Ruger SuperRedhawk .480
- Thread starter Pistolero
- Start date
smokeywolf
Well-Known Member
"Great Balls of Fire!"
Damn, makes a guy understand why nothing goes near the barrel/cylinder gap.
A 480 Ruger makes sense to me, a 460 SW does not. At some point enough is just enough.
Don't know about the 480 but I can assure you that the SRH is a fine revolver Bill.
A 480 Ruger makes sense to me, a 460 SW does not. At some point enough is just enough.
Don't know about the 480 but I can assure you that the SRH is a fine revolver Bill.
I could see it as sensible, for some things. For deer I view a 44 mag as perfectly fine.
Some of the things I consider are available moulds, cost of brass, and how much lead and powder it takes.
See, I'm a cheap kinda guy in many ways. A 44 mag is a reasonably cheap round to shoot and feed. I like that.
That said, a 480 Ruger does make a bigger hole and does carry more weight down range. Is it needed? I don't know.
Some of the things I consider are available moulds, cost of brass, and how much lead and powder it takes.
See, I'm a cheap kinda guy in many ways. A 44 mag is a reasonably cheap round to shoot and feed. I like that.
That said, a 480 Ruger does make a bigger hole and does carry more weight down range. Is it needed? I don't know.
I could see it as sensible, for some things. For deer I view a 44 mag as perfectly fine.
Some of the things I consider are available moulds, cost of brass, and how much lead and powder it takes.
See, I'm a cheap kinda guy in many ways. A 44 mag is a reasonably cheap round to shoot and feed. I like that.
That said, a 480 Riger does make a bigger hole and does carry more weight down range. Is it needed? I don't know.
Some of the things I consider are available moulds, cost of brass, and how much lead and powder it takes.
See, I'm a cheap kinda guy in many ways. A 44 mag is a reasonably cheap round to shoot and feed. I like that.
That said, a 480 Riger does make a bigger hole and does carry more weight down range. Is it needed? I don't know.
Pistolero
Well-Known Member
Hah! Of course you are right, deer will fall to any well placed .44 bullet.
I recognize that I passed "need" about 3 or 4 decades ago, way out into
"want" now. I just wanted to know if someone had found it to be inaccurate,
difficult to load for, or some other non-obvious issue. Not sure I will get one,
but thinking about it.
I recognize that I passed "need" about 3 or 4 decades ago, way out into
"want" now. I just wanted to know if someone had found it to be inaccurate,
difficult to load for, or some other non-obvious issue. Not sure I will get one,
but thinking about it.
Oh, I fully understand that we buy what we want more than what we need. My want list has room left on it, the need list was full long ago.
I like the 480 Ruger. I like the idea of more bullet weight at reasonable velocity. Now if Ruger made a 5 shot Blackhawk for it then I would really be interested.
I like the 480 Ruger. I like the idea of more bullet weight at reasonable velocity. Now if Ruger made a 5 shot Blackhawk for it then I would really be interested.
Pistolero
Well-Known Member
Got the SBH, dies in hand, 20 rds of ammo, Starline brass is on backorder,
some Cast Perf bullets in hand to do a bit of learning with before I select a mold.
Those projectiles are BIG!
Can't yet subject my eye to a jolt, so the range visit will be next week.
This "seeing" stuff is pretty neat, I had almost forgotten what it was like!
Very good results so far from the lens replacements, still not settled in
but way better than a month ago, already. Sometimes just smile looking
at a plant or a tree - seeing it clearly, good colors, good contrast and in
nice, sharp focus again is awfully wonderful. Front sight on a 6" K frame
is crisp now with no glasses, may not be as good for shorter bbls.
Still will need to get slight correction glasses for beyond 50 ft or so, at 20-20
according to the doc without glasses now, but there is definitely more there with
proper glasses for long distances. The whole "reading glasses" thing kind sucks,
but is sure a worthwhile trade-off! Thank God for modern medical miracles.
some Cast Perf bullets in hand to do a bit of learning with before I select a mold.
Those projectiles are BIG!
Can't yet subject my eye to a jolt, so the range visit will be next week.
This "seeing" stuff is pretty neat, I had almost forgotten what it was like!
Very good results so far from the lens replacements, still not settled in
but way better than a month ago, already. Sometimes just smile looking
at a plant or a tree - seeing it clearly, good colors, good contrast and in
nice, sharp focus again is awfully wonderful. Front sight on a 6" K frame
is crisp now with no glasses, may not be as good for shorter bbls.
Still will need to get slight correction glasses for beyond 50 ft or so, at 20-20
according to the doc without glasses now, but there is definitely more there with
proper glasses for long distances. The whole "reading glasses" thing kind sucks,
but is sure a worthwhile trade-off! Thank God for modern medical miracles.
Last edited:
Pistolero
Well-Known Member
Fired a few rounds with the SRH, and it is a thumper. The muzzle flip
is impressive but the hand impact while solid isn't remotely in the league
with the S&W 329 with heavy loads. Just something about a 26 oz .44 Mag
launcher that has to be felt to be "appreciated".
Nothing spectacular in the results, factory ammo and two five shot attempts
at 25 yds. Standing was better than sitting. Eyes still settling in, and no
glasses yet, so not a fair test of anything other than the hammer and firing
pins. Rifle front sight is easier to see, but can see the SRH front sight
pretty well.
is impressive but the hand impact while solid isn't remotely in the league
with the S&W 329 with heavy loads. Just something about a 26 oz .44 Mag
launcher that has to be felt to be "appreciated".
Nothing spectacular in the results, factory ammo and two five shot attempts
at 25 yds. Standing was better than sitting. Eyes still settling in, and no
glasses yet, so not a fair test of anything other than the hammer and firing
pins.
Rifle front sight is easier to see, but can see the SRH front sightpretty well.
Here's a piece I wrote on the 480 Ruger some time ago: http://www.lasc.us/Fryxell480Ruger.htm
I know some will ask "why" but how does a 480 Ruger do when downloaded to say a 400 gr bullet at 900 fps?
Glen, as an owner of a SRH in 44 mag I agree with your feelings that the gun is ugly but is very pretty in functionality. It is built like a tank and is quite accurate. Ruger built this one to be a shooter, not eye candy. They got it right.
Glen, as an owner of a SRH in 44 mag I agree with your feelings that the gun is ugly but is very pretty in functionality. It is built like a tank and is quite accurate. Ruger built this one to be a shooter, not eye candy. They got it right.
Pistolero
Well-Known Member
Yes, me, too. Never liked the looks of the SRH, but it is very functional with the frame
extension. Enjoyed the article, as usual, Glen. Great writing, great information. You should
be writing for one of the published mags, you'd probably increase their circulation.
Brad - I doubt that you would have any trouble with a buffalo with that 900 fps load
in the .480. It is interesting that I had decided in advance that mimicking my favorite
ordinary load for the .44 Mag, 10 gr of Unique, which gives around 1050 in my shorter .44s
but with a 400ish cast bullet in the .480 seemed like a good starting (and perhaps ending)
point. I doubt anything on this continent would survive a well placed shot with that
load. Pretty much a low end .45-70 load but a fatter bullet.
extension. Enjoyed the article, as usual, Glen. Great writing, great information. You should
be writing for one of the published mags, you'd probably increase their circulation.
Brad - I doubt that you would have any trouble with a buffalo with that 900 fps load
in the .480. It is interesting that I had decided in advance that mimicking my favorite
ordinary load for the .44 Mag, 10 gr of Unique, which gives around 1050 in my shorter .44s
but with a 400ish cast bullet in the .480 seemed like a good starting (and perhaps ending)
point. I doubt anything on this continent would survive a well placed shot with that
load. Pretty much a low end .45-70 load but a fatter bullet.
F
freebullet
Guest
I got the chance to shoot the srh in 480 & 454. The 480 is fun. Has a nice rolling recoil. Not real sharp on the hand and plenty accurate.
I went with the 454 due to its versatility and more available brass. Gallery loads through ouch it has me covered.
I would like to hear more about your development and experience with it. I'm not opposed to snatching up a hot deal on one if found.
I went with the 454 due to its versatility and more available brass. Gallery loads through ouch it has me covered.
I would like to hear more about your development and experience with it. I'm not opposed to snatching up a hot deal on one if found.