From everything I have seen, they were only .357, but with Ruger, you never know. They have made many strange things that not much info is available about. Sorry I cant give you anything more than that.
You have found a lot more info then I can I can't even find info anywhere that ruger ever made a 357 in a Super Redhawk i can only find 44s and bigger.
I suppose it depends what you consider to be "worth it". Would a 16" revolving carbine built around an SRH do anything that a Marlin 1894 44mag wouldn't do? Nope. Would it do as much as the Marlin 1894? Nope. Would it be a lot of fun? Yup. Would it be unique? Yup.
I suppose it depends what you consider to be "worth it". Would a 16" revolving carbine built around an SRH do anything that a Marlin 1894 44mag wouldn't do? Nope. Would it do as much as the Marlin 1894? Nope. Would it be a lot of fun? Yup. Would it be unique? Yup.
Well i don't really want or need a circuit judge and i have a Marlin 1894cs 357 mag and a Marlin 1894FG 41 mag, blackhawk 41mag, red hawk ss 41mag that i feel will do just about anything the 44 mag will do, so i don't use the SRH much just thought it would be like Varminterror said fun and unique to build, yes I know the SRH will not do what a 1894 marlin will do in a 44, the problem is the law with barrel length if u attach a shoulder stock to a SRH, ok what about if u would put on a 7" muzzle brake that would bring it to 16 ½ inches would that make it rifle legal?
That might be the best way to go if I decide to do this, will think about it a while thank you for your help.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Ruger Forum
2.8M posts
106.7K members
Since 2006
A forum community dedicated to Ruger firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, hunting, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!