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:



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

[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.


http://instagram.com/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.