8 shot revolver.....

[Amazi]

Iv really been wanting a 8 shot revolver now for a while now, and now ruger makes the redhawk in a 8 shot I'm probably going to get one soon now.
I'm considering the smith 327 ng, ruger redhawk, or the Taurus 608. I have yet to hold one or even shoot any of them.
With the smith, them making it so light I hate vicious recoiling hand cannons but it being lighter its not as uncomfortable to carry (I don't mid stout recoil like my 640 is), the ruger it just weights a lot for carrying all day but recoil would be tame, and the Taurus is kind of the middle child.
Iv also looked at 7 shot revolvers but there kind of in between and harder to come across.
Only thing I don't want is a ported barrel.
Any one ever shot one or own one? looking to get some feed back or where I could possibly try one. I live in Austin and we don't really have anywhere you can test one that I know of.

[Seismic Sam]

Could you tell us a little more about WHY you want one? Hunting? Self defense?? Carry?? Just to pretend you are Rodentman and want huge, ugly, boat anchor of a revolver?? Seriously, where is this strong desire coming from??

[hammAR]

Because 6-shooters are passé -
besides he really wants a 1911..................

[Amazi]

Carry and a bed gun, all ready got 3 1911s.

[Seismic Sam]

Well, I did Google the Ruger Redhawk in 357, and the bad news is 44 ounces EMPTY, and if somebody could tell me how much 8 rounds of 357 ammo weigh we could get a grand total. In addition, the price appears to be $1079, which is definitely not cheap. By comparison, my black iron boat anchor SAR K2 45 weights 38 ounces empty, 50 ounces fully loaded, and costs $369. So that's 1 shot shy of DOUBLE the capacity and 1/3rd of the price of the Ruger. I'll attempt to defuse any 45 ACP vs. 357 Mag arguments by saying they're both respectable AND adequate, and leave it at that.

In the carry area, assuming 1 ounce per round for 357 ammo, that's 50 - 52 ounces for a fully loaded gun, and a gun THAT heavy is definitely in 800 pound reloading troll territory. Scrawny little Yukonjapser can just keep typing on his computer, because he's going to need a tac belt and tac suspenders to keep his pants up with a load like that.

And last but not least, there is the carry comfort issue. This is a picture of the Ruger from straight behind, and it's worthy to note that the Ruger website does NOT offer this view.



If you're a bony nerd like Yukonjasper, having that cylinder jammed into your waistline is going to hurt, and there's no two ways about it. I'm not sure even I would put up with that profile, seeing as my SAR is just a plain old flat auto identical to a 1911.

So as far as carry, you can straight out forget about it. Too much weight, too much money, too little comfort, and relatively low ammo capacity for a BIG boat anchor. It would be a great bedside gun, or hunting gun, but that's it.

[OldmanFCSA]

If you had a Dillon Electronic Scale you could weigh the 357 ammo .............................................




So your saying I can't carry a 8+3/8' barreled S&W in 500S&W concealed ?????

I tried one in a shoulder holster, but preferred the 8+3/8' barreled S&W in 460S&W instead.

[Seismic Sam]

If you had a Dillon Electronic Scale you could weigh the 357 ammo .............................................

https://youtu.be/wMoUq7BV4RU

SHEESH!! I SAY AGAIN, SHEESH!!! YOU ARE THE ONLY MAROON IN HERE WHO IS A LOT BIGGER THAN ME, SO OF COURSE YOU CAN CONCEAL A SMITH X-FRAME!!!! THE REASON I WROTE THAT IS I DON"T HAVE ANY .357 AMMO!! IF I HAD CASES I COULD FINGER OUT THE REST, BUT I DON'T HAVE EVEN ONE CASE!!!

So your saying I can't carry a 8+3/8' barreled S&W in 500S&W concealed ?????

I tried one in a shoulder holster, but preferred the 8+3/8' barreled S&W in 460S&W instead.

[Rodentman]

I don't think this is ugly.

[Seismic Sam]

I refuse to put something that weird in my pants........ Just sayin'

[Amazi]

This is basically the size i want

[Seismic Sam]

Yes, that looks more a like concealable and carryable pistol, and while it's a 32 caliber, it's a REAL magnum caliber, so you have pretty good velocity but reduced recoil. Its good to be behind that, and very bad to be IN FRONT of that.

[Amazi]

Yes, that looks more a like concealable and carryable pistol, and while it's a 32 caliber, it's a REAL magnum caliber, so you have pretty good velocity but reduced recoil. Its good to be behind that, and very bad to be IN FRONT of that.

32? That Smith is a 357...

[Seismic Sam]

Well considering that there IS a new .327 Magnum cartridge running around, my assumption was that a Smith 327 would shoot that caliber, but apparently NOOOOOOO, Smith & Wesson made an ass out of u and umption instead....

I'll go back under my bridge now...

[yukonjasper]

In the carry area, assuming 1 ounce per round for 357 ammo, that's 50 - 52 ounces for a fully loaded gun, and a gun THAT heavy is definitely in 800 pound reloading troll territory. Scrawny little Yukonjapser can just keep typing on his computer, because he's going to need a tac belt and tac suspenders to keep his pants up with a load like that.




If you're a bony nerd like Yukonjasper, having that cylinder jammed into your waistline is going to hurt, and there's no two ways about it. I'm not sure even I would put up with that profile, seeing as my SAR is just a plain old flat auto identical to a 1911.

If I can ever get my K2 functional enough to carry, I"d use a training wheel to hold me up when I carry guns that big - Yowsers - you guys sure do have big guns! Hey mister, where do you get big guns like that?

[Ghost]

Well considering that there IS a new .327 Magnum cartridge running around, my assumption was that a Smith 327 would shoot that caliber, but apparently NOOOOOOO, Smith & Wesson made an ass out of u and umption instead....

I'll go back under my bridge now...

Could carry two of these and have 12 rounds, and still be lighter


https://www.google.com/amp/s/gundigest.com/reviews/review-ruger-lcr-327-federal-concealed-carry/amp