Ruger Super Wrangler 22/22 Mag??

[The Heretic]

Scroll down a little:

Wheelgun Wednesday: (Potentially) NEW Revolvers to Debut in 2021

In this Wheelgun Wednesday, we discuss some new revolvers that we could soon see unveiled leading into and throughout the first part of 2021.

www.thefirearmblog.com

Read More

 

[CLT65]

I hope they do it! The one I'd like to see is a Wrangler in .32 S&W Long. I'd buy one in a heartbeat.

Yes, I know, .32 H&R Mag would be better, and .327 Mag better yet, but all I want is a .32 Long. The magnums put it into a whole different category, and I'd be happy with the under-powered little .32. One of these days I'll find a good price on an old S&W model 31...

 

[40Garand]

When I first saw the Wrangler not quite a couple years ago I said to myself I'll but one when they release convertibles. I hope they do it!

 

[CLT65]

Convertibles are a great idea, and I wondered why they didn't do that from the get-go. Then I thought about how many times I've actually used the magnum cylinder on the other revolver I have. Exactly once. I asked around to several guys I know who also have convertible revolvers, how often they used the magnum cylinders, and the answer was always the same: They like the option of a magnum cylinder, but never actually use it.

So many people like to compare the .22 LR and the .22 magnum, but in reality they are quite different. The magnum is a far better hunting round, but the LR (primarily due to price) is better for most everything else.

 

[The Heretic]

I had always read that the .22 LR was not quite accurate in the convertibles due to a larger bore diameter.

Is that an urban myth?

Personally I would go one way or the other; a Wrangler or a Hunter.

 

[TTSX]

I'd like one in .17 just cause it's a little different but not too different

 

[CLT65]

I had always read that the .22 LR was not quite accurate in the convertibles due to a larger bore diameter.

Is that an urban myth?

I think it is. From what I've read (haven't measured many myself), .22 LR bores vary in diameter from .218" to .224", whereas .22 Magnum is nominally .224". This may make a difference in target-grade rifles, but I can't imagine that the average person would ever notice a difference in a revolver.

I think it's a case of someone looking at the two rounds side by side and thinking, "Hey, this mag round is fatter! This little LR bullet is going to rattle down the barrel and not be as accurate!" -Not realizing that the magnum uses a jacketed bullet seated inside the case, whereas the lowly Long-Rifle round utilizes 19th century technology: a heeled, inside lubricated, lead bullet.

 

[collector rob]

How about one in .32H&R? That would be handy.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Ima wait til it comes out in 10mm.

 

[orygun]

Convertibles are a great idea, and I wondered why they didn't do that from the get-go.

My hunch is it kept the price down. Ruger touted the low price when the gun was introduced.

 

[Spitpatch]

As to the .32 Magnums (HR & .327), I am always reminded of Skeeter Skelton's near-violent reaction paraphrased from memory when the first came out,

"Why in hell do we need a new .32 caliber revolver cartridge when the .32-20 has served perfectly well for so damned long?"

He went on to describe the elder cartridge's handloaded performance in modern strong guns, matching or beating the upstart and its lack of any extraction problems that accompany other (more) bottlenecked cases. Having shot friends' versions of the straight-wall newcomers quite a bit, I am inclined to agree.

Skeeter's speculation was that the HR was a solution looking for a problem: factory .32-20 ammo (save for a foray into "express loadings" deemed possibly unsafe in very early guns) was never loaded to even moderate approach of potential. He was right. With handguns he usually was.

As to convertible rimfires, in both my Peacemaker and Super Single Six, the WMR cartridge is noticeably more accurate, although the LR's reliance on obturation of the heeled, concave base lead bullet to engage the rifling (cut for the WMR diameter) works rather well.

For general plinking, LR accuracy is entirely sufficient: minute of tin can easily at 25 yards. Ammo type experimentation is strongly recommended for noticeable improvement.

For "business purposes" (carrying these guns for hunting or,....yes....even defense), the WMR cylinder is the better choice far and away. In my guns it is the LR cylinder that languishes.

It is not widely known that these guns are actually 3-cartridge capable: The .22WRF serves as a heavy-bullet, low velocity loading for the WMR cylinder.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Neat idea...I hope Ruger does this and that it sells well for them.

I have a H&R 649 revolver and it is a convertible .22LR / .22MAG.
I like it , it is the first handgun that was mine...I got it on my 13th birthday.
As a far as accuracy goes...I can shoot well with it , with either cartridge...it is in no way Olympic class shooting...but then I am not a Olympic class shooter and the revolver was not designed for such shooting.

I like both the .22LR and .22Magnum cartridges...I do think the .22Magnum is better served with a rifle than handgun.
Andy

 

[Hatman1793]

Ruger makes the SingleSix revolver, now single ten with the extra cylinder for those wanting the dual cylinders. To me, if I wanted a 22mag revolver I would buy S&W's 618 model.

The whole concept behind the *Wrangler* is a one-off. It's a value priced 6 shot 22LR revolver. Adding anything to the Wrangler line will push up the price making it less desirable, especially for new shooters wanting a terrific entry level 22.

Almost all of the *wish list* calibers that shooters want for the Wrangler are available in other formats. Ruger's Wrangler is a great stand alone product that sells well. They would do well to just make more.....

 

[40Garand]

Adding anything to the Wrangler line will push up the price making it less desirable

Ruger convertibles are priced accordingly (extra cylinder higher price) and they've never driven up prices on the basic models that ship with one cylinder.

 

[Member 5605]

That would be fun! A .22WMR revolver again.

 

[40Garand]

That would be fun! A .22WMR revolver again.

I like packing my convertible with the mag cylinder and bird shot while trout fishing in rattle snake country when their apt to be out.

 

[The Heretic]

The nice thing about a convertible, besides being able to convert it, would be being a revolver, it can handle repeat shots of low power to high power ammo. Otherwise I would have my Five Seven loaded with varying power ammo - but there is no such thing for 5.7x28 - not really anyway.

This is why I like revolvers for "field" guns where I may want to use it for anything from shooting a squirrel to shooting a bear - shotshells for the squirrel, 300 gr loads for bears.

A .22 magnum/LR revolver also gives a little of that versatility.

 

[Doc Z]

I had always read that the .22 LR was not quite accurate in the convertibles due to a larger bore diameter.

Is that an urban myth?

Personally I would go one way or the other; a Wrangler or a Hunter.

I have a single six stainless and can vouch for the barrel being slightly oversized for 22mag. They are .224 at the muzzle.
Still makes a good gas seal with 22lr...but, you trade of a little accuracy for the ability to shoot 22 mag.

 

[CLT65]

I'm not convinced that .224" grooves are actually oversized for .22 LR. I know spec for the LR is more like .222-.223, but in practice there are plenty of .22 LR rifles and pistols out there that are .224".

It depends on the ammo, gun, and shooter, but I have yet to see any real evidence that a thousandth of an inch is much of a determining factor for accuracy in a revolver. I'm not adamant in that opinion, as I'm open to being proven wrong; I'm just not convinced based on my own experiences.

 

[CountryGent]

This is what caught my eye on that page ....



Alas, unlike the old ones, the new ones will likely be crap.