Don't necessarily need the slab sided barrel, but would take it to get the 480 in this package.  Still hoping to stumble on one in the Alaskan, but this would do.

Doc

Sorry man.....liked the 5 shot Alaskan much better.

What does one do with a 480 Ruger?

They do still make the Alaskan in .480



You should be able to get your dealer to order one from the factory. It's a $1000 gun.

Love big boomers.  Speaks with authority (as much as a handgun can) when big mean things are trying to eat you.

Did not know the Alaskan could still be ordered from the factory.....have missed it on the website.  Will get my local FFL to check on it for me.

Thanks!!

Doc

Here is your chance to ask...
https://www.ruger.com/dataProcess/tellTheCEO.html

Why not simply have the barrel cut and re-crowned on a 7.5" model?

I agree though; Ruger is definitely missing out on market share by only offering the Alaskan and then a 7.5 and 9.5 SRH. My guess is to keep the Redhawk model alive although I'm not really sure why. Let that turd die Ruger and give us what we want!

Ugggggghhhh   ----   the ugliest revolver out there just got uglier !    ---     The Alaskan model looks proper  though

Agree with Konger on bringing back the Redhawk and letting the Super Redhawk die a grim and agonizing death

The Redhawk pioneered Ruger's new idea of using a single spring for both the trigger and hammer. It may have been innovative at the time, but the idea prevents tinkerers from being able to fine-tune the action properly. Enter the Super Redhawk, with it's GP-100 grip frame and separate trigger and hammer springs. It's actually a much better design, mechanically speaking.

The Super Redhawk frame was extended as it is because Ruger wanted to be able to incorporate its scope mounts into the frame rather than have them on the barrel. I agree that the barrels used on other than the Alaskan are hideously ugly. Ruger needs to come up with some sort of barrel shroud on these, even if it's just aluminum. People like guns that actually LOOK good, and I am betting that Ruger has lost a lot of sales from people who just did not care for the appearance of the longer SRH models.

I think you misread my message. The turd I was speaking of is the Redhawk, not the Super Redhawk...lol. I agree that the Redhawk wins with regards to appearance, but the SRH wins everywhere else. I simply hate the exposed back strap on the RH.

BCA makes a 5 shot conversion for the super redhawk . it can be converted into a 475 linebaugh witch will shoot a 480 ruger like shooting a 38 special out of a 357mag. the cost of converting one is crazy expensive but to each there own I guess.

Maybe they will now that 480 is on there site again in the SRH
http://www.ruger.com/products/superRedhawkStandard/models.html

Ahhhh - my bad  .    Exposed backstrap is easy to rectify with a different set of grips though  ---   most of my Colts and a good many Smith's have exposed backstraps as well

I love my Ruger's but every Super Redhawk, with the exception of the Alaskan, looks like a drunk plumber decided to lengthen the barrel of his gun.  Aweful, horrible, hideous...no offense to you all that own one.

I like big bore revolvers, I'd love to have a S&W 460V just because you can shoot .460's, .454 Casull and .45 Colt.  If Ruger came out with a .454 Casull Redhawk I might forego the S&W460V for the sake of the much less expensive Redhawk but, so far, Ruger hasn't thought to do so.  Another reason for the .460S&W over the .480 Ruger is that from what I've read the .460 has better "user appeal", in other words, the .480 didn't go over very well compared to the .460.  Weak sales and not being able to compete with the .460S&W has pretty much killed the .480Ruger, I predict it's not going to survive especially since there's only one gun available in that caliber that I know of.  At this point I don't think I would buy a .480 Ruger unless you reload that caliber.