Ruger Super Redhawk 10mm Revolver

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

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.
 
Underwood.. Rolls great 10mm ammo ...

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

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.
Click to expand...

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 ... :eek:

See, e.g. :

http://www.gunblast.com/Fryxell_Herters401.htm

Sometimes the old becomes new again.

:cool:
 
Last edited:
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'
 
* * * 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'
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

I agree. Strange loads by the factories are nothing new.

I'm not sure why I care. I guess it's because people are chasing these blazing hot 10mm loads and can achieve better for less in the 41 Mag. Not in an Auto loader of course but this is about revolvers....

I don't see the point but some people say the same about my Model 625JM in 45 Auto.

More the merrier...
 
agtman said:
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? :rolleyes:

C'mon, dude, it ain't rocket science ....
Click to expand...
The S&W model 610 is a N frame.

Jim
 
The Ruger RedHawk and the Ruger Super RedHawk are pretty much the same weight. My RSRH is in .454 Casull, I'm glad it's heavy. I hunt antelope, deer and elk with mine. I just don't get why anyone would want a RSRH in 10mm. I have a S&W mountain gun in 41 magnum, it's just right in that caliber with a 4" bbl. 10mm is best suited to plastic guns IMO.
 
* * * I have a S&W mountain gun in 41 magnum, it's just right in that caliber with a 4" bbl. 10mm is best suited to plastic guns IMO
Click to expand...

You could say the .45acp is best suited to the 1911-platform, but surprisingly, S&W went ahead and produced a run of the 4" bbl Mountain Guns in .45acp, fed with moonclips, just like with the 625s.

Oddly, though, Smith never issued the MG in 10mm/.40S&W, which would have been a bit handier, IMO, than my old 6.5" 610.
 
If one accepts 10mm as a hunting round for thin skinned game, and using .40 for plinking is doable then this gun makes more sense than say that .45c/.45acp redhawk combo.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
If one accepts 10mm as a hunting round for thin skinned game, and using .40 for plinking is doable then this gun makes more sense than say that .45c/.45acp redhawk combo.
Click to expand...

Except that a 45 Colt is a MUCH better hunting round than a 10mm.....IMO of course.
 
I agree but that gun seems to have accuracy issues when it comes to .45acp.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I saw some of those complaints.

But worse was Ruger's decision to use proprietary .45acp moon clips, rather than the same moon clips that work in the S&W .45acp revolvers, like the 625s.

I hope Ruger doesn't do the same thing with this 10mm/.40 SRH. An owner should be able to use the same 10mm moon clips he used, or could've used, in the S&W 610.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top