Attention ruger revolver fans

H

Hoveringhead

Inactive
I just got off the phone with a guy at Ruger headquarters about using the same principles they did with the new .45acp/.45colt Redhawk, with the SP101 and GP100 to shoot 9mm along with .38spec and .357mag. The guy said he would mention that at a meeting tonight. The guy also said that if enough fellow Ruger fans would email Ruger customer service and drop in a word about making the GPs and SPs able to shoot the 9mm round using moon clips, that it would probably happen. I would greatly urge whoever reads this and thinks "hmm, a GP or SP more versatile... Sounds good!" to immediately email Ruger and tell them that you would be on the market and know those that would be for one of these.
 
Off the top of my head, I believe the 9mm cartridge is bigger at the base than the .38 or .357. If that is so, you could not fire both cartridges from the same cylinder because there would be too much room at the base for the 38/357 and the case would swell too much. In a S/A you are using two cylinders so problem avoided.

Base diameter 38 special 0.379 9mm 0.391 in

At the very least, it would seem you would ruin the brass on every .38 or .357 you fired.

Perhaps someone can elucidate.
 
Last edited:
It really is a smart idea on their part to do this across the board. I plan on picking up one of those .45 Colt/.45acp revolvers in the near future. I would also like to see the same Redhawk in an 8 shot .357/9mm.
 
If you reload with a carbide die it makes the case straight so .380 may work. I would rather shoot 38's not have to worry with the moon clips. But I'm not a big 9mm fan .
 
I think the dimensions are close enough that it would be possible, however dimensions are far enough apart that it wouldn't work out very well.

Like Laz mentioned the base of the 9mm is to large. You can start to push a 9mm into a .357 chamber but it will only make it halfway IIRC. If you remove material form the cylinder so 9mm cases would fit it will cause problems with the 38 and .357 brass. 45 ACP and 45 Colt have closer diameters then 9mm and 38

You might be able to make .380 ACP work, but what's the point? It cost the same or more than 38 special and isn't as versatile.

Bore diameter is close enough that it could work but 9mm bullets are smaller in diameter than .357 and accuracy would suffer.
 
Are they thinking "interchangeable cylinders"?

9mm is usually .356 Of course 38/357 is .357. If a person reloads and shoots cast . . it could work bullet wise. In my 9mm I often load with .357 to .358 cast just as they drop from my mold.

I don't see how it would work with the same cylinder and with factory loaded 9mm . . the accuracy is going to suffer.

But . . . maybe Ruger has a "magic wand"?
 
I don't know who you talked to, but the 9mm is a tapered case & the .38/.357 is a straight-walled case.

Different deal than with a pair of straight-walled .45-caliber cases.

If you try to shoot the 9 in a .357 chamber, you'll get case expansion through fire-forming & POSSIBLY some case cracking.

You'd need to really resize what would be straight-walled 9mm brass after firing back down to original taper if you handload.

I doubt Ruger'll try it.
Denis
 
I'd like GP100 Match that uses 357 moon clips. Heck of a lot faster to reload when compared to speed loaders.
 
I just figured the 9mm/.357 case and bullet comparison would be comparable to the .45acp/.45colt. I figured that if slight changes happened to the size of the cylinder, and moon clips were incorporated, it would be possible to have a reliably shooting 9mm/ .357
 
Not comparable, because of the straight-wall case vs the tapered wall case.

If you cut a chamber for the 9, it'll cause problems with the .357.
If you cut a chamber for a .357, it'll cause problems with the 9.

That's why you get TWO different cylinders with Ruger convertible Blackhawks.
Denis
 
Are they thinking "interchangeable cylinders"?

9mm is usually .356 Of course 38/357 is .357. If a person reloads and shoots cast . . it could work bullet wise. In my 9mm I often load with .357 to .358 cast just as they drop from my mold.

I don't see how it would work with the same cylinder and with factory loaded 9mm . . the accuracy is going to suffer.

But . . . maybe Ruger has a "magic wand"?
Click to expand...
Ruger does have a magic wand.

It's called, "Just use the larger diameter."

It's not the best option, but that's what they've always done in the past for Single Sixes and Blackhawks (.224" barrels, rather than .222"; .357" rather than .355", .402" barrels, rather than .400" barrels [10mm/.38-40]; etc).
Even if you buy the ".22 LR only" Single Six or "9mm only" Blackhawk (Talo exclusive, I think?) ... You still get the wrong barrel. It's cheaper to keep the supply chain uncomplicated by multiple bore specifications for nearly-identical products.

---I don't know what bore specifications Ruger uses for .45 caliber. That's territory I've never dealt with or even really discussed with anyone.
 
Ruger currently makes Blackhawks with an interchangeable 9mm cylinder.

I don't see why they couldn't make a double action revolver with one.

I'd be interested in one for cheap ammo.
 
Ruger currently makes Blackhawks with an interchangeable 9mm cylinder.

I don't see why they couldn't make a double action revolver with one.
Click to expand...


Unless a qualified armorer, an owner has no business removing a side plate to swap cylinders. It is a simpler matter with a single action.

I'd be interested in one for cheap ammo.
Click to expand...

If you just want to go bang, it is better to stick with a 9mm in a semi-auto. I have the 9mm Charter Arms six shooter, but it is 9mm to get a powerful round into a small package. For target shooting, or any other shooting that otherwise causes real concern about ammo cost, I load my own.
 
Which raises the question, how does one remove a cylinder from a Ruger double action?

I checked the manual of one of my SP101s, and it indicates removal of the mainspring and the trigger assembly to get to the cylinder. That is way too much for any convertible concept.
 
Last edited:
The Ruger SA's use different cylinders, for each different caliber. There is a reason for that. The main reason is the difference in the size of the cases.

In .45acp / .45 Colt the dimensions are very close, but not identical. Specs call for the .45 Colt to be .480" from case head to mouth. The .45acp is .476" at the case head, and .473" at the mouth.

The .357Mag is .379" at the head and mouth, the 9mm Luger is .391" at the head and .380" at the mouth.

Swapping cylinders on a Ruger SA is simple. Fitting them is simpler than doing so on a DA. I'm sure multiple cylinders could be fitted to a DA revolver, BUT, no factory I know does this. Probably due to the additional costs & complexity of fitting, vs market demand.

The clearances needed for moon clips add to the cost of fitting the DA cylinder as well. Think about the typical DA revolver, and swapping cylinders. With an SA, you only swap the cylinder. Pull the base pin, cylinder drops out, put in the other one, replace the base pin. Simple.

With a DA cylinder, you have to get it off the crane, and you have the extractor assy to deal with. No one is interested in having to swap the extractor assy between cylinders, (and the potential for damage if done regularly by the user is very high), so to make a DA practical with an additional cylinder, you need the entire assembly to swap out. This makes for much more complex fitting of the cylinder and costs go way up.

And, this is separate from the clearance issues needed to run moon clips. It can be done, but is not done outside of commissioned custom work, simply because the market will not support the cost.

Essentially, the auto pistol rounds don't fit the revolver round's chambers (.45acp is slightly too small, and 9mm is too large), so shooting them in the same chambers is a non starter, even with moon clips to headspace from. SO, one cylinder just won't do it.

And two cylinders while fairly simple in an SA becomes much more complex in a DA. Too complex to be viable on the market.
 
The OP never mentioned doing it from the same cylinder. It would be a spare cylinder situation. I carry a 6" GP on the job, and full magnums are frowned on heavily while +p and +p+ 9mm, and even .357Sig are allowed for the guys who choose autos. This would allow me to vastly bump up my performance, but at the cost of tactical reload/topping off ability.

Truly, for me, a .357 Sig cylinder would make more sense. I'll bet those bottleneck rounds would drop in pretty easily in a hurry. But then, why not both?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top