Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Redhawk 357 5.5" barrel

Very common in this configuration? Also what is a good price?

Local pawn shop has one, pretty clean, only slight rub mark along part of one side of the barrel.

Not common at all. And the strongest .357 mag Revolver ever built. If you can buy it for $600 or less it's a steal.

Hang tag says $675.

If you want to load the 357 to +P+++ levels, that's the gun to do it with.

I can't see the appeal of a 357 that heavy when you can get a GP-100 with a 5" or 6" barrel and it'll take any load you'd want to run in it.

That's still a great deal on a fairly rare Ruger! I'd jump on that! Personally, I'd offer them $600 cash. Most Pawn Shops have quite a bit of room on pawned guns.

Not sure the GP100 would be too much lighter. A 5-6" GP is 43.5-45 oz. That frame used on the GP is all there.

GP100 almost as high for a 6" model or actually a bit more for the 5" model than the asking price of the Redhawk.

The Redhawk is more than a 1/2 pound heavier, but you'll never blow it up and recoil/jump will be minimal

That's the issue, some of their guns aren't pawned. Owner buys and trades as well.

Where are they adding in the extra weight on the Redhawk? I just looked at Rugers website and the 7 1/2 RH is an ounce heavier than the same SRH.

The SRH, GP and SP series use a nubbin' of a grip frame which reduces overall weight considerably.

Comparing it to a GP100 that you mentioned. It's a much smaller hole in the barrel and the cylinders of a 357 Redhawk than it is a 44 Redhawk.

I GUARANTEE you that a 357 RH weighs a good 1/4 pound more than a 44 RH and a good 1/2 pound or more than a GP100 with a 5 inch tube.

Redhawk 357 cylinder

Plenty of meat in the cylinder for sure.

Your 357 Steely?

Right, I was comparing Super Redhawk 44 to same in Redhawk. Makes since on the extra grip frame of the RH vs. SRH/GP series.

Negative, lifted from the web, but I've shot one. It's a beast.

Now to decide whether I want it or go with the original plan of a stainless Blackhawk Bisley chambered in 41 Mag or 45 Colt.

Yeah I know, different animals.

After 6 months of the 357 Redhawk you'll be able to carry a S&W N frame 357 in an ankle holster.

I'd also opt for the 45 Bisley. The only handgun I've sold that I wish I didn't.

One of life's great inequities is that Ruger never made a blue 45 Colt Redhawk.

Agreed. No matter how nice, no matter how strong it may be, the gun is just over-sized for the cartridge. That's why I didn't keep my S&W 27. For the same size, and a little less weight, I could have a .41 or a .44 magnum.

The .357's on frames optimized for the cartridge are better options for that cartridge. L frame S&W, GP-100...For Colt you had the "I" frame revolvers which are the original ".357", the original Trooper and the Python. The "J" frame which was the Mk III Trooper/Lawman .357's, and then the Mk V revolvers. All of those guns with those intermediate sized frames are perfectly optimized for a long life of HEAVY .357's.

I'd even take a K frame S&W over the Redhawk or N frame .357's. The K frame .357's won't take a long life of heavy loads, but the K frame is really nice to pack.

My S&W 27 was beautiful. Original elephant ivory grips on a nickle 4" 27; it was one beautiful revolver. It was a real joy to shoot, but when it came to carrying it, I could always find something in the safe that made more sense to carry. That's the downfall of large frame .357's.