Most expensive % retail increase gun vs pre pandemic

[JohnKSa]

Why don’t Super RedHawks employ sleeved barrels?
Super Blackhawks, Contenders......

That still has nothing to do with anything I posted, but I can provide a likely answer to the question.

All of those designs use barrels that are pretty much just round tubes to begin with. That means there's no need to change the design to make the barrels round tubes.

It is done to save money, you know too.

I'm not now claiming, nor have I ever claimed that wasn't the case.

It looked like you were arguing that because it was done for cost savings that there could be no benefits from it. That's simply not true.

Polymer frames were done for cost savings and yet they provide other benefits in spite of that fact.

Bead blasted finishes are done because they're cheaper than polishing, but they also provide benefits--they are non-glare and and tend to be pretty wear resistant compared to a polished finish.

Button rifling was originally done as a cost-savings measure, but there can be some benefits to properly implemented button rifling.

In the same way sleeved barrels may be implemented for cost savings and yet they can still provide benefits (I listed some) in spite of that.

In other words, even proving that Ruger's only reason for making sleeved barrels was to save cost, still doesn't prove that there are no other benefits to the owner of a Ruger sleeved-barrel revolver.

[Pumpkin]

I would bet the farm that the main reason for doing this was to save $$$
Dan Wesson and Charter Arms as mentioned used a similar method for completely different reasons.
A Ruger Redhawk in my opinion is a nice premium large frame revolver and I feel it cheapens the gun by using this method of assembly.
What ever other benefits might be had from this, in my mind, would not offset the sleeved barrel approach used on this gun.
Satin bluing on M77's and No.1 Rugers is another cost cutting measure I don't agree with.
No worries, these changes will save me $$$, I'm sure Ruger will continue to do well with the next generation of shooters.

[JohnKSa]

I would bet the farm that the main reason for doing this was to save $$$

Agree. But that doesn't mean there are no other benefits to the consumer.

Dan Wesson and Charter Arms as mentioned used a similar method for completely different reasons.

The reasons they used it don't preclude benefits to the consumer that don't have anything to do with the reasons they used it.

What ever other benefits might be had from this, in my mind, would not offset the sleeved barrel approach used on this gun.

I'm sure your opinion is shared by others. However, it's ironic and telling that this thread started off as a complaint about rising prices. There are a lot of buyers that don't really care about the details of how a gun is manufactured as long as it functions properly and is durable. Those people will see the move as very positive. Not only does it lower the price of the gun (or at least keep the price from going up) it provides them with other benefits as well.

[Pumpkin]

Well I know I am getting old and my firearms taste differs quite a bit from the up and coming next generation of gun buyers.
Last year I bought a 527 LUX and a 527 Carbine, both 223.
Glad I did, CZ has totally redone their bolt gun offerings and I will not be buying a new CZ any time soon.
Prices are crazy but the buying public is driving them, just like old Hot Wheels, Muscle Cars, Schrade knives, you name it.
Glad I have what I have.

[lee n. field]

Originally Posted by Pumpkin

Charter Arms has used this method for years.
Cost cutting, no doubt.

That was quite a while ago. Every current Charter I've seen has a regular barrel.