4" Redhawk .44

[JHC]

I recently picked up one of the new-production Redhawks in .45 Colt. Love the gun, hated the Hogue grips. The first thing I did was buy a set of new-old-stock Ruger walnut grips from eBay. Note that you'll also need to buy a "Grip Panel Locator", a little black plastic plug that fits into the grip frame and holds the grips in the right spot. it's a $3 part.

The new guns do indeed have the standard interchangeable front sight, in place of the pinned-in sight on the earlier 4" guns. Mine's quite accurate and was reasonably smooth out of the box. It's at Mag-Na-Port right now for an action job. The factory action wasn't *bad*, but there's certainly room for improvement.

Here's how it looks with the walnut grips.

Also, be aware that Ruger's about to do a special run of round-butt .44s with 2" barrels. They look *mean*!

Ought to do 3"

[irascible_joe]

Ought to do 3"

I was wrong, they'll be 2.75"

[GJM]

I recently picked up one of the new-production Redhawks in .45 Colt. Love the gun, hated the Hogue grips. The first thing I did was buy a set of new-old-stock Ruger walnut grips from eBay. Note that you'll also need to buy a "Grip Panel Locator", a little black plastic plug that fits into the grip frame and holds the grips in the right spot. it's a $3 part.

The new guns do indeed have the standard interchangeable front sight, in place of the pinned-in sight on the earlier 4" guns. Mine's quite accurate and was reasonably smooth out of the box. It's at Mag-Na-Port right now for an action job. The factory action wasn't *bad*, but there's certainly room for improvement.

Here's how it looks with the walnut grips.

Also, be aware that Ruger's about to do a special run of round-butt .44s with 2" barrels. They look *mean*!

I was wrong, they'll be 2.75"

I learned an expensive lesson with my first Alpine conversion, which includes a round butt mod -- the round butt ruins your ability to control heavy loads. My second Alpine was square butt which is mo much better.

Don't understand shorter than four inch .44/.45 revolvers, with the possible exception of one used as a fanny pack gun.

[Malamute]

^ ^ I don't quite get the short 44's either. I'd rather have a lighter 5" barrel, than a shorter than 4" barrel as far as a carry gun for the hills is concerned.


LOTSA muzzle blast doesn't sound like much fun or a help to shooting well.

[LSP552]

Thanks everyone; some great information here.

Ken

[TR675]

Those wood grips make the gun.

[JHC]

Well for pure close range AK bear defense, we're talking pretty close range. If a heavy cast bullet can be thrown 1000 - 1100 FPS it'll penetrate. We know 3" barreled revolvers can be shot very well at those defense ranges. I dunno, doesn't seem all bad.

[GJM]

Well for pure close range AK bear defense, we're talking pretty close range. If a heavy cast bullet can be thrown 1000 - 1100 FPS it'll penetrate. We know 3" barreled revolvers can be shot very well at those defense ranges. I dunno, doesn't seem all bad.

Excepting in a fanny pack, all the ways I carry a revolver -- shoulder rig, chest rig, OWB, IWB, Hill People, carry a 2.75, 3 and 4 inch revolver with similar comfort, so why give up the sight radius, velocity and better recoil control of the longer barrel, while accepting the greater blast of the short barrel?

[GJM]

I have a little blaster, but when I carry a .44, it is always the longer barrel versions as they are easier to shoot.

[JHC]

Excepting in a fanny pack, all the ways I carry a revolver -- shoulder rig, chest rig, OWB, IWB, Hill People, carry a 2.75, 3 and 4 inch revolver with similar comfort, so why give up the sight radius, velocity and better recoil control of the longer barrel, while accepting the greater blast of the short barrel?

Sure, the 4 inch hasn't been the standard of balance for no reason. True.