Fudd Friday: Rifle Cartridges in Revolvers - Why Keep Making Them?

I bought a Ruger Blackhawk in .30 Carbine about a month ago. Been shooting it, been thinking about it, and I keep coming back to the same question - why do rifle cartridges in revolvers keep showing up? This is a thing that's been happening for over 150 years, and I can't figure out if there's still a good reason for it or if we're all just buying these guns because they're weird and fun.

Fudd Friday:

• Fudd Friday: Converting Mil-Surps - Once Necessity, Now Blasphemy
• Fudd Friday: The Remington 550-1's Useful Floating Chamber
• Fudd Friday: The Smith & Wesson Model 29-2 Revolver
• Fudd Friday: Winchester 1911 SL - Was the "Widowmaker" Really Deadly?
• Fudd Friday: Stevens 325 - When Bolt Actions Met .30-30

It Started Making Sense

The original logic was solid. Back in the 1870s Colt made a Single Action Army in .44-40 Winchester so you could run the same ammo in your rifle and your revolver. One cartridge, two guns. That's just smart when you're actually living on the frontier and can't exactly swing by the big box sporting goods store for more ammo.

• After that it stayed in the catalog but actually getting one became nearly impossible. Then suddenly they're back in production. I grabbed mine when it showed up in distribution and haven't seen another one since - I covered this recently in a Wheelgun Wednesday article. So that was practical. Then it stopped being practical.

Then It Got Weird

For a while, these guns existed purely as oddities. You bought them because they were interesting, not because you needed them for anything specific. Magnum Research started making their BFR (Big Frame Revolver, or "Biggest, Finest Revolver" depending on who you ask) in calibers like .45-70 Government and .30-30 Winchester. Massive single-action wheelguns that could fire rifle cartridges. Cool to shoot, fun to own, but not exactly solving a problem anyone actually had.

Then It Got Practical Again?

Here's where state hunting regulations threw a wrench in everything. Some states created hunting zones where you can use a pistol but not a rifle. Other states mandated straight-wall cartridges only for deer. The specifics change depending on where you are; case length limits, caliber minimums, whether pistols get different rules than rifles. It's different everywhere and honestly it's a regulatory nightmare.

But the point is, in some of these restricted zones, a revolver chambered in something heavy became a legitimate hunting option. If you already had a scoped .44 Magnum revolver, maybe that made more sense than buying a dedicated slug gun. Those hunting revolvers weren't cheap, but for some folks it worked out.

I bought one. Not because I needed it for hunting. I bought it because it's an X-Frame that's actually pleasant to shoot without destroying my wrists, and .350 Legend ammo is reasonably priced. Could you hunt with it? Absolutely. Is that what most people are doing with them? I honestly doubt it.

And Now We're Back to Weird Again

Because AR pistols exist and changed the whole game. Once those became common and legal in most restricted zones, why would you pick a revolver over an AR pistol? Larger capacity, faster reloads, easier optic mounting, familiar controls, better accuracy. A .300 Blackout (or .350 Legend in a straight wall zone) AR pistol just makes more objective sense for hunting.

So now we're back to these being range toys and conversation pieces. Mostly. I think. The practical justification exists on paper, but in reality, most of us are buying them for the novelty factor.

What You Can Actually Buy Right Now

Ruger Blackhawk .30 Carbine: Mine's got a 7.5-inch barrel, holds 6 rounds, single-action only. It's obscenely loud, shoots impressive fireballs, and groups around 5 inches at 25 yards. Not a precision instrument by any stretch. MSRP runs $879. I got mine because it’s unique, it shares ammo with my M1 Carbine and its a hoot to shoot.

I am sure I forgot some other obscure one. Please let me know in the comments.

I Still Don't Know What These Are For

That's the honest answer. I own two rifle-cartridge revolvers and I can't give you a purely rational reason why they should exist in 2025. The hunting angle is legitimate for some people in states where things get strict and specific regulatory situations are more common. Shared ammunition between rifle and pistol made genuine sense back when ammunition wasn't available everywhere.

Maybe they're just fun, and that's enough. It’s plenty of reason for me anyway. Heck, that’s why I bought mine. The .30 Carbine Blackhawk has no business existing but I grin like an idiot every time I shoot it. The S&W 350 is more of a solution looking for a problem but it's a genuinely excellent revolver. I've never shot a BFR but I want to, specifically because it seems completely unnecessary.

These guns keep showing up, manufacturers keep making them, people keep buying them, and maybe that's all the justification they need. They've gone from frontier necessity to curiosity to practical hunting tool and back to curiosity again. And they're still here, still being produced, still drawing attention at the range. I don't know if that means anything beyond "shooters like interesting guns," but I'm okay with that.

The Fudd Factor

They're impractical, they're expensive, they require explaining at the range, and they fill no real niche that isn't better served by something else. But they're also uniquely “just because”, unapologetically weird, and genuinely entertaining.