Ruger 357 maximum

[TUG]

Anyone loading 200 grain cast in the maximum? If so what is your choice in cast? I've got a new to me Ruger Maximum and looking for a good cast to punch paper.
Ronnie

[bobthenailer]

The RCBS 200gr FN is a excellent bullet ! NOE makes a excellent copy and you can get it in more than 2 cavaity mould either should work well in just about any 35 caliber cartradge be it rifle or pistol i personaly have used the RCBS boolet in 357 mag rifle & SS pistol & FA revolver and the 350 rem mag.

Heres some data for the 357 max using the Lyman 358315 204 gr bullet out of a 10" contender.
2400 12.0 gr @1,238 fps to 15.5gr @1,501 fps.
RX718.0 gr @1,404 fps to22.5 gr @1,524 fps.
IMR 4227 14.8 gr @1,267 fps to 18.0 gr @1,488 fps.

The highest velocity for a 200 gr hornday J bullet is 1,750fps with either 680 or RX7 powder.
1,500 fps can be reached with H110 , imr 4227 and 296.

[Beerd]

TUG,

Read this, it's a good one.

http://www.lasc.us/Fryxell357Max.htm
..

[44man]

Had one, took it to a shoot to get sight settings with a 200 gr and 4227. I shot a 39 out of 40 with no sight settings.
It left to buy something else, saddest day ever.

[contender1]

We have a serious Ruger 357 Maxi collector on the Ruger Forum looking for information on any & all of them. Could you share your info with him. He will keep it confidential. You can go there or contact me via PM. He goes by "Coogs."

[44man]

I no longer have my loads. Gave them with the gun but might find something.

[msp2640]

That's one that always been on my want list, when they come up for sale it has always been bad timing on my end. Hopefully someday! I frequent the Ruger Forum and have seen the posts on the Maximum. I think the fact that brass is like hens teeth right now, has kept the "hunger pains" at bay. Congrats on your new Max, if possible keep the post alive, for now I love to read about them - Thanks Bill

[Catshooter]

Nice pistol.

Whatever you do, don't send it back to Ruger. They will steal it from you. And no, I'm not kidding. You'll never see it again.


Cat

[bobthenailer]

Funny you should bring up RUGER STEALING !
A friend sent back his #1 ruger back for a mechanical repair , it had exceptional piece of wood on it ! even for back when they put better quality wood on them . thats why he bought the rifle, because of the wood ,
When he got the rifle back it had a std grade wood installed , he tried to get his orgional stock back from ruger but hit a brick wall with them! "SORRY CHARLIE "

[Catshooter]

bob,

Of course I know nothing about the circumstances surrounding their wood theft. Sort of sounds like an individual at Ruger who made off with it.

Ruger's theft of the Maximum revolvers though, that's company policy and inexcusable in my eyes.

I appreciate the good things that Bill Ruger did for the industry but will never forgive him for the evils that he did us.


Cat

[fecmech]

A friend sent back his #1 ruger back for a mechanical repair , it had exceptional piece of wood on it ! even for back when they put better quality wood on them . thats why he bought the rifle, because of the wood ,
I sent a Ruger Red Label sporting Clays gun back a few years ago for a broken ejector and general going over after about 60K rds. It had a really nice piece of wood that I had refinished to a mirror finish to bring out the grain. They contacted me and said they found a crack in the stock and asked if I wanted a new one. I asked if it would have some figure and burl in it like mine and they said they couldn't guarantee anything, just a stock. I told them to return the gun with the old stock and I would fix it. They then told me they could not test fire the gun with the cracked stock, I told them to send it unfired and I'd take care of it. When I got it back I could not find a crack anywhere and neither could my friend who makes violins. I put another 10 K through it and sold it to my nephew and he's shot the carp out of it with no problems. I didn't think much of it at the time but after your post, Hmmmm!

[contender1]

RUger doesn't "steal" any of the 357 Maxi's. It is a recall policy to keep them due to liability reasons. They will replace any 357 Maxi with a comparable currently produced SA revolver. But they are not stealing them.
I own a few Maxi's and knowing their liability issues, I will not send any of mine back.
As for stealing wood,,, I seriously doubt anybody working at Ruger would steal anything like that. First, all employees undergo a background check, and are drug tested. Plus, trying to "slip" a stock out the door wouldn't be worth losing a job over.
But, they do test guns, in different ways than we as consumers do. They have equipment for that. It is possible they flex tested the stock & found a crack that can't be easily seen. That's not to say it isn't there, OR that it will cause a problem.

As for "evils" that Bill did to us,,, I'm not sure I know what you mean there.
If it's about the magazine limitations issue many years ago, Bill was trying to fend off a more serious ban than got proposed. And do not forget that, during that time, S&W did cave in. But of course, there was a british company in charge of them too. Without the support of S&W, Bill was trying to prevent even stricter laws, but was seen as selling out.

[dubber123]

RUger doesn't "steal" any of the 357 Maxi's. It is a recall policy to keep them due to liability reasons. They will replace any 357 Maxi with a comparable currently produced SA revolver. But they are not stealing them. .

If I owned a .357 Maximum, I don't believe I would find anything in their current product line "comparable"

[contender1]

I agree! :D
The whole issue with the top strap flame cutting or the forcing cone erosion was caused by handloaders using light bullets & fast powders. Bill Sr. decided to scrap the entire project & do a "recall" of sorts.
But many of us use these FINE sixguns as they were intended to be used.

[JHeath]

RUger doesn't "steal" any of the 357 Maxi's. It is a recall policy to keep them due to liability reasons.

Has anybody tested that in court?

If anybody but Ruger took your revolver and refused to return it, it would be theft (or the legal term "conversion").

What makes Ruger different? What is their property interest in a product they long ago sold? They did not lease the revolver to you -- they sold it. They surrendered their interest. They have no property interest, so no legitimate claim to seizing your gun. It is an illegitimate grab. If you sue, the revolver will ruled your property, not theirs. But a court will award you no more than Ruger is offering. So they stole it, because they know the "penalty" will be the cost of a new revolver, which they are willing to forfeit because they want to take your property.

I am interested because a relative left me a Ruger .357 Max that is a Pakistan bring-back captured by the Delta team at Osama's compound. A wealthy collector who happens to be a friend, has signed a contract with me to buy that Ruger for $100,000 after I get the pawl replaced. If I send the gun to Ruger, and they don't send it back, the value is $100,000 -- I can show the court a contract to sell it for that much, so those are my damages. I will either get my revolver back with a new pawl, or sell Ruger a .357 Max for $100,000.

I do not need to prove it was Osama's Ruger. I believe it is, and the seller believes it is, and that makes the contract legitimate. I even insured it for $100,000. I will file a claim and let Ruger slug it out with Consolidated Monolith Life & Property instead of bullying some middle-class stiff who just wants his revolver back.

[Thor's Daddy]

Has anybody tested that in court?

If anybody but Ruger took your revolver and refused to return it, it would be theft (or the legal term "conversion").

What makes Ruger different? What is their property interest in a product they long ago sold? They did not lease the revolver to you -- they sold it. They surrendered their interest. They have no property interest, so no legitimate claim to seizing your gun. It is an illegitimate grab. If you sue, the revolver will ruled your property, not theirs. But a court will award you no more than Ruger is offering. So they stole it, because they know the "penalty" will be the cost of a new revolver, which they are willing to forfeit because they want to take your property.

I am interested because a relative left me a Ruger .357 Max that is a Pakistan bring-back captured by the Delta team at Osama's compound. A wealthy collector who happens to be a friend, has signed a contract with me to buy that Ruger for $100,000 after I get the pawl replaced. If I send the gun to Ruger, and they don't send it back, the value is $100,000 -- I can show the court a contract to sell it for that much, so those are my damages. I will either get my revolver back with a new pawl, or sell Ruger a .357 Max for $100,000.

I do not need to prove it was Osama's Ruger. I believe it is, and the seller believes it is, and that makes the contract legitimate. I even insured it for $100,000. I will file a claim and let Ruger slug it out with Consolidated Monolith Life & Property instead of bullying some middle-class stiff who just wants his revolver back.

There's no need to instigate some sort of legal drama. Just send it to a competent smith to have the pawl replaced and be done with it.

[Catshooter]

Mr. Heath,

Did you send it to them? I would love to see them have to hand over either your Maxi or a hundred grand!

I disagree with you Thor's Daddy. It's theft. Calling it a "recall policy" doesn't change the facts. If they're are worried over some fancied liability issue they can have you sign away your right to sue and then return your property.

I've found over the years that "liability, liability" is often bandied about when in fact it's just a cover, a convenient lie.

You might want to look a little deeper into the actions that Bill actually took before apologizing for him. In no way was he trying to head anything off other than his loosing some money on the Mini 30.


Cat

[Thor's Daddy]

Mr. Heath,

Did you send it to them? I would love to see them have to hand over either your Maxi or a hundred grand!

I disagree with you Thor's Daddy. It's theft. Calling it a "recall policy" doesn't change the facts. If they're are worried over some fancied liability issue they can have you sign away your right to sue and then return your property.

I've found over the years that "liability, liability" is often bandied about when in fact it's just a cover, a convenient lie.

You might want to look a little deeper into the actions that Bill actually took before apologizing for him. In no way was he trying to head anything off other than his loosing some money on the Mini 30.


Cat

You can disagree with me all you want, but I didn't say anything about theft, Ruger's policies, or the Ruger family.

[JHeath]

Before this gets out of hand, Osama's Ruger was a legal hypothetical.

However, I just got a new Dillon 650, and am selling Osama's Pakistan bring-back RCBS Rockchucker press for $15,000 if anybody wants it.

Tug: I can't steer you any better than the Fryxell article that Beerd linked.

[Plastikosmd]

well, in no way would I send them back a 357max, thx for the info

[contender1]

I won't get into any "legal" discussions here or anywhere concerning what is legal & what is not concerning Sturm, Ruger & Co. If you have something, made by them, (such as a .357 Maximum,) I strongly suggest that you contact them before sending them anything. Ask them what their policy is. Ask them what they will do with it. Ask them why they will keep the gun (if they say they will,) & give you a replacement.
Let their legal team be the ones who answer the legal questions.

[leadhead]

I sent my 357 max back to Ruger around 1980 something because it was shaving lead. I heard
the same thing then about them keeping it and replaceing it with something else.
I sent it in listing the problem and about 3 weeks later, I got it back repaired. I never shot it again. It's
still in the box with the paper work they sent back with it. I think that story was BS
Denny

[WALLNUTT]

Me too Leadhead but then like dumb*** I sold it. Stupid Me