Ruger Redhawk
#152651
11/30/2014 8:47 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 61
Landrum
OP
journeyman
|
OP
journeyman
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 61 |
I'm much more of a single-action fan than double-action. With that said, I find myself wanting a Ruger Redhawk or Super Redhawk in 44 Magnum. I am leaning towards the standard Redhawk with 7.5" barrel. I have fired thousands of rounds through an old no dash 629 but I would like to get into heavy cast bullets and would prefer to not beat the gun to death.
The other option, of course, is to buy a Bisley SBH but I have never owned a Redhawk so......
Anyway, for you fellas that use a Redhawk or Super Redhawk as a primary hunting revolver, tell me what's to like and not like about the two. This gun is going to be used for hunting so packing around a smaller, lighter revolvers isn't an issue.
So, which would you go with and why?
Thanks
|
|
|
Re: Ruger Redhawk
[Re: Landrum]
#152653
11/30/2014 9:20 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 976
doc with a glock
old hand
|
old hand
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 976 |
Landrum,
For strictly hunting, with an optic, I would go with the Super Redhawk, no optic the Redhawk. The is a greater variety of aftermarket grips available for the the Super as opposed to the Redhawk (may / may not be an issue, depends on hand size). Both are stronger than necessary for even the hottest loads; and, the cylinders are long enough to seat bullets out farther or use a longer, heavier bullet.
Doc
|
|
|
Re: Ruger Redhawk
[Re: Landrum]
#152654
11/30/2014 9:35 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,608
s4s4u
Shootist
|
Shootist
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,608 |
So, which would you go with and why? If planning on running it hard with heavy slugs I would go with the Super, or Bisley. The Redhawk handle leaves something to be desired.
Rod, too.
Short cuts often lead to long recoveries.
|
|
|
Re: Ruger Redhawk
[Re: s4s4u]
#152657
11/30/2014 10:22 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 3,006
Zee
Shooting Expert
|
Shooting Expert
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 3,006 |
For aesthetics, looks, and feel, I prefer the Redhawk (with barrel scallops if scoping).
For utility..........the Super Redhawk.
"To Hell with efficiency, it's performance we want!" - Elmer Keith
|
|
|
Re: Ruger Redhawk
[Re: Zee]
#152682
12/01/2014 2:25 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 2,209
REDHAWK1954
Pooh-Bah
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 2,209 |
I have used my Redhawk to take six does 8,11,35,25,40 and 75 yards using the open sights that came with the gun. Mine has a 5.5 inch barrel which balances very well. I really like it.
Last edited by REDHAWK1954; 12/01/2014 2:29 AM.
Michael Joe Moore
|
|
|
Re: Ruger Redhawk
[Re: REDHAWK1954]
#152695
12/01/2014 6:30 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 158
RedSS
member
|
member
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 158 |
There is no doubt that the SRH is a rather large, utilitarian revolver. The RH is a slightly smaller, utilitarian revolver. That's about the only practical difference. In .44M, you'd be well served with either one. Handle (and if you can, shoot) both, and buy what appeals to you.
The standard SRH and RH Hunter feature the Ruger scope ring cut-outs. On my SRH, the corresponding Weigand base mounts VERY securely. I'd opine that if one were to shoot irons only, the RH is fine, but if you're planning on an optic, the SRH with a high-quality base might be a better choice.
I like SA's quite a lot as well and have more than a few. But in all honesty, I shoot DA revolvers much better, and as such I stick to those for hunting.
|
|
|
Re: Ruger Redhawk
[Re: RedSS]
#152698
12/01/2014 7:10 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 312
SEAK
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 312 |
The SRH has better action and grip for me.
Enjoying to circle of life
|
|
|
Re: Ruger Redhawk
[Re: SEAK]
#152700
12/01/2014 11:00 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 345
Festus
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 345 |
Ive owned a 44 redhawk and a 454 super redhawk. To me the redhawk with scope scallops will do everything you need. I didnt ike the feel of the super, felt front end heavy. Tough as nails though. Cant go wrong with either.
|
|
|
Re: Ruger Redhawk
[Re: Festus]
#152701
12/01/2014 2:45 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 270
Randominator
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 270 |
I prefer the Redhawk over the SRH mainly due to the size difference. I also like the scope mounted on the topstrap as opposed to being mounted on the barrel. I replaced the grips on my Redhawk with aftermarket Hogues and re-chambered from 44 magnum to 429 GNR; a 454 Casull necked down to .44. It will deliver a 240 grain bullet from the 7.5" barrel at 1720 fps. I simply took a Hunter crossdraw holster and cut out a section for the scope base. Fits prefect.
NRA Life Member HHI Member VHA Member
"get busy living, or get busy dying"
|
|
|
Re: Ruger Redhawk
[Re: Randominator]
#152702
12/01/2014 2:58 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 9,836
Whitworth
Shootist
|
Shootist
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 9,836 |
There is no real size difference between the Redhawk and the Super Redhawk aside from the frame extension. Otherwise it is dimensionally the same size (ignoring the different grip frame). However, they (SRH) do appear like they are much bulkier.
|
|
|
Re: Ruger Redhawk
[Re: Whitworth]
#152703
12/01/2014 3:09 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,608
s4s4u
Shootist
|
Shootist
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,608 |
Very true, Max. The Super gets a rap for being large but here my GP100 laying on top of my Super. Very little difference there.
Rod, too.
Short cuts often lead to long recoveries.
|
|
|
Re: Ruger Redhawk
[Re: s4s4u]
#152705
12/01/2014 5:42 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 738
98Redline
old hand
|
old hand
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 738 |
For a utilitarian hunter, the SRH hands down.
The better choice in grips, better design action, easier tuning, and overall build quality make it a great choice.
For scoping, the scallops being a bit farther back helps with the balance of the gun rather than the RH and similarly SBH hunter which put the optic out over the barrel.
Not that there is anything wrong with a RH (I own one of those too) but looks aside, the SRH is a better revolver, not by much, but better none the less.
|
|
|
Re: Ruger Redhawk
[Re: Whitworth]
#152826
12/03/2014 5:44 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 206
FA834ME
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 206 |
When the Redhawk came out I retired my Smith 29 8 3/8. The Smith is a beautiful piece but the Redhawk is a work horse. I have taken a few whitetails mule deer one elk and two bear not mention an aray of varmints with it. I carried places that my Smith was just to pretty to take. There is a couple gouges in the side of the 7.5 in barrel that brings back memories of a wreck on a horse that slipped on some ice covered rocks coming down a mountain. The horse went down on its side in a nano second with my leg in the stirrup. A jagged rock cut through the holster and gouged the barrel instead of my leg. I remember thinking how glad I had that Redhawk. The Smith to this day doesnt have a scratch! Redhawk still shoots like it was new. Good Stuff.
|
|
|
Re: Ruger Redhawk
[Re: FA834ME]
#152839
12/03/2014 11:46 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 3,755
johnwilliams
Shooting Master
|
Shooting Master
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 3,755 |
the SRH to me is an uggggggly gun compared to my Redhawk but the thing is ,it does the job and mine is in the .454 Casull chambering which is tied for 1st place with me ,the other being my .357 Blackhawk -as far as my favorite calibers,....like I said ,its(SRH) an ugly gun but its tough ,gets the job done-I went with Rugers years ago because of the strength that's built into them ,so I could have max loads if I wanted to and not worry about shaking em apart.
H.H.I.#8190 Colossians 1:17 And He is before all things,and by Him all things consist!
|
|
|
Re: Ruger Redhawk
[Re: johnwilliams]
#152904
12/05/2014 12:22 AM
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 61
Landrum
OP
journeyman
|
OP
journeyman
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 61 |
Now I am considering a Super Redhawk in 480 Ruger. By the way, is the cylinder for the 480 made from the same steel that the 454 is made from? Just curious.
|
|
|
Re: Ruger Redhawk
[Re: Landrum]
#152925
12/05/2014 10:54 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 649
dhom
addict
|
addict
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 649 |
According to everything I read yes, but a phone call to Ruger will verify best.
|
|
|
Re: Ruger Redhawk
[Re: Landrum]
#152937
12/05/2014 3:15 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 9,836
Whitworth
Shootist
|
Shootist
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 9,836 |
Now I am considering a Super Redhawk in 480 Ruger. By the way, is the cylinder for the 480 made from the same steel that the 454 is made from? Just curious.
Yes it is, Carpenter 465. Go for it, Landrum, you won't be disappointed!
|
|
|
Re: Ruger Redhawk
[Re: Whitworth]
#152942
12/05/2014 5:01 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 3,755
johnwilliams
Shooting Master
|
Shooting Master
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 3,755 |
That's something I didn't realize(480 cylinder),...interesting
H.H.I.#8190 Colossians 1:17 And He is before all things,and by Him all things consist!
|
|
|
Re: Ruger Redhawk
[Re: Landrum]
#154093
12/28/2014 6:38 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 52
Ravenman
journeyman
|
journeyman
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 52 |
What "Doc with the Glock" said. You can go wrong with a Ruger Redhawk.
|
|
|
Re: Ruger Redhawk
[Re: Ravenman]
#154094
12/28/2014 7:53 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 2,209
REDHAWK1954
Pooh-Bah
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 2,209 |
johnwilliams, I may have asked you before if so I am sorry for repeating the question. What loud do you use in your 357 Blackhawk to hunt deer with? Thanks Michael
Michael Joe Moore
|
|
|
Re: Ruger Redhawk
[Re: REDHAWK1954]
#154101
12/28/2014 10:12 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 206
FA834ME
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 206 |
Ravenman,
Do those grips on your Redhawk bolt right on? They sure look nice.
Don
|
|
|
Re: Ruger Redhawk
[Re: FA834ME]
#154121
12/29/2014 1:06 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 52
Ravenman
journeyman
|
journeyman
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 52 |
FA83ME: Both grips (Herrett Roper and Nill) on my Ruger Redhawks didn't need any fitting.
|
|
|
Re: Ruger Redhawk
[Re: Ravenman]
#154207
12/30/2014 6:10 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 738
98Redline
old hand
|
old hand
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 738 |
The Nills I have on my Redhawk needed just a touch of sanding to fit. I attribute that more to the inconsistency of the Ruger casting than the CNCing of the Nills grips...they are truly a work of functional art.
|
|
|
Re: Ruger Redhawk
[Re: Whitworth]
#154318
01/02/2015 8:07 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 206
FA834ME
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 206 |
I vote for the Redhawk. After seeing all these cool grips you guys have I think I "need" a pair. Maybe a Bowen rear sight? After shooting the thing since the 80's. with no complaints with it box stock except having the action tuned. Double action is smooth as glass. Oh the power of suggestion! Thumbs up for the 7.5" .44
|
|
|
Re: Ruger Redhawk
[Re: Whitworth]
#154570
01/05/2015 6:50 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 162
JBWhitehead
member
|
member
Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 162 |
Now I am considering a Super Redhawk in 480 Ruger. By the way, is the cylinder for the 480 made from the same steel that the 454 is made from? Just curious.
Yes it is, Carpenter 465. Go for it, Landrum, you won't be disappointed! Just to make sure; the SRH in .480 will NOT fire the .475, correct?
Lead, push or get the heck out of the way!
|
|
|
Re: Ruger Redhawk
[Re: JBWhitehead]
#154572
01/05/2015 7:04 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 9,836
Whitworth
Shootist
|
Shootist
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 9,836 |
Correct. Only .480 Ruger.
|
|
|
|
0 registered members (),
138
guests, and 3
spiders. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|