Ruger Forum banner
1 - 20 of 37 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
440 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Looked at a Redhawk Stainless .44 Mag with 7 1/2" barrel today. They are selling it as used but is like new. Very few rounds fired through it. Someone has it on consignment for $650.
I have only ever owned one double action pistol. It was a GP-100 and sold it not too long after I bought it. Didn't like it.
I have owned three different .44 Mags in single action over the years so I'm looking for any Pros and Cons with the Redhawk .44 Mag.
Thanks, Jon
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
838 Posts
Bought my Redhawk 44 Mag 7 1/2 in. 8 years ago for $350.00 + tax, like new, but no box. I don't shoot it much but i like it a lot, it is accurate and a pleasure to shoot. Have never had any problems with it and would highly recommend one to anybody that is considering a .44 Magnum, they are a great revolver.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,722 Posts
I've owned my 7.5 inch RH since the late 1990s. The pros: Tank-tough. You'd almost need a cutting torch to hurt it. If I were into handloading extra-hot .44 loads, this is the gun I'd shoot 'em in [if I didn't have a Super Redhawk, that is]. The DA pull was fairly stiff when new, but over time has really smoothed out very well. The cons: I personally have yet to find any!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
I love to shoot my 7.5" RH .44 mag. As stated it is tank tough! It's also very impressive when you whip it out at a range. The accuracy is amazing even with a stiff trigger pull.

Besides the cost of ammo, I can't find any cons with it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,538 Posts
I bought one for $400. Gun looked great, slight ring on the cylinder, but overall in super condition. I took it to the range and couldn't hit a barn from the inside. Got it home and started inspecting it. No, I mean no, rifling in the barrel. What the??? Soaked it in Hoppes no9, and commenced to pulling strips of lead out of the barrel. Not chunks, but strips of lead two inches long or so. It took a while, but I finally got it clean. Wow.

Shoots much better now, imagine that.:D

It's a great gun now, built like a tank, more accurate than I am.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,978 Posts
Will you be shooting it more in SA or DA? The Redhawk has a reputation for having a very smooth DA trigger pull, but a sometimes heavy SA pull, though there is always variation in individual guns. Some of the newer guns I have checked in our local stores have been excellent in both regards. Just never know till you check and individual gun, but you can always improve the trigger on these with a little work, if need be.

The Redhawk also has an exposed metal backstrap on the grip, compared to the all cushioned grip on the Super Redhawk. Some folks find that metal strap to be less than comfy with hot loads, but you can always use aftermarket grips to solve that problem.

Otherwise, an excellent tank-tough and accurate DA revolver as others have said. That's also a fairly typical price for a used Redhawk in our area.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
754 Posts
I own both the GP100 and the REDHAWK. Hard to know how one could dislike the GP100 and like the REDHAWK. Might be good for you to wait and try one out before you buy. It can be a bit of a wait as well as considerable expense if you don't like it. I do know the Redhawk (RH) is better (lots better) than any 44's made in Brazil or elsewhere outside the U.S. I also know the RH is lots cheaper than the S&W 29...
If you could find a local gun shop that has both the Ruger and the S&W, go and handle it. Ask to dry fire and compare both the single action and the double action. I have had gunshop counter jockeys resist dry firing a quality centerfire handguns, but they allow when they know there will be no sale without precise examination.
In all likelihood the S&W will feel more smooth and crisp. Note that Rugers "smooth out" with use and practice. Examine the feel in your hand. Consider the balance and the pointability.
Then choose. Don't compromise. Compromise is the mother of regret.
Note: The testimony of Ruger owners is a solid testimony of the robust construction and reliability of the GP100 and the RH. I paid less for the Rugers than S&W and did it without compromise.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,611 Posts
The only bad comment I could make about the Redhawk is that it uses just one solitary "Master Spring" that does everything. It's the hammer spring, it's the trigger spring, oh and it holds the trigger group into the frame. Too much for one spring and your trigger pull suffers (ie. it can't really be fixed easily). The super Redhawk eliminates that problem, but it has the same (not dimensionally speaking) internals as the GP100 so you may not like that either. Smithy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
754 Posts
Smithy worries about the single spring design. Has anyone heard of a spring failure with a Redhawk? I have never heard of such a thing. I have heard many remarks about the "inferior" trigger pull of the Redhawk when compared to the GP100.
I have both and I prefer the smoother and crisper DA pull and the SA of the Redhawk. I like both, but the robust durability of the Redhawk seems extremely well demonstrated. After a couple of hundred rounds and some dry firing practice, my Redhawk is smooth and sweet. I would not trade it for any GP100 I have handled. Indeed.
Both designs are laudable. Both are durable. Both are reliable. The GP100 has the advantage the grip design which appeals to the grip options with aftermarket designs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,611 Posts
Smithy worries about the single spring design. Has anyone heard of a spring failure with a Redhawk? I have never heard of such a thing. I have heard many remarks about the "inferior" trigger pull of the Redhawk when compared to the GP100.

MOST guns, not all, but most have separate springs for different functions of a revolver's operation. The point that I was trying to get across was it was really hard to finesse the trigger pull when that very same spring has to provide enough power for positive ignition ie. hammer. Most guns you can simply pop in a lighter trigger spring and drastically improve single action pull. You don't even need to touch the hammer or its spring. Not so with the Redhawk and that's one of the reasons that gave birth to the Super Redhawk.

However the Redhawk had it's place and its following so Ruger kept both lines open. That and you can have a 2, 4, any barrel length for the Redhawk, but are limited in some areas with the Super Redhawk design ie. no 2" barrel. 2.5" yes, but not less than that and lengths between 2.5 and 4" gets sticky as well since there'd be no place for a front sight. Smithy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
168 Posts
Go to the ruger web site and look at the take down operation for both the Redhawk and Super Redhawk. This will explain the single spring deal. The rest of the revolvers like the SP-101 disassemble like the SRH and the regular Redhawk is alone in design.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,611 Posts
Go to the ruger web site and look at the take down operation for both the Redhawk and Super Redhawk. This will explain the single spring deal. The rest of the revolvers like the SP-101 disassemble like the SRH and the regular Redhawk is alone in design.
That's why my Rugers are a Super Redhawk Alaskan, a GP100 and a SP101. I just like the design. Not everyone's cup of tea though and I do admit that my very first handgun when I turned 21 was a 7.5" stainless Ruger Redhawk and I shot the dickens out of that (I wish I still had it). Smithy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
754 Posts
Smithy -- Your point is well taken and respected by me. I also like the design of the SBH-GP100. I really like both designs, and understand the "genius" in both being an owner and shooter of both. But my discovery was that the "smooth SA trigger" and the DA trigger of the GP100-SBH design has not been an improvement over my Redhawk. Other features not withstanding, I appreciate the tweaking that can be done on the GP100-SBH which I feel less able to do on the Redhawk.
Thanks, I enjoy your posts...
God bless!

Jesus really IS Lord.
 

·
Ruger Tinkerer
Joined
·
11,898 Posts
Guys - I've been following this thread with interest since I don't own any Redhawks or Super Redhawks but have more GP100s and SP101s than I probably should. So I am familiar with the workings of the GP & SP and, if I understand what you're saying, the Super Redhawk shares the same basic design internally? Since Ruger continues to catalog and even manufacture some Redhawks there must be a reason, right? Is there something the Redhawk does that is preferable to some folks versus the Super Redhawk? Or is it just a matter of personal preference in grip style, frame style, general appearance, etc.?

I don't mean to take the thread off in a tangent but it strikes me that when Ruger developed the GP100 they discontinued the Security Six series. But when the Super Redhawk came along the Redhawk stayed too. Why?

(I personally think the Redhawks look nicer than the Super Redhawks but that's just me.......:p)

Wave
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,611 Posts
Waveform, Think back to the Security Six and Speed six and Police Service Six days. That was Ruger's bread and butter (at least with security forces and police departments) they also had a following in the civilian carry department. Then ruger came up with a different way to do the internals and incorporated that in their new release of the Ruger Redhawk. That introduction must have been in the late 70's since in 81 at 21 my first handgun was a 44 Redhawk and they were still pretty new and hard to get. It had the same "case mouth edge" takedown abilities as their existing line of revolvers to its sub assemblies and was built like a tank. Much superior to the then famous S&W model 29 (ie. Dirty Harry). 29's have been beefed up since then, but at the time Ruger had it in the strength department.

The gun also had an interesting innovation in the interior in that just one spring formed the rolls of Trigger spring, Hammer spring, and trigger guard latch spring. This simplified the works and repair and possibly assembly time due to the fewer parts. Strength was and still is the Redhawk's strong suit and since it's introduction has been offered in a bunch of different models including short barreled one's, 4, 5, 6, versions for carry, and 7.5 inch models (some with rings included) for hunting. This gun comes with a standard usually found full profile grip frame and all were supplied with a square butt I believe (could be wrong on that last one). It also came in different calibers including 44 mag, 41 mag, 357 mag, and there might be others? Custom smiths would often take a 357 Redhawk and convert it to the 357 Bain and Davis which was a necked down 44 mag case to a 357 bore. It created quite the following and still is a great choice for a 44 mag handgun.

Then Ruger overhauled the Security Six series and all of its variants. Stock was built and sold never to be made again. It of course was replaced with what you're familiar with, the GP and SP series of guns. The internals were of similar Ruger design but with an obvious improvement in the cylinder lock up. The ejector rod was offset to allow a crane latch so the cylinder was held in place at both ends of the cylinder instead of the breech end and the end of the ejector rod as Smith's are. More meat was added and with the new lock up again, Ruger built a tank that will outlast many other makes of similar revolvers. Again these series were made available in several different barrel lengths, fixed or adjustable sights, and calibers. The other big change was in the grip frame area. No longer a full profile, it is now a grip stud if you will allowing an endless variety in grips. Trigger reach, grip thickness or thinness, and barrel angle could all be altered with different grips although Ruger offered them with only one. The former wood paneled version and now stock Hogue's.

Well with those series upgraded thought was then given to the Super Redhawk as an improvement over the Redhawk. All of the changes of the mid frame guns also occurred in the Super Redhawk, grip, crane latch, internals, etc. And of course more meat to handle larger pressures. Specifically viewed was the .454 Casull cartridge and a way for a six shot revolver to handle those pressures. They had already added as much metal to various areas that they could so looking for more they decided to extend the frame a couple of inches for weight and for a rock solid barrel/frame lockup. Offered in .454 and 44 mag for the 2.5" Alaskan and 7.5 and 9.5" Super Redhawks. Not as a replacement (since the Redhawk had such a large following) but in addition to. Barrel work on this guy is a bit tricky due to the long engagement and galling. Ruger uses and special anti galling paste to install these barrels and for the smith trying to do barrel work or shortening the longer barrels, this can become an issue. On the Alaskan due to its barrel length and extended frame, there's no barrel to grab onto, so any problems there have to be addressed by Ruger themselves. I haven't owned all of the above mentioned models in their variations, but far too many to admit to in front of my wife and I've come to appreciate the features of the later introductions of Super Redhawk, GP100 and SP101 and own some of each. Smithy.
 

·
Ruger Tinkerer
Joined
·
11,898 Posts
Thanks Smithy - good stuff. So the Redhawk has stayed around because it has a fan base who simply prefer the style of grip and overall aesthetics? I'm glad they still make them but I'm a bit surprised given Ruger's history of discontinuing products that still have a loyal following (44 Carbine, Old Army, Red Label, etc.) They don't seem to be making very many Redhawks these days judging by what I've seen in dealer's cases and online. But I see plenty of Super Redhawks. I do like the Alaskan by the way and wouldn't mind owning one.

So final question - is there anything you think the Redhawk does better than the Super Redhawk?

Wave
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,611 Posts
So final question - is there anything you think the Redhawk does better than the Super Redhawk?
Simply, Carry lengths. In the Super Redhawk you either have an Alaskan at 2.5" or you have a much longer heavier SRH with a pipe for a barrel at 7.5 or 9.5". Then here comes the Redhawk in easily with a 5" barrel, or 4" or 6" and it's hard to produce in the SRH frame. I had a SRH in 9.5 with a scope and it was too heavy for me to hold long enough to get on target so I did the only thing I could. I chopped the barrel at 5.5". Now remember all the problems I talked about shortening a SRH barrel. Smith's wanted a LOT of money to do barrel work on this gun. Tech's at Brownells were the one's telling me about the galling problem and Ruger having a special anti-galling paste for assembly. Well, I used my trusty hack saw and then a slow methodical process of facing, instepping, and crowning the barrel with piloted reamers from Brownell's. It all worked great. But in the end I ended up with a 5.5" SRH that had NO open sights (yes I could have fixed that) and was overly massive in that barrel length. Not nearly as streamlined and perfect as the Redhawk in a similar barrel length. So the Redhawk wins hands down in the carry length department and the SRH makes an excellent last ditch bear gun in their Alaskan and quite the hunting piece for dangerous game in their 7.5 or 9.5 inch length tubes. Smithy.
 

·
Ruger Tinkerer
Joined
·
11,898 Posts
Thanks Smithy. From just the aesthetics of the design the RH looks better to me. The SRH Alaskan looks good too but the longer barreled SRH have always looked odd to me. (SRH owners are now gathering their pitchforks and torches...)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,164 Posts
A major inovation that seems to be twisted throughout this thread is the single spring design. This innovative design by Ruger is what sets it apart from all the rest. Two springs create a compounded pressure towards the trigger pull. Not only compounded, but more mechanical resistance. How some members in this forum turned this into a negative is beyond me.:rolleyes:

The spring works off a lever in the grip frame, one of the reasons for the full grip frame. This is not possible with the peg grip frame design of the SRH and GP. I have five DA Rugers with the double springs and my Redhawk has the lightest/smoothest pull.

Ruger claims, right on their website, that this design makes for a lighter trigger pull.

Ruger® Redhawk® Double-Action Revolver

For Big Game Hunting, Think Big Bore Revolvers. The Ruger® Redhawk® revolver was Ruger's first double-action revolver specifically designed for the powerful 44 Magnum cartridge. It embodies many advanced features such as a "triple-locking" cylinder, a unique "single spring" mechanism for relatively lighter trigger pull, replaceable front sights and adjustable rear sights, with an all-stainless steel construction.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
440 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
I appreciate all the comments from everyone and a very good read.

I like the looks of the Redhawk and the way it feels in the hand. I handled a comparable S&W and like the Ruger more. Never owned a S&W. Guess I am too much of a Ruger fan and have several Ruger pistols in the safe, so I'm not new to their products.
Most of the Rugers I have owned over the years have been single action. I have owned three single actions in .44 mag over the years and wanted to try a double for a change.
The reason I got rid of the GP-100 I bought over twenty years ago was I wanted a gun with a little more punch and I could not hunt big game with it in my state and my carry gun was a semi-auto so I didn't have a need for the .357. This was in my earlier years of hand guns and was in a buying, trying and selling phase. If I didn't like it I sold it. Bought a P-85 back then too. Didn't like it and sold it.
I am now in a buy and keep phase. I pay a little closer attention to what I buy and the last six guns I have purchased in a years time I still have and they fit all my needs. I have been selling and trading guns I don't shoot anymore for guns I will strictly use for hunting, target shooting and concealed carry. I used to have several safe queens but not into that anymore.
 
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
Top