Ruger Redhawk / Super Redhawk discussion

[awp_101]

A Redhawk / SRH has been on my stupid, stupid wantsies list for a long time.

I don't hunt, have no use for a .454 or full house .44, they're big, heavy and they aren't available with my preferred barrel length of 4" (although 5" would be ok). A .357 would be a natural fit with the rest of the revolver accumulation but they seem to be scarce and spendy so a .44 to run Specials/Russians or a .454 for .45 Colt/other short .45s will probably be where I land.

My understanding is it's easier to get a "better" trigger on the SRH since it's like a scaled up GP action. What else should I know?

Feel free to post up pics of your RH/SRH as inspiration!

[ECVMatt]

My first handgun was a Ruger Redhawk. I bought it in the 80's when I was 14 or 15 (different times back then for sure) and still have it today. It shoots as good as the day I bought it.

I also have a Ruger Super Alaskan in .44 and a Ruger Toklat in .454. Hands down, the SR action is much better than the RH.

I really wish Ruger would make something like the Bowen GP44. If they did, I think they would have the best .44/45 Colt on the market today.

Just because, here is a picture of me shooting my Redhawk in Montana around 1986 and my son shooting the same gun a few years ago at our desert house:

97351

Redhawks are great guns, but the Super Redhawk is a better one.

[1911Nut]

I agree with the others . . . . the SRH is the better revolver. Primarily due to a better trigger, but in my experience, the SRH revolvers I have owned have typically been more accurate that the RH models.

[BehindBlueI's]

The Redhawk is, IMO, the aesthetically more pleasing of the two. It looks like a big ol' hunk of revolver ought to look like.

It is, however, by far the more likely to have issues with reliable ignition. The Super Redhawk is, as mentioned, very GP-like and can get both a lighter and smoother trigger pretty easily. You're also very unlikely to deal with light strike issues and it will almost certainly run right out of the box. The Redhawk will have a heavier trigger and will *probably* run right out of the box but there's a cottage industry for fixing them which tells you something. Longer firing pins are sometimes required for reliable ignition. I had to have my .45 Colt / .45 Auto futzed with by a gunsmith after Ruger failed to fix it twice. Gunsmith deburred it, installed a longer firing pin, and generally slicked it up. The end result was a fun and good looking gun but if I had it to do over again, I wouldn't. I'd stick to N-frame S&W pre-locks. I wanted the Ruger for the ability to fire "Ruger only" loads and to have that extra margin of safety and against wear. What I quickly learned was the fun of Ruger Only loads was rather fleeting to me and I'm just fine with slightly warm "+P" sort of loads in .45 Colt vs the high-fiving a sledgehammer sort of loads.

[BobM]

I’ve been wanting a 2 1/2” 357 RedHawk since they came out. I had a 4” 44 some years ago but I didn’t like shooting it, the recoil seemed worse to me than my 5” 629.

[SwampDweller]

I would love an 8 shot .357 Redhawk, but I seem to remember them having lots of reliability issues. If it was reliable I'd say it's a really good ban state option. I'll likely get a 7 shot GP100 instead.

A SRH Alaskan is on my list, not sure if I should go .454/.45 Colt or .44 Mag. I love the .45 caliber in a revolver, and I'd only shoot .45 Colt loads out of it (maybe one round of .454 just to see what it's like). But ammo availability and selection of .45 Colt is very limited. While I do have components to load it, I still like the option of being able to get good factory ammo, especially for self defense. Perhaps a .44 would be more practical. It's still a big bore revolver. Still, I'd likely mainly shoot .44 Special level loads through it, and .44 special ammo selection is very limited as well.

If I lived in a jurisdiction where expanding ammunition was illegal or questionable, I'd be very tempted to carry a .44 or .45 caliber revolver loaded with full wadcutters.

[03RN]

My EDC for a year
97354

[Hizzie]

I’ve owned two different RH’s and neither approached pleasant to shoot with even mid level 44 magnum loads. The round butt RH was the worst. The SRH Alaskan in the same caliber with the hogue non finger groove grips was fun even with Hornady 300 grainers. If Ruger were to make the Super GP in 44 magnum with that 4.2” tube they’d definitely sell.


p/CKuMDworX3k

[okie john]

What I quickly learned was the fun of Ruger Only loads was rather fleeting to me and I'm just fine with slightly warm "+P" sort of loads in .45 Colt vs the high-fiving a sledgehammer sort of loads.

QFT. If a 250-grain SWC at 1,000 fps will shoot end-to-end through a deer, then how much more do you really need?



But ammo availability and selection of .45 Colt is very limited.

Yep.

Factory 45 Colt ammo could be a pointy 180-grain bullet at 600 fps that will barely stay on a pie plate at 25 yards, or it could be a "Ruger Only" load that runs with HOT 44 mag loads. That said, 44 Magnum factory selections can fall in the same range, but most of it has a decent expanding bullet at 1,250 fps from a 6" revolver barrel.


Okie John

[Squib308]

I’ve owned both. Currently have redhawk 5.5” in 44 mag. Previously owned a SRH 7.5” in 44 mag. The SRH is sinfully ugly which was mostly why I sold it. That was a mistake and I really regret selling it, It’s a better design. If you’re planning to actually shoot the revolver (and you should!), get the SRH. My personal favorite 44 mag is a 629 with 6” half under lug barrel, but the OP was about Ruger revolvers so I’ll stop here.

Do you handload 44 mag? If not really consider starting. Super easy to load and really makes the cartridge more fun to shoot as one can load a projectile to whatever performance is desired.

[03RN]

QFT. If a 250-grain SWC at 1,000 fps will shoot end-to-end through a deer, then how much more do you really need?
Okie John

One of the reasons I let the redhawk go was because of that. Why carry all that extra steel when a mountain gun can handle 250gr@1000fps forever.

[awp_101]

The SRH is sinfully ugly
That's probably my biggest issue with the SRH. If they'd give it a 4-5" GP or RH style barrel I'd be all over it. Might be worth a call to Jack Huntington to see about having a barrel chopped and new front sight base fabbed but it'll probably be an order of magnitude more than I want to spend.

Just like Contender only loads, Ruger only loads in any caliber are on my NFE list. A .44 would see Russian level or BP loads (because I'm a gun nerd with a capital N-E-R-D), a .45 would see light .45 Colt, .45 ACP or Special level and BP loads.

[ECVMatt]

This is from the Hamilton Bowen website, but would probably be my perfect .44 or .45 Colt.

97375

Use the SRH action and frame mated with a RH barrel. I think this would be a winner for Ruger and simplify the assembly line.

[Hizzie]

This is from the Hamilton Bowen website, but would probably be my perfect .44 or .45 Colt.

97375

Use the SRH action and frame mated with a RH barrel. I think this would be a winner for Ruger and simplify the assembly line.


Ruger already makes that in 357 and 9.

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

All they gotta do is 44 Magnum with a 4.2” tube.

[ECVMatt]

Ruger already makes that in 357 and 9.

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

All they gotta do is 44 Magnum with a 4.2” tube.

I forgot about those!

Well there you have it, we are part of the way there.

Come on Ruger; go the distance!

[LJP]

I have a 4” .44 RH that I bought used. (GB). I discovered upon picking it up from the FFL that it apparently has been to Magna-port at some point in the past. Given how good the trigger is, I wonder if they worked on the action as well. Definitely stings for more than a cylinder or two. I’d like to take a hog or a deer with it someday (it’s legal on private land in my state of residence with a revolver).

Agreed on the aesthetics of the SRH. I think they’re fugly.

[john c]

I run Pachmayr Presentation grips on both my 7.5 inch RedHawks. I run the same grips on my S&W model 629s. They’re equally comfortable in long shooting strings. The stock grips on the RH are terrible, but I changed mine out before I even shot them.

I marginally prefer them to my 629s, mostly due to my perception that the RH is stronger. I’ve never had a problem with a 629, but I’ve babied them because I don’t want them to go out of time. I’m unconcerned about the RHs having any problems.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kaiser2]

Ruger needs to stick with the GP100 grip frame. The round butt the introduce of newer RedHawks is terrible and replacement grips are few and far between.

[Paul Blackburn]

My first handgun was a Ruger Redhawk. I bought it in the 80's when I was 14 or 15 (different times back then for sure) and still have it today. It shoots as good as the day I bought it.

I also have a Ruger Super Alaskan in .44 and a Ruger Toklat in .454. Hands down, the SR action is much better than the RH.

I really wish Ruger would make something like the Bowen GP44. If they did, I think they would have the best .44/45 Colt on the market today.

Just because, here is a picture of me shooting my Redhawk in Montana around 1986 and my son shooting the same gun a few years ago at our desert house:

97351

Redhawks are great guns, but the Super Redhawk is a better one.

I bought a Ruger Redhawk .44 magnum at exactly the same age in 1981. It was used and listed in the classified section of the local news paper.

[titsonritz]

This is from the Hamilton Bowen website, but would probably be my perfect .44 or .45 Colt.

97375

Use the SRH action and frame mated with a RH barrel. I think this would be a winner for Ruger and simplify the assembly line.

I have drooled over the GP-44 ever since I read about it in this 2007 annual American Handguner article by Denis Prisbrey (http://www.bowenclassicarms.com/news/articles/GP_44_Redhawk.pdf)

I owned a 4", 5.5" and 7.5" Redhawks and a Super Redhawk Alaskan all in .44mag, I really want to send my Alaskan to Bowen.

[titsonritz]

Ruger already makes that in 357 and 9.

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

All they gotta do is 44 Magnum with a 4.2” tube.

And not butcher the cylinder and a barrel.

[JonInWA]

I think there's a lot to be said for a 4.2" and 5" GP100 in .45 Colt/.45 ACP; to me that would be preferable to the currently available Redhawk in those calibers.

It would look a bit like a Security Six on steroids....

Best, Jon

[Dusty Stone]

I have a Redhawk 5.5" 44 Magnum... circa 83, it's a great revolver :cool:

[1slow]

I have 4 Redhawks:

2 of Hamilton Bowen's .500 Linebaugh 4" barrel,

1 of Hamilton Bowen's .475 Linebaugh 5" barrel,

I of ,44 Magnum Alpine.

All of these were circa 1990 and had action and firing pin work.

I have owned 3 .454 Super Redhawks. Sold the 7.5" and 1 Alaskan, kept the 2 nd Alaskan. Sort of a super snubby.

The Linebaughs were when I thought I would harden to a high level of physical abuse. Mentally maybe, physically not so much. I shot them routinely in 50 round sessions.

At 66, I have mild arthritis: thumb bases, elbows, knees now. So USP .45 super is about my upper limit for comfort for 200 round days. Python 3", King Cobra 2" are not bad.

I need to work up some lighter loads and enjoy the big boomers.

[Hambo]

The SRH is sinfully ugly which was mostly why I sold it. That was a mistake and I really regret selling it,

It's also ungodly heavy, but like you, I regret selling my 7 1/2" SRH. It's the only .44 revolver that shot as well as my 14" Contender at 50-100 yards.

[JPedersen]

Ruger needs to stick with the GP100 grip frame. The round butt the introduce of newer RedHawks is terrible and replacement grips are few and far between.

I second this ! [emoji817] It is one of the only revolvers that I would say is close to unusable in it original configuration … not a good set up for me / in my opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JPedersen]

Deleted double post … sorry !

[358156hp]

It's also ungodly heavy, but like you, I regret selling my 7 1/2" SRH. It's the only .44 revolver that shot as well as my 14" Contender at 50-100 yards.

I also sold my 44 SRH after firelapping the barrel, tweaking the trigger slightly and upgrading the sights. I had something else I really wanted so I sold it too cheap. This another of my guns that I later tried to buy back. Nobody ever seems to want to sell guns I've sold them in the past. My 45 Colt Redhawk was like that too.

Revolvers are my first love.

[Dusty Stone]

I left the wooden stocks on for the photo, but use the Pachmayr Decelerator grips when shooting to tame the recoil.

https://i.postimg.cc/jSxfpX6q/Ruger-Redhawk-Large-AI.jpg

[farscott]

My very first centerfire handgun was a Ruger Redhawk with the 7.5" barrel. It was 1990, and my previous experience was all with .22. I had decent fundamentals -- other than nothing in the way of handling that level of recoil. I shot the snot out of that revolver and somehow did not start to flinch. I do have wrist and hand issues, probably from the sheer amount of 300-grain hard cast at 1200 fps I fired. It did not take too long for me to determine the grips and I were not compatible as the right side screw hole caused a blister after less than one hundred rounds. I ended up with a pair of Hogue tulipwood grips and those helped a lot, especially when I relieved them behind the trigger guard.

That was my first .44. I have had several since then, including a Mag-Na-Port Predator built on a Super Blackhawk, a 629 Classic DX, and a Freedom Arms Model 83. I finally added a Super Redhawk with a seven-inch barrel with a Mag-Na-Port brake and got rid of the rest of them, including that Redhawk. For me, the Mag-Na-Port brake combined with the GP100 type grips on the heavy Super Redhawk makes for a much more pleasant shooting experience.

[Velociginger]

I have a Super Redhawk, I believe built by Cylinder and Slide before Ruger started to produce the Alaskan. It’s .454 with some black cerakote-ish finish, bobbed hammer, action job, fixed sights, blah blah blah.
https://cylinder-slide.com/PDFarticles/Super-RedHawk-Final.pdf
Shooting .454s in it is absurdly uncomfortable, but .45 Colt, even warm loads, are very manageable.
I often keep loaded with Underwood 45 Colt full wadcutters.
110648

[Hizzie]

I have a Super Redhawk, I believe built by Cylinder and Slide before Ruger started to produce the Alaskan. It’s .454 with some black cerakote-ish finish, bobbed hammer, action job, fixed sights, blah blah blah.
https://cylinder-slide.com/PDFarticles/Super-RedHawk-Final.pdf
Shooting .454s in it is absurdly uncomfortable, but .45 Colt, even warm loads, are very manageable.
I often keep loaded with Underwood 45 Colt full wadcutters.
110648

Absolutely glorious! Before finding my Alaskan I had put serious consideration into picking up a used 7.5 or 9.5 SRH and having it chopped back to about 4” just so there was enough room left for a FSB on the barrel.

I tried the Compact Lett on my Alaskan. The non finger grooved Hogue performs much better for me while still being reasonably sized.

[Velociginger]

Thanks. The trigger is really nice(though, I’m not a trigger snob, so for some it might just be “meh”).
The Hogue grips w/o finger grooves feel really good. Evidently, C&S re-shaped the regular SRH grips to get the profile that’s on there now, according to the write-up in the link. They’re good enough with 45 Colts.