Also to add to the Redhawks strength is the notches in the cylinder are offset, so the cylinder is exceptionally strong. I know of folks who have loaded the 44 mag redhawks to well beyond Ruger levels. Not at all recommended, just to point out the immense strength of the gun. The cylinder is stronger, the cylinder lockup is stronger and the frame is stronger.
I’ve often wondered if the offset cylinder notches are the big deal Ruger used to make them out to be. There’s a lot more to the “strength” (however one might wish to define it) than the amount of material between point “A” and point “B”. There’s the matter of what alloy is used. Ruger uses a proprietary alloy developed to investment cast well. Also, the grain structure of parts machined from forgings or rolled bar stock will be substantially different than that of investment castings. There’s a reason Ruger revolvers tend to be big and heavy by design and I suspect much of it has to do with compensating for the metallurgy of their products. I have also wondered, for a long time, if their reputation for endurance isn’t largely a product of the fact that their greater weight tends to mitigate the effects of recoil somewhat. I’m not an engineer, I haven’t done the math. I started working in manufacturing in 1967 and, as a journeyman tool and die maker have been involved in untold numbers of projects involving product or tooling failure and the solutions of those failures.
Just food for thought.
