm fans for sure and some others but how many, realistically?

 

[benenglish]

Ruger is offering a Super Redhawk in 10MM? Hmmmm. That reminds me of how I've seen people argue persuasively that the Smith X-frame should be offered in a short variant, cut back to just long enough for the .500 Special. Then, having done that, they could offer a 7 or 8-shot .44 magnum that would be sufficiently overbuilt as to be indestructible, unlike their Model 29.

That sounds good to me because I like guns that can stand up to lots of use. 10mm in a Blackhawk would qualify and probably be a good match.

But 10MM in an SRH is overkill.

 

[Kosh75287]

Same, here, Ben English (CAUTION! We're AGREEing on something!) Except for fielding an extremely low-recoil, very user-friendly revolver with which the recoil-sensitive may hunt whitetail deer, I'M in the dark. Even then, an SRH in .44 Magnum or .454 Casull stoked with warm(ish) .44 Special or .45 Colt (respectively) factory or reloads accomplishes very much the same thing.
I COULD see a Standard RedHawk in 10mm having some appeal, especially if the cylinder is engineered to contain more than 6 rounds. Additionally, a GP-100 in 10mm would alleviate portability concerns. If the GP-100 can be re-engineered to hold 5 rounds of .44 Special, perhaps it could be engineered to hold six (or maybe 7?) rounds of 10mm.

 

[Kosh75287]

New Realistically you get an easily scopeable, reliable and accurate handgun that delivers plenty of power with very little recoil.

The SRH is also chambered in .44 Magnum and .454 Casull, is it not? Couldn't the same thing be achieved by shooting .44 Special in a .44 Magnum, or .45 Colt in the .454 Casull?

Probably not of much interest to most hunters but the recoil sensitive handgun hunters or younger hunters may be interested.

It's repeatedly been my experience and observation that recoil-sensitive shooters generally lack the muscular strength to lock their firearm into a grip and stance that creates a tension which must be overcome by the recoiling firearm, when it is fired. Persons who lack this physical strength also generally lack the strength to hold heavy firearms at arms length for any length of time. Weighing in at 54 ounces, that's just under 3.5 pounds, the recoil sensitive could very likely find merely holding up a Ruger SRH, to say nothing of holding it steadily enough to have hope of connecting with the target, quite a chore.

 

[grasshopperglock]

Let's hear it for the 357 Maximum....

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Why risk wounding an animal by not bracing it with something.


ETA: Ninja'd by GHG.

 

[Kosh75287]

If the cylinder's long enough to hold thst round, WHY NOT? I'D even be okay with a lengthened 1omm auto round (perhaps 10x35mm?), perhaps a rimmed one, to facilitate ejection? Who knows?

 

[grasshopperglock]

ETA: Ninja'd by GHG.

You can still bring up the 327 Federal.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

You can still bring up the 327 Federal.

I meant it was directed towards "Kosh", but my comment was ninja'd by you.

 

[benenglish]

Let's hear it for the 357 Maximum....

I'll happily cheer for that cartridge; it was great when used within its design parameters.

 

[grasshopperglock]

I'll happily cheer for that cartridge; it was great when used within its design parameters.

From what I've read about it. The early model had a flame cutting problem on the top strap, right at the forcing cone gap.

As for them putting a 10mm in the red hawk. Does it really surprise anyone? Ruger has always done their own thing.

The bigger plus is if the 10mm flops. It'll be another Ruger collectable like the 357 max.

 

[Army 1911]

I'm thinking a K-22 smith on an X-frame might be interesting.

I like the sound of a B-flat flugelhorn.

 

[Kosh75287]

You can still bring up the 327 Federal.

SURE, ya CAN mention it. But WHY? It's a rimmed revolve-friendly equivalent of the 7.62x25 Tokarev. Shoot either round through a rifle-length barrel, and the .30 U.S.Carbine is re-invented. I don't get the interest.

 

[grasshopperglock]

It's a Ruger and has a cult following. The weirdest stuff is the most highly sought after. The convertible revolvers are always worth a pretty penny.

Now take the latest...huge revolver and a 10mm. The less models people buy. The more rare, the more money after its discontinued.

 

[benenglish]

I'll happily cheer for that cartridge; it was great when used within its design parameters.

From what I've read about it. The early model had a flame cutting problem on the top strap, right at the forcing cone gap.

"Within its design parameters" is the operative phrase. The .357 Max was for sending the heaviest bullets downrange to knock over steel rams. The flame cutting was a result of people who just couldn't leave it at that and had to find out how fast they could launch ridiculously light bullets using ball powder.

For people who understood the cartridge and only used heavy bullets with stick powder, the flame cutting was never a problem. Ruger couldn't rely on all the buyers also being judicious handloaders so they discontinued the revolver.

That's a shame. It was a great cartridge.

If anyone is truly interested in it, here's a good article: http://www.lasc.us/Fryxell357Max.htm