It's almost impossible to find one , the last one I saw had a 5.5 barrel and was covered with NRA engraving. Dealer just got one in with a 7.5 barrel and it almost seems like too much of a good thing.

Uses will be unfortunate doe culls and Hogs. It Will be riding in a Kenai designs chest holster.

A 7.5 inch Redhawk is a chunk of a revolver, you will certainly not wear it out .
Be careful in the event of maritime operations, if you go in the water that boat anchor will drag you to the bottom : )
I had a 5.5 inch blue 44 Magnum I purchased in the late 1980's that I used for your same purposes (add a couple of alligators and one black tip shark) . It provided excellent service, the blue finish took a beating over the years (salt water/air) and I sent it down the road in 2018 as I began to downsize .
All kidding aside the 7.5 inch will certainly do what you want it to do .

StarchedCover

For me it would right on the line between plenty and too much. IF I were building a hunting revolver AND planned to use only iron sights, then MAYBE I'd want a barrel that long.

5.5" is plenty for everything else, and it would work better in a belt holster if you go that route.



Okie John

Yeah the 5.5 is the one that draws me the most. Thanks for the replies.

For the described use, I'd say they're just right. I've owned at least one. Others were 5 1/2". For an overall .44, I'd prefer the shorter gun, but if you've got several 44 Mag's or are only using it to hunt, the 7 1/2" will be fine.

If buying just one.....a 6".

Since the Redhawk is a little long at 7.5" .....youll have to buy a shorter one too ( under 6" ).

😉

Place that 7.5 on shooting sticks or trekking poles and you'll be able to accurately hit game out to a hundred yards or so with the right bullet/loadings.

5.5 or 7.5 you will need an gun bearer, its a Ruger.

I’ve had two 7.5” over the years, definitely a lot of gun. Both blued. First one I couldn’t get to shoot worth a damn with any ammo. Second one I kick myself in the ass all the time for selling it. It had an older Burris 2x scope on it, great shooter.

Did you try different grips? I know thoes "roller" grips are not exactly target grips.

Depends on how you holster it. On a belt you will not be able to sit down for the most part. IE car/truck seat, log etc. 5.5" would be about the max, at lest for myself. I have a S&W 357PD 4" that is my hunting carry pistol.

I called the dealer and asked him what the barrel length was, the genius behind the counter was too lazy to look at the box and tell me what the length was. Turned out it was 7.5 after another salesperson told me it was sold just a few minutes earlier. Oh Well

I had one of my RedHawks in 45 Colt cut down to a 4” barrel for carry in a El Paso Saddlery Tanker Chest Holster. It’s Still a heavy SOB. 🤠

You’re splitting hairs.

And unless you’re running an optic there’s no reason to not opt for the longer sight radius. I’m not sure why or when the aversion to long barreled handguns started but it’s more than annoying.

Buy the 7.5” and give it hell.

I carry my seven dot five in a cross draw I made and it is very comfortable .

Dont longer bbls mandate more consistent form/ grip due to time of flight within?

A shorter bbl might have some pluses besides convenient carry.

I rather liked my 4" 629-1. But the sights crude enough that for me it was a 50 yard max rig. 6" was good to 100 and the 8 3/8 was easy to blast stuff out a ways.

Even w the crappy locktime of Ruger SA and DA tigs sporting 7.5 to 9.5 ......i shot then well w irons.

Alas, those days are GONE.

Neither the 5.5 or 7.5 are hip guns; the 4inch version isn't either, even if you're a big guy.

The 7.5 is generally easier to hit with and allows for less recoil no matter what you decide to run through it. I've used a Simply Rugged pancake for them and the only detraction is that it's not any kind of speed rig; if you're stand or still hunting, it will be fine for the purpose and easier to hit with.

The 7.5" Redhawk isn't too long for me, but I have pretty big hands. You should buy the length you like. That's why they make different lengths.

Only you can decide, I have long ones & shorter ones. Longer is heavier but gives a bit more velocity, sight radius, less recoil & to some, maybe a bit more balance. It's always a trade off but a good 7.5" gun, if you're hunting is hard to beat.

Dick

You might think my 8 inch anaconda is a bit unwieldy then.

Nah my brother had one and it felt great.

7.5 is where I am heading. Looking for a std Redhawk not the Super.

Context is important......

Yeah it is

I wouldn't tough another man's ANACONDA

I have had a 7 1/2" stainless Redhawk .44 magnum for 29 years. It sure isn't much of a belt gun, but it's fine in a shoulder holster. I put a Hogue grip on it years ago and that, and the gun's weight, makes it a real pussycat to shoot with heavy duty .44 magnum loads. My usual load with that revolver is a 300 grain XTP with a healthy dose of 2400. It's easy enough to hit stuff out at 100 yards plus a little bit that it makes a pretty handy substitute for a short-range rifle.

If I'm more concerned with carryability in a .44 magnum, my 629 Mountain Gun gets the nod.

My friend bought one of the first Redhawks Ruger sold in our part of NJ. I loved shooting that gun.

I don't see what "big hands" has to do with the barrel size. The rest of the gun is all exactly the same regardless of barrel size.

If 2 inches of barrel makes that big a difference to people may be THE GUN is not for you. If you NEED shooting sticks to shoot it, it is for sure not for you. It is a HAND GUN not an artillery emplacement.

No one "NEEDS" anything else to shoot.

Maybe you "need" a big bore to know what you are talking about.

Sorry to hear you missed out. It would've been a good one.

Yeah, this is the second time I have been misinformed by a counter clerk at this store where 44 mags do not last long. That said it is still my favorite store. I will buy one within a few days just may not be NIB.

The .44 Magnum has a relatively high expansion ratio so small decreases in barrel length aren't going to affect muzzle velocity as much as, say, a .357 Magnum which benefits more from longer barrels. So any velocity consideration between the 7.5" or 5.5" barrels is splitting a fine hair.

Both are over 3 pounds, the 5.5 just over and the 7.5 adds another five ounces so neither one is a "packin' gun" kind of gun. That extra 2" of barrel out front does reduce recoil but again, with full power loads in a .44 Magnum both fall into the "it's really gonna kick" category. The extra 2" also adds more sight radius but it sounds like you anticipate shooting at ranges and at targets that don't require that last nth degree of precision.

My personal choice would be a 5.5" just for the slightly reduced weight and the fact that for the purposes indicated you're not handicapping yourself ballistically. If'n it was a dedicated hunting handgun where 100 yard shots might be reasonably expected I'd get the 7.5". Also, this is purely aesthetic but I've had a couple examples of each barrel length over the years and to my mind that 5.5" Redhawk is one of the most balanced looking revolvers out there.

Basically, pay your money and take your pick since either one will fill the bill as well as the other for the purposes indicated.

I’ve had a 7.5” since right after they were introduced and have killed tin cans, rocks, and a couple of whitetail deer with mine. In the interim, I have had several 5.5” RedHawks and currently have the best of the lot, two 4” models in addition to the aforementioned 7.5”. If I’m gonna hunt exclusively with a handgun, it’ll be with the 7.5” due to the longer sight radius and my ability to hit my target at a little longer distance. I carry it in an old “Roy’s” Hidden Thunder shoulder holster with no problems. All other uses of a Redhawk are accomplished with one of the 4” models. All have had an action job and have very nice triggers. Despite what the Ruger haters say, a Redhawk is a great revolver to own and use. Get you one!

At 100 yards shooting 300 grain XTPs my 7.5" Redhawk is a tackdriver.

The first pic shows three shots, there are two on the left. It is simply an elongated hole.

I had a Biden moment what can I say.

Good information. Do you find the trigger better on the Redhawk vs the Super Redhawk?

Buy it. Great gun. I had a blued one with that length barrel and the Ruger ring setup ... wish I still did.

Tom

Believe me if I had the chance to get a 3rd Redhawk for a good deal I wouldn’t hesitate. Preferably in 45colt.
But a Kodiak 44mag would look good in my safe too. Looked at a couple in the past year but way out of my price range.

The triggers are slightly better on the Supers due to the spring arrangement/action design. That said, the Redhawk actions can be tuned quite nicely. I prefer the RedHawks, due to the size of the revolver. The RH are already a big gun, there is no reason to pack any more weight unnecessarily on your hip, as you don't really gain anything.


I currently own a 7.5" and a 4" and find them to be just fine. My 5.5" ended up at my dads when he decided he wanted to "borrow" it, about 15 years ago.



This spring I have spent a good bit of time in Grizzly country in various parts of Montana and when I was not carrying one of my .45 Autos, I was carrying either a 4" Redhawk or M29, loaded with 305 grain hard cast SWCs.

Nice pair of handguns there.

What do I need other than a 44 mag Redhawk to know what I'm talking about involving a 44 Redhawk? Will a couple 44 Blackhawks do? May be I need to get out my SW 629 to know how to talk about my 44 mag Redhawk.

Nothing wrong with 7.5" barrels on revolvers. If one is serious about hunting with them using iron sights, they greatly help with aiming and one can zero the sights on them for long range.

I have Redhawks and Super Redhawks in pretty much all the calibers they've been chambered for.



From the top, left to right:

.480 Ruger, .454 Casull
.45 Colt, .44 Magnum
.41 Magnum, .357 Magnum

For short range deer hunting in heavy timber, I prefer a large revolver to a rifle. I also don't have any physical problems toting one of these on my hip all day. Been doing it afield since I bought my first one, in .41 Magnum, in 1989. I have a well-worn Triple K thumb break holster that works great.

My best deer load in .44 Magnum is a 300 grain hard cast SWC at about 1,200 fps.

My favorite deer load overall is a 415 grain hard cast SWC gas check in the .480 at about 1,080 fps. Recoil is stout, but much more manageable than full house .454 loads.

I purchased a Triple K holster for a Remington 1858 on sale for a really low price. So long ago I can't remember the amount. It was of shockingly excellent quality. I'd not hesitate to by from them again.

I generally sit on the ground when hunting. I've found that a belt high above the waist line keeps a holstered handgun out of the dirt. Lanyards and just carrying the gun in hand can be made to work too.

Just depends what a person wants. For me I had a preference for longer barrels when I was younger, but like them shorter now.

Different holster designs and methods of carry can make big difference.

Woman's .44s aren't exactly BIG BORES...try again.

Depends on how long your leg is.

Damn what a nice collection.

Yes it is!

Ended up buying a 7.5 inch Redhawk. It should be here next week. Thanks for all the replies.

I think you’ll be very happy with the gun, Oldelkhunter. Just know that in all likelihood, it’s gonna need a little work on the trigger for single action shooting. Get that done and you’ll have a sweet shooting hunting gun.

Congrats on your purchase. I hope it brings you much enjoyment and I figure it will.

Yeah going to check it out first and then send it somewhere to do that if needed.

Thank You. I have been looking for one of these for a while and always seem to miss out.

You will probably need to have the trigger/sear surfaces gently, gently stoned by a gunsmith who knows his way around Ruger revolvers, and install a Wolff spring kit.

After that, it will be a joy to shoot, and surprisingly accurate in single action.

By the way, the only use I have for jacketed bullets in big revolvers is to clean the lead out of the barrel at the end of a shooting session...

I’ve been using your method of lead removal for years…………when necessary!

As long as the leading is not too bad!

I prefer nine point five to ten inches. Be Well, RZ.

Size the bullet properly and "leading" will never be a problem.

Got it today. I think it was worth the wait, 1/19/1990 was written on the original box.

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