Probably a little early, but does anyone have any experience with the new 8-shot Ruger revolver? Am interested in shooting/handling aspects, not opinions of it's appearance. Thanks in advance.

Kaaskop49
Shield #5103

No, and I probably won’t on account of the hideous barrel cutouts either. They had a really nice thing going but for some inexplicable reason chose to make the barrel mimic those found on cheap Chinese BB revolvers.

I have to agree about the barrel, but I do love that Ruger is following Taurus' lead by shoehorning an oversized cylinder into a smaller frame, like Taurus does wih their Tracker series.

Now if only S&W would see the light...

I handled one recently and was utterly unimpressed.
The balance felt "off" and the trigger was no better than my plain-jane 4" blued GP-100. That gun shoots the lights out and the Super would have to go a long ways to beat it for accuracy.
For that kind of money ($1299 at my LGS) I would expect a good deal more gun.
Then, of course, there are the aforementioned aesthetic "issues" that this revolver has.
It was "just not for me" in any way.

Since a large number of former S&W's key employees now work at Ruger, you can expect to see more of the "traditional Ruger look" trashed by the same crew that has created the hideous S&W Performance Center revolvers.

I don't have any experience with it. That said, don't get too excited over this thing.

It is, at its core, the 5.5 inch Redhawk, which has at times already been chambered in .357 Magnum, but now with an 8-shot cylinder which borrows its looks from the cylinder on the LCR revolver.

All that adds up to an oversized .357 magnum that cannot be used for concealed carry (yes, I know that is not its purpose), and its giant size means that for an "outdoorsman's gun," it really should be chambered in 44 Magnum. Therefore, to me anyway, it is a big yawn, although it might get some traction with people who like it just for its irregular appearance, or big size, or whatever.

At least it doesn't say "357 Mag - 8 times" on the barrel.

Many thanks for your well thought-out post. It reminded me of the Match Champion I owned for an entire week (!) and about which everyone raved! I had hoped it would be superior to the Wiley Clapp 3" bbl GP100, which gun I absolutely adore. Despite all the alleged tuning and attention to detail, the MC was distinctly inferior to the WC gun. Thanks again!

Kaaskop49
Shield #5103

Nope and not gonna buy one. I have an old GP100 and it is great, but I already have one ugly Ruger, a Super Redhawk, I see no need to place more ugly into my pool of beautiful firearms.

I didn't think a Ruger D/A revolver could get get any uglier than they already were.

I hope that I don't see one. I like the GP100 a lot but that thing is scary bad looking.

I didn't either but I found out I was wrong.

I like the looks and the shroud and sleeve barrel assembly is a definite plus. My meh attitude would come from the sheer size and weight for a 357. Generally speaking, If the it's heavier than a steel k frame, I'm not interested.

At best Ruger's choice of a name for their new revolver variation is unfortunate. The name is miss-leading many people.

Yes, Redhawks (RH) were made as 6 shot .357s in the past and are now cataloged as 8 shot .357s but this new revolver is not a RH, it is a Super Redhawk (SRH). What sets it apart from all previous SRHs is that it does not have the forward frame extension for scope mounting. While RH and SRH cylinders are the same size, the difference in their lock work and grip frames is significant. .44 Magnum RH and SRH cylinders have the same part number so installing a .357 RH cylinder in a SRH was easy.

For a long time gunsmiths have been cutting off SRH frame extensions and installing RH barrels. The result is a much more traditional looking revolver with lock work and a grip frame that I prefer over a RH's. When Ruger gets around to combining a larger caliber SRH without the frame extension, a traditional looking barrel and production line pricing, I'll be a buyer. At standard pricing I'd buy it in .357. Despite its unusual appearance I like the lighter weight .357 cylinder.

This sounds like a bad decision by Ruger. They hit on alot of their ideas though financially speaking.

Edit: i looked it up. While not terrible looking, it would have to have a great trigger for $1300.

The whole claim that Ruger is making about it being a competition gun doesn't add up. Which competition's rules allow 8-shot guns with longer than 4-inch barrels, without that competition's events being dominated by guns with optics? As far as I have read, the Ruger has no features that make mounting optics easy. This revolver is starting out the gate already behind the 627 PC.

Nobody is shoehorning an oversized cylinder into anything. A certain frame sizes cylinder is what it is and there's no changing it without completely altering the frame itself. The only mystery about Rugers new "GP100" is why they are calling it a GP100 at all, when it's clearly not. And perhaps why anyone would pay the ridiculous amount they are asking for such a ***** gun.

Happy to help!

No experience here.

But I have been sorting a new Redhawk for a few weeks, and I assume it is representative of all Ruger DA revolvers.

The action is rough. The trigger pull is heavy. The hammer spur is too damn skinny to be useful; it hurts my thumb to cock single action.

It's not a bad gun, but it's not a classic S&W like I'm used to.

Don't buy a Ruger without dry firing it a few dozen times. And expect to replace the factory grips.

__________________
I've still got it made.

I fixed this for you.

k22fan, I have never replaced grips on my classic S&W revolvers. All have wide trigger spurs. All have nice trigger pulls.

Buy a Ruger, you get a Ruger. Don't set your expectations based on S&W.

__________________
I've still got it made.

I cannot say that the Redhawk is representative of all of Ruger's DA revolver triggers. The Redhawk uses their old lockwork, the Super Redhawk and GP100 use a different lockwork and it is pretty easy to polish and smooth the new lockwork.

As for the narrow hammer, it has to be as Ruger uses a solid frame with a slot milled from the bottom through which the hammer and lockwork are inserted. I would think that a shoe, sort of like the trigger shoes of yesteryear, could be made for the hammer spur. I've not seen one, I suspect that there is very little demand for such a thing.

I found that the rubber and wood grips that are standard on the GP100 and Super Redhawk fit my hand very well and do a great job of absorbing recoil.