Oldmountaiman
Custom
Ruger Red Hawk and S&W both in 41 mag.
Adding a revolver to the mix
- Thread starter Bear103
- Start date
WellArmed
Custom
New or used?
Belt Fed
SAINT
I done all that in one range trip.that poor range ceiling has taken some abuse by others
There's no tree in there.
Winchester67
Custom
Good friend of mine works for Norma in Sweden. Handguns are apparently hard to get there, so he bought a Ruger Redhawk in .357 Magnum. Very scarce model, but even more durable than the Ruger GP 100 which is generally thought to be the toughest .357 ever built. Talk about overbuilt!
Winchester67
Custom
Went out and looked online and apparently I mis-spoke. The .357 Ruger Redhawk is back. I remember in 84 when they came out, but they were so big and heavy they were dropped. Looks like they are back now with 8 rounds. Johann's is an old six shot model...talk about a massive .357 Cylinder. Remember when we thought the .357 was such a cannon only the massive N Frame Smith and Wesson could contain its fury? Now you can buy a J frame snubby .357 Magnum...progress?
Maybe some Darwinism.
The 6 shot N frame is the strongest 357 made. The RedHawks in 6 shot from isn’t bad as the GP 100 however “comma” Ruger has to make them thicker because they are injection cast. So while thicker than a comparable L frame S&W 586/686 they aren’t any stronger. Again not saying the Rugers are weak they are not and they are great guns but they are not machined steel so they have to be a little larger to be the same strength.
WellArmed
Custom
Ruger revolver strength over S&W comes in the fact that they don't have side plates and the the yoke held in by a screw. In 357, it's a moot point and stupid debate, IMHO. The S&W L- and N-frames and the Ruger GP100s and RedHawks are stronger than they ever need to be to handle a study diet of .357. If property QC'd from the factory and taken care of thereafter, all of them will last generations. Debating about which is the strongest just seems silly.
There aren't even any Ruger only or any loads that exist that excludes any of the aforentioned steel framed revolvers. There are even ~40 examples of all of these revolvers that still exist, are carried, shot, and still going strong. Which is the strongest is a moot issue.
Last edited:
I remember Elmer Keith saying similar in an article. At the time, the only .44 Mag from S&W was the Model 29; and from Ruger, the Super Blackhawk. He said that although the Ruger was thicker and wider in the top strap, and had more steel in the cylinder, the S&W 29 was the stronger gun. Actually, I think the way he said it was the Ruger would blow before the S&W. I think he simply said “better steel” for the reason.
So basically what ECS686 said.
When it came to blowing up revolvers, I would say Elmer Keith was an authority (wink).
Does any difference matter?
I don’t think so. I think if you blow either up, you were way over your head.
WellArmed
Custom
Different times, metallurgy, and designs. Today, there are loads that Rugers can handle that ammo manufacturers and reloading publications explicitly state are exclusively for certain Ruger revolvers.
The design differences of S&W vs Ruger matters more to which is stronger and more durable than the type of metal used. Both S&W forged and Ruger cases frames can withstand the pressures of .357 and even 44 MAG. Heck, Buffalo Bore sells 44 MAG +P+ ammo that's only recommended in Ruger, Taurus, Colt, and Dan Wesson revolvers, but no S&W revolvers. There are 45 Colt loads that are only for Ruger revolvers as well. Everyone seems to have this misplaced hyperfocused obsession with the type of steel S&W and Ruger uses, when it's the differences in how they are designed that basically makes one stronger than the other depending on the model.
I believe the issue with the S&W and some of the boutique rounds is the cylinder wall thickness not the frame a issue and certain ammo in the S&W was due to cause timing issues not blowing up a S&W. And that said it would take a steady diet but would happen. And being a lot of those rounds are outside SAMNI anything one destroys gun wise is on them.
With the Ruger only loads the only comparable 45 Colt was the Com and the Colt clones which have the thin cylinder walls (45 Cokt like 38 Soecial was a BP round and KOE pressures. With extra case length we don’t need in the smokeless times we can make them a lot faster which equal more pressure) we have been able to. Crease the performance due to better steel but manufacturers still err on the side of safety unless they specifically state Brand X only.
But because only run in brand X is listed doesn't mean the frame is stronger so I’ll have to politely disagree with your statement. While Ruger is a great product but with frame strength Ruger doesn’t compare to S&W. Casting will not be as strong as Maxine’s steel period. I have seen Rugers and S&W get blown up. Rugers generally has the top strap break S&W has the top strap folded up bent to heck but it doesn break off like Ruger cast frames do.
And that’s nit just me that’s also coming from folks like Keith, Bolke and several other folks (check out AFR Official for some real revolver content and education) that have more knowledge and experience with Wheelguns than anyone here.
Again just respectfully sharing my experience of what I have seen and discussed with some pretty notable revolver folks in the industry.
I love both S&W and Ruger revolvers though as I don’t run the max or near max stuff through anything anymore!
Winchester67
Custom
I am not an engineer, but I know when Browning went to make a .40 cal Hi-Power they had to go to a cast frame as it was tougher than the forged frame. I know, exact opposite of what I thought as well. But Browning knows more than I do!