Curious indeed. I suspect some of the board of directors are more bean counters than gun guys. They heard of the .22 Hornet and it sounded nice so they decided to make it. Pretty sure a gun guy would have chosen a more available cartridge. I may be wrong here (I frequently am), but it doesn't make sense to me.
I think that Ruger has made more .22 Hornet rifles than any other gun maker.
So it came naturally to offer it in their rifle size revolver…..
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If this is The Answer, what the hell was The Question?
WWJMBD?
In the Land of Oz, we cast with wheel weight and 2% Tin, Man.
Hey Ruger, I’ve got alot of Hornet ammo and a grand to blow, got anything I could spend it on?Originally Posted by Bigslug
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I’m a fan of 22 Hornet.
I have a #3 I got in the mid Seventies and I’ve put plenty of bullets and boolits through it.
Also I have a 5” Super Redhawk in 454 Casull. I do like that gun/caliber/configuration. It’s a lot of power in a packable package. The Super RedHawk is a big gun which is good for big cartridges. I just don’t see the reason to use that huge hand cannon carriage for the little 22 Hornet cartridge. 66 ounces is HEAVY for a handgun!
"Time and money don't do you a bit of good until you spend them." - My Dad
For the collector’s market.
I’d like a 22h revolver, but something more appropriately sized for the cartridge.
Well on the good side, it probably has close to zero felt recoil. No idea about muzzle blast though.
Not for me, I didn't like the Super Redhawk when they came out.
Robert
Love the Hornet and love my 10” and 21” Contenders.
I'm not sure anyone has ever said that about the Super Redhawk.
Put my vote on the "you bet" list. I think it's cool, I'd definitely own one.
Last edited by Bazoo; 12-09-2023 at 02:12 AM.
Ruger--"If you had another $500 we could fix you up."
_________________________________________________It's not that I can't spell: it is that I can't type.
Ruger needs to catch up on Blackhawk revolvers and 1894 rifle production first, then they can start making "boutique" revolvers!
Maker of Silver Boolits for Werewolf hunting
At least it's not another plastic 9mm!
I do like the 22 Hornet. Want it in 22 K-Hornet? Just a simple re-chamber job!
I'm sure Ruger has discussed the ammo situation with at least one manufacturer (hopefully, not one owned by Vista Outdoor!).
I kinda want to like this. However, I'm not a fan of the Super Redhawk. (Why does it seem that every new gun has been beat repeatedly by the Ugly Stick?)
Ruger, please bring back the SRM Blackhawk in 357 Max, plus maybe a few other cartridges.
Last edited by 6string; 12-09-2023 at 09:32 PM.
That's what 5.7x28 costs around here and folks still buy it.
Currently casting and loading: .32 Auto, .380 Auto, .38 Special, 9X19, .357 Magnum, .257 Roberts, 6.5 Creedmoor, .30 WCF, .308 WCF, .45-70.
Big revolvers in .22 Hornet have been done before. Taurus and Magnum Research offered models that were even heavier than the Ruger back in 2001. https://www.gun-tests.com/handguns/r...-research-bfr/
I think handloads with powders suited to the short barrel length would be preferable to factory ammo. I could see hiking around in ground squirrel country with a scoped Ruger and a monopod rest and having a pretty good time.
Remember: Ammo will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no ammo.
22 Hornet conversions for revolvers go way back. I am kind of fond of the Christy 1873 Colt conversions to 22 Hornet. Post #11.
https://www.coltforum.com/threads/22...A#post-1333921
Last edited by M-Tecs; 12-10-2023 at 03:21 AM.
2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"Before you argue with someone, ask yourself, is that person even mentally mature enough to grasp the concept of different perspectives? Because if not, there’s absolutely no point."
– Amber Veal
"The Highest form of ignorance is when your reject something you don't know anything about".
- Wayne Dyer
Yep, I can remember the Raging Hornet...for $599. Should bought one at the time. Big dollars now of toy want one. My buddy who's a gun Smith had a 77/44 in a Hornet for years and years. Just sold it a year ago. Said it never had acceptable Accuracy and would rather shoot and or download 223. Womder if Ruger will come back out with the 77/44 again now that the redhawk is out. I have a bunch of Horner brass and dies so because I own the Savage 24F predator in Hornet over 12 gauge choked. The rarest in the 24 series. Just never messes with much load development with it after I bought it last year. Got it from someone who never shot it and bought new. When the optic is zeroed for the Hornet at 100 yards its pretty close to regulated for the shotgun.
Back in the 80s, a friend bought a Colt SAA that had been bushed, sleeved, lined and chambered to .22 Hornet. We took it out to the dump and tried it out. One cylinderful and the extractor assembly fell off the barrel. Tex was so infuriated that he ceased firing, jammed the screw back into the stripped threaded hole and unloaded it at the next show.
I always thought he should have given it another chance, with a new holding screw. We were wearing earmuffs, but the Hornet in the revolver didn’t seem nearly as loud as the concussion I got from my S&W .22 Jet. The mild taper on the Hornet shells seemed to help; there was no problem with setback and hard cylinder turning. The previous owner of my 53 had slicked up the action and just slightly roughened the chambers to reduce setback of the shells with normal loadings. But I could still have it happen if I pushed anything, or didn’t wipe the oil out of the chambers before firing.
Admittedly, not a lot of time was spent wringing-out the arrangement, but if I hadn’t had the Jet already, I would have bought the converted SAA from him.
Super RedHawks and Redhawks are handsome for what they do, not for eye appeal, although I like them. All 3 of the ones I owned were super strong and accurate-very accurate. But.....Ruger, if you build a 357 Maximum.....well I would be all over that one but a 22 Hornet in a crew served gun frame??? Not so much.
IT AINT what ya shoot--its how ya shoot it. NONE of us are as smart as ALL of us!
I like the original Redhawk (especially in stainless), I never had any problems with either of the 5½" ones I had in .44 Magnum. I just don't like the frame extension on the Super Redhawk.
I think my wish for it gun from Ruger would be a stretched frame standard Redhawk in .357 Max.
Robert
Posting Permissions
| BP | Bronze Point | IMR | Improved Military Rifle | PTD | Pointed |
| BR | Bench Rest | M | Magnum | RN | Round Nose |
| BT | Boat Tail | PL | Power-Lokt | SP | Soft Point |
| C | Compressed Charge | PR | Primer | SPCL | Soft Point "Core-Lokt" |
| HP | Hollow Point | PSPCL | Pointed Soft Point "Core Lokt" | C.O.L. | Cartridge Overall Length |
| PSP | Pointed Soft Point | Spz | Spitzer Point | SBT | Spitzer Boat Tail |
| LRN | Lead Round Nose | LWC | Lead Wad Cutter | LSWC | Lead Semi Wad Cutter |
| GC | Gas Check |
Reply With Quote