Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Ruger Redhawk reviews please

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.

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.

My dream gun would be a Super Redhawk with the frame cut back and fitted with a Redhawk barrel like Hamilton Bowen does, maybe in .45 Colt.

I don't think Ruger used extra metal to compensate for their metallurgy, they just build their guns with a higher factor of safety. A redhawk cylinder will take loads that will blow an S&W cylinder apart. I've heard this said before, but I've never seen any proof of the fact. What is this statement based on?

The durability has nothing to do with less recoil, the added weight has minimal effects on recoil. It just comes down to the stress from firing a load and the amount of steel in the gun to withstand those loads. With all due respect, this statement makes no sense. A heavier gun recoils less than a lighter gun when both are shooting the same load. The more intense the recoil, the more wear and tear on the mechanical components of the gun.

I know it's popular to crap on investment casting, but if you understand the process and the alloys use, it does not produce an inferior product, on the contrary when done properly it can produce a superior product. It all comes down to the engineer understanding the process and alloys to design the part properly.
Having worked in the area of manufacturing that involves die casting, investment casting, forging, machining and a number of other processes, as well as having worked in tool and machine design, I'm guessing that I probably have a better understanding of the processes and alloys than the average lay person. I'm not "crapping on investment casting." It's a great process when done right, and Ruger is one of the best in the field. The fact remains, however, that forged parts are going to display higher levels of ductility and malleability, shear strength, tensile strength and fatigue resistance than cast parts. There is no overcoming that. Forging creates beneficial grain structure alignment that just can't be duplicated in a cast part.

This isn't to say S&W's are bad or week, both guns are well designed and work well. But if you look at the history, the mdl 29 is really a beefed up 44 special while the Redhawk was purpose built as a 44 magnum.

If you like to shoot 1000's upon 1000's of full power rounds, IMHO the Ruger is the superior gun.

The Super Redhawk is made from stronger material and a Super Redhawk cylinder will easily swap into a Redhawk. The SRH has a better trigger system also.

I would agree, the Redhawks are fine, durable revolvers, but again, I think a lot of it comes from added weight and more massive parts and I think any added strength they have over S&W's has been way, way over stated over the years.

I guess I’m going to derail my own thread, but here goes.

It seems there’s a pretty good consensus that Rugers are stronger than comparable models made by Smith and Wesson. A few years ago Smith introduced their model 69 in an L frame chambered for .44 mag. I have two of them. I don’t shoot Buffalo Bore type full full strength loads from them because I’m not sure they, or my wrists, would hold up very well. But I do really like them.

Now take Ruger’s GP100, which I also have in .357 mag. Over the years I have seen it described here on the campfire as being “made like a tank” literally dozens of times. So when Ruger came out with a five shot version of it in .44 caliber did they chamber it in .44 magnum? No, to my disappointment it is chambered in .44 special. It weighs within an ounce of a model 69. Why didn’t Ruger think it was strong enough to chamber in a .44 magnum? I would love a GP100 in .44 mag.

It's a mystery that they didn't chamber it in .454 Casull, given the the almost magical increase in tensile strength their miracle alloys have over forged machined steel.

The high strength alloy is used on the 454&480 cylinders only.

That’s why my 480 Redhawk needed a SRH cylinder