Ruger Forum banner

1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
571 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
stating right up front that our family is a huge fan of both Ruger GP100 and Redhawk revolver lines .... as a family we own both, hunt with both, punch paper with both, and shoot steel with both .... question : given both in 357 why do some people favor the Redhawk over the GP ?
 

·
Ruger Tinkerer
Joined
·
11,898 Posts
stating right up front that our family is a huge fan of both Ruger GP100 and Redhawk revolver lines .... as a family we own both, hunt with both, punch paper with both, and shoot steel with both .... question : given both in 357 why do some people favor the Redhawk over the GP ?
I would opine it's the relative rarity of the Redhawk in 357 that makes owners proud of their far more uncommon Ruger DA revolver. In actual shooting I would take a GP100 any day. I like the GP100 action better and the size is more in line with the demands of the cartridge. 357 in a Redhawk just seems like overkill. If the 357 Redhawk was such a good thing why did Ruger stop making them years ago? Not bashing the Redhawk I just think it's a big gun for the job. Now an 8-shot Redhawk with a 3" barrel - that would be an attention getter. Non-fluted cylinder and styled like the Kodiak Backpacker......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
793 Posts
I would bet the heavier Redhawk would soak up recoil better than the lighter gp100 and be more comfortable to shoot. I prefer bigger calibers in smaller framed guns, and would take the gp100 for that reason over the Redhawk. In fact, I'd love to see a .44 mag gp100!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
62 Posts
stating right up front that our family is a huge fan of both Ruger GP100 and Redhawk revolver lines .... as a family we own both, hunt with both, punch paper with both, and shoot steel with both .... question : given both in 357 why do some people favor the Redhawk over the GP ?
I have the GP100 4" blued that I absolutely love!! However, I am seriously looking at the new Redhawk 45LC/45ACP revolver.

Joe
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,662 Posts
I've seen a few of the Redhawk 6"er's in .357 magnum...they look pretty stoudt! Pretty rare bird too!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
29,619 Posts
The 357 redhawk would be extremely heavy my 41 mag redhawk with a 51/2 inch barrel weighted 8 ounces more than a 6 inch 57.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,382 Posts
given both in 357 why do some people favor the Redhawk over the GP ?
My bet would be the added durability of the Redhawk, and the additional mass.

I have a buddy with a 5" .357 RH, and it's even beefier than a M27 S&W. Even the heaviest .357 loads are not a lot more than noise. The down side is they are pretty hefty, and big.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,356 Posts
I have a 7.5" .357 Redhawk, and it's pretty much a range gun only..........I also have a S&W 28 6" and the Redhawk feels like it's twice as heavy.

I wanted a .357 Redhawk, because, well , why not:)

For actual "use" the GP100, especially in 3" or 4", has it beat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
571 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
I have a 7.5" .357 Redhawk, and it's pretty much a range gun only..........

For actual "use" the GP100, especially in 3" or 4", has it beat.

that makes sense to me .... I hadn't considered the .357 Redhawk being a collector's item
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,314 Posts
I'd love to have a 357 Redhawk for the same reason as ExArmy11B. Why not? OTOH, I'd love to have a 45 Colt GP100 too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,271 Posts
My bet would be the added durability of the Redhawk, and the additional mass....
Is a Redhawk going to last longer than a GP100? Added mass might be an advantage but I'd rather have a 6" GP100 before a 7.5" RH. As it is, my 4" GP will last for a few generations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
873 Posts
stating right up front that our family is a huge fan of both Ruger GP100 and Redhawk revolver lines .... as a family we own both, hunt with both, punch paper with both, and shoot steel with both .... question : given both in 357 why do some people favor the Redhawk over the GP ?
To Each His Own.
I would take the GP, and be happy. I guess some people like a really big frame.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,356 Posts
The .357 Redhawk was aimed at people who want to shoot super hot, max load .357 Magnums.......I can't think of a more perfect platform for handloaders who hot-rod .357 to near .357 Maximum levels.

The reason being, most people didn't care about a .357 Redhawk so not many were made. They have kind of become "status guns" for Ruger nuts:)

Keep in mind that when the .357 Redhawks were made there was no GP100 yet, just the Security Six, so Ruger was attempting to make them as a "super strong" alternative to the Six series for .357 shooters.

In 1986 the GP100 came out, and any need for a .357 Redhawk was pretty much dead.

I for one think if Ruger came out with either a 4" .357 Redhawk, or the Kodiak Backpacker in .357, they would sell well. People just don't want them with 7.5" barrels. Large frame .357's with snub barrels are hot sellers. Even Taurus sells tons of the 4" 608's.

Ruger makes .357 Super Redhawks with 18" barrels for the Eurpoean market, where they are easier to own than short barreled revolvers.

Kind of like how S&W made the N-Frame 38/44 and .357's, when all they had was a K-frame and the N.........when the L-frame came out, N-frame .357 production slowed dramatically.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,167 Posts
I think a 357mag Redhawk finds itself between a rock and a hard place - most hunters want more power and more range, so they don't want a 357mag. Guys that are OK with the lack of power inherent to a 357mag don't need range, they just want a handy belt gun - enter the mid-frame GP100. Now, of course, the GP100 wasn't designed as a field gun, so that's kind of a happy accident.

As I mentioned, for a hunter like myself, I have no use for a 4" GP100, even in the 6", I'd rather have a 7.5" Redhawk. No need for range toys or defensive specialty revolvers.

I for one think if Ruger came out with either a 4" .357 Redhawk, or the Kodiak Backpacker in .357, they would sell well. People just don't want them with 7.5" barrels. Large frame .357's with snub barrels are hot sellers. Even Taurus sells tons of the 4" 608's.
I'd tend to agree with this idea - but I'd definitely reiterate that it needs to be a 7 or 8 shot Redhawk. An upsized belt gun could work if it had something more to offer than a standard GP100 or mid-frame Blackhawk. There's really not much that a 357mag Redhawk can do that even a New Vaquero can't do in the field, so there's just not much sense in carrying a revolver that heavy.

Even in a 5.5", a 7 or 8 shot Redhawk 357mag would turn my crank. Both of my current 357mag Redhawks are 7.5" hunting revolvers, too large for a belt gun. I have passed on many of the 5.5" models since they don't have the barrel length to be sufficient hunters, but they just don't have the extra utility that I'd want as a belt gun to account for their weight - heck, why carry a 5.5" Redhawk when a 4" SP101 fills nearly the same niche, but in a CONSIDERABLY smaller package (let alone the 6 shot GP100)?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,356 Posts
I could see a ".357 Alaskan x8" selling like crazy........also a Kodiak Backpacker .357........the capacity of a 1911, in a snub large frame revolver package, AND people could shoot .38's through it......

Sometimes the "big boys" have to look at what the "low dollar" manufacturers are doing, and realize people are buying Taurus 608's because they don't want to pay $2K for a S&W and Ruger doesn't make one........I watched an older 3" Taurus 608 sell for something like $800 on GunBroker and I was dumbfounded.

S&W made a run of 8 shot N-frame .357 snubs, I think they were 627 PC guns......Clint carried one in Blood Work. Those things sell for thousands.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top