Quote:
|
Have to ask why a 10mm version at all. Isn't that frame already avail. in 41Mag. Seems like that's basically the same thing, just in rimless.
|
Actually, the real question is: why didn't Ruger just use the 'standard' RedHawk frame as a dual-use platform for shooting 10mm AUTO and .40 cartridges using moon clips?
As another poster pointed out:
Quote:
|
* * * I have a Redhawk in 41 magnum and that is a revolver that works well and is fun to shoot. If the Redhawk works in 41 mag, it would be excellent for handling any 10mm load as much as you want to shoot.
|
Even with the hottest factory ammo or maxed-out handloads, the 10mm only begins to approach the low-end range of the .41 mag, unless you focus the comparison only on
downloaded .41mag loads.
The better cartridge analogy is between the .41 magnum and the
10mm Magnum. If a RedHawk frame can safely handle hot, maxed-out .41 mag loads, then it can safely handle 10mm Magnum loads. That's probably the frame Ruger should've chosen for its first 10mm wheelie, rather than the bulkier SRH.
But, as I argued earlier, Ruger engineers might simply have been overly cautious due to awareness of the not-so-few S&W 610 owners who had wheelgun 'smiths convert their 610's cylinder to fire 10mm Mag loads.
For the cartridge-history conscious, the energy range of the 10mm Mag bears an interesting similarity to the now-extinct
Herter's .401 PowerMag cartridge, which
waaay back in the day competed with the .41 Magnum before fading ...
See, e.g. :
http://www.gunblast.com/Fryxell_Herters401.htm
Sometimes the old becomes new again.
