Did Ruger ever produce the Redhawk with a nickel finish? Thanks for any and all information! memtb

Unless there's some one of a kind specimen floating around they were blued and stainless only .

I agree with Jim, although sometimes people will polish a stainless one and it might look like nickel.

Thanks guys! I know that I couldn’t find any references to nickel, unless it was a special order or custom by a gunsmith. memtb

This is the answer.

I've owned several Redhawks and have never even seen one with a nickel finish. As the others have said, Blued and Stainless only, with the latter coming out about half a decade before the former.

I am not aware of a nickel finish. I do have High polished stainless model that they made for a few years.

Correction on that: the high polished model I have is a Super Redhawk. My Redhawks are a brushed finish.

PREZACTLY

Ruger used to offer some revolvers with a high polish finish like to original stainless Vaqueros had.

To my knowledge, Ruger has also never produced a high polish Redhawk either

Nope. Not a Factory Redhawk.

I’ve seen where someone hand polished a stainless gun with Flitz to make it look like that, though.

Since we are talking Redhawks, and not to completely sidetrack this OP’s thread, I have a question. At some point in the mid to late eighties, and only for a short while, Ruger switched the hammer pivot pin flat from the right side of the gun to the left side. Maybe a year latter, they switched back to the right side. Does anybody know why this was done? I have owned two, both a five and a half and a seven and a half that were made this way. All the rest of my Redhawks have been on the right. I have never been able to get an answer to this question.

No thoughts on this?

lastround, mine is a 1983 5.5" Redhawk. Is this what you are asking about, as in mine is on the left side? I'm not sure but I thought the first ones that came out in like '79 were like that and the in '84 they switched to the other side for some reason.

Smoking gun,
Thanks for chiming in. No, the first ones were on the right. I have a 1981 Model now and used to have a 1980 model. Both were right side models. I also have a Shooting Times magazine in which the Redhawk was introduced to readers by Skeeter Skelton, first year production. The pictures in the magazine show the flat of the hammer pivot pin also on the right. The switch to the left side, as your picture shows, evidently occurred in about 1983, but didn’t last long since it was back on the right side on my 1987 Model. It is no big deal, just a curiosity of mine. Those left side models may even have more collector value down the road.

By the way, where did those nice looking grips on your gun come from?

last round,

That's good info, I always hoped that made it more collectable. The Ruger forum might be a good place to check.


Thanks, they are Altamont Grips. I couldn't find them on their website but I think they are the Silverblack checkered laminate grips. I'm guessing as they make grips they update the website to show the ones that are available.

My current Redhawk is from the first year, and likely the first production run and it's on the right side of the frame. I thought I had heard that there was a change in the frame mould design and the the LT sided hammer pins were from an interim frame mould series. I've heard that the LT side hammer pins are a pain in the neck with some grip designs. David Bradshaw drilled and tapped his LT side Redhawk to hold the pin in with a screw. I seen pics of it, andhave heard of others doing it as well.

If the addition of non-stock grips caused a problem, it had to be because of a speed loader cut out. Otherwise the grips lay against the flat and keep the pivot pin from vibrating out a bit while firing, which would be the only problem that would require a screw. There would not have been a problem with factory style grips as I am sure Smokinggun can attest. There could, I suppose, be a problem with poorly designed after-market grips. And, the grips have to be removed for any disassembly. Thanks for your thoughts, Anachronism.

http://www.thesixgunjournal.net/rugers-versatile-44-magnum-redhawk/

[Linked Image]

Hi Sarge,
That is a nice article on the Redhawk, but it refers to the reference model as being a ‘79 Model. The picture shows a blued model, which were not introduced by Ruger until several years later. I assume the pictured gun is not the one referenced in the article. Or, could it have been that a blued gun was shown by mistake?

Or maybe the pictured Redhawk was a prototype that Ruger produced in 1979........Anyone have a thought?

I haven't owned that revolver in a long time, but I can assure you I would not have described it as a '79 model without contacting Ruger and confirming it first. I realize Ruger's serial history on the model goes back to 1980. I did find the following reference regarding Redhawks, obviously made prior to 1980-

"During the NRA show in San Antonio in May 1979, the company unveiled its Redhawk, a six-shot DA .44 Magnum."
https://gundigest.com/gun-reviews/h...uper-redhawk-which-is-the-best-44-magnum

I have no idea whether the San Antonio guns were blue or stainless. I do know what mine was- and yes, I probably should have kept it. I had several 44 Mags about that time and then, it was just another Redhawk. Decent used ones were all over the place.

Sarge, please understand that I had no intention of saying that what you posted was not true. And yes the first ones were made and shipped in mid to late1979, with production going full bore in 1980. My knowledge of Redhawks is through having personally owned and shot probably well over a dozen starting as soon as one appeared at my LGS. I’ve also read everything I could get my hands on during those early years. It has always been my understanding that, right or wrong, the stainless guns superseded the blued models by several years. As your gun and date of manufacture proves, I was obviously wrong to some degree. Evidently, Ruger must have made both during that early run in 1979. I also agree that keeping it would have been a good idea. It probably has great collector value.

Over the years I have searched for, and traded for, models that exhibit better manufacture and fitting of parts (such as crane to frame fit and action timing and tightness). Of course accuracy has played a part in whether one stayed with me or not. I have found that the early ones were the best, IMO. I don’t think I am going to be a big fan of the new sleeved barrel models. Thanks again for your input.

I am sure you could quickly find out what year the Blued Redhawks came out just by checking the internet, which I haven't done. Nor do I remember the exact year they did. I can tell you by memory, that it was after the stainless ones, probably as lastround says, "by several years". The first guns produced were 7 1/2" Stainless models, which were the only models produced for awhile. I can't recall for sure, but the Blued models seemed to come out about the same time the shorter ones did (5 1/2"). 44 Mag. was the first caliber. I believe the 41 Mag. was the next introduced. Then the 357.

The first I knew of the Redhawk, was Elmer Keith shooting Jackrabbits with them and relating his experiences in Gun Notes. Keith liked the new gun.

Fellas I took no offense at anything said here. When something doesn't fit the norm, you ask questions.

I dug through some old gun data I saved and couldn't locate a serial number, or I'd check it again. I may run across it yet.

Ethan I vaguely recall Elmer's account of the (then) new Redhawk. He thought it needed a better trigger for fine shooting and as usual, he was right.

I remember him being pissed at Ruger for not sending him one right away.

The original owner of my Redhawk sent it to Bowen Classic Arms for their Standard Package, it’s supposed to address some of the issues common to these fine revolvers:

NO. RD01‘STANDARD ISSUE’ The most basic modifications necessary to reliable performance. Includes:

· trigger/action tune
· provide/install heavy-duty, extra-pressure mainspring; if necessary
· provide/install Rough Country adjustable rear sight
· extra-length firing pin installation (blue guns reblued)
· provide/ install BCA factory style front sight: crisp, sharp matte finish part for better sight picture; choice of factory-style ramp, Baughman ramp or Patridge blade shape; choice of stock or extra height (plus .040 for factory calibers) for heavy bullets. White-line ramp and McGivern patridge bead blades are available on a custom basis at extra cost. Please inquire.

Bowen Classic Arms does some great work on Redhawks!

After reading this I might have to drag mine out of the safe. Ithink it's probably been 15 years or more since I shot it. I killed a few deer with when I was younger, but basically set it aside for semi auto pistols.

It shot better than I did that's for sure.

Bring it out Dodgefan, I shoot mine regularly. I used to deer hunt with mine, but now it’s mostly plinking at steel, or targets, or rocks. Mainly just fun things. I will admit that most of my shooting is with slightly reduced loads since “fun” no longer includes very many full power loads.

I have been on a mission on the internet in the last few days to find the answer to my questions about the Redhawk, but I’ve not had much luck. Actually, this thread has brought to the fore even more questions. I have even been over on the Ruger Forum with little luck. Ah well, they are fun to discuss anyway.

This thread makes me want another Redhawk. Stainless, for sure. 44 Mag, certainly. 7 1/2" or 5 1/2"...unsure.

That's what I have. Stainless, 7 1/2" barrel with scope mounts. I bought it in 93 I think. I remember looking at a Number 1 in 300 Win Mag and the Redhawk. Didn't have the money for both.

EE,
Go for it, guy. And one of all three lengths is even better. Actually, there were four lengths. The early 4” models were actually 4” and not 4.2”. They later changed to 4.2” so as to comply with Canadian laws.
And I have still not found anything on the ‘net or elsewhere regarding the reason for the brief reversal of the hammer pivot pin or starting dates of manufacturing/shipping dates of the blued models. Still looking.

I got a new 41 mag Redhawk in stainless 4.2" barrel recently. It's more of a brushed finish and not polished.

Lots of good information....

I've owned four...first was back in Texas...an 80s vintage 7.5" stainless with the rings in .44 Magnum...with 180 Sierras it was a deer killin' machine...

Next was a 90s vintage 5.5" .41 Magnum in stainless. Never did bond with that one. The only grips that really fit my had was the stock ones and once velocity was increased so was the discomfort. It went down the road with 4 extra sets of grips.

Finally when Ruger brought back the .41 Magnum I bought one of the first ones out in the 4.2" barrel. One of the best shooting .41s I've ever owned. Shot my best DA standing group at 50 yards ever with that gun...6 rounds in a little under 6". DA trigger breaks right were I want it to. Found a set of the impossible to find Uncle Mike's grips at GUN PARTS Corp. before they were all gone...

When the 2.75" came out I bought one of those also but the DA breaks later than the 4.2" and really don't care for the round butt. Fortunately Hogue came out with a rubber set of grips that fit my hands well...

The .41s were a limited distributor exclusive and they are now somewhat hard to find...

Bob

lol I've probably owned at least three Redhawks. I can't remember the last time I was in a gunstore or went to a gunshow. With a daughter in college and a son about three and a half years from it, I doubt there is a Redhawk in my future. No worries, I've got two 44 Mag's in the safe so, I'm good. More of a "if I hit the Powerball" type thing.

Ethan,
Your memory of the Redhawk chronology follows exactly with mine, but SargeMO threw me a curve. With my memory of when the blued models came out, and when the 5.5” models came out, one of us has to be wrong. I have been searching the internet for answers and most of what I’m finding are from other guy’s memories as well. One recurring date seems to be that the 5.5” stainless models came out in late 1982, early 1983. I’ve found nothing concrete on blued models or the reversal of hammer pivot pins. I think the reversed pins occurred with the introduction of the 5.5” models. Thanks for your input.

I purchased a blue 5.5" Redhawk in Anchorage Alaska in either 1985 if memory serves

It’s a shame that Ruger doesn’t have a historian like S&W’s Roy Jenks who could have shed light on all these questions.

Or a book by some talented person titled “A Complete History of Individual Ruger Firearms”! I’ll buy a copy.

For those who are interested, I have continued to search out as much information about Redhawks as I can find on the internet. I think I can say with reasonably good faith, that there is a lack of verifiable information available. However, here goes........ Redhawks started leaving the factory in very late 1979 initially as stainless steel only and with 7.5” barrels only. I’m not trying to discredit anyone with my findings, just stating “my” findings.

Redhawks were only available in stainless and with the 7.5” barrel until late 1982/early 1983 at which time the 5.5” barreled model was introduced, again in stainless steel only. The best info I can find is that blued models in both lengths were introduced in late 1984. And to the Op, I find no reference to anything other than brushed stainless and blued. More to come.............

Thanks for sharing your research.

Looks like my 1983 5.5" is one of the first with that length barrel.

Smoking gun,
From what I’m finding, your Redhawk is indeed one of the first shipped with the 5.5” barrel AND one of the first with the left side hammer pin flat. I have no explanation yet for SargeMO’s 1979 blued 5.5” revolver, but I continue to search.

Finally took out my redhawk today and popped it's cherry. Ran a few shells through it, forgot a screw driver the sites are hitting 2.5' low at 25 yrds. Nice shooting gun and the recoil wasn't bad as I figured it'd be.
These guns always hit this low outta the box?

The rear sight is usually screwed all the way down from the factory. They leave it up to the buyer to decide what bullet they want to shoot, which greatly affects point of impact. You need to raise that rear sight. Enjoy!

PS.....If you press down slightly on the back of the rear sight, you can adjust elevation with your fingernail. Done it many times.

For those interested, the first 4” Redhawk was shipped in 2008, in stainless only. Still nothing firm on when the first blued models were shipped.

Ok they had the screw cranked down , got it adjusted somewhat, pretty sensitive 1 click was moving it like 6". The problem i got is the gun doesn't seem very accurate seems to shoot pretty loose patterns with it. Guess I'll have to try a different load.

What bullet are you shooting? Factory or reload? If a reload, what powder? And I’ve never had one click make that big a difference in point of impact.

Reloading 296 with a 210xtp

Sounds like something is awry with that rear sight if one click makes that much difference. One click, or mark, should only raise the sight about a 128th of an inch, which is almost invisible.

Sounds more like shooter error to me. Redhawks are accurate revolvers. I ve seen new handgun shooters do this many times until they learn proper trigger control.

The 4.2" Redhawk .41 Magnum I bought right after they came out is one of the most accurate DA .41s I have ever owned...

First day shooting with stock grips...




First rounds out of the gun DA at 15 yards...




DA at 10 yards...




DA 15 yards...




Best DA 50 yard group I have shot with any gun...6"





2.75"...action is almost as smooth as the 4.2" but the DA breaks just a little later than I would like... Now has a set of the new Hogue rubber grips for round butt Redhawks that are better...







10 yards DA...






The amount the group moves per click of the rear sight depends on the length of the barrel. The shorter the barrel the more the group will move per click...Unless there is something wrong with the rear sight it isn't possible to move the POI 6" with one click within 25 yards...

Bob

I thought shooter error too, but shot off of a pistol rest and had the same results as offhand.
One thing I'd like to note is the paint on the front site is not level across the site.
Shot my buddies 44 and had a 3" group at 15yrds.

I'm going to some unique with the same bullets and see if that changes anything, also I'm new to reloading but have a friend helping me with it.

Gutthooked,
Good luck with your Redhawk. Be sure you are getting a good crimp on that XTP. It is a good bullet and should work well with Unique. I’d be interested in knowing how it does.

Here is a link to a Redhawk owners manual, not sure what year(EDIT - I just noticed the manual is 2009). I found on page 27 a statement that says:

"NOTE: The Hammer Pivot Assembly (Part No. H01600 or KH01600) tab fits into a mortise on the right side of the frame of most of the Redhawk revolvers. However, during a change in production processing of frames in 1983, several thousand frames were made with the mortise on the left side of the frame. A Redhawk revolver having the mortise on the left side of the frame is in all other respects the same as the version which has the mortise in the right side."

It doesn't say why they changed sides, but I found it interesting that they mentioned it.


Redhawk Owners Manual

There is a small number of highly collectible Redhawk manuals that were only published in the first half of 1984 which preface those remarks with, "In accordance with Mr. Ruger's ongoing efforts to drive collectors crazy..."

Funny!

I had a first year run of the 41 magnum. I was not impressed by the heavy SA trigger, so I was happy to sell it.
So are the triggers better, or is there a way to adjust them? Maybe I just got a lemon decades ago?

Thanks smokinggun,
That locks the manufacture of those guns to 1983. JWP475 bought a blued gun in about 1985, so that question is close to being answered too.

Hi Terry,
I hate to be critical of my favorite big bore revolver, but Redhawks have notoriously had single action triggers that, to put it nicely, leave a lot to be desired. Some folks just change out the mainspring to lighten the pull,but that may cause ignition problems. I said “may” because in some cases that works. I have learned over the years to leave the spring alone, and do my work on the action itself, by judiciously working the sear and polishing the parts to reduce creep. I usually end up with about a three and a half pound SA pull which for me is about right. All my Redhawks get this treatment and have what I consider very good triggers. Note: care must be taken not to remove too much metal. A lot of re-assembly and trial involved.

RJM,
Nice looking set of Redhawks. I have only owned one in 41 magnum, and one in 45 Colt. All the rest have been in 44 magnum. I have owned and shot a couple of Smith 57’s and one 657. I may have to pick up another 41 Redhawk one of these days.

Ok, here’s what I’ve found out thru my records, the internet, and help from many here. The Ruger Redhawk, for what it’s worth, is my favorite handgun. Others are maybe more practical, weigh less, and are much more refined, all in the opinion of many here and on other forums, but it is my personal favorite and the action can be tuned and polished to my satisfaction. The best I can count I own or have owned, shot, and worked on 16 different Redhawks in my life. Manufacture started in 1979...........

1). The first ones were, according to Ruger, shipped to distributors in early 1980. These first models were stainless steel
only and all had 7.5” barrels.
2). In 1983, the 5.5” was added to accompany the 7.5” models. Also in 1983, both barrel lengths were made available in
both stainless and blued models. Also in 1983, a few thousand were made with the hammer pivot pin flat moved from its
original location on the right side of the frame to the left side.(reason unknown). It was moved back to the right side in late 1983, where it
remains today.
3). In 2008, a four inch version was added to the Redhawk line-up, later changed to 4.2” in order to comply with
Canadian import laws.
4). At no time have nickeled or high-polished Redhawks been manufactured.

This is all I’ve got. If anyone has any more information, I would appreciate knowing what you have.

I've asked before...but why were the 5.5" in 45LC so limited in number? And what keeps them from making more today? The 44 is currently produced in 5.5"???

I had a 5.5” 41 Mag in blue, must have been in the late 80’s. Really nice shooter.

Finally made it out and shot a couple of rounds before the rain hit, the 9 grains unique did pattern better and was less snappy than the 296. I'm sure some of it is operator error.

I need to paint my front sight the color from the factory is hard to see and the paint was not put on straight on the ramp from the factory.

Jesse,
The standard chambering for the Redhawk has always been 44 Magnum. However, occasionally Ruger has made a run in a few different chamberings, namely 357 Magnum, 41 Magnum, and as you mentioned, 45 Colt. They don’t however make runs of anything but 44 Magnum on a regular basis. They did make some in both 7.5” and 5.5” chambered in 45 Colt in the 90’s, and again in the last decade. The more recent run also included the 4” model. Just keep watching as I’ll bet they will make them again. Also, Gunbroker has listings currently for Redhawks in all chamberings and in all barrel lengths.

Gutthooked,
If you have a Redhawk that has a painted front sight, it is not the original factory sight. All Redhawks come with a blackened sight with a red/orange dovetailed polymer insert. They can be purchased from Ruger (customer service) with or without the insert. But none were painted.

You can also occasionally find the old Millett front sights which have a bright orange bar up the center. I really like these and they are often a few thousandths taller than the OEM front sight.

[Linked Image]

Intresting, I bought the redhawk new last fall from the dealer. Got a pic but can't post it here.

No, Ruger made some solid Redhawk front sights. Not painted, blued. I bought one from Ruger to replace the red ramp sight on a Super Blackhawk Hunter model. The solid Redhawk sight is a fraction taller than the "hunter" sight so I was able to shoot a little bit heavier bullets w/o running out of sight adjustment. Though I have neither gun right now, I still have that front sight.

Tom

Hi Tom,
If you read my post, it says “with or without the insert”. I too have purchased a couple of the plain black or “blued” front sights over the years. I think what Gutthooked is saying is that his sight is shedding the factory insert or is shedding a red paint that has been applied to the top surface. A picture would help identify his problem, but I understand the difficulty of doing so. I’ve not been able to do pictures since Photobucket.

If you are having a hard time seeing the front sight...like I am...I now use these and they work great....

https://www.brownells.com/handgun-p...er-fiber-optic-front-sight-prod8808.aspx

Ruger used a similar front sight on a Lipsey “special run” of Redhawks in, I think, 2016 or 2017. I also have a 44 Special GP100 3” on which they used that fiber optic front sight. I like it as it is easy to see on a defensive carry revolver. RJM, how do you find that sight works for precision shooting, ie targets and such?

link for front site like mine

The paint on mine isn't that bright and the red is painted on an angle instead of straight. You'd think it'd been better for a new gun. I guess it's pretty nice compared to the pythons....

There is a new in box 1983 Redhawk in 357mag for sale on Gunbroker right now with the pin mortise on the right side. I’ve always heard the old 357’s were quite rare, I was looking on Gunbroker and noticed they have several new current production Redhawk 357’s with 8 shot cylinders.

My 5.5" 357 Redhawk has a 6 shot cylinder.

I’m sure your Redhawk is heavy to carry but a pleasure to shoot!

This was a good and informative thread. I just enjoyed re-reading it and thought I’d bring it back, like it or not!

Blues/stainless