I've managed to resist a Redhawk for quite a while now, but these threads are wearing me down pretty quickly.
Mackay, have you had the chance to compare the 5.5" Redhawk with your 4". I'm wondering if there is a "5" sweet spot like the N-frames have, or if the Ruger is so over built that it screws up the formula.
If I could twist Ruger's arm, I'd love to see a 5" blued version again. I'd add a 1917 lanyard swivel and some walnut stocks, and after enough carry time to reach 50-75% blueing it'd look as tough as anything that ever rode on a belt.
But after I snap out of my fantasy, I realize the stainless 4" will still do what I want.
My first Redhawk was a 5.5". It now resides in my dad's safe. In fact RJM, my dad and I were fiddling with it not too long ago, during his visit. We were swapping grips out.
It is a fine gun, but I never cared for the balance personally. Things such as that are very subjective and will vary from person to person. The 4" version (for me) is pure awesomeness. It feels just right and has a nice balance.
I actually also like the 7.5" Redhawks. They seem to have a decent balance. It just was the 5.5"ers that I could not warm up to.
In contemplation, a guy with a 4" Redhawk and a 7.5" Redhawk would pretty much have all his bases covered in terms of big bore centerfires.
Toss in some nice leather and you would be all set:)
THE CHAIR IS AGAINST THE WALL.
The Tikka T3 in .308 Winchester is the Glock 19 of the rifle world.
