Hi all,

I am thinking about picking up a new revolver with a recent windfall and am thinking of something from Ruger. Is there any appreciable difference in the inherent strength of the stainless models vs the carbon steel models? Heavy loads would occasionally be used.

Thanks for any feedback!

any ruger will be fine, plenty strong

Ruger are well known to be amongst the strongest revolvers on the market. Blued or stainless, you're getting a good strong revolver.

https://www.makeitfrom.com/compare/AISI-303-1.4305-S30300-Stainless-Steel/SAE-AISI-1025-G10250-Carbon-Steel

I just picked 303 stainless for shits & giggles. The last time I looked a a gun gizmo it was 303 instead of 316(which I thought would be better...but more difficult to machine).

It’s a good question, but I suspect too cerebral & theoretical for actual applications.

I suspect the engineers/designers chose comparable alloys that are strong & durable, easy to machine & heat treat. I can’t imagine they use CNC code for stainless & another program for the other metal.

You can futz at the above site ad nauseum.

Cheers.

That's an interesting question, and I don't know the answer to it.  What I do know is that "occasional" use of heavy loads means absolutely nothing to any of the steel Rugers.  Your parts will wear out before the gun's parts will.

They'll blow up just like any other gun, there's nothing magical about them. The only thing they have going for them is the lockwork holds up better.

eta- if heavy loads are only going to be shot, almost any gun will do.  If you're going to be consistently shooting them by the thousands then year a ruger might be a better choice.

No difference between the kinds of steels but there are big differences in strengths depending on the model you are looking for.  If you are considering a double action revolver then they are all the same (as in their ability to handle heavy loads) but if you are considering a single action gun and want to shoot heavy or "Ruger Only" loads occasionally then you want something from the Blackhawk or Super Blackhawk line.  Even amongst Blackhawks there are now "Flat top" models which are built on the smaller "New Vaquero" or "Vaquero" frames that cannot handle heavy loads.

The current Vaqueros or as they used to be called "New Vaqueros" are built on frames closer to the size of the original Colt Peacemakers and while still strong in their own right, are not designed to shoot "Ruger Only" loads.  If you want a Blackhawk just be sure it's not a flat top model built on the smaller frame and you'll be fine.  The only sure way to tell a large frame from a smaller frame gun is to look at the serial number.  If the prefix is a two digit number it's a large frame and strong enough for "Ruger Only" loads.  If it's a three digit prefix number than it's built on the smaller "Vaquero" frame and not capable of shooting "Ruger Only" loads.

Of course this applies pretty much exclusively to the .45 Colt caliber but since you didn't mention what kind of Ruger or caliber you were looking for I thought I'd cover them all.  If you are looking for a Ruger single action revolver capable of shooting hot "Ruger Only" loads, even occasionally, I'd recommend the Blackhawk Bisley.  The Bisley grip frame tends to handle the recoil of heavy loads much better than the standard "plow handle" style grip frame.  I have a 5.5" stainless Ruger Blackhawk Bisley .45 Colt/.45acp convertible and it's a sweet beast of a gun.  I highly recommend them but I highly recommend any of the Ruger revolvers too.

Thanks!  I was actually thinking of a 44 mag Bisley.....

Figure a maxed out .454 Casull loaded up runs 65,000 PSI and a SRH has no issue with ruining your wrist before the gun will ever quit. They are stronger then the Blackhawk line of revolvers.

Ruger does offer a .44 magnum Bisley with a 3" barrel (iirc) and a "hunter" version with a scope rail mount all the way down with longer barrels but nothing with a 4.62 - 5.5" unfortunately.  I really, really want a 5.5" stainless Bisley .44 mag....

Agreed.  I would settle for 4" or 4.75" even.  There is a 3.75" one as well but it's pricey...

Speaking of a short barreled 44 mag,,,, its there too much velocity loss with a 3.75" barrel for it to really be viable?

Actually of you're going for a Ruger single action in .44 Mag than none of Brandi's post applies.  All of their .44 Mag pistols will be built on the New Model Super Blackhawk frame.  The smaller New Vaquero frame will be available in most of the other calibers, including .45 Colt.

Yeah, that's what I said.

There's a website called "Velocity by the Inch" that can give you the actual numbers but I can promise you that a .44 magnum is quite viable even with a 3.75" barrel for most purposes.  Not so much for hunting because many states have a minimum barrel length for handguns of 4" to 4+".   Would work great as a trail gun for defense against 2 or 4 legged critters of any size other than big brown bears or polar bears lol.  The only reason I didn't go that route is I want mine to be legal for hunting whether I ever use it or not.  I just like the option of doing so.  You could get the 3.75" Bisley and have a longer barrel installed by a gunsmith (Ruger won't do it for you) if you want.  It wasn't in my budget to do that so I'm still .44 magnum Bisley-less.  The 3.75" Bisleys do have a lot of fans though.  Just depends on what you want to do with it primarily.

Okay. You did.  I read it too fast. .

Well, buy the Hunter version and take it to a good gunsmith and have it cut to your barrel length choice. I had the same issue almost 20 years ago with wanting a stainless Redhawk 44 in a 4" length. Bought a 5.5" and gave it to a gunsmith and he turned it into exactly what I dreamed of.

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/44mag.html

Thanks!  That's an interesting site. I appreciate it!