Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Ruger Redhawk reviews please

Redhawk or Super Redhawk??

All Redhawk grips are interchangeable from one Redhawk to another.

Super Redhawk grips do not interchangeable with Redhawks

Correct.

Some posts are talking SRH. Just making sure we are talking RH and not SRH.

This is basically what pappy348 and I were eluding too.
The S.R.H and Gp100 have a grip frame that gives more grip choices and I believe a trigger that is easier cleanup. My desire would be to have a 44 Alaskan fit with a Redhawk barrel. I do not want scope ring notches nor the double barrel look of a Super Redhawk.
I have a Gp100 .357, Redhawk 5.5” 44 and the Redhawk 45lc/45acp. I prefer the Gp100 grip I just can’t justify having Bowen build me my dream gun at least not yet

Agree. Just stating for clarity
Been doing conversions for 30 years on and off.
Starting to do it again for retirement

Ii don't think I'd trade a S&W I liked for a Ruger unless you were planning to do a lot more, heavy load shooting than most will ever do. I have a redhawk that was my first .44. I can't say much bad about it. I've made some great shots I shouldn't have taken with it; mbut I just don't like how it feels / handles as much as some of others.

I think it all boils down to your anticipated use.

O.s. I too was puzzled that the ruger gp 100 was only in special while the Smith was magnumm.

I would really like to see your conversions. I wouldn’t mind my Redhawk 45LC/acp to have a 454 cylinder.
I have a Blackhawk 454 but that 4.2 round butt feels awesome in my hand. Although I have not had the time to shoot it yet.

Being a heavily Ruger leaning handgunner, proven by my safe, if I were in the market for a new .44 Magnum the S&W 29 Classic would be a very seriopus consideration.
Think Bill Rugers Grandson went to work for S&W and showed them how to build a revolver.

I like the various 5" and shorter 629's. A dash 5, 4" is possibly my personal favorite. But, I also like like a couple of the nominal 4" Redhawks. I have one each in 44 mag & 45 Colt. If I had to make a choice, I personally would choose my 4" ish Redhawk over my 629. Partial reason is, I actually like the looks and "feel" of the 4" Redhawk and I can fire any commercially produce factory ammunition in the Redhawk. The looks and feel are strictly a individual like or dislike.
I don't see much in price differences between the two.

They are interchangeable

It’s looking like the cost difference in Redhawks and Colt Anacondas is only about about two hundred dollars. Anyone shot one of the new Anacondas yet?

Oldelk: "They are beefier on purpose and use the latest greatest alloy."
If that is true why did Ruger change the 454 Casull Redhawk from a 6 shot cylinder to a 5 shot to counteract the sticky ejection problem?

Lott: "...the Ruger Super Redhawk is actually lighter than the Redhawk"
From the Ruger specifications on the Ruger website Redhawk 47 ounces. Super Redhawk 53 ounces.

They changed the 480s to five shot.

I got greedy and bought a new 8 inch Anaconda, I have an old one, a Colt Gunshop Custom. I also got a new 6 inch Python. I own 2 old style Pythons, a two and a half and a 6 inch Colt Gunshop Custom (since 1982.) I bought a King Cobra .22 ten shot revolver also.
The new Anaconda is heavy, stoutly built and the quality is very good. It doesn't match my 6 inch Royal Blue Python in good looks but fit and finish are excellent. I have fired about five hundred rounds of mostly 240 grain hardcast TC bullets at nearly 1350 fps through it. I have killed steel plates, rocks, gongs, a laptop computer and other inanimate objects. I have had some serious health problems that have precluded any hunting yet.

I owned a Redhawk for fifteen plus years. I believe this is anything the Redhawk was and better. It is a better shooter than my old Anaconda and is a better hunting partner than my snubby Super Red Hawk.

My criticisms of the new Anaconda include:
1. Single action from the factory had rough creep definitely not present in the Gunshop Anaconda. Pull was 6lbs 3 oz. Double action was a healthy 9lbs 12oz. A trip to Heffron Engineering (641)732 -0050 brought the DA to smooth 9lbs and the SA to 2lbs 13oz.
2. The rear sights are like a turd on an award winning Black Forest Cherry Cake. I would have gladly given Colt a couple hundred dollars more for the Wilson Combat Elliason sights that I bought to replace the worthless original equipment sights. I also installed a Wilson Combat Gold Bead front sight. I liked the Wilson combination well enough to put them on all three of my new snake guns.

When you pay $1500 for a top quality revolver you should not have send it out to have further work done.

In summary, excellent handguns worth the money certainly equal to or better than the Redhawk and probably the venerable S&W 29.(I never owned the S&W but have fired several.) Colt just really missed the target (backstop, even) on the sights.

I have discussed investment casting at length with my good friend who is an outstanding retired ME and said that investment casting has the same grain structure as forged. Did you read my post where I posted a link to Carpenter steel?

Yes I was talking about the SRH not the Redhawk. I believe the Redhawk uses 410 alloy steel.

They didn't. The 454 is still a 6 shot. Sticky extraction is because they did a poor job chambering the cylinders

The 480 factory ammo was slightly sticky in the six shots, but since I load my own and am content with 400 gr cast @ 1200 fps I've never had an issue with my 480. With a cast bullet with a length designed for the SRH cylinder you can push 400's 1350 fps without sticking, but recoil is past my comfort level.

I own a Super Redhawk and a 629. I prefer the looks of the 629 over the Ruger but the function of both are fantastic. I’m looking for a longer barreled 629 now to add a Leupold scope to that sitting in my safe. Here is a 50 yard group I shot with my Ruger with my hand loads.

jwp: Could you please explain how Ruger did "... a poor job chambering the cylinders"? Thanks. Not trying to be argumentative.