Ruger Redhawk grip question, and Bowen Classic Arms

[wvincent]

So, is the Red Hawk grip about the same girth as an RB N frame? Also, is the trigger reach the same?
Reason for asking: I just discovered this NO. RD03 STANDARD 6-SHOT .45 COLT ANACONDA BARREL CONVERSION on the Bowen classic arms website. I thought about it all night, and I think this could be my "Swan Song" in the revolver world. A three inch would be incredible.

Link:http://www.bowenclassicarms.com/catalog/ruger_double_action_basic_packages.html

[mtnbkr]

The standard Redhawk gripframe is larger, especially at the bottom, than the square butt n-frame gripframe. I don't know how the RB versions of each compare.

Chris

[wvincent]

The standard Redhawk gripframe is larger, especially at the bottom, than the square butt n-frame gripframe. I don't know how the RB versions of each compare.

Chris

Okay, thanks. Is the Super Red Hawk the same?

[Rex G]

Okay, thanks. Is the Super Red Hawk the same?

Not the same. Specifically, the reach to the trigger is not the same, and, the SRH uses the same grip frame stud as the GP100. With a GP100 grip on my SRH Alaskan, I can reach the trigger, for a proper DA pull, something I cannot do with an N-Frame or a standard RH.

[wvincent]

Not the same. Specifically, the reach to the trigger is not the same, and, the SRH uses the same grip frame stud as the GP100. With a GP100 grip on my SRH Alaskan, I can reach the trigger, for a proper DA pull, something I cannot do with an N-Frame or a standard RH.

Alrighty, so for me, the only way I can use an N frame RB is with my stags and a grip adapter. Throw wooden targets on and I am in an h-grip, which you know from experience (Iv'e read your posts) isn't super healthy.
I almost think I need to talk to Bowen and go find a couple Ruger's to fondle.

[358156hp]

I was just playing around with my std Redhawk the other day. I was analyzing the balance and the contact points of the grip with the factory grips, which I prefer above all other styles for the Redhawk. My particular gun is a 7-1/2 in. version, but the decision has been made to shorten that a bit, right now I'm stuck on 4 inches, bu I'm keeping an open mind about this to the end. Anyway, the primary point of contact for me was the top of my middle finger on the under side of the grip frame as a pivot point of sorts, along with the palm swell on the back of the grip frame in heavy contact with my upper palm. I've had a number of std RHs, and never noticed, or paid any attention to this before. We had another gun handy that matched these characteristics almost exactly- an old three-screw 357 SA with a heavy 5 inch octagon barrel. There was only a slight difference for me between the balance of the two guns. My last 629 contacted the lower area of my palm and was of course, lighter. I need to get the tube cut and finished and see what difference that makes. Also, the RH grip frame is wider than the N frames as well. Honestly, there's a lot more steel in a Redhawk than an N frame, and I still prefer the RH. I've sort of shot all three model 29s loose in short order. This project will be interesting, rebalancing a Redhawk. Maybe I need a T-Grip to try out as well.

I should have blown off the 44 magnum idea and stuck with Colts.

[GJM]

My first Bowen Alpine had the round butt, and it ruined my ability to control recoil. My second was left square butt and is mo better.

[wvincent]

My first Bowen Alpine had the round butt, and it ruined my ability to control recoil. My second was left square butt and is mo better.

Thanks. From pics you've posted, it looks like you hands are quite a bit larger than mine, I think I would have quite a struggle with a square butt.

[mtnbkr]

Thanks. From pics you've posted, it looks like you hands are quite a bit larger than mine, I think I would have quite a struggle with a square butt.

That's an important observation. The original RH gripframe is quite large and most grips make it too big. The factory wood grips are too small for effective control with high recoiling loads, but common grips like Hogue rubber/wood and most other aftermarket grips make the grip huge. I eventually got a good price on a set of Nill stocks that were a good compromise between the two extremes. Unfortunately, most of the time when you see these today, they're over $200

I wear a Large size glove, but most gloves in that size are a bit loose on me. I'm more of a "medium-large". I hope that gives you an idea of the threshold where the RH gripframe becomes too big.

The Super Redhawk grip stud gives you more options, but you have to live with the ugly gun. ;)

Chris

[358156hp]

My first Bowen Alpine had the round butt, and it ruined my ability to control recoil. My second was left square butt and is mo better.

It's interesting that you mention this. I like the way RB Smiffs carry, but I almost always ended up with square butt conversion grips on them. And for the same reason. Perhaps the std Redhawk simply needs to have the butt thinned a mite, and matching grips crafted.

[358156hp]

There is a solution the the Super RHs aesthetic challenges. It's a bit spendy though. Bowen offers the GP44 SRH. It's about halfway down the page. My crystal ball suggests that there will eventually be a Ruger factory version of this gun. The groundwork for it is suggested by Rugers new Super GP100 which is also pricey in its own right.

http://bowenclassicarms.com/catalog/ruger_double_action_big_bore_caliber_conversions.h tml

https://www.ruger.com/products/superGP100/models.html

[mtnbkr]

It's interesting that you mention this. I like the way RB Smiffs carry, but I almost always ended up with square butt conversion grips on them. And for the same reason. Perhaps the std Redhawk simply needs to have the butt thinned a mite, and matching grips crafted.

To be clear, it's not the thickness of the gripframe, but the depth front-to-rear toward the bottom. The answer from most smiths is to round butt it, but that brings up the issues mentioned by GJM. I've never seen a reshaping of the gripframe that retains a traditional square butt profile that is more in line with the size/shape of a S&W N-frame. Additionally, because the one and only action spring is within the gripframe, there is only so much you can do without affecting operation. I owned a Redhawk for nearly 15 years and looked into a variety of options. Short of a completely bespoke gripframe reshaping with necessary custom stocks (that no smith anywhere offered), I never found a good solution. The Nill grips were the only solution that came close for my needs.

It's probably cheaper at this point to get the GP44 build from Bowen or just get an N-frame Smith (assuming 44mag or smaller caliber).

Chris

[Hizzie]

I knew I had taken measurements previously. I found the post and copied it.

Backstrap to trigger face measurements:
SRH Alaskan w/Lett grips 71mm
RH 4.2" w/Hogue Tamers 69mm
GP100 w/Compact Letts 70mm

[mtnbkr]

I knew I had taken measurements previously. I found the post and copied it.

Backstrap to trigger face measurements:
SRH Alaskan w/Lett grips 71mm
RH 4.2" w/Hogue Tamers 69mm
GP100 w/Compact Letts 70mm

The problem for me was the slope of the backstrap and the depth, front to rear, of the lower portion of the gripframe. This resulted in a gun that tended to roll in the hand, battering my thumb knuckle. The Nill grips, with their backstrap covering design, flattened this out a bit without adding significantly to the lower grip depth (ie more material up top than down below). The S&W gripframe, is flatter top to bottom and not as deep at the bottom.

When I had a Redhawk 5.5 44mag, I tried the factory stocks, Hogue rubber, Hogue wood, Pachmayr rubber presentation grips, and finally the Nill grips.

Chris

[Lester Polfus]

There is a solution the the Super RHs aesthetic challenges. It's a bit spendy though. Bowen offers the GP44 SRH. It's about halfway down the page. My crystal ball suggests that there will eventually be a Ruger factory version of this gun. The groundwork for it is suggested by Rugers new Super GP100 which is also pricey in its own right.

http://bowenclassicarms.com/catalog/ruger_double_action_big_bore_caliber_conversions.h tml

https://www.ruger.com/products/superGP100/models.html

I've kind of put my big-bore, double-action revolver search on pause while I wait and see what Ruger does with the Super GP100. I'm keen to have one in .44 Magnum.

[Hizzie]

I've kind of put my big-bore, double-action revolver search on pause while I wait and see what Ruger does with the Super GP100. I'm keen to have one in .44 Magnum.

Yup. Production GP44 is my dream. A 4.2” would immediately replace my Alaskan. I would sell off an extra rifle if necessary.

[RJ]

Paging Malamute.

[358156hp]

The problem for me was the slope of the backstrap and the depth, front to rear, of the lower portion of the gripframe. This resulted in a gun that tended to roll in the hand, battering my thumb knuckle. The Nill grips, with their backstrap covering design, flattened this out a bit without adding significantly to the lower grip depth (ie more material up top than down below). The S&W gripframe, is flatter top to bottom and not as deep at the bottom.

When I had a Redhawk 5.5 44mag, I tried the factory stocks, Hogue rubber, Hogue wood, Pachmayr rubber presentation grips, and finally the Nill grips.

Chris

I have tried almost every commercially available grip myself. I ended up going back to the factory wood grips. My earlier rather wordy post about comparing the RH grip to the 3 screw Blackhawk grip frame pretty much echoes your experience as well. I never did get into SAs because of it. I never did try Nill grips though. They were kind of spendy for my cheap tastes. I had a SRH years ago and traded it off for some fad gun that didn't stay long. That was the one I should have Kept.

[Poconnor]

I just sold my super redhawk .44 mag because I never used it. It had a 7.5 barrel and a 2x Leupold. I should have kept it and sent it to Bowen to chop the frame and barrel back to 4”

[Malamute]

I have tried almost every commercially available grip myself. I ended up going back to the factory wood grips. My earlier rather wordy post about comparing the RH grip to the 3 screw Blackhawk grip frame pretty much echoes your experience as well. I never did get into SAs because of it. ...

The rolling in the hand is one reason single actions are easy to shoot, they dont have the DA hump in the grip to slam into that web of the hand or thumb joint, which is the main difference. When I get deeper into geezerhood and cant shoot a DA of any larger caliber, Im confident Ill still be able to use a larger caliber SA, if my previous experience with a torn ligament in my right thumb holds true. In similar calibers/loads, I was able to shoot an SA revolver a couple years sooner than a comparable DA in my recovery.

[358156hp]

Sometimes talking some topics out in forum is better than therapy, and a lot cheaper too. I really appreciate this particular topic because I now realize that my Redhawk problem over the years (I've had 6 or 8 of them) has been more of an emotional attachment than a practical one. I won't be doing the mods on my 44 RH, instead it will be traded off when I find an appropriate deal. You guys just saved a first year 44 RH 7-1/2 from getting a grip reduction of some sort, and cut to 4 inch. It thanks you.