Ruger Super Redhawk in .22 Hornet

Looks.....intriguing. I bet it is L-O-U-D!!!

Somebody please buy one and let us know how it shoots.

Ruger(R) Super Redhawk(R) Standard Double-Action Revolver Model 5526

__________________
Forum consigliere

Taurus did this years ago with the "Raging Hornet". I think the rage is probably more a loud buzzing sound.

__________________
Alan
SWCA LM 2023, SWHF 220

Interesting idea. But, in the Super Redhawk?
It weighs 66 oz. That’s over 4 lbs!
I’ve seen .22 Hornet rifles that barely weigh more than that.
I wonder what the intended purpose is? Range toy? Anything else?

If only S&W had chosen a better centerfire .22 cartridge than the Jet, maybe something like the .224 Harvey Kay-Chuk, to pair with the K-frame target model. That would’ve been a winner.
Here’s a quote from John Taffin:

“Harvey’s Kay-Chuk Smith & Wesson K-22 pre-dated the .22 Jet and .256 Winchester and his trimmed and fire-formed .22 Hornet cases resulted in the highest velocity possible in a revolver at the time. Had Smith & Wesson chambered their Model 53 .22 Jet sixguns for the K-Chuk instead of the ill-fated Jet, it might still be in production.”

Here’s a previous thread on that topic:
Model 48 .224 Kay-Chuc

I wonder if you could get a gunsmith to make one of these up for less money than Ruger wants for their new product?
I’ve seen used ones built on model 17s and 48s for much less money.

I do agree with this:
“ Somebody please buy one and let us know how it shoots.”

But, if you very much want a handgun in .22 Hornet, another option is a used T/C Contender. Albeit, this is a single shot pistol, but does that really matter? It was available with a 10" barrel, either light weight octagonal or heavy bull barrel, plus an 8" octagonal barrel in the early days. Even with a scope, like the T/C Lobo scope in their proprietary scope mount, I think it weighs in around 3 lbs. They were widely considered to be the most accurate of all the T/C Contender chamberings.
Better yet, these are a "Best Buy" on the used market, often selling for about $600.

Attached Images

T:C ad.jpg (151.6 KB, 49 views)

This is kind of surprising. .22 Hornet is not exactly a plentiful round on the online ammo offerings. You would likely have to reload to get the most out of a revolver chambered for it. Certainly, if there is a revolver strong enough to take the pressure, it would be the massive Redhawk.

Looks like the 'street' price will be a bit North of 1k. It's $1499 MSRP on the web page but it is a Super Redhawk so .. .

I used to have a thing for .22 Hornet. I had a 15” Encore barrel and have shot the Freedom Arms .22 Hornet. I don’t remember barrel length but I’m thinking 8-10”. They are no louder than my 77/22 Hornet. But accuracy was not great from either. However it was with REM and WIN factory ammo. My friends father who is a handloader wanted the Encore barrel more than me.

A good friend has a K22 converted to Hornet. It will not accept standard ammo. Bullets must be seated deeper
It is loud!

The Taurus Raging Hornets sell for $1200-$1500 on gunbroker and those are actual completed auctions. Over that they don't catch bids. Many of those are used. The .218 Bee chambering also moves around that price. I'd expect those prices to fall with the Ruger priced where it is.

Seems they could market any number of other more attractive offerings.

I shot my 10" TC Hornet ONCE without hearing protection. Felt like someone stuck a sharpened pencil in my ear.

Well, one thing is reasonably certain, the gunsmiths will have barrels and cylinders to rebore and make into something more useful. It might be an expensive place to start but nothing custom, if it’s truly well done, is ever cheap.

I recently saw what I was told was a new production Redhawk in .357. That would have possibilities too, if it’s not one of those 8-shot wonders that folks seem to like nowadays.

I had one of the Raging Hornets for a number of years. Mostly just a novelty, too heavy to enjoy carrying and without the accuracy of a 22 Hornet rifle (for me anyway). Always planned to shoot a turkey with it, but never did. I find the S&W 53 a much more practical, and fun, revolver. I doubt that this will be Ruger's most popular product.

Jeff
SWCA #1457

A 22 Hornet revolver doesn't really appeal to me. I always found the hornet to be the least accurate of the 22 centerfires. Plus I'm thinking it would loud and not very efficient unless handloaded with a faster pistol powder.

I have 22 hornet barrels in 10" and 16 1/2" for contenders. My 357 max outshoots them but not by much. The Hornet is one I always wonder why anyone would need a repeater.

__________________
Front sight and squeeze

Local Pawn Shop has a Uberti single shot rolling block pistol in 22 Hornet. A beautiful weapon, and I am tempted, but I haven't seen .22 hornet ammo in a long, long time. (and the ammo was expensive then)

Have a Contender in .22 Hornet with an original Puma 'scope; delightful specialty pistol. And a Jet, which is actually a pretty good field pistol around here (I load the first two with .22LR, other four are Jets) so I am ready for anything from rats to magpies to coyotes. Am intrigued by the Redhawk but it seems way too heavy for practical, everyday carry around the ranch. But I would recommend that we all buy one, because they'll prolly be discontinued pretty soon, and thereby escalate in price dramatically.

One of the LA handgun clubs got Tauras to introduce the Raging Hornet. for a competition class at 100 yards. They discovered that the thin neck walls varied by up to .002" on the best brass, and that alone caused inaccuracy problems that couldn't be over come with out creating other problems. John Nosler to the rescue: Nosler Brass came out with brass that is a consistent .011 thick! I bought a box of 100 "Ready to Load" brass, and measured them: All 100 were exactly .011 thick and less than .0005 variation. All 100 weighed within the same 1/10 grain on my digital RCBS scale All 100 were at the same OAL, within .001". When I deburred the Flash holes and trued the primer pockets, I had a couple of very tiny brass filings.

The only place I have ever found Nosler Brass in 22 Hornet and 221 Fireball is Midway.

Ivan

In my 10" Bull T/C barrel in Hornet, the Nosler brass cut groups in half of the best I ever had with WW & Hornady brass that I trimmed, trued & weight selected.

Yes, the Contender, with it’s single shot barrel, is well designed to take advantage of precision brass. I wonder if a revolver is? Ruger has a long established problem with precision cylinder machining. Not many folks know it, but Ruger cuts their cylinders from long pieces of round stock steel from a secondary supplier. The variance in steel hardness is all over the map. Within a single cylinder blank hardness can vary considerably. This has a negative impact on machinability They can’t even make a cylinder these days with consistent enough throat diameters to acceptly shoot .45 Colt. How’s that gonna play out with .22 Hornet?
Traditionally, Hornet brass runs 0.010” neck thickness to a couple thousandths less. Nosler brass, if it’s consistent at 0.011” would be a big improvement! But I wonder if it will make a difference if cylinder throats and chambers are inconsistent?

By the way, the list price on that Nosler .22 Hornet brass is $275 for a bag of 250 pcs. Over a buck a piece. Of course, everyone is out of stock. Expect to pay that full price IF you can find any!

That would be a very odd move. You would need to replace the barrel. The whole point of the K22 was to boost the Hornet without needing to replace the barrel.

The 100 round boxes are ready to load. The 250 round bags, need to be sized, and Trimmed to length. Then they are all the same weight. (at least on the bag of Hornet and the bag of Fireball brass I bought.)

I'm a pretty avid Hornet shooter and find that 350 brass is a lifetime supply.

Ivan

Ruger's offering seems like an overweight dog and I predict poor sales. I wonder if they are going to exhibit the same problems with cases backing out that happen with the Model 53 if the brass and chambers are not kept completely oil and case lube free ?

Years ago, a friend and I were lying side by side on a hill crest and playing a game of "Whomping Rocks" with our Hornet Contenders. Mine was 10" Bull and his was a Super 14. I noticed that his was so much quieter than mine and the time of flight seemed so much longer on his. The game is to shoot a rock at an unknown distance until it breaks.

I was using reloads with 35 grain Hornady V-Max over H4227 @ 3150fps. Come to find out his gun shot unbelievably small groups! But his velocity was not much over 22 LR speed! I could see very small chips fly off the rock when I shot. I could see the rock move under his impacts, but that game would have lasted years with his ammo!

I wonder how much velocity you lose to the cylinder gap on a revolver?

I don't know how accurate the later Charging Hornet revolvers were, but the first batch (with good brass) were sub 1" at 100 yards. I'm positive Ruger could do it, but only if they really wanted to!

Ivan

Maybe a new gun in that caliber will encourage ammo makers to produce more.

Didn't I read that Smith & Wesson made one? Just one, an experimental one in 1955.

__________________
Robert
SWCA #2906, SWHF #760

In the 1950-1960 era "Hy Hunter Guns" in California was the Distributor for "Great Western Single Action Revolvers" which were copies of the Colt Model 1873. Most were blued with fake stag grips. They were offered in several different calibers, one of which was .22 Hornet. I would imagine some of these revolvers are still around.

This would surely be a gun I would shoot once and probably never again. Like most of the others, Larry

i have a kay-chuk on first year #48 8 3/8. Very fun not that loud, I have 11 model 53s, now thats LOUD.

__________________
"I'm feeling MUCH better now"

What kind of velocities do you get with a hornet revolver?

People stop and watch me when I shoot my 10" TC Hornet at the range. It's accuracy is impressive. Blasting cans and bits clay birds at 100 yards with a handgun is impressive. Can even hit golf balls. I doubt that revolver would be as accurate.

I can't believe the combination will be much of a market success. But you never know what will fly.
The Ruger Hawkeye .256 single shot went over well. But that was half a lifetime ago. Maybe it is time to try again with a different combination of caliber and firearm design type.

There just doesn't seem to be much love in the general market out there for the 22H. Not that people still aren't loading and shooting it, but it's not a first choice for Varmit and long range .22CF caliber.
Gotta sell a lot of them to keep them in production.

Good luck to them. Anything that keeps the USA firearms industry alive is good.

Fresh out of the box, and this is how the first 8 rounds came out of it.

__________________
"Tastes just like chicken"

^That doesn’t mean anything without a distance.

I think a better choice for Ruger would have been one of their New Model Super Blackhawk Hunter models. They have a 7.5" barrel that is machined to take the Ruger scope rings.
The standard weight in .44 Magnum is 52 oz. but I imagine it would increase quite a bit in .22 Hornet chambering. But probably not up to 66 oz. I don't think double action is important. It could probably have been engineered to hold 8 rounds as well. Why the Super Redhawk ?

This group was shot standing off hand, from around 50 feet (paced off).
This was straight out of the box as it came brand new, with no sight adjusting.

This second group was the same as the first. Unfortunately we didn't have the sand bags along and a very limited supply of ammo, so didn't do any longer range shooting or sight adjusting.

__________________
"Tastes just like chicken"

Subtract the width of the group from the height, that will tell you how much velocity variation that box of factory ammo has! Just a rough approximation.

I consider that first group a good sign!

Ivan

Bad idea.
Besides. What would that combination do that some other cartridge wouldn’t do better?
Muzzle blast and top strap gas cutting would be horrendous.