Ruger Redhawk

Found one of these at the local gunshop that came in on consignment. Not a bad looking revolver! It is 44mag, stainless steel.

Are these just as good as the blackhawks you guys always talk about?

They feel and balance differently. I have and like both, but I am also the oddball who hunts with a 17in Encore barrel as well... LOL

Duane

Very strong and durable double action revolver, normaly accurate as well

regular redhawk or super?

i've had mine since back in the 80's. it is the regular ss redhawk with rings. i guess you could call it a "hunter" version. however, back in the day they were just called "with rings" or "without"....lol.

great revolver! rep for taking the heavist of loads continuosly. i'm no gunsmith or expert, but i believe i've heard the redhawk may be an even stronger gun than the blackhawk? i've always shot 21.0 gr 2400 with a 240gr in mine.

just got the bisley BH hunter last year. love em both! one advantage to the redhawk....ability/ease to load/unload by just flopping out the cylinder. more of a range handiness than hunting.

The points so far are all good.

Like Kyode asked it would be good to know more about the model.

They are very durable,and recoil differently than the blackhawks IMHO.

Yeah, I would say the Redhawk is even stronger than the Blackhawk. They are great, tough revolvers that can take a severe beating and come back for more.

You can"t go wrong with a Ruger, you really should have it.

Or several! LOL!

couldn't be said any better! a redhawk is on my list!

longer cylinder and offset notches give the redhawk a little more strength then the blackhawk.

What gives the Redhawk more strength than a Blackhawk is the larger frame and large diameter cylinder

a couple things a regular redhawk must have imo....a better set of grips and some trigger work.

Thanks guys. Been away for awhile cause of work. It is the regular redhawk. Not the super. Looks to be in pretty good condition. I wasn't crazy about the trigger, but as stated, that can be fixed. Grips weren't bad, and would work as is, but those might change as well.

I called the gunshop to hold it. Told him I'll pick it up when I get home. He said, "DONE!!"

Will be nice to get some range time with that one. Wish I would have had it earlier. My season starts in two days.

Should be a nice one to come home to!

Excellent! Congratulations! Post some pictures up when you get it in your hands!

You will not be disappointed.

My 5.5" Redhawk is one of my all time favorite guns. It just seems to point perfectly for me and is accurate beyond my abilities.

Be careful when getting the trigger work done, the RH uses a single spring for the hammer and trigger return. Many gunsmiths like to lighten this spring to get a better trigger pull but you can end up with light strikes. I would opt for just having the trigger smoothed out and leave the spring as it is.

Regarding grips, One of the most comfortable I have found is the Nill Griffe grips. They are a little pricey but the quality is evident. For a .44mag, they offer just the right amount of width on the back strap to distribute the recoil without feeling like you are holding a piece of firewood by one hand.

I have a regular Redhawk in 44mag with a 7.5 barrel and I love it. I got it over the super Redhawk because it felt better and weighted less. I put a Weigland mount on it(was not drilled for a scope),polished the whole thing and put a different spring in it. I got my spring kit from Brownells. I put a Bushnell Trophy red/green dot on it. I shoot 300gr Hornaday xtp around 1380fps and have no problems with mine.

A regular Redhawk does not weigh less than a Super Redhawk. On the contrary, it is the other way around.

In 44 mag:
A 7.5" barrel Redhawk weighs 53oz.
A 7.3" barrel Super weighs 52oz.

It is deceptive because the snout on the frame of the SRH makes it look heavier but the weight reduction in the gripframe and the reduced weight of not having the rib on the barrel causes it to come in under the RH.

I've put Wolff spings in both my Redhawk and Super Redhawk,the super has a much better trigger 2- 21/2 trigger pull and the Redhawk has a 31/2 trigger pull which is just fine for hunting I personally like the looks of the Redhawk better(I think the supers are ugly)but the S.R.H. has a much better,smoother trigger pull than my Redhawk-john

Yeah I'm with you John. I like the looks of the redhawk better than the super. That redhawk is built like a tank, and made to handle the high power loads of a 44 also. Not saying the SRH doesn't, I just like the looks of the RH and it is built to be used. Can't go wrong with either one though I would imagine.

Also, I've been interested in getting the 45 long colt version instead of the 44mag. The guy is going to hold this gun till I get back, and I asked him about the 45lc version, and he said its a coin toss. But then again, he doesn't do any handgun hunting, so I kinda take that with a grain of salt.

Those of you that have, or have used, both the 44mag and the 45 long colt, what are your thoughts on the two when compared at full house levels? I can't imagine there isn't anything in north america that you couldn't take with either one at 100 yards or less, is there???

I'm still leaning towards the 44mag, but the 45lc is certainly an interest.

I would think that you could flip a coin and come up a winner with either caliber. Both are so close ballisticly you probably couldn't tell the difference.

The one advantage the 45colt version has is you could swap the cylinders from a 454 SRH and essentially have a 454 RH. Someone on this forum has one like that already.

Like this?

I thought you owned it but I wasn't 100% sure.

Snyd also has one, but his looks a whole lot better than mine!

i think those are cool. redhawks are nice i think the SRH is nicer

Mine is a combination of the two!

Whit,

In theory, could one finish ream each of the chambers on the 45 Colt to 454? I am assuming that as the cylinder from the SRH drops in (if there is such a thing) that the diameter must be the same between the two. So the chamber walls would be same, which only leaves heat treating as a possible difference? You guys are killing me with those pictures.

Craig

Material used for the cylinders differs for those chambered in .454 Casull. It isn't the same as that used for the 44 and 45 cylinders on the Redhawk.

Okay now things have REALLY gotten interesting. The guy at the gunshop told the guy that has the redhawk on consignment that I am interested in the 44mag. So the owner of the redhawk says, "Ask him if he is interested in a colt anaconda, or a smith and wesson 629. I got both of those for sale too."

GREAT!!! NOW which one do I take??!! I want them all!!!

If you can get the Anaconda at a reasonable price, that is what I would jump on as they are getting ridiculously expensive.

Craig, Ruger used 465 Carpenter steel to make those cylinders. I think the Redhawk cylinder is made with 416. Not in the same league from a standpoint of strength.

Whitworth, does that mean the Anaconda is more of a collectors gun? Would it ruin the value of this one that is NIB? If that is the case, I may buy it as an investment type thing, and the 629 for hunting. After doing some research on the two, I think I prefer the 629 over the redhawk.

I like Anacondas, but they are getting scarce and expensive. If a deal comes up, I am just saying that it might be prudent to jump on it. That said, I will take a Redhawk over a 629. You don't have to be gentle on the Redhawk. JMHO.

What do you mean by a "deal"? Would you jump on one at $1500 that's NIB?

Also, what needs to be gentle with the 629? Does it not handle the full house 44 loads? I know the RH will, but after looking at the 629 a bit, all I found was that it would do it as well.

Maybe I'm not understanding what part has to be "gentle"?

Thanks Whit!

You cannot feed a Model 29 (or 629) a steady diet of heavy loads without suffering some consequences. The N-frame was never built with the .44 Magnum in mind so it is a little bit marginal. I have a very good friend and gunsmith who did warranty work for Smith & Wesson in the '80s during the heyday of IHMSA, and stretched frames were not uncommon. Now I know some of you may push back because of what I have said here, but the Smith is dare I say "frail" next to a Redhawk -- yeah, yeah, yeah, they are also heavier, but you really can't hurt them. Hamilton Bowen said it best when he stated (I am paraphrasing here) that the Redhawk was the first double action revolver built "properly scaled" to the .44 Magnum cartridge.

Nothing wrong with a Model 29 (or derivative), and my Lew Horton is one of my favorite revolvers ever, I just don't feed it 300 + grainers on a regular basis. Just need to keep it within a safer set of parameters than you do a Ruger.

Take a look at this photo and you can clearly see the amount of meat around each chamber between the Redhawk (left) and a Model 29 (right). They are simply in different classes with regards to strength. Again, not taking anything away from the Smith. I have been a fan for decades, but I like the additional strength margin built into Rugers. But that's just me!

SOLD!!! I'll take the Ruger please!!!

Obviously my research didn't turn up anything about strength issues. I was mainly going off of what other users had said, but I never really specifically asked about full house loads either. Most reviews show the smith to have the better trigger, but otherwise were pretty similar. Should have just checked here first!!!

Thanks for that picture Whit. I am one that would rather carry the extra weight, and know my gun is going to be able to handle whatever I feed it. I, too, am a fan of smith and wesson. But after seeing that picture side by side with the Ruger, it is an obvious choice if I'm going to be feeding beefy loads through it, which, of course, is ALWAYS my first intent!

Whit and War Eagle,

Thanks. I had thought I remembered something about different materials between the RH and SRH cylinders. I did some poking around again last night and it seems like the 4" Ruger in 45 Colt is somewhat scarce as to availability. But I did ask Midway to notify me when the 454 finish reamers come in ;^)

Raptor, it might not hurt to look them all over and see if this guy is having some kind of fire-sale. A Cadillac at a steal might be more tempting than an F250 at a reasonable price ;^)

Craig

Craig, here is the link to the article about the SRH cylinder from Carpenter Steel's website. It is an interesting read.

http://www.cartech.com/techarticles.aspx?id=1608

Guys, help me out here. I don't know colt's very well. This Anaconda, is it more of a collectors thing or what?

No, they are shooters. They are stronger than a Model 29 from what I understand and well, thye look like an oversized Python albeit in stainless steel -- which in and of itself is a good thing, at least to me. They are pretty slick guns. Is $1,500 a good price? I don't know what they are fetching used, but if it is NIB, it just might be worth it. JMHO.

Whit,

Thanks. yes a great read. So, it is also the barrels that are upgraded. The name Carpenter steel steel is a little misleading in that it sounds at first blush like steel with a wooodworker moniker. Not the Carpenter company doing aerospace work. The article helps you also appreciate the work that went into designing the SRH, and that in the grand scheme of things Ruger works pretty hard to keep the revolver reasonable as to price.

I bet Ruger could sell a few Alaskan's with 4" barrels.......

Craig

Ok good. Thanks whit. I may look into the Anaconda first. My wife's cousin has a colt 1911 and says its the most accurate gun he owns. I know some of the colts are highly desireable, but didn't know if the anaconda was one of them, or if it was, as you say, a shooter.

Thanks for the advice!

Raptor,

Pop over to gunbroker or gunsamerica and look at the Anaconda prices (or any Colt double actions). When Colt dropped the double action revolvers years ago, things got silly. Well, perhaps not silly but the Colt name on anything no longer in production spells higher prices. Ya never know....

Craig

Yeah been looking at some of those. Looks like $1500 for unfired isn't bad. Wonder if its a first generation?? There are a couple of those going for north of $3000 on there!

I think it's a good price particularly if it is indeed NIB.

Not to change the subject, but on the redhawks with the SR 454 cylinders, was that basically a drop in fit?

I think that is a fair price on a NIB Anaconda. I sure would like $1200 better. They are great revolvers. I just wish Colt would have chambered the Anaconda in 41 mag.

It is a stainless gun, so it won't show wear as much as a blued gun if you decide to shoot it.

I have a 5.5" Redhawk in 41 mag. I honestly prefer shooting the S&W M57, but I am not shooting anything particularly hot.

It is on my list as well! I have only had BHs, I have seen them turned into amazing back-up guns - the double action and longer cylinder is its major beneift in this area. You can load longer, heavier projectiles(like 350gr. and up!) for bear country and be able to shoot it a little faster (although I have seen people shoot single-actions just as fast as a double, but they were using their off hand to thumb down the hammer- which may not be an option if you have a bear or other nasty critter on you or you are in some way using your other hand)