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.