PDA

View Full Version : 4" Redhawk .44



LSP552
08-16-2014, 02:18 PM
I'm using an earlier comment from GJM about the inadequacy of single actions and bears to justify a new DA .44 mag revolver. :)

I had an opportunity to fondle a 4" Redhawk this morning and liked everything except the Hogue finger groove grip. I'm 6'3 with long fingers and this is overly big even for me. I'm sure I can find some suitable grips. Just wondering if anyone owns one or has opinions on the short Redhawk.

Thanks

Ken

JHC
08-16-2014, 03:07 PM
I'm using an earlier comment from GJM about the inadequacy of single actions and bears to justify a new DA .44 mag revolver. :)

I had an opportunity to fondle a 4" Redhawk this morning and liked everything except the Hogue finger groove grip. I'm 6'3 with long fingers and this is overly big even for me. I'm sure I can find some suitable grips. Just wondering if anyone owns one or has opinions on the short Redhawk.

Thanks

Ken

They are no longer made and they are platinum priced around here. Like $800 worth. Very much sought after.

Jared
08-16-2014, 03:11 PM
They are no longer made and they are platinum priced around here. Like $800 worth. Very much sought after.

Ruger's website is listing them as a current production item again, FWIW, but they weren't on there a couple months ago or so. Maybe that'll bring prices down a bit.

Re: the Redhawk as a whole. First 44 I ever shot was a Redhawk when I was like 12 maybe. Quite a hand full for a youngster at the time. It was one of the 5.5 or 6" barreled ones. In my adult life I owned another one. Very tough revolver, and I'd want an action job on one for sure. If I were in the market for a 44 that was gonna see a steady diet of Magnum loads, I'd start by looking at Redhawks.

JHC
08-16-2014, 03:13 PM
Ruger's website is listing them as a current production item again, FWIW, but they weren't on there a couple months ago or so. Maybe that'll bring prices down a bit.

Re: the Redhawk as a whole. First 44 I ever shot was a Redhawk when I was like 12 maybe. Quite a hand full for a youngster at the time. It was one of the 5.5 or 6" barreled ones. In my adult life I owned another one. Very tough revolver, and I'd want an action job on one for sure. If I were in the market for a 44 that was gonna see a steady diet of Magnum loads, I'd start by looking at Redhawks.

Thank YOU! I did NOT know that. That's very good news.

Lester Polfus
08-16-2014, 03:19 PM
I foresee a 4" or 5.5" Redhawk in my future in the next few years. FYI they were removed, without an announcement from Ruger's website, which caused a Disturbance in The Force among all the various internet boards devoted to Rugers. Turns out they were shifting production around, sort of a "Tactical Pause" in making Redhawks, and now they are back on the website, and show up in inventory at www.galleryofguns.com and www.impactguns.com.

The 5.5." and 7.5" Redhawks have a front sight that is interchangeable by depressing a plunger and popping the sights in and out. Ruger sells various height front sights, and of course this simplifies changing to after market sights. The 4" used to have a pinned sight, but rumor has it on various Fora that the new ones are going to have the same interchangeable plunger system as the 5.5" and 7.5".

My biggest gripe with the 4" guns is I don't like the way they look. Dumb, I know, but they just look aesthetically unbalanced. I did see some pictures of some 4" guns with wood grips, instead of the big Hogue, and I liked them much better.

GJM
08-16-2014, 03:26 PM
For function, as opposed to aesthetics, grind the finger grooves off the Hogue grips. That is what I run on my Bowen four inch Redhawk (Alpine conversion before a four inch factory revolver was available), that I reserve for shooting the heaviest .44 magnum loads.

jetfire
08-16-2014, 05:51 PM
The 4 inch Redhawk would be an excellent choice. While I don't like them for most things, the Pachmaryh grips are pretty good on the 'Hawk.

Another option would be the new Model 69. It's an L- frame so you do give up a round, but it would be a pretty great packing .44.

45dotACP
08-16-2014, 06:21 PM
The 4 inch Redhawk would be an excellent choice. While I don't like them for most things, the Pachmaryh grips are pretty good on the 'Hawk.

Another option would be the new Model 69. It's an L- frame so you do give up a round, but it would be a pretty great packing .44.
I'll just sit here and wait for all the wails of anger about the internal lock to show up ;)

BobM
08-16-2014, 07:02 PM
I had a 4" Redhawk for a while. I ended up selling it. For some reason it just seemed abusive to my hand to shoot. It was the same weight as my 5" 629 Classic but the recoil seemed heavier. I tried the factory Hogue, a regular Hogue, factory wood grips, and maybe a Pachmayr and couldn't find anything that helped.

irascible_joe
08-16-2014, 07:14 PM
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. (http://imgur.com/xC4Mn4c)

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

JHC
08-16-2014, 07:30 PM
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. (http://imgur.com/xC4Mn4c)

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
08-16-2014, 07:38 PM
Ought to do 3"

I was wrong, they'll be 2.75" (http://www.ruger.com/products/redhawkDE/specSheets/5028.html)

GJM
08-16-2014, 07:48 PM
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. (http://imgur.com/xC4Mn4c)

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" (http://www.ruger.com/products/redhawkDE/specSheets/5028.html)

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
08-16-2014, 07:57 PM
^ ^ 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
08-16-2014, 07:58 PM
Thanks everyone; some great information here.

Ken

TR675
08-16-2014, 07:59 PM
Those wood grips make the gun.

JHC
08-16-2014, 08:24 PM
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
08-16-2014, 08:52 PM
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
08-16-2014, 09:02 PM
I have a little blaster, but when I carry a .44, it is always the longer barrel versions as they are easier to shoot.

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg251/GJMandes/329_zpsc7989380.jpg (http://s250.photobucket.com/user/GJMandes/media/329_zpsc7989380.jpg.html)

JHC
08-16-2014, 09:07 PM
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.

GJM
08-16-2014, 09:31 PM
I there is a very small niche for the short barrel .44's, as a fanny pack gun when XC skiing, and that is why I have one. Fanny pack not much for concealment, but for comfort skiing.

Otherwise, nobody gives a hoot if you are packing a bear gun in AK, so concealment isn't a priority. Once you open carry, the short barrel becomes analogous to open carrying a G26 in your ALS G17 holster.

For me, four inch is ideal. while I like how a five inch 629 shoots, that extra inch makes it significantly harder for me to carry in a chest rig, Hill People, IWB, and even OWB getting in and out of planes and boats.

1slow
08-16-2014, 10:13 PM
I have always liked the 4" since my teen years reading Elmer Keith. My 2 Bowen .500 Linebaughs are 4" for that reason as are my Alpine, S&W 629 .44 mountain gun, Blue 29, 329, S&W.500.

LSP552
08-16-2014, 10:18 PM
Sure, the 4 inch hasn't been the standard of balance for no reason. True.

The 4" Redhawk balanced really well. For general use, I really wouldn't want a shorter .44.

Ken

LSP972
08-17-2014, 07:56 AM
The 4" Redhawk balanced really well. For general use, I really wouldn't want a shorter .44.

Ken

I wanna come watch when you shoot your rhino rollers in it.

.

DamonL
08-17-2014, 08:24 AM
grind the finger grooves off the Hogue grips.

How do you do this? I might want to try this.

GJM
08-17-2014, 09:26 AM
How do you do this? I might want to try this.

Sand paper, and the great equalizer (wrecker) the Dremel. Won't look pretty afterwards!

Stephen
08-17-2014, 10:03 AM
Don't understand shorter than four inch .44/.45 revolvers, with the possible exception of one used as a fanny pack gun.

Because 'Murica. If I only had purely practical guns shooting wouldn't be nearly as fun. For some reason I really like the looks of a very beefy but short-barreled revolver/flamethrower.

LSP552
08-17-2014, 10:25 AM
I wanna come watch when you shoot your rhino rollers in it.

.

Sure, but I don't imagine it will be any worse than big boy loads in my lighter .45 Blackhawk.

Ken

GJM
08-17-2014, 11:59 AM
Because 'Murica. If I only had purely practical guns shooting wouldn't be nearly as fun. For some reason I really like the looks of a very beefy but short-barreled revolver/flamethrower.

I should qualify my comments with "assuming this is something you will use to possibly stop a bear attack." None of these, 3, 4 or 5 inch, are much fun to shoot with big boy loads. If you are just buying it to have, it is as good as any other such thing. To stop a charge, the short revolvers are like the difference between a 26 and 17, just makes it harder -- and in this case the consequences of failure are significant.

jetfire
08-17-2014, 12:18 PM
I am so glad they brought the .45 LC 4 inch Redhawk back. I'd had a crazy idea for a long time to get one of those moon clipped for IDPA and shoot ESR with it. I guess I could do it with a .44 Special as well but 45 Colt seems more appropriate.

Alpha Sierra
08-17-2014, 12:56 PM
^ ^ I don't quite get the short 44's either.

A 3" S&W Model 624 will explain the concept very well.

Malamute
08-17-2014, 02:46 PM
A 3" S&W Model 624 will explain the concept very well.



I'm quite familiar with the 3" 24/624's and similar 29's. The appeal of the 3" 24 would be as a town gun rather than a woods gun/general purpose gun. I have a 4" 24 that I like very much, and have never found myself wishing it was a 3", other than as an overgrown 2 1/2" 19/town carry type gun.

I've had opportunity to buy a number of 3" N frame guns, the 24's were the only ones I really liked much, but I'd have to say it was more because they looked cool than that I really wanted one to use. The 4" guns are about perfect for all around use, including as a town gun if you can carry one that size. The 1" less barrel didn't seem like it would do a heck of a lot to make an N frame gun easier to carry.

Very neat looking, just never wanted one bad enough to buy one. :D

The 24 makes a nice general carry gun when not in the thick of bear country. I carry it some in fringe areas with 17 grs 2400 w/ Lyman 429421 250 gr bullet. Its my general purpose carry/truck gun.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b387/Malamute/outdoor%20sports/IMG_5849_zpsc8b6244a.jpg

Alpha Sierra
08-17-2014, 04:39 PM
The 4" guns are about perfect for all around use, including as a town gun if you can carry one that size. The 1" less barrel didn't seem like it would do a heck of a lot to make an N frame gun easier to carry. [/IMG]
Having carried both 3" (Lew Horton Model 29) and 4" (629 Mountain Gun) N frames concealed both IWB and OWB, I am here to tell you that one less inch of barrel length does make a noticeable difference in comfort when one sits down at a restaurant, theater, car seat, etc when out and about.

Both were round butts with Kim Ahrends stocks so no difference there.

However, I do take your point about 4" being the ideal length for outdoor use. I should have never sold the 629 MG......

Malamute
08-17-2014, 05:13 PM
Having carried both 3" (Lew Horton Model 29) and 4" (629 Mountain Gun) N frames concealed both IWB and OWB, I am here to tell you that one less inch of barrel length does make a noticeable difference in comfort when one sits down at a restaurant, theater, car seat, etc when out and about.

Both were round butts with Kim Ahrends stocks so no difference there.

However, I do take your point about 4" being the ideal length for outdoor use. I should have never sold the 629 MG......

You have more experience in the matter on concealed carry. I had a friend that carried a 4" 24 in a Sparks Summer Special, he thought it was about perfect. I haven't had a 3" to compare with, nor have I carried one IWB. I've carried the 4" 29 a little concealed. It isn't as simple as a K frame or a J, but worked at the time. I used a pancake type Bianchi 1911 holster that the 29 fit, and a Lawrence shoulder rig, which was more utilitarian that concealed oriented. The 3"-v- 4"length didn't matter that much with either of those. It may well with a better holster and different style carry. The RB probably helps with concealed also, but the few RB guns I've had on L or N frame I didnt keep long, just didn't like the RB.

When carrying in a Threepersons type belt holster the 4" has never bothered me at all. A 6" is becoming a nuisance, but can be done if one gets the gun going where they want when sitting. I wasn't trying to conceal the 6" or the 4" in the Threepersons, but a coat would cover the 4" quite well.

Alpha Sierra
08-17-2014, 05:15 PM
The advantage of round butts is that you can always install round to square conversion stocks. Once you get a SB frame, you are stuck with that.

GJM
08-17-2014, 07:35 PM
If concealment is a priority, you have probably picked the wrong handgun if it is a N frame.

Alpha Sierra
08-17-2014, 09:03 PM
If concealment is a priority, you have probably picked the wrong handgun if it is a N frame.
You would be surprised at how easy it is to conceal one.

GJM
08-17-2014, 09:42 PM
You would be surprised at how easy it is to conceal one.

I have had IWB holsters for N frames for the last 15 years, so I have a pretty good idea of how well they conceal. Not well compared to anything else I carry.

I love N frames and have over 20 of them in .44 special, .44 magnum, .45 Long Colt, .357 and 10mm. I have taken multiple classes at Gunsite, plus Advanced pistol classes with Bill Jeans and Clint Smith with a N frame in 10mm, .44 special, .44 magnum and .45 Long Colt. As a "concealed carry" defensive pistol against two leg threats, they simply are not the best choice for any number of reasons. The best use of the N frame is to shoot powerful loads designed for stopping animals.

Alpha Sierra
08-17-2014, 10:58 PM
The best use of the N frame is to shoot powerful loads designed for stopping animals.
Thank you for your opinion of them. I have formed my own already.

1slow
08-17-2014, 11:13 PM
I have had IWB holsters for N frames for the last 15 years, so I have a pretty good idea of how well they conceal. Not well compared to anything else I carry.

I love N frames and have over 20 of them in .44 special, .44 magnum, .45 Long Colt, .357 and 10mm. I have taken multiple classes at Gunsite, plus Advanced pistol classes with Bill Jeans and Clint Smith with a N frame in 10mm, .44 special, .44 magnum and .45 Long Colt. As a "concealed carry" defensive pistol against two leg threats, they simply are not the best choice for any number of reasons. The best use of the N frame is to shoot powerful loads designed for stopping animals.

I agree. .44 Mag and up are to try to stop dangerous animals the way service pistols try to stop people. I've shot DA revolvers in big calibers a lot.
I would prefer a service auto for human attackers as I can do faster better work on multiple targets with a service auto. I would rather have 10-17 shots vs. 5-6. YMMV.
For large animals I like my, 4" Bowen Redhawk .500 Linebaugh, 4" Bowen .44 Alpine, 4" S&W .44. I would rather have real penetration and accept less shots on board.

Jeep
08-18-2014, 07:52 PM
I have had IWB holsters for N frames for the last 15 years, so I have a pretty good idea of how well they conceal. Not well compared to anything else I carry.

I love N frames and have over 20 of them in .44 special, .44 magnum, .45 Long Colt, .357 and 10mm. I have taken multiple classes at Gunsite, plus Advanced pistol classes with Bill Jeans and Clint Smith with a N frame in 10mm, .44 special, .44 magnum and .45 Long Colt. As a "concealed carry" defensive pistol against two leg threats, they simply are not the best choice for any number of reasons. The best use of the N frame is to shoot powerful loads designed for stopping animals.

Well, that is certainly is one good use for an N frame. An equally good one is posing them for photographs. In my opinion, no modern pistol--with the possible exception of the 1911--is as good looking as an N frame. And that is particularly true for the blued models. I envy your collection.

GJM
08-18-2014, 09:49 PM
How do you do this? I might want to try this.

Here is a pretty basic 629, with the Hogue grips post removal of the finger grooves:

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg251/GJMandes/imagejpg2_zpsfe72fe56.jpg (http://s250.photobucket.com/user/GJMandes/media/imagejpg2_zpsfe72fe56.jpg.html)

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg251/GJMandes/imagejpg1_zps8dd74c05.jpg (http://s250.photobucket.com/user/GJMandes/media/imagejpg1_zps8dd74c05.jpg.html)

LSP552
08-18-2014, 09:57 PM
Here is a pretty basic 629, with the Hogue grips post removal of the finger grooves:

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg251/GJMandes/imagejpg2_zpsfe72fe56.jpg (http://s250.photobucket.com/user/GJMandes/media/imagejpg2_zpsfe72fe56.jpg.html)

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg251/GJMandes/imagejpg2_zpsfe72fe56.jpg (http://s250.photobucket.com/user/GJMandes/media/imagejpg2_zpsfe72fe56.jpg.html)

That actually looks pretty good!

Ken

GJM
08-18-2014, 10:00 PM
I happened to be near a pile of my N frames tonight, and this is the first bin I grabbed. I am not a N frame hater. :)

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg251/GJMandes/imagejpg1_zps28dc81c3.jpg (http://s250.photobucket.com/user/GJMandes/media/imagejpg1_zps28dc81c3.jpg.html)

JAD
08-18-2014, 10:42 PM
That actually looks pretty good!

Ken

Ken, have you considered an RDS as a way to address your failing eyesight?

LSP552
08-18-2014, 10:47 PM
Ken, have you considered an RDS as a way to address your failing eyesight?

Guess I should have said compared to the grips that were on the Redhawk.:cool:

Ken

JAD
08-18-2014, 10:49 PM
I happened to be near a pile of my N frames tonight, and this is the first bin I grabbed.

Those appear to be Astro's guns.

jetfire
08-18-2014, 11:02 PM
That actually looks pretty good!

Ken

Hogue actually makes fingertip rove free versions of those grips. And sells them on Amazon.

jetfire
08-18-2014, 11:05 PM
My iPad is being a dick. Here is the link to the grips.

http://www.amazon.com/Hogue-Round-Finger-Groove-Monogrip/dp/B007LV1X7A/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1408421015&sr=8-3&keywords=Hogue+rubber+grips+n+frame

They're even eligible for prime!

JHC
08-19-2014, 05:16 AM
My iPad is being a dick. Here is the link to the grips.

http://www.amazon.com/Hogue-Round-Finger-Groove-Monogrip/dp/B007LV1X7A/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1408421015&sr=8-3&keywords=Hogue+rubber+grips+n+frame

They're even eligible for prime!

Why wasn't I told??? Thanks man, if I find a square but version I'm ordering a set of those for my Model 28 today!

LSP552
08-19-2014, 07:21 AM
My iPad is being a dick. Here is the link to the grips.

http://www.amazon.com/Hogue-Round-Finger-Groove-Monogrip/dp/B007LV1X7A/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1408421015&sr=8-3&keywords=Hogue+rubber+grips+n+frame

They're even eligible for prime!

Thanks Caleb,

Ken

SamAdams
08-23-2014, 01:45 PM
I've got 4" Redhawks in 44 Mag and 45 Colt. They're a terrific outdoorsmans sidearm. I carry mine when in griz country.
(I usually go with something a little lighter if the biggest critter around is a black bear - such as a 45 Colt Mountain Gun or
329PD 44 Mag.)

threedogdad
08-24-2014, 07:03 PM
I've got 4" Redhawks in 44 Mag and 45 Colt. They're a terrific outdoorsmans sidearm. I carry mine when in griz country.
(I usually go with something a little lighter if the biggest critter around is a black bear - such as a 45 Colt Mountain Gun or
329PD 44 Mag.)

All you guys who carry these big-bore revolvers in the woods with you. How do you do it? Or, rather, how do you you do it for very long? Granted, I'm not in grizzly country, but I run across moose all the time, black bear on occasion, which sometimes makes me wish I had the power of a .44 nearby. Maybe I just need to man up, but still, 10 or 12 miles over the peaks with a pack on my back and a Security Six on my hip makes for a long, heavy day. I sometimes feel like I'm walking lopsided at the end of the day and that's just a .357. If I were dragging a Redhawk all over my mountains I'm not sure I'd be able to walk at all by evening. What holsters do you guys prefer?

GJM
08-24-2014, 10:44 PM
All you guys who carry these big-bore revolvers in the woods with you. How do you do it? Or, rather, how do you you do it for very long? Granted, I'm not in grizzly country, but I run across moose all the time, black bear on occasion, which sometimes makes me wish I had the power of a .44 nearby. Maybe I just need to man up, but still, 10 or 12 miles over the peaks with a pack on my back and a Security Six on my hip makes for a long, heavy day. I sometimes feel like I'm walking lopsided at the end of the day and that's just a .357. If I were dragging a Redhawk all over my mountains I'm not sure I'd be able to walk at all by evening. What holsters do you guys prefer?

Scandium 329 in a chest rig, or Safepacker on the waist belt of the pack.

SamAdams
08-24-2014, 11:23 PM
Scandium 329 in a chest rig, or Safepacker on the waist belt of the pack.

I've also used the 329 in a Safepacker that way. And various chest rigs.

When carrying the Redhawk, my pack and other gear is lighter to compensate. Of course balancing the load on the left and right sides, so youre not 'walking lopsided' is important. In my younger (stronger & dumber) days I carried more gear in my pack than needed. I don't recall the numbers now, but a fully loaded 4" Redhawk isn't all That much heavier than a fully loaded 4" S&W 629 with 3/4 length lug barrel.
I often wear a 4" N frame size gun around our place out in the country, so maybe I'm used to it.
A good holster and belt is important for heavier guns, of course.

Malamute
08-24-2014, 11:41 PM
Good holster and belt are important. I carry a standard 29, often all day for days/weeks over many years and it doesn't bother me. Have probably carried it more than any other single gun I've owned.

You walk farther than I do, but when I do walk, the gun hasn't bothered me.

The Redhawks seem pretty chunky and heavy to me, but they've mostly been 5 1/2" guns I've handled. They didn't appeal to me in the past because of the weight.

GJM
08-25-2014, 12:07 AM
For me, the problem is the traditional waist holster when carrying a full on backpack. Can't do it.

That makes a Scandium or service pistol in chest carry a good alternative. Since I have a rifle on those trips, it is a back-up. With a light pack, I am fine with the OWB and a 629.

LHS
08-25-2014, 12:28 AM
Scandium 329 in a chest rig, or Safepacker on the waist belt of the pack.

I love the Safepacker as a woods holster. I've been using mine to carry my Beretta while hunting, outside my heavy coat on my fanny pack belt (the pack itself is full of things like a drag rope, nitrile gloves, Wyoming knife, chow, etc). I've also used it on a pack belt now and again. It's about as concealed as you can get in such a situation, and if I take the pack off (say, at camp) I can just put the Safepacker on my belt and continue about my business.

GJM
08-25-2014, 12:45 AM
I love the Safepacker as a woods holster. I've been using mine to carry my Beretta while hunting, outside my heavy coat on my fanny pack belt (the pack itself is full of things like a drag rope, nitrile gloves, Wyoming knife, chow, etc). I've also used it on a pack belt now and again. It's about as concealed as you can get in such a situation, and if I take the pack off (say, at camp) I can just put the Safepacker on my belt and continue about my business.

Where I hang out, concealment isn't an issue. The problems I have with the Safepacker are:

1) whenever my pack comes off, so does the handgun, absent moving the Safepacker. Lots of reasons for the pack to come off quickly, like stalking an animal, going prone on a shot, or even responding to a bear nearby.

2) I sleep in the tent, wearing my handgun, and the Safepacker doesn't work as well as a chest rig.

On a sheep hunt four years ago, I went with Safepacker, 329 and a belt holster. Just too much weight and fuss for a hunt you want your pack at 30 pounds, not counting rifle, to be able to move off trail in the mountains. Now I am a chest rig primarily, and considering a Safariland drop holster as choice 2.

mtnbkr
08-25-2014, 05:44 AM
All you guys who carry these big-bore revolvers in the woods with you. How do you do it? Or, rather, how do you you do it for very long? Granted, I'm not in grizzly country, but I run across moose all the time, black bear on occasion, which sometimes makes me wish I had the power of a .44 nearby. Maybe I just need to man up, but still, 10 or 12 miles over the peaks with a pack on my back and a Security Six on my hip makes for a long, heavy day. I sometimes feel like I'm walking lopsided at the end of the day and that's just a .357. If I were dragging a Redhawk all over my mountains I'm not sure I'd be able to walk at all by evening. What holsters do you guys prefer?

When I'm toting my Redhawk (Galco DAO holster, Rafter S belt), I wear a pair of suspenders that attach to my belt. I only tote that gun when I'm intentionally going hunting with it (ie not as a backup). Otherwise, I'm using my 4" 629 (260gr SWC at 1000fps) and don't need the suspenders.

Chris

Lester Polfus
08-25-2014, 11:08 AM
Where I hang out, concealment isn't an issue. The problems I have with the Safepacker are:

1) whenever my pack comes off, so does the handgun, absent moving the Safepacker. Lots of reasons for the pack to come off quickly, like stalking an animal, going prone on a shot, or even responding to a bear nearby.

.

I partially solved this problem, for a Glock at least, by wearing a nylon, belt slide holster with a thumb break on my trouser belt. The back pack comes off, the gun comes out of the safe packer, and into the belt slide. The belt slide is flat enough not to interfere with the backpack belt.

It's still a pain though. I think the best solution is a drop holster. I just feel so very commando wearing one...

SamAdams
08-25-2014, 01:15 PM
For a bigger revolver you might also try out a custom leather holster from Simply Rugged. Their Sourdough Pancake holster can be worn OWB, IWB, and with an accessory which allows the same holster to be used as a chest rig. Extremely versatile set up.

http://shop.simplyrugged.com/ecommerce/Chesty-Puller-Conversion-System.cfm?item_id=160&parent=672

http://shop.simplyrugged.com/ecommerce/Sourdough-Pancake%E2%84%A2-.cfm?item_id=151&parent=669

EM_
09-01-2014, 08:02 PM
Not to hijack this thread but since moving to MT I'm curious as to everyones experience with a bear country pistol. I feel pretty squared away on dealing with two legged predators, but going back country with my kids makes me wonder what some of those experienced with four legged threats prefer?

I know a gauge or .45/70 are first choice, but what about when hiking, etc.?

I have a 4" model 29, and feel it can do good double-duty, but what about the .45 or 10mm loads, particularly in Glocks? I ask because I've carried (by policy) a G-lock in .40 for almost 15 years so I'm comfy with the system.

GJM? Anyone else who has bears as a real threat in their area?

Thanks!

Malamute
09-01-2014, 08:49 PM
I live in grizzly country. I haven't had to deal with any bears in a defensive situation, but have studied as much as I can over time and talked to some that have. For myself, I'm unwilling to give up raw penetration for capacity or a lighter gun. I carry a 4" 29 Smith with the 250 gr Keith loads (22 grs old 2400 w/ Lyman No 429421 bullet) or a 290 gr Keith look alike bullet at 1225 fps in a 6" 29. I also carry a single action Ruger in 45 Colt with 300/325 gr loads at about 1250 fps. I generally shoot the Ruger SA well, better than an auto in plate shoots in any event, and do not feel very handicapped overall. The SA's are more comfortable when shooting heavy loads for me.

I believe GJm has been carrying 10mm Glocks, but has had some trouble with functioning with what should be some of the better penetrating loads.

Salamander
09-02-2014, 01:29 AM
Not to hijack this thread but since moving to MT I'm curious as to everyones experience with a bear country pistol. I feel pretty squared away on dealing with two legged predators, but going back country with my kids makes me wonder what some of those experienced with four legged threats prefer?

I know a gauge or .45/70 are first choice, but what about when hiking, etc.?

I have a 4" model 29, and feel it can do good double-duty, but what about the .45 or 10mm loads, particularly in Glocks? I ask because I've carried (by policy) a G-lock in .40 for almost 15 years so I'm comfy with the system.

GJM? Anyone else who has bears as a real threat in their area?

Thanks!

Grizzlies are to be taken seriously. I'll let those who deal with them more often than I do cover that aspect.

For those in most of the lower 48, it's a very different matter. Black bear are pretty common here (northwest California), and I just spooked one last weekend. As always, it took off in the other direction in a very big hurry. They are very much afraid of humans around these parts. I'm aware of hundreds of sightings by friends/colleagues in addition to my own, and in only one of those instances did a black bear get ornery. That one exception was having a bad Monday morning and briefly treed a biologist working for one of the timber companies. Even in Yosemite where they're acclimated to people, we used to chase black bear out of Camp 4 by banging pots and pans loudly. The end result is that on most backcountry hikes in this part of the country, I'm content with a service pistol because I'm far more concerned about semi-feral dogs or human scoundrels than I am with native wildlife.

If I spent much time in certain parts of Montana though, I'd probably prefer a big revolver like the ones discussed above.

EM_
09-02-2014, 08:00 AM
Thanks gents! I appreciate the replies.

GJM
09-02-2014, 09:23 AM
The obvious appeal of the semi auto is it weighs less, is easier to carry, easier to shoot, and carries more cartridges. In some pistols, like the Glock, the better the load is for penetrating, the more likely it is to cause a stoppage. I would rather carry the semi auto -- right up to the moment a determined bear charges, at which point I would prefer the harder to carry, harder to shoot revolver. :)

JHC
09-02-2014, 04:49 PM
The obvious appeal of the semi auto is it weighs less, is easier to carry, easier to shoot, and carries more cartridges. In some pistols, like the Glock, the better the load is for penetrating, the more likely it is to cause a stoppage. I would rather carry the semi auto -- right up to the moment a determined bear charges, at which point I would prefer the harder to carry, harder to shoot revolver. :)

Do you have any idea what that Alaskan used to shoot that bear off of his arm in the Eagle River incident back in July?

GJM
09-02-2014, 04:55 PM
Do you have any idea what that Alaskan used to shoot that bear off of his arm in the Eagle River incident back in July?

three rounds of .44 mag, per the news reports

JHC
09-02-2014, 04:58 PM
three rounds of .44 mag, per the news reports

Badaa BOOM. http://www.ktuu.com/news/news/sow-shot-dead-after-attacking-eagle-river-man/27137910

EM_
09-02-2014, 08:37 PM
The obvious appeal of the semi auto is it weighs less, is easier to carry, easier to shoot, and carries more cartridges. In some pistols, like the Glock, the better the load is for penetrating, the more likely it is to cause a stoppage. I would rather carry the semi auto -- right up to the moment a determined bear charges, at which point I would prefer the harder to carry, harder to shoot revolver. :)

M29 it is, then! :cool:

Wheeler
09-02-2014, 09:53 PM
I've been following this thread with interest as I hope to 1: get a Big Boy, Big Bore one day and. 2: take a trip out west with my son to hunt bigger critters than we have here in Georgia. My brother has several .44's and mentioned a Buffalo Bore .44 Mag load that had a list of guns to NOT use it in, the Model 29 being one. His Blackhawk and Redhawk were both good to go. Any thoughts? I thought, naively apparantly that the N frames would take most any load.

My other question is, am I kidding myself taking a 4" Model 28 with some heavy Keith loads in thinking that would be adequate? I'm not totally familiar with what is where but depending on which friend is willing to put up with us the biggest bears we might run across would be Brown Bears.

JonInWA
09-03-2014, 12:39 PM
Personally, I'd be thinking along the lines of Marlin Guide Gun in 45-70, with a Glock G20 or G21, or .44 Magnum revolver (Redhawk, Super Redhawk, or Vaquero/Blackhawk), etc.

Best, Jon

JHC
09-03-2014, 03:08 PM
Personally, I'd be thinking along the lines of Marlin Guide Gun in 45-70, with a Glock G20 or G21, or .44 Magnum revolver (Redhawk, Super Redhawk, or Vaquero/Blackhawk), etc.

Best, Jon

I'm glad you incl the G21. I can't get GJM to beta test one but I'm pretty sure that the 230 grain FMJ FPs available will penetrate plenty good compared to say .40 FMJs. ;)

JonInWA
09-03-2014, 03:40 PM
I'm glad you incl the G21. I can't get GJM to beta test one but I'm pretty sure that the 230 grain FMJ FPs available will penetrate plenty good compared to say .40 FMJs. ;)

I seriously thought about a G20 for awhile, especially as the recipient of a GSSF pistol certificate a couple of years ago (ultimately decided to get another Gen 3 G19), but decided against.

Major reasons: Great gun, but in an urban defensive situation (with ammunition configured appropriately), doesn't accomplish anything that my G21 didn't-and with more expensive ammunition required;

In the wild, while ultimately a G20 would have been an incrementally better choice (due to the 100mm cartridge), with judicious cartridge selection the G21 seemed to be adequate. If in Alaska, or more dangerous areas of Africa, I might orient more towards the G20, but in the Pacific NW, the G21 does just fine, and is more flexible as both an urban/wilderness choice.

To take full advantage of the 10mm's capabilities, you're accepting increased recoil/blast, unless you go to 10mm "light" loadings-which seem to invalidated the rationale for going to the larger platform to carry them-you might as well just stick with a smaller .40 platform.

And, lastly, 10mm cartridges tend to be less available and more expensive, for both carry and range/target ball loadings.

And there's a niggling suspicion, perhaps unfounded, that if used in a defensive shooting, .45 ACP is less likely to raise acceptability/intent questions than 10mm.

Basically, virtually all of my needs in a handgun are pretty well met with 9mm, .45 ACP, .38 Special +P/.357 Magnum cartridges and platforms. While not a favorite cartridge, I'll always maintain at least one gun chambered in .40 (my Mk III FN Hi Power), as in the two most recent ammunition shortages, it was the sole cartridge available in both decent amounts and in decent selections, at decent prices.

.357 SIG ammunition is almost never seen in my neck of the woods since Sandy Hook, and since ballistically I'm pretty much accomplishing the same thing with Winchester Ranger 127 gr +P+ cartridges in my Glock 34, so my interest in it, once quite high, has significantly waned.

Best, Jon

Wheeler
09-03-2014, 04:57 PM
Personally, I'd be thinking along the lines of Marlin Guide Gun in 45-70, with a Glock G20 or G21, or .44 Magnum revolver (Redhawk, Super Redhawk, or Vaquero/Blackhawk), etc.

Best, Jon

We aren't planning on hunting any carnivores. It will either be elk or most likely antelope. The pistol will be for just in case I don't have my rifle.

Lester Polfus
09-03-2014, 05:41 PM
While not a favorite cartridge, I'll always maintain at least one gun chambered in .40 (my Mk III FN Hi Power), as in the two most recent ammunition shortages, it was the sole cartridge available in both decent amounts and in decent selections, at decent prices.



I think it's worth noting that I have a couple thousand rounds of experience in running .40 S&W through two different Glock 20's with conversion barrels with no issues. Also, while I certainly can't advocate making a habit of running .40 S&W through a 10mm chamber, I did it with enough rounds that if the zombies were kicking down the door and all I had was an empty Glock 20 and some .40 S&W rounds, I'd load her up and let her rip....

Lost River
12-14-2014, 11:35 PM
The first thing I did , besides order Milt Sparks leather, was to toss the rubbers and dig out an old set of wood grip panels from a 5.5" Redhawk I used to own. Better fit for the hand as well as aesthetically.



http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b109/IV_Troop/156.jpg (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/IV_Troop/media/156.jpg.html)
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b109/IV_Troop/BHKRHK_zps57b988b5.jpg (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/IV_Troop/media/BHKRHK_zps57b988b5.jpg.html)
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b109/IV_Troop/012-5.jpg (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/IV_Troop/media/012-5.jpg.html)