Should Ruger design and produce a low-barrel revolver?

Help Support Ruger Forum:

Should Ruger build a low-barrel revolver?

  • Something else: see my comment below

    Votes: 2 4.1%
  • No, I am only interested in the traditional revolver designs.

    Votes: 46 93.9%
  • Yes, I think that would be a moneymaker!

    Votes: 2 4.1%

  • Total voters
    49

LbA3V0w

Bearcat
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
39
I mean the kind where the barrel is at the 6 o'clock position on the cylinder, instead of the traditional 12 o'clock, in order to moderate the muzzle flip.

Has Ruger already tried that at some point? :?:

What do you think? Would you buy one?
 
Ya mean like that butt ugly Rhino ? I think Ruger should make a .480 BH.. stevemb
 
I'm fine with the current offerings. The only thing I would do is take the sharp edges off their triggers. That really annoys me. And offer a 5 shot SuperBlackhawk in .480.
 
stevemb said:
Ya mean like that butt ugly Rhino ? I think Ruger should make a .480 BH.. stevemb
No, that one is ugly, and the mechanism design seems iffy.

I mean an original Ruger low-barrel design.
 
Ale-8(1) said:
Those abominations are an answer to a question no one asked.

JMHO
I think they are actually a possible answer to one of the most common question asked: how can revolver design help reduce muzzle flip?

I bet when some one asked "How can I reload my gun faster and have more capacity?" and invented the semi-auto pistol, some people also said that it was an unnecessary abomination... :lol:
 
No. Let someone else make ugly guns. Maybe Glock should get into that market.
 
Snake45 said:
No. Let someone else make ugly guns. Maybe Glock should get into that market.
It's hard to believe that a 177 year-old design can't be improved, and still look good. :)
 
Ale-8(1) said:
Those abominations are an answer to a question no one asked.

JMHO

Answers to the questions that are being asked are much easier to design, manufacture and market too.

Such as:
-Where's the GP100 in .44 Special?
-Where's the .480 Ruger BH
-Where's the .454 Casull BH?
-Where's the 4" 9mm SP101 w/ adjustable sights?
-Where's the .40 / 10mm Midframe BH convertable?
-Where's the GP100 in .44 Special?
 
THE RHINO is a design at least 50-60 years old and this has to be the third iteration, all of which are ugly as a manure sandwich, really do not do anything all that special, and as noted, are an answer to a question no one asked. And besides it was designed by Russian communists just in case you were wondering how anyone could really make an ugly revolver. Theirs did win the Olympics though.
 
WIL TERRY said:
THE RHINO is a design at least 50-60 years old and this has to be the third iteration, all of which are ugly as a manure sandwich, really do not do anything all that special, and as noted, are an answer to a question no one asked. And besides it was designed by Russian communists just in case you were wondering how anyone could really make an ugly revolver. Theirs did win the Olympics though.
Do you have a picture of this 50-60 year-old revolver design?

Here is the truth as I found it:
1.It was NOT a revolver, but a target pistol.
2.In fact, it was so special, and continued to shoot so well in competitions that the ISU banned it from its competitions
http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/mc-3-first-upside-down-gun/
3.The Rhino is actually a patented design of an Italian designer:
http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/chiappa-rhino-revolver-review/

Whether or not it's "ugly", I think is really more of a function of whether or not it looks familiar. If Colt had decided to put the barrel at 6 o'clock, I bet the purists today would be saying that a 12 o'clock barrel is "an abomination". :lol: It's kind of like some guys prefer women who subconsciously resemble their mom to them...

So, one of the questions that can be asked about this is actually: is it more important to you that your revolver looks like your dad's, and your grandpa's, and your greatgrandpa's, and basically like your GREATGREATGRANPA's did 180 years ago :lol: , or is the way it shoots more important?
 
LbA3V0w said:
Snake45 said:
No. Let someone else make ugly guns. Maybe Glock should get into that market.
It's hard to believe that a 177 year-old design can't be improved, and still look good. :)
That 177 year old design is already as completely as obsolete as a '32 Ford or a '57 Chevy. Just because such a thing is obsolete does not mean it cannot still be functional, though there are better (more functional) designs now available. The appeal to those who want to use such things (and I'm one of them) lies in the areas of nostalgia, tradition, style, and so forth.

And so the "upside down" revolver will never replace the conventional style.
 
Actually semi-auto pistols , and succuessful swing out cylnder DA revolvers were only a few years apart.

You can make a case of certain advantages of small frame hideout revolvers in the absolute sense , but for the most part for the past 15-20yrs it is a delibert choice to use a revolver, and a preference for its current forms is a part of it.

Now what has been *almost* returned several times , and I'd like to see is a modernized Top Break revolver.
 
Snake45 said:
LbA3V0w said:
That 177 year old design is already as completely as obsolete as a '32 Ford or a '57 Chevy. Just because such a thing is obsolete does not mean it cannot still be functional, though there are better (more functional) designs now available. The appeal to those who want to use such things (and I'm one of them) lies in the areas of nostalgia, tradition, style, and so forth.

And so the "upside down" revolver will never replace the conventional style.
That it will not replace conventional revolvers for reasons your mentioned is too obvious to even discuss.

However, someone forgot to inform the people snapping up LCR's, SP's and Redhawks for crazy prices that their guns are "obsolete". :lol:

I think the LCR, for example, is just as ugly as the Rhino, and not easy to shoot well in heavy calibers, but countless people who carry them don't consider them obsolete, or just for style and tradition. I don't think any of that about my SP either.
 
LbA3VOw, your thoughts and arguments are logical. Logic though, is only half the equation here. stevemb
 
stevemb said:
LbA3VOw, your thoughts and arguments are logical. Logic though, is only half the equation here. stevemb
Yeah, man. Don't I know it! :lol:

I bet it will be just as it was with the Glock 25 years ago. No major manufacturer made anything like it, and the traditionalists said it would never succeed. Now, some of the Ruger semi-auto line-up looks like a Glock, and has the same features... :roll:

I bet 10 years from now, the kids who grow up with the Rhino won't be stuck on the grandpa's Colt design, and Ruger might be making a low-barrel too... :lol:
 
LbA3V0w said:
However, someone forgot to inform the people snapping up LCR's, SP's and Redhawks for crazy prices that their guns are "obsolete". :lol:
People are still "snapping up" (and even building from scratch) '32 Fords and '57 Chevies, too, at "crazy prices." And using them, in some cases on a daily basis. But they are obviously not the mainstream of modern transportation.

Modern revolvers such as those you mention are the equivalent of a classic car with modern mechanicals and "creature comforts" installed. The "upside down revolver" is just the opposite--in car terms, it would be a 2013 Mustang or Corvette with 1932 or 1957 mechanicals and electrics under the skin. :wink: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Top