Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Ruger Redhawk 44 mag- 7-1/2 vs 5-1/2

I recently purchased a Ruger Redhawk 44 mag with a 7-1/2" barrel. After shooting and handling it some, I have decided I want to try a 5-1/2". I need feedback from those who have experience with both. How do they compare with regard to:

1) muzzle control and recoil
2) loudness
3) accuracy

Thanks!!!

Accuracy is excellent in both muzzle control during recoil is a wash and for loudness I doubt you could tell the difference. The barrel cylinder gap is closer to you than the end of the barrel.

I prefer the balance of the 5 1/2" when shooting offhand.

Basically you give up 50 fps for a gun that is handier, easier to pack and quicker to point. You won't give up any accuracy or muzzle control and will get a tad more roll in recoil. All 44's are loud.

What they said plus the 5.5" is a little easier to carry.

PS Sorry Lott, you already said it was easier to pack. Guess I need to read better.

[URL=http://s1181.photobucket.com/user/rugershooter1/media/6F97B510-38FC-4C5E-AD87-E8EEF53393D8.jpg.html][/URL


You will, in my opinion, give up a little and gain a little as you go shorter. I have owned several 5.5" RedHawks, and currently have the two above. For me, the longer barrel is easier to shoot well with full power loads. But I love the 4.2" model and shoot it well enough. I do notice the recoil more with the shorter barrel, but you give a little, take a little. Have fun with whatever you end up with...

Conventional wisdom says you'll be more accurate with the longer barrel because of the longer site radius. You should also see an increase in velocity.

The shorter barrel will be easier to handle; lighter and faster out of a holster. You maybe surprised that the minor difference in groups sizes. You maybe the bigger factor there.

Both are going to be friggin' loud.

^^^This^^^

I've had both of the guns you mention. I do not like the longer barrels. They are heavy and harder to carry. For me, I shoot the short barrels just as well. The sight radius makes some sense, but remember that the focus needs to be on the front. The shorter sight radius sometimes gives a better sight picture.

For me, a 4" 629 is about as perfect a 44 revolver as there is. Nothing wrong with a Redhawk. A 7.5" as pictured was my first 44, purchased in 1986. Built like a tank. Sold it after acquiring a 4" 629. Still have the original wood grips around here somewhere...

I have an 8.38" S&W500 and a 4". I've hunted all over with the 4" and the 8.38 stays in the safe. I can bust 2 liter bottles at 100 yards with open sights with the 4". Good enough for me.

U should keep that longer barrel! i had an internet spetznaz ranger super sniper on another forum tell me he makes regular 850 m shots with his 11" barreled Redhawk. Must be a super secret one!!!

I'd keep the 7.5" barrel and invest the money on an EPS Tanker holster instead.

THEN start saving up for a 5.5" or even the 4". I kick myself for not hording some Redhawks before the prices got so stupid..........

My Dad runs both, the 7.5" wears an aimpoint is for use as a primary hunting gun. The 5.5" is carried for camping, hiking etc. I find the 5" on an wheel gun to be a nice balance point. I love my 5" Bisley and 625 and that is about as big as I go and consider it easily wearable for an extended period of time.

I owned both for a few years until I realized the 7.5" gun left the safe only to go to the range once a year or so. The 5.5" gun did everything I wanted it to and was much handier.

I will take the 5.5 any day over the longer barrel.