A snubbie Redhawk, .357, 8-shot:
The photos were lifted from gun forums
The .44 GP100 ships next week, the .357 Redhawk in January. I don't know the MSRP on the Redhawk.
I've always heard that the reason for fluting the cylinders was to reduce the rotational mass. When you work a revolver hard, the cylinder slams to a stop against the bolt. Maybe it's not that important a consideration.
A 3" GP100 in .357 weighs 36oz, the .44 should be around that range. That's doable for carrying on a sturdy belt. Purse-carry, not so much.
Anyway, I do like the .44 Special round. I carried a Smith 696 "no dash" for awhile, until the used value of those guns crossed into the low four-bill range. Carry guns, to my mind, are tools. They get used and somewhat abused. It makes little sense to carry a gun with any serious collector value. So I am interested in this new GP100, especially if/when the street price drops a bit below MSRP.
On the other hand... I'm not at all clear as to what the GP100-.44 will do that can't be done with a 2.75" Smith & Wesson Model 69. It'd be a no-brainer if S&W would only get rid of that stupid lock.
6 comments:
I suspect fluting has more to do with gross weight than moment of inertia. Light weight is nice for carrying, but in a small, magnum caliber handgun the unfluted cylinder would decrease perceived recoil somewhat. OTOH, with prolonged firing, a fluted cylinder will cool better.
I think the lack of fluting comes down to a couple of reasons...
1) There's a misconception among the gun buying public an unfluted cylinder is stronger than a fluted one. Ruger is merely giving the customer what they want.
And
2) The cylinder is one of the few remaining parts (esp on a Ruger) on a modern revolver that requires extensive machining. Eliminating the flutes saves on tooling
and machine time. Save a dollar here and a dollar there, and pretty soon, somebody in accounting is getting a Christmas bonus.
Plus, five flutes just look funny, and eight looks awfully busy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluting_(firearms)
I'd always been told it was to enhance cylinder rotational speed in a skilled shooters hands. It was also a bit of machinist showmanship when labor costs were incredibly low in comparison to overhead.
As much as I like the .44 Special I'd sooner have a 3" .357 or .45ACP wheel gun.
You'll like the weight after a few cylinders of full up .357 :-)
I'm a little leery of timing issues in 8-shot revolvers. Not a lot of rotation time to get things done.
I want Ruger to make a .327 carbine or rifle.
Yeah, I know.
Post a Comment