Anybody sent a Ruger Redhawk or Super Red Hawks to Bowen for one of their packages or upgrades? Care to share?

I have not but I owned a sbh that was done by Bowen. He does some of the best work out there. Not sure what you are looking for but you wont be disappointed in the work.

No but I have a couple of Blackhawks he built, a 44 Special and a 500 Linebaugh. He does great work as do a number of others.

Bowen did trigger work, reamed the 45 Colt cylinder, base pin and new sights on this used SBH I traded into. Nice enough work.

Bowen does great work. Another one who does more than his fair share of Redhawk and Super Redhawk conversions is Jack Huntington. He did this SRH for me. It started life as a .454 and he converted it to a five-shot .500 Linebaugh with a 5-inch barrel.

That's exactly what I had in mind. I currently have a 7.5" SRH in .44 Mag and was considering sending it in to get converted to 45 Colt and shortening the barrel to 5ish". Have him put new sights on it and work his magic...make it into a better deer/hog gun.

Wait, so now it's a Super Blackhawk you want work done on? Didn't you inquire about work on a Redhawk or Super Redhawk?

Sorry, stupid auto correct. It is a Super Redhawk.

I know you are looking to get a srh done but here is a pick of the sbh he did that I had. He fitted a bisley grip along with some other mods. Very nice gun.

I've got a couple of his customs. Hamilton Bowen is the best, in my opinion.

David Clemments is also really good on Ruger Conversions.

I own/owned Bowen's, Harton's, Stroh's and Clements' and there is zero difference in the quality of the work. Depending upon exactly what one wants done I would favor one over the other but that's about it.

I have three guns done by Clements and while they are very good, certainly worth what I paid for the work, there is a significant difference between his and the work of Bowen. Just as Clements' work is better than Reeder's, so Stroh's is better than Clements' and Bowen is probably lonely at the top. Although I don't know that he has anything over Huntington. The devil is in the details and some of these guys pay more attention to them than others.

^^^ I Totally agree ^^^

So what does Bowen do well that Huntington does not or vice-versa?

Huntington built this .500 JRH Bisley for me. I think it speaks for itself.

Personally, I've never used Huntington.
But I've had handguns built & customized by Hamilton Bowen, David Clemments, & Gary Reeder. Out of those 3 gunsmiths, I'd rate Bowen #1, Clements #2, and Reeder #3 from my personal experience.

That Bisley grip really apeals to me. The SBH's square trigger guard always seems to pinch my finger under recoil. Also, I have large hands and the plow handle just dosent do it for me. The Bisley looks to have a more natural contour for the hand.

Awesome piece. Love the case hardend frame and grips!!

That's a beauty!!! Did he do the custom grips for you also? If so, what did the grips cost, if you don't mind me asking ?

I've had work done by Jim Stroh and Dave Clements, not Bowen.

Dave does some rather unusual projects, such as this .50 cal Old Army Ruger conversion. The cost was considerably less back when he did this one.

http://www.clementscustomguns.com/rugeroldarmy.html

http://www.gunblast.com/Cumpston_ClementsFugett.htm

I did the burl rosewood grips.

DF

Disagree completely, other than the Reeder bit, which ain't new....

I would also add Harton and Linebaugh to the mix. Here's a pic of my Linebaugh-built .475 -- sorry for the horrendous picture. I'm quite fond of it!

And yes, Huntington does his own grips.

It's only natural that some of these guys are going to be better than others. If they were all the same, then it wouldn't be so tough to choose who you wanted to do the work.

Two things I've noticed about the better `smith's. First is the fit of the grip frame. My three Clements guns are Bisley's and the grip frames fit perfectly on none of them. The stainless 4 5/8" Super was refitted and it still has some details that should've been addressed. When Huntington or Bowen fit a grip frame, it is perfect. Second is the fit of the ejector housing. Because they are typically tumble polished, the end where it meets the frame usually has rolled over edges. Very few will go to the trouble of truing those surfaces and refitting the housing. Then there are always polish/finish issues and other minor details.

None of this is meant as a slight against Clements or his work. I wouldn't have had three guns built if he wasn't good. I still like his front sight better than anyone's but Stroh's. He does excellent work and is a pleasure to deal with. He, along with others, is just not what I would consider the best. It is a very small group of craftsmen that can compete with the likes of Bowen.

Gary Reeder, on the other hand, is near "hack" status. His guns are put together no better than a factory gun and his polishing looks like it was done by an angry 700lb gorilla with a toothache. Not to even mention his arrogance, poor customer service skills and tendency to fly off the handle when someone asks an innocent question. He and Bowen are on opposite ends of the spectrum in both regards.

Jim Stroh's front sight is a masterpiece.

This three screw SBH was converted from .44 mag to .45 LC by Jim. It has a 6" Shilen barrel, long steel ejector and his custom front sight. Jim line bored the .44 cylinder to .45 Colt.

Shoots pretty good, too. Target is at 25 yds. off a sand bag.

DF

Here is another Stroh gun that I bought used. Also in .45 Colt.

DF

Very nice, DF.

Come on Craig, easy on Reeder.

That is gorgeous Ed

Sorry, I must've forgot how much I love uneven "engraving" that goes right across the tip of a screw.

Pretty tough bunch, here...

DF

That is a beaut my friend! I'm sure it shoots as good as it looks.

For me the bisley is the only option when shooting the big bores. Not that its needed on that 44, but I've grown very fond of it over the years. It fits me well and allows me to comfortably shoot harder recoiling guns with much better control.

Stock RRH 5.5" 45 Colt. He did the usual trigger work and forcing cone work along with the sights. The sights are a 9/32" aperture rear and fiberoptic front post calibrated for a 300-grain bullet in the 1100 fps neighborhood. The sights weren't cheap as he had to fabricate the rear aperture but I balked at a red dot (I'm 64 and the usual blade/post type sights are a problem due to stiff lens in my eye ) which to my eyes destroy the "look" of a revolver. While I haven't shot it yet I've done a lot of dry firing and while I focus on the front post, the aperture stands out quite strongly as you can see. It all "looks good" at about 80% of arms length. The fiberoptic red doesn't stand out against this red background but does well against earth tone colors which is what I want for hunting whitetails.

Mr. Bowen is a pleasure to work with, came up with exactly I was thinking and his work is of the first order.

Well, so far seems to work for my eyes; in fact, better than I was counting on.

George, that looks pretty cool. How good can you shoot it, as in how tight are your groups with your antique eyes with that set up as compared to conventional target sights back in your younger days when you could see...?

DF

Ha! Well, to be honest I think it's going to work out better for me than Bowen's very good patridge type sights just replaced. I haven't shot out to my 12" gong at a hundred yards yet but over a sandbag I shot a fist sized group at thirty yards with my hunting load. A casual first test.

The red bead is quick to be picked up and the white, outlined aperture while not in focus is very apparent. At first breath, I was Leary of the 9/32" aperture being too big but worse would be a too small, light restricting, peak hole. As in most places they are hunted, I seem to see whitetails a lot in dim light.

Either that or I am developing cataracts or producing more floaters. D