Ruger Super Redhawk 10mm Revolver

[Mr.RevolverGuy]

"Anticipating that some shooters might use this as a hunting gun, the top strap, sidewalls and barrel mounting areas are reinforced to handle the extra power from handloads developed for larger game. Additionally, there are integral mounts machined directly onto the barrel rib. Combined with the included scope rings, Ruger says it has eliminated one source for lost accuracy in the field."

Aren't all Super Redhawks built this way or did they do something special for the 10MM. Gosh why not the Redhawk. I was getting ready to send my 3inch gp100 out for the conversion but think I might wait and see what comes next.

[FrankenMauser]

Yea, that's standard SRH.

[agtman]

The 480 or 44 would be more versatile.

Conversion to 10mm MAGNUM is the point of this exercise.

http://www.sixguns.com/tests/tt10mag.htm

Conversion done, ... you'll have one wheelgun capable of shooting the .40S&W, 10mm AUTO, and 10mm Magnum cartridges, all using the same moon clips.

It's called a 3-in-1 fun toy. Heavy? Yeah, but with the 10mmMag option and being scopable, it has definite and potent hunting use.

EDIT: attached a pic of a 6.5 S&W 610 which had its cylinder chambers converted to accept 10mm Mag cartridges.

[black mamba]

Looking forward to the new Ruger 5 shot .22 short Super Alaskan with 10" heavy bull barrel and unfluted cylinder!

Seriously, this company has a love affair with excess metal and excess WEIGHT.

But hey! It's built like a tank!

Don't forget the 10-12 pound single action trigger pull, either.
They love weight, but not lawyers.

[FrankenMauser]

Conversion to 10mm MAGNUM is the point of this exercise.

Yea....... I don't think that's what Ruger had in mind.

If they had it would say "10mm Magnum" and Hornady would be selling factory ammo.

[TruthTellers]

Originally Posted by FrankenMauser

Yea....... I don't think that's what Ruger had in mind.

If they had it would say "10mm Magnum" and Hornady would be selling factory ammo.

And I'm sure all this could be done in a 5 shot GP100.

[agtman]

Conversion to 10mm MAGNUM is the point of this exercise.

Yea....... I don't think that's what Ruger had in mind.
If they had it would say "10mm Magnum" and Hornady would be selling factory ammo.

DT sells 10mm Magnum 'factory' ammo, , but this cartridge is 99% a reloading proposition in order to maximize on-target fpe.

As far as "what Ruger had in mind," maybe not the the sales or PR department, but their engineers sure did. I've got no doubt they studied up on previous 10mm Magnum conversions done to the S&W 610s (which were L-frames) - by various 'smiths, like Hamilton Bowen and Gary Reeder - and anticipated that possibility here.

Otherwise, why go with such a large-frame wheelie when the GP's frame would've sufficed for handling maximum 10mm AUTO loads, and certainly any 40S&W loads? Except for weight, there's no downside to the strength of the larger frame.

[FrankenMauser]

Otherwise, why go with such a large-frame wheelie when the GP's frame would've sufficed for handling maximum 10mm AUTO loads, and certainly any 40S&W loads? Except for weight, there's no downside to the strength of the larger frame.

Why?
Because it's easier and cheaper to run moon clips in the SRH.

No downside?
Yea... But there really isn't an up side for the consumer, either. It helps Ruger. Does nothing for the consumer.
Ruger doesn't build fantasies. They build firearms intended to fire SAAMI-spec cartridges -- not obscure wildcats or stupidly-overpressure handloads.

[reddog81]

Originally Posted by agtman

Otherwise, why go with such a large-frame wheelie when the GP's frame would've sufficed for handling maximum 10mm AUTO loads, and certainly any 40S&W loads? Except for weight, there's no downside to the strength of the larger frame.

That's the same question 90% of the posters on this thread are wondering. And There is a huge downside to the strength of the larger frame. It looks and feels like a tank. If there were no downside to SRH sized guns every gun built would be that huge but alas they are not.

[agtman]

Why?
Because it's easier and cheaper to run moon clips in the SRH.

It was cheap & easy for S&W to engineer the cylinders of L-frame 610s for use with full moon clips. Why is it suddenly not cheap & easy for Ruger to do it on a GP-100 frame?

C'mon, dude, it ain't rocket science ....

Attached is a pic of a .357 GP-100 that was converted to 10mm AUTO by Clements Customs (not mine).

[agtman]

* * * There is a huge downside to the strength of the larger frame. It looks and feels like a tank. If there were no downside to SRH sized guns every gun built would be that huge but alas they are not.

Huh?

We already agree that its weight (that's as in "heavy" ) is a downside to the SRH frame. The remainder of your post treads into superfluous confusion.

[GeauxTide]

Have owned several Smith 41s over the years and still have a SS 4". Several years ago, I acquired a Bisley Blackhawk. With 7.5" barrel, it comes in at 48 ounces and is a joy to load and shoot. Don't get the vinyl, get the real leather.

[ThomasT]

Personally I have no use for a .41 Magnum. If I wanted .41 Magnum, I'd just as easily buy a .44 Magnum and load with a lighter bullet... or buy a .357 and load with a heavy bullet.

Yep I agree. I have owned two Blackhawks and a 6" model 57 and try as I might I could never really take a shine to the round. Nothing wrong with it, it just didn't do anything the 44 mag couldn't do and do just a little better.

My bud just bought a Glock 10mm and I shot a couple of mags through it and it was nice but it wasn't the hand wrenching powerhouse I thought it was going to be. He bought it for Bear protection for when he goes trout fishing in Colorado. I never understood what it would do that the 44 mag Redhawk he has wouldn't do. I think he just wanted a new gun. Nuthin' wrong with that.

[Real Gun]

I was thinking the same thing. The GP100 would likely be okay for 40 S&W but is pretty small for shooting full on 10mm loads on a regular basis. 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.

But you would be missing the improved trigger and trigger reach of the SRH, elements that a competitive shooter on the clock would value highly.

[TruthTellers]

Originally Posted by Real Gun

But you would be missing the improved trigger and trigger reach of the SRH, elements that a competitive shooter on the clock would value highly.

I doubt that competition shooting is the main reason people would buy this revolver or the reason Ruger is manufacturing it.

[FrankenMauser]

It was cheap & easy for S&W to engineer the cylinders of L-frame 610s for use with full moon clips. Why is it suddenly not cheap & easy for Ruger to do it on a GP-100 frame?

C'mon, dude, it ain't rocket science ....

Attached is a pic of a .357 GP-100 that was converted to 10mm AUTO by Clements Customs (not mine).

Take note that the ratchet boss has been turned down, which requires changing the geometry of the hand and weakens the rear boss on the cylinder.

It's not a necessary set of modifications on the SRH...


Looking at pictures can be fun. But I've actually taken measurements to see what would be necessary.

[mavracer]

This interests me not at all, my 610 is big and heavy enough.

[Real Gun]

They build firearms intended to fire SAAMI-spec cartridges -- not obscure wildcats or stupidly-overpressure handloads.

May be generally true, but there is a whole subculture built around their 45 Colt capabilities, well beyond any SAMMI spec. Standard 45 Colt in my 5.5" Redhawk would be really boring, but perhaps a target load, if I was competing with it or shooting bowling pins or some such.

[Buckeye!]

Underwood.. Rolls great 10mm ammo ...

And Ruger builds a great DA revolver... GP100 with a 4 inch barrel would be the ticket ..

[Siggy-06]

A 5" Gp100 5 shot in 10mm sounds a lot better to me.

[springer99]

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.

[agtman]

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:

* * * 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.

[disseminator]

Forgive me if I'm out of order, but I see this all the time.

10mm Magnum aside, I am not sure where folks are getting the idea that a 10mm is in the same league as the 41 rem Mag. It's not. It's closer to 357 Magnum really and can't hang with the 41 in the real world.

I have both, and the 41 is more better in a revolver for sure.

My 41 magnum (Model 58) with a 4" barrel can beat my Glock 20 with a 5.3" barrel by hundreds of feet per second.

41 mag: 210g @ 1400 = 914 ft lb
10mm : 200g @ 1200 = 640 ft lb

Not close. Just sayin'

[agtman]

* * * 10mm Magnum aside, I am not sure where folks are getting the idea that a 10mm is in the same league as the 41 rem Mag. It's not. It's closer to 357 Magnum really and can't hang with the 41 in the real world.

I have both, and the 41 is more better in a revolver for sure.

My 41 magnum (Model 58) with a 4" barrel can beat my Glock 20 with a 5.3" barrel by hundreds of feet per second.

41 mag: 210g @ 1400 = 914 ft lb
10mm : 200g @ 1200 = 640 ft lb

Not close. Just sayin'

You're right.

But where folks might get the idea that these cartridges have general energy parity is when cherry-picking certain loads to compare, ... say, Winchester's 10mm 175gn STHP at an alleged 1290fps/649fpe to the Winny .41 Mag STHP at 1250fps/607fpe.

Haven't checked Winny's 41 mag ST load lately, so they could've changed it.

[muzzleblast...]

Over the years Ruger has chambered many obscure offerings. Every time I think about the 250 Savage M77 Ultralight that I pass up, I kick myself. But, a 10mm SRH? I am just not feeling the attraction.