Ruger Redhawk?

tyr_shadowblade

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
12,687
The guy with the 8.5" 629 flaked out, so now I'm looking at a stainless 7.5" Redhawk, 44 magnum, c. 1990, pre-lock, post barrel thread recall. 350 rds down the pipe, most of it specials at the range. Internet sez Redhawk is better than the 629.

I'd like to hear opinions from folks who've owned or fired one of these, as I can only afford one gun this year.

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
I've had my 7.5" Redhawk for more years than I care to think about. 1000+ rounds of full power Magnums down the pipe with nary a hitch. It's a heavy piece, but utterly reliable and pretty good for dropping steel at 200 meters if you've got the strength to hold it up. The 5.5" balances better, but it has a bit more muzzle flip.
 
had several 5 1/2s over the years, and as yablanowitz commented, balances better than the longer models if you aren't going to hunt with it....I don't hunt and the bowling pin action faded away, so don't have one presently... my next 44 will probably be a 5 inch SBH.... easy to customize the handloads... anything from metallic silhouette cannon loads to wimp bowling pin loads
 
I had the original 7-1/2" barrel length version with the scope. The thing was heavier than my hunting rifle. I finally sold it and went with the 5-1/2" barrel instead, which to me is a much more practical gun.

n2s
 
I shot one several years ago (like 20), and didn't care for it. I can't compare it to a 629, having never shot one, but I liked the Super Redhawk I shot MUCH better. The wood grips and lighter weight on the Redhawk really pounded my hand, whereas the Super Redhawk was a lot easier to control.

If you can find a Super Redhawk for a good price, my personal recommendation would be to go for that one.
 
I shot one several years ago (like 20), and didn't care for it. I can't compare it to a 629, having never shot one, but I liked the Super Redhawk I shot MUCH better. The wood grips and lighter weight on the Redhawk really pounded my hand, whereas the Super Redhawk was a lot easier to control.

If you can find a Super Redhawk for a good price, my personal recommendation would be to go for that one.

+1 on this -- I prefer the super Redhawk over the Redhawk every time -- I even turned one down as a gift once, I found it that uncomfortable to shoot.
I've heard that if you replace the factory grips with some good aftermarket pachmayrs or similar, that it's tolerable, but I haven't tried that.
 
If shooters would learn to shift their shooting hand around so that the thumb can be firmly placed on the cylinder shroud, recoil and so on would be a thing of the past. The common 'plough handle' grip with the shooting hand thumb down over the other fingers fails to use the strongest part of the hand---the thumb! Anyway, the Ruger 44 Mags will shoot rings around S&W 629s in one critical area---the Rugers won't shed screws and fall apart! Why? Because the Rugers have NO screws other than the elevation screw for the rear sight and the grip screw. However, the S&W has the sideplate screws and a wise shooter learns to frequently check those so he/she won't leave one or two behind on the range. You might also look at the cylinder notches where the bolt engages to lock it in place. The S&W notches are at '12 o'clock' on each cylinder chamber which, IMO, weakens that critical area. The Ruger notches, however, are offset. Hmmmm? Stronger? Yes. Smarter? The Ruger also has a sturdy 'door latch' type lock at the front of the cylinder while the S&W uses only the tip of the cylinder axle and, if you even slightly bend that, you're out of action. I also regularly put hand loads through my Redhawk I wouldn't think of firing in my S&W 629. The 629 is a sweet revolver but it's second class to the Ruger for strength and durability....
 
If shooters would learn to shift their shooting hand around so that the thumb can be firmly placed on the cylinder shroud, recoil and so on would be a thing of the past. The common 'plough handle' grip with the shooting hand thumb down over the other fingers fails to use the strongest part of the hand---the thumb! Anyway, the Ruger 44 Mags will shoot rings around S&W 629s in one critical area---the Rugers won't shed screws and fall apart! Why? Because the Rugers have NO screws other than the elevation screw for the rear sight and the grip screw. However, the S&W has the sideplate screws and a wise shooter learns to frequently check those so he/she won't leave one or two behind on the range. You might also look at the cylinder notches where the bolt engages to lock it in place. The S&W notches are at '12 o'clock' on each cylinder chamber which, IMO, weakens that critical area. The Ruger notches, however, are offset. Hmmmm? Stronger? Yes. Smarter? The Ruger also has a sturdy 'door latch' type lock at the front of the cylinder while the S&W uses only the tip of the cylinder axle and, if you even slightly bend that, you're out of action. I also regularly put hand loads through my Redhawk I wouldn't think of firing in my S&W 629. The 629 is a sweet revolver but it's second class to the Ruger for strength and durability....

It's nice to hear from someone with a lot of experience. I didn't know about the Ruger/Smith & Wesson technical differences, which would make me choose the Ruger just for that reason.

I'll be interested when I get the chance to shoot a .44 Mag again to try the grip you're talking about. Using a typical grip, I did find the Super Redhawk much more comfortable to shoot.

Old CW4, how would you compare the Redhawk to the Super Redhawk? How about really hot loads -- does the frame design on the Super Redhawk allow for safety at significantly increased chamber pressures?
 
Mountainman38, I don't generally recommend 'hot loads' because the 'recommended loads in the handbooks give you a range of bullet weights, powder types, and common sense recommendations for 'never exceed' loads. I've hand loaded for probably 60 years and have been all up and down the scale, with 'wild cat' cartridges, to dangerously (read stupidly) hot, and so on. The 44 mag is one fine round and you'll never go wrong staying with 240 grain half jacket bullets and right in the middle of powder weights for recommended loads in any good loading manual. My Super Redhawk has the 10 inch barrel and I absolutely LOVE the big beast. BTW, that's another big difference between Ruger and S&W---look at the way the barrels are mounted. The Ruger is a really sturdy beast and the S&W, more 'refined,' has only the barrel threaded into the frame with no extra reinforcement. Several years back, a shooter in the rapid fire stage of a match, was handed his firearm, a Ruger Super Redhawk, by his second. The guy fired six fast rounds and said, 'Damn! I didn't hit the target with even one round." "Yeah," his second said, and your gun sounded funny too." Ha. They did some checking and found that the first round had 'squibbed' and stuck in the barrel. The next five, full up 44 mag loads, pounded on top of the first stuck bullet. The barrel was bulged and the revolver was basically ruined but it didn't let go. There were six bullets in the barrel and the shooter still had his shooting hand and both eyes with no blown up firearm in his hands. That says a lot for Ruger strength.

As for me, I would choose the Super Redhawk. Not that much difference in price so why go second quality when you can have first? BTW, I had a young lady, a high school student, about 5'2" and perhaps 110 lbs soaking wet shooting my Redhawk out in the desert one fine day. I showed her how to properly grip it and she was having a ball and doing damned good for a beginner with such a big gun. Anyway, there was a sudden really loud 'BLAM!!!' and we all turned to look around and see what had happened. There she was holding the Ruger in her left hand and shaking her right (shooting) hand. I rushed over and she said, 'I don't know what happened. It just kicked real hard.'

Well, this was the first time I'd ever seen this happen. She fired the round lined up with the barrel and the next round to the right let go at the same time. I don't know if a primer backed out or what but she had two rounds go off on her simultaneously. I thought 'oh-oh,' I have a ruined revolver. There was the smear of lead and smoke down the side of the piece and it was obvious what had happened. Damn! But the cylinder seemed tight and the action worked just as before. I reloaded it and it fired fine, no damage at all. The young lady went back to shooting and burned up probably 200 rounds before she finally had enough. I've since fired at least 5,000 more rounds through that same revolver and it's just as accurate as it ever was, and this from an old man who makes money shooting five gallon plastic pails at 500 yards, standing, two handed modified Weaver stance, and factory sights with that same Ruger. BTW, no magic, no superhuman skills, just knowing how and 50 plus years enjoying the hobby of extreme long range handgun shooting. I do this with everything from 22s to a pair of ten inch barreled, five round 45-70 BFR revolvers shooting 405 grain bullets (which I shoot at out to 1,000 yards. Anyone who doesn't believe me, bring your wallet with lots of cash, I'll match the amount of money, and we'll go out in the desert for a demo. I'll even stake you for enough gas money to get back home afterwards.

To sum up, I do love my Ruger handguns and I have them in about every caliber and type they make from 22s through 44 mags.
 
Back
Top