New Ruger Introduced: 77/357

[BarryinIN]

OK, so it looks like it's another variation of an existing gun, but it's kinda new. It appears to be similar to the 77/22, 77/44, etc series except in .357 Mag using a five round rotary magazine.

What will it do that a lever action won't?

Hmmm.

Well...

Errr...

OK, it should weigh less. I have a 77/44, and never thought I'd own one or like it if I did, but I do like it and it's because of it's lack of weight. It weighs 1.25lbs less than my Marlin .41 Mag, which is saying something. That 1.25 lbs may not sound like much, but it is sure noticeable between rifles that light to start with.

[Pablo]

I wonder why it weighs .25# more than the 44? Still, it's not a HEAVY rifle at 5.5#. Probably a fun gun, but man I would buy it just because all my 357 revolvers and my 357 lever.

[BarryinIN]

It's probably heavier because of the smaller hole drilled through the barrel leaving more steel behind than the 44. That's how it is with revolvers that are different calibers but otherwise identical like Ruger Blackhawks and some S&W N-frames: larger caliber, lighter gun.

I doubt I will ever buy a 77/357 but I do like my 77/44 even though I never thought I would. I'm not much of a pistol caliber carbine fan (if I'm going to carry a rifle around, it might as well shoot a rifle cartridge) except for just plain fun. That's why my other PCCs are lever actions- fun. But the 77/44 is enough lighter than the others to make a difference. Given the choice of my 7 lb .41 Mag and a 7.5 lb .308, I'll take the .308. But with the 77/44, the difference is two pounds, and that's a lot when you're talking in this weight range.

FWIW, the .357 carbines I've had were a little more accurate than the .44s I've had (average, generally speaking, on the whole, etc).