Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Is a 7.5 inch Redhawk 44 too much barrel

The SRH has a great trigger. The standard RH is a tough one to get a good pull as one spring does two jobs.
I hunt with my SRH and it has a 10" barrel, With a RD it is a shade over 4# then six rounds with 330 gr cast bullets needs a shoulder rig.
By the way the 240 XTP is a super accurate 44 bullet. So is the 300 gr. 296 the best powder. Use a federal 150 primer, believe me, mag primers will triple groups.
I don't believe barrel length is real important in a great caliber like the .44. Get what you like. I like long to get the muzzle blast away more. All you need is room to consume all the powder and NO, it is not gone in an inch.

I was just cleaning it up and the trigger pull S/A and D/A are really good at least to me. That said while I was waiting to pick it up , the counter clerk brought one from the back room SRH 44 with the longer barrel and a Bausch and Lomb scope. I think my Brother might be interested in that one.

I thought the SRH long version stateside was 9.5" not 10".

296 and similar is blasty as hell w under 240gr bullets.
They scream though, and kill deer dead
I ran 180s and 200s maxd and got some flame cut of top strap. Eh it only goes so far. May erode forcing cone faster over time.

You shoot that much youve spent a fortune and can also afford to rebarrel.

I think I will run 240 bullets most likely hornady XTP's. Thanks for the Info.

I think they are 9.5 . It's just because S&W and Ruger measure their barrels differently. One from the cylinder gap(S&W) and the other from the front of the receiver(Ruger).

That's nice!

That's nice!

Yeah, true but I am used to the measurements on BFR's, they measure from the front of the frame. Doesn't work on the SRH. Since the SRH needs a cannon carriage, I just say 10"! It actually is 9-1/2 " to the end of the forcing cone.

Thank you

Yeah, it is real nice almost new. I had it apart today cleaning up the 30 year old caked oil on the surfaces and relaxing it.

First two 44’s I held, and decided between at the display case - 7.5” SRH and 6.5” 629 Classic. The Ruger was just too big. The Smith was jusssst right.

I bought a 629 in 1985, first cylinder run thru it and the screw holding the side plate started coming loose. I sent it to Smith and they returned it a few weeks later after loctite on the screw. The loctite did not work and so down the road I went. Left a real bad taste . I bought a performance center 44 4 years ago and could not warm up to it either. I trust a Ruger more on a large caliber handgun then a S&W.

I don’t have anything against Rugers. I agree they are certainly built for the punishment. And it’s not uncommon to hear of screws backing out on the 629/29’s. Extractor rod would maybe most common and disturbing. I’ve only had a rear sight screw begin to back out. Tightened it up (without any loctite) and it’s been fine ever since.

But on barrel length above anything else, I think 5 through 6.5” is the sweet spot. In whichever.

I have a Ruger SRH with a 7.5" barrel, but it is a .480 Ruger. Quite hefty. I have 3 Super Blackhawks of .44 mag, all with 7.5" tubes - much lighter, of course, than the Red Hawk .480. Also have one of those chambered for .45 Colt. The only "large caliber" revolvers I own with shorter barrels are those chambered for .44 Special.

Mike Holmes

Congrats on the "new" Redhawk. I have its twin in blued finish, bought new in around '93.

Even though I'm a small guy at 5'5", I've never been too bothered by the 7.5" barrel, but because I'm cursed with short fingers, I do struggle a bit with the grip size and trigger reach. A GP/SRH style grip frame on the RH would be ideal, IMO.

I have a 3 screw SBH.
Would like a 9.5 SRH
And a 4" 629

Id be happy then