Ruger Redhawk vs S&W Mountain Gun

[okie john]

What are the thoughts on this versus the .45/.44Mags?

I'll clearly state up front that I'm not a fan of rimless cartridges in revolvers. The 44 Magnum and 45 Colt headspace on the rim, which permits a roll crimp, which provides a lot of advantages and sidesteps a lot of headaches. See more blathering about crimp here: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....-S-amp-W-625-6

If recoil matters more than overall weight, then remember that any model in 45 will be lighter than the same thing in 44 because the holes (0.430" vs. 0.452") are bigger.

Here's the math:

• A 45-caliber Mountain Gun (slim barrel taper, blackpowder chamfer) = 36 ounces.
• A 45 ACP Jerry Miculek 625 (full-underlug barrel, no black-powder chamfer) = 40.5 ounces.
• A 44 Magnum Mountain Gun (slim barrel taper, blackpowder chamfer) = 41 ounces, or half an ounce MORE than the JM.
• A 44 Magnum Model 29 or 629 (straight-taper barrel, no black-powder chamfer) = 42.8 ounces, or almost 17% heavier than the 45-caliber MG.

With loads of the same power, the 45 will kick harder because the gun is lighter. 6.8 ounces may not matter in a Ruger but in lighter guns like the Smith, I want all the help I can get.


Okie John

[Lost River]

My thought is I can fit 15+1 in my Glock 20...

200gr hardcast at 1150+ fps.

There is something to be said for that, and the .40 cal holes.

But if you run .45 ACP +Ps at 925 FPS, you get the same kind of power, but even bigger holes in whatever is trying to rip your face off.




.44/.45 caliber bullets at moderate, controllable velocities has been a recipe for success for well over a century. These days you can put them in a large capacity auto loader.

[Lost River]

Back to the original topic, I prefer a 4" or 5" S&W over the Ruger. Loaded with hardcast bullets run at non nuclear, controllable speeds. If the recoil is such that you cannot make precise hits, then it does you no good.

.44 or .45 does not matter to me, but you will find more .44 ammo readily available at most sporting goods stores that is appropriate for the task at hand. YOU have to determine what your skill level is and what you can handle in terms of speed and accuracy. That may be a 240-250 hardcast SWC at 1000-1100 FPS or a 300 grain WFN at 1100.

The only way you will know is to get out there and run some drills.

[jh9]

I owned a Redhawk 5.5" 44mag and a 692 4" 44mag. Not much to add about strength and such, but one thing that hasn't been discussed is the grip shape/size. The Redhawk (original, not Super) gripframe is large and oddly shaped.

This.

The Redhawk to some people is...weird. I would not buy sight unseen. Maybe the shape and grip options won't bother you, but if it does it will probably bother you a lot.

[Stephanie B]

I don’t regard the hogs as much of a threat...

Unless you try shooting them with a 9mm.

[Malamute]

Unless you try shooting them with a 9mm.

....and this sort of thing is a large part of why Ive tended to stay with the smith 29 for most of my belt carry over time, dropping down to 357 with 158s as the lower end. John Linebaugh used to say "A small gun will always be a small gun, a big gun can be loaded down, or run full power."

I realize its a story, but the principal isnt invalid. Bigger guns kill bigger stuff better.

[Rex G]

This.

The Redhawk to some people is...weird. I would not buy sight unseen. Maybe the shape and grip options won't bother you, but if it does it will probably bother you a lot.

I agree with this. The original Redhawk’s grip frame is quite large, so, a third-party grip that adds any volume, anywhere on the grip frame, gets really large. My mid-/late-Eighties .41 Redhawk ran well, but, it was a handSgun, not a handgun.

As for N-Frames, I love the N-Frame grip frame shape. My heart chooses the S&W Mountain Gun, or, even better, the first edition, labeled the Mountain Revolver. The problem, for me, is reaching the trigger, for proper DA work, while maintaining an ergonomically-proper hold, on the grip. This has relegated me to using the Super Redhawk, with a GP100 grip, if I want to shoot big bores DA.

[Flashman]

Ruger could incorporate the Super GP (Super Redhawk frame) concept to .44 or .45. The Super R has GP lock works, disassembly, great trigger (or ability to make it great) and the many options of GP grips. The front part of the frame is trimmed back such as it is with the Super GP and add a 4 inch tapered barrel. I suspect the ultimate weight would be under 40 ounces. But it would compete with the 4 inch Redhawk so may not be made.

But, although I have carried a MTN Gun and 45 Colt NV for a couple decades in travels off road, I have come to agree with Bruce Cartwright, that a semiauto may be more appropriate although would prefer a lighter version such as a Glock 21 or similar platform.

[Hizzie]

Which one and .45LC or .44mag for dangerous critters?

How are you at handling N frames? While I found the RH to have a slightly shorter trigger reach the grip options aren’t great.

The Super Redhawk line has a Toklat variant with 5” barrel. The 454 chambering will let you run any 45 Colt loading you desire. The SRH frame will let you run GP100 grips on it.

The 10mm GP100 running hardcast is nothing to sneeze at.

The GP100 or L frame in 357 running hardcast still probably more than adequate.



Don’t forget Phil Shoemaker took a charging brownie with a 3rd Gen S&W in 9mm with Buffalo Bore “outdoorsman” loaded in the mag.

[03RN]

So I went through this in 2007ish. I wanted a mountain gun soooo bad but price and availability lead me to a 4" Redhawk in .45. Random intermittent light strikes and the weight and the clunkiness lead me to sell it. I carried it for a year. It's a beast and accurate but I'm glad I let it go.

I recently sold off all my Beretta stuff to fund a .45 colt mountain gun. As a grail gun I'm glad I did. If I were to do it again I think I'd wait for a square butt blued one but I do love this gun


I'm pretty happy with a 270gr swc at 950fps