Thread replies: 19
Thread images: 6
Thread images: 6
>write email to ruger
>plz maek 8 shot 357
>see this years later
http://ruger.com/products/redhawk/specSheets/5033.html
How absolutely based is that? Does anyone here own one yet, or, like me, are you holding out for something 6+ inches minimum barrel length for legal hunting usage in Connecticut?
Also other high-capacity wheelguns are welcome in this thread.
>>
>>33150775
I love that they are making an 8-shot but I hope they come out with a 4 inch befoee I'm interestes
>>
File: 1444016683704.jpg (41KB, 256x200px) Image search:
[Google]
41KB, 256x200px
>>33150775
>Finally makes an 8 shot .357
>With a sub 3-inch barrel
>>
>>33150775
That's cool and all but it's 8 fucking shots of .357, why the fuck would they make it a snub nosed for concealment?
>>
File: pix142154662.jpg (21KB, 450x328px) Image search:
[Google]
21KB, 450x328px
>>33150775
>perfect for carrying inside hoody front pocket or fanny pack
>>
File: 1464723629150.png (164KB, 426x370px) Image search:
[Google]
164KB, 426x370px
>44 ounces
> 8 shot
>only only in 2,75 inch barrel
>>
File: 1480087504521.gif (1MB, 300x300px) Image search:
[Google]
1MB, 300x300px
>>33150775
That's great Ruger made an 8-shot .357, more gun manufacturers should, but
>2.75 in barrel
Come back to me when it's at least 4 inches. It also weighs about half a pound more than S&W's R8, which has a 5 inch barrel.
>>
>>33152594
Too bad the R8 is fugly. It looks like they tried to make a revolver tacticool and failed hard.
>>
>>33150775
>all this hype
>its a fucking snub nose
Just like Colts stupid fucking Cobra.
Only comes in 2in barrel. No 4" or 6"
Nope. Only 2"
Wtf !!???
I would totally buy either one if they came 4" or 6"
Fuck.
>>
>>33150775
That reminds me; I really need to send a letter to S&W about how they ought to make some X-frame guns in normal calibers, like .22LR and .44 Magnum.
>tfw no 16-shot, 4 lb, 8 3/8" bbl .22LR wheelgat
>no scandium-frame 8-shot .44 Mag for burr defense either
>>
>>33152594
The R8 it's made of scandium and it's forged. Compare it to the 686+ or the 627.
>>
>>33155806
>Compare it to the 686+ or the 627.
"No."
>>
>>33156062
Welp, have fun banging those apples and oranges together
>>
Talk to me when it has a 6 o'clock position 6" barrel.
>>
>>33150775
no but I have shot a performance center 627 smith and wesson and wasnt that big of a fan. Its cool and all but its too bulky, its basically a flare gun and feels ridiculous
cool to shoot though and if they werent so expensive id maybe buy one but its only a range or HD gun,
>>
>>33155806
Oh shit, how did I forget the 627 existed? Come to think of it yea, the 627 is probably a better comparison. My original point does still stand though, S&W's 8-shots weigh less even with longer barrels. I get the extra weight is due to Ruger's thicker frames, but both are large-frames firing .357 so it seems a bit unnecessary.
>>
>>33156766
It is unnecessary cause that particular frame is for way larger cartridges while also being cast. I would say the price is the what makes that easy to overlook ...but not really
>>
>>33157548
Well yeah, but the same frame used for 627s/327s is also used for .44s.
The Redhawk style frames do go for 454 and 480 so you have a point though.
>>
I saw a video of one of these awhile back, the cylinder kept locking up because of the thin cylinder walls, which is odd for a Ruger. I wouldn't buy it until they work out the kinks of an 8 shot .357
Thread posts: 19
Thread images: 6
Thread images: 6