Ruger Forum banner

1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
272 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Ruger owns a nice market niche for .45 caliber revolvers that can handle higher pressure "Ruger only" .45 Colt loads.

Of course, Ruger markets revolvers chambered in the .454 Casull for those who want more power than a .45 Colt. The .454 Casull is loaded to a very high maximum pressure of 65,000 PSI. To put that into perspective, when you touch off a .454 Casull in a Super Redhawk, that investment cast cylinder and frame is supporting the pressure equivalent to a .300 Winchester Magnum.

Ruger has six of those atomic bombs in that cylinder, so anyone who thinks investment casting is inferior to forging hasn't seen what Ruger is doing with their revolvers!

However, the Super Redhawk is a very large revolver and many of us want a more tamer cartridge and smaller handgun. For many of us, we prefer the Blackhawk and Redhawk. While there are some .454 Casull Blackhawks out there, they only hold five rounds. For many of us, we don't want to give up the traditional six round capacity.

The wildcat "Ruger Only" .45 Colt loads fill the void between the .45 Colt and .454 Casull. The "Ruger Only" .45 Colt is loaded to a maximum of 30,000 CUP (roughly 30,000 psi) according to Hodgdon.

Some ammunition manufacturers market "Ruger Only" .45 Colt ammunition under silly nomenclature like ".45 Colt Magnum Super +P" to reduce liability of people blowing up Colt Single Action Army clones.

The problem with these wildcat loads is that they'll void your warranty if your Blackhawk or Redhawk blows up.

While the Blackhawk and Redhawk are very strong revolvers, you're still shooting a wildcat cartridge loaded to roughly 30,000 PSI in a revolver chambered for a cartridge with a maximum pressure of 14,000 psi. Ruger obviously designs their revolvers to handle a lot more pressure than 14,000 PSI, but you can't know for sure what your revolver can handle without potentially dangerous experimentation.

So it begs the question: Why doesn't Ruger market a ".454 Ruger" cartridge loaded to around 30,000 PSI in a slightly longer case to prevent loading into Colt Single Action Army clones?

Ruger's investment into this new cartridge would be minimal. The Blackhawk and Redhawk would be essentially unchanged as they're already capable of handling the higher pressure.

Plus, ".454 Ruger" sounds better than ".45 Colt Magnum Super +P Ruger Only Don't Shoot In Colt SAA"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,257 Posts
There is probably not enough of a market to justify doing the investment in the R&D on a new round. The 480 Ruger was an economic bust.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,603 Posts
The 480 Ruger was an economic bust.
The 480 Ruger was an explanation to all your desires (A tamer .454 but still stouter than a 44 mag). The sales were just not there and it's been discontinued by Ruger due to lack of sales. I don't think that they're looking to go down that road again any time soon. Smithy.
 

·
Ausmerican.
Joined
·
42,767 Posts
Ruger owns a nice market niche for .45 caliber revolvers that can handle higher pressure "Ruger only" .45 Colt loads.

Of course, Ruger markets revolvers chambered in the .454 Casull for those who want more power than a .45 Colt. The .454 Casull is loaded to a very high maximum pressure of 65,000 PSI. To put that into perspective, when you touch off a .454 Casull in a Super Redhawk, that investment cast cylinder and frame is supporting the pressure equivalent to a .300 Winchester Magnum.

Ruger has six of those atomic bombs in that cylinder, so anyone who thinks investment casting is inferior to forging hasn't seen what Ruger is doing with their revolvers!

However, the Super Redhawk is a very large revolver and many of us want a more tamer cartridge and smaller handgun. For many of us, we prefer the Blackhawk and Redhawk. While there are some .454 Casull Blackhawks out there, they only hold five rounds. For many of us, we don't want to give up the traditional six round capacity.

The wildcat "Ruger Only" .45 Colt loads fill the void between the .45 Colt and .454 Casull. The "Ruger Only" .45 Colt is loaded to a maximum of 30,000 CUP (roughly 30,000 psi) according to Hodgdon.

Some ammunition manufacturers market "Ruger Only" .45 Colt ammunition under silly nomenclature like ".45 Colt Magnum Super +P" to reduce liability of people blowing up Colt Single Action Army clones.

The problem with these wildcat loads is that they'll void your warranty if your Blackhawk or Redhawk blows up.

While the Blackhawk and Redhawk are very strong revolvers, you're still shooting a wildcat cartridge loaded to roughly 30,000 PSI in a revolver chambered for a cartridge with a maximum pressure of 14,000 psi. Ruger obviously designs their revolvers to handle a lot more pressure than 14,000 PSI, but you can't know for sure what your revolver can handle without potentially dangerous experimentation.

So it begs the question: Why doesn't Ruger market a ".454 Ruger" cartridge loaded to around 30,000 PSI in a slightly longer case to prevent loading into Colt Single Action Army clones?

Ruger's investment into this new cartridge would be minimal. The Blackhawk and Redhawk would be essentially unchanged as they're already capable of handling the higher pressure.

Plus, ".454 Ruger" sounds better than ".45 Colt Magnum Super +P Ruger Only Don't Shoot In Colt SAA"
Pretty much as below.

There is probably not enough of a market to justify doing the investment in the R&D on a new round. The 480 Ruger was an economic bust.
The 480 Ruger was an explanation to all your desires (A tamer .454 but still stouter than a 44 mag). The sales were just not there and it's been discontinued by Ruger due to lack of sales. I don't think that they're looking to go down that road again any time soon. Smithy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,532 Posts
Gotta really believe they have a marketing team with some experience so if there's not something made available, good chance they don't see a realistic market that would make the R&D, tooling, casting, dies, etc a worthwhile endeavor. With the .454 Casul already a strong cartridge in the market, bringing in a new cartridge isn't a smart business move. Remember the .480 Ruger? Where'd that go? Go overshadowed by the .460 and .500 S&W cartridges and didn't pull enough .454 folks away.
Now if you must have the ability to handle the high psi loads, simply spend the $ and go with a Freedom Arms. If it's that important, the little additional cost shouldn't be such an issue.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,603 Posts
Go overshadowed by the .460
Which made much more sense that Ruger's idea. It's the .460 I beleive that you can shoot it, or a 454 or any 45LC. Much more versatile than what Ruger had in place with their .480. Smithy.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
650 Posts
Ruger has a bad habit of putting no thought into acquiring ammo for their attempts to go larger than 45 colt. They never think that the market is in the big woods where ammo shops are far and few in between. Moose and grizzly bears don't live in the parking lot of gander mountain.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
67 Posts
.327

i guess i don't under stand them coming out with it , our local gun store has a SS Ruger black hawk in .327 and they can't sell it . its been setting there for months , 357 is still selling like hotcakes . 45lc selling the best .:rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,719 Posts
It is really simple actually ... One can load the .45 Colt up or down according to 'need'. The .454 (and other cartridges) are there for those that believe there are still dinosaurs in the woods :) . Then we drop down to the .44Mag and .357Mag. And finally the .22.... All other cartridges such as .327, .41Mag are just 'niche' cartridges that some enjoy shooting. Therefore bags the question... Why a 'new' cartridge? When none is needed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
730 Posts
It is really simple actually ... One can load the .45 Colt up or down according to 'need'. The .454 (and other cartridges) are there for those that believe there are still dinosaurs in the woods :) . Then we drop down to the .44Mag and .357Mag. And finally the .22.... All other cartridges such as .327, .41Mag are just 'niche' cartridges that some enjoy shooting. Therefore bags the question... Why a 'new' cartridge? When none is needed.
People shoot something other than a 41?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,603 Posts
People shoot something other than a 41?
I've finally figured out that calibers do not fill a necessary need other than provide an excellent excuse to acquire additional firearms. Darn good one too. I'm a caliber conservationist and try to keep mine to a minimum. I shoot 44 magnum just because I wanted a Ruger Alaskan and it's my house gun even though it may just be loaded with 44 specials (I don't reload). And then I have a few snubbie 357's and 38's but all are loaded with 38 special since my wife's lady Smith is in 38 special and I don't want to bother with two different rounds for carry guns. And last a 22 magnum because I thought it had potential as a carry piece, but I'm not convinced of that as yet. Going to be trying some new grips to see if I can hit anything with it. 38's are cheap by the bushel and select 44 mag rounds aren't that bad considering the rarity that it's shot and the same applies for the 22 mag. With my declining health I can no longer hold up a rifle or shotgun or long barreled pistol far as that goes so I have a collection of snubie's and my other interests have turned to black powder cannon/mortars. I get a great fun bang that everyone can enjoy. Smithy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
457 Posts
i guess i don't under stand them coming out with it , our local gun store has a SS Ruger black hawk in .327 and they can't sell it . its been setting there for months , 357 is still selling like hotcakes . 45lc selling the best .:rolleyes:
I'd buy it, if the price was right...:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,603 Posts
rivraton, the quote you mentioned was so true for me recently in a trade I was working up with my local dealer. He was to get a fancy (read expensive) Ruger SRH and what I wanted was a 3" stainless GP100 in 357. That gun was harder than hen's teeth to find, yet not only could he get his hands on several .327 short barreled firearms, he had quite a few examples on his shelf. All I knew was it was something akin to a 32 magnum and I didn't want to venture out to yet another caliber not reloading and all. Speaking of 32 magnum: When I was shooting SASS I would have given my eye teeth for a birdshead gripped pair of single action Vaquero's. I could have, only if I'd got them in 32 magnum. What happened to 45LC which I already had in a pair of Ruger Bisley's and a Rossi model 1892. I finally made what I was after using a Ruger Old Army that I cut back to 3.5". Converted it to 45LC with the aid of an after market conversion cylinder and then I welded up the grip web to full grip frame width so I could cut out a birdshead profile on the original grip frame and TruIvory set me up with a nice pair of ivory grips. It took a very long time in labor and money to make that gun so I couldn't afford to make another to have a pair to shoot in SASS. Ruger could have saved me a lot of time and trouble if they'd just offered their's in 45LC. Smithy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
290 Posts
I think adding another cartridge into the mix would make things even more confusing. You have the 45 Colt, 454 Casull, and 460 S&W Magnum now. The 454 and 460 are progressively longer cartridges based on the 45 Colt. Added into this mix are the various "Ruger Only" loads of the 45 Colt.

Also, stretching a 45 Colt so it won't fit into a weaker designed non-Ruger gun would give you a 454 Casull length cartridge.

The idea of a 454 Ruger cartridge at 30000 cup would have been a good idea maybe 35 years ago. Then the 454 Casull wasn't standardized.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
264 Posts
Simply put...

the 450M and 480R did not set the world on fire...

They would have to be crazy to drop the 480R and try a 454R

And yes I am a lover of both the 480R and 450M... and more than just a tad bitter.

Snake
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
303 Posts
Why make a .454R when you can make a revolver in .454 Casull and it would shoot .45 LC and .454 Casull?

Honestly I wonder how many .460's Smith have sold? Or even .500?

The .460 at least makes sense as it can fire the .460 S&W Magnum, the .454 Casull, and the .45 LC

I think Ruger sticking with the Casull makes sense.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,603 Posts
Honestly I wonder how many .460's Smith have sold? Or even .500?
The 500 S&W is what I'm wondering about Ruger? The cartridge is out and the public can do what they want with it. It's not a (you have to pay Smith if you use it) type of cartridge, at least I don't think so? I know that Freedom Arms chambers their revolver for the cartridge so why not Ruger. Sure, the Super Redhawk can't handle the dimensions of the 500, but they have the design (RSH) for a really big handgun that they'd only have to tweak a couple of measurements to enlarge it to handle the 500 and a lot of other cartridges. Ruger and Smith have always been in a childhood "Oh yeah, well look at this!" type of competition and Smith has struck the latest blow. Well just follow suit. There would be a lot of folks that'd want their 500 in a Ruger format (I for one). They'd also be able to put additional features in their gun that maybe Smith didn't think about. I don't know, maybe a quick change barrel/cylinder format so the owner could have two or three calibers in one gun? It will be interesting to see what Ruger's retaliatory move will be. I just hope it's not a .499 Ruger special just to be different. Ruger's pet caliber's haven't done so well in the past.
In fact, doesn't Smith have the firsts on the 44 magnum and possibly the 357 magnum as well? I know they went in partners with Remington on the 44, but I'm sure that Hornady would jump on the bandwagon. It would be much simpler to use an existing caliber (500 S&W), than come up with an odd ball new one. Smithy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,923 Posts
investment cast cylinder!rotf
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,603 Posts
investment cast cylinder!rotf
I thought the "Investment Cast vs. Forged Steel" argument was over with the result being that investment cast parts are just as strong? Maybe not? I had a chance (don't remember where it was now) to read an article about Ruger and their investment casting business. Both together and apart from their gun making business. You wouldn't believe the stuff they cast parts for. At the time, they were making several various parts for other name brand gun manufacturer's. I believe I read that they made the barrel blocks and receiver blocks for American Derringer. Then AD would do the machining that would actually make the casting "become" the receiver to avoid the Fed's getting involved. But just think, a two shot very small handgun (Derringer) that's chambered for 45/70. I know, I've owned and shot one of those. (ouch!). If their castings can handle that, I'm sure they would handle pretty much anything one could throw at it, including a S&W 500 magnum.

On another post I've mentioned the following, but throughout my firearms ownership days (quite a few now) I've owned several Smith's and Ruger's. I've also worked on several of the same for my department's officer's guns. The only Ruger I ever saw was a mark I that someone had taken apart and since he couldn't get it back together he brought me a baggie of parts. However on the Smith's, the biggest failure I've ever seen (and this is on a couple of them) was a bent crane. A bugger to fix unless you have a jig for it, which I did. So I'd assume that although the frame was forged, the rest of the parts certainly were not. With a Ruger, most if not all (save pins, screws, and springs) of their parts are investment cast. I think that shows a lot about the technology behind the craft and it's longevity. Smithy.
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top