Redhawk or Super Redhawk?

A

arizona hunter

New member
Looking at the Ruger web site it appears these two with 7.5" barrel and in .44 mag have similar weight (the Super a little more), the Redhawk can have scope mounts in the Hunter model, I like the Hogue grips so those would need to be purchased seperatlely. Both can handle the heavy stuff from Buffalo Bore and Garrett, so what am I missing? Why choose one model over the other?
 
Last edited:
H

hornetguy

New member
I think Ruger states that the Super, with its extended frame, can handle heavier loads without fatigue. :rolleyes:

I don't know if that's true, or not, because I think the Redhawk is probably about as tough a .44 mag revolver as you are likely to find.

Aesthetically, the regular Redhawk is much more appealing to me. I have never checked the weights of the two, but I find it difficult to believe they are the same weight. It just looks to be impossible, with all the extra metal at the front of the frame. :confused:
 
B

Bernie Lomax

New member
I don't know if that's true, or not, because I think the Redhawk is probably about as tough a .44 mag revolver as you are likely to find.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's plenty strong enough. The Super Redhawk was originally developed because there had been reports of barrels coming off of Redhawks and flying downrange along with bullets when they were shot with super hot loads. Ruger chalked this up to a design flaw and thus produced the stronger Super Redhawk to market to recoil junkies and others who wanted to shoot such loads. It wasn't until later that someone noticed that all those broken Redhawks were from the same manufacture run and had the barrels put on wrong, so it wasn't really due to a design flaw after all. Ruger kept producing the Super Redhawks anyway, though, because people kept buying them, and the rest is history.

The regular Redhawk should be stout enough to handle anything you throw at it. IMO, the Super Redhawk is just a gimmick and is butt-ugly to boot. I'd never choose the Super Redhawk over the regular Redhawk.
 
D

Daggitt

New member
They are different Guns , different triggers and different design. Numerous prior threads on this site detailing the many differences. Check them out for more detailed information.
 
C

Chuck Dye

New member
I have no experience with the Super Redhawk. I do have a Redhawk Hunter with a Leupold 2x scope in the Ruger rings. Compared with a Smith & Wesson Model 29 with a frame mounted scope that I have handled, my Redhawk with a barrel mounted scope is very muzzle heavy. Getting a quick unsupported shot off with the Smith is noticeably easier, recoil and second shots easier to manage with the Ruger. I would guess that the Super Redhawk and its intermediate mount position split the difference.
 
D

dgludwig

New member
The Super Redhawk was originally developed because there had been reports of barrels coming off of Redhawks and flying downrange along with bullets when they were shot with super hot loads. Ruger chalked this up to a design flaw and thus produced the stronger Super Redhawk to market to recoil junkies and others who wanted to shoot such loads. It wasn't until later that someone noticed that all those broken Redhawks were from the same manufacture run and had the barrels put on wrong, so it wasn't really due to a design flaw after all. Ruger kept producing the Super Redhawks anyway, though, because people kept buying them, and the rest is history.
Click to expand...


Please reveal the source you got this from. I've "heard" that some early Redhawk barrels came off due to an improper application of an adhesive (and that's just hearsay on my part) but I've heard nothing like what you're alleging happened in terms of Redhawk vs SuperRedhawk and, until you provide a reliable source, I'm putting this "information" into the Twilight Zone files.
 
T

tulsamal

New member
It is true that there was an adhesive problem that led to the extended frame.

As stated, there is more than just the extension though. The Super and Redhawk are very different internally. And you can't use the same grips on them. I _wish_ the Redhawk used the same grips, that's the only real flaw with the original design IMO. I've got a 5.5" .41 Redhawk and I've never been totally happy with any of my grip choices. Would be a lot easier if it had the little GP-100 style stub.

Gregg
 
T

tulsamal

New member
Ruger is still making Redhawks-and without the extended frame.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Because it turned out there wasn't a design problem. There was just an assembly problem! The design called for one type of adhesive and they used another one. That didn't give a permanent bond.

I am far too lazy to go hunt for it right now but this history is on the Ruger Forums. Many times!

Gregg
 
M

mega twin

New member
It wasn't a bonding problem,the Lubricate they used was drying out after being applied to the threads,and then sitting overnite or longer before the barrels were installed,and were over torqued,I believe.
 
T

tulsamal

New member
That sounds possible. I just remember it was something they were applying to the threads of the barrel before they screwed them in.

Gregg
 
Last edited:
A

Alaska444

Moderator
Back to the original question, I just bought the Ruger Super Redhawk. It is not as pretty as the plain Redhawk, but it is built on the foundation of the GP-100 with extra support at the barrel. It can handle anything that people have produced right up to .454 Casull levels with the Buffalo Bore +P+ 340 gr bullet. I also like the extra weight that helps reduce recoil with these high powered "bear" loads.

If you want a great heavy duty gun that is quite pretty, get the Redhawk. If you are looking for the best built beast of a gun, get the SRH.
 
A

arizona hunter

New member
Thanks for lots of useful info about these guns. One of the bits of info I think is useful regards mounting a scope. "Chuck Dye" mentions that his Redhawk is very muzzle heavy with a scope due to the forward mount position and he surmises that the Super may feel less muzzle heavy due to the mount position being "intermediate". Regarding strrength it sounds like whatever issues Ruger may/may not have had that is long past and both guns are strong enough to handle whatever we can handle.

Another thing I was thinking about when I posted this question was 100 yard hunting shots. It seems that looking at the ballistics from Buffalo Bore, Garrett and Hornady there are numerous "deer" and also "elk" bullets a handgunner could use out to 100 and possibly even 150 yds (with a solid rest). Beyond that a person likely needs a .454 Casull or .460 S&W-AND a solid rest on which to take aime otherwise he is being reckless and is showing no respect for the animal being hunted. Even with a rifle I try to stalk as closly as possible, so I would find it challenging and exciting to take a bear, deer or elk with a 44 Mag with a 300 gr load at 100 yards and most likely in the Super Redhawk with a Bushnell Elite scope or Burris.

Thanks again for all the valuable info, now it's time to pray for the right time and the right price! Christmas may be early this year...:)
 
L

Lost Sheep

New member
Lockwork

The internal lockwork is substantially different between the two guns.

The Redhawk has a unique design, using one spring for both the hammer and for the trigger return. The Super Redhawk's lockwork is the same as the GP and SP, too I believe. But larger, of course.

The GP grips will fit the SRH.

The two guns CAN fit the same holster (though the SRH fits tighter than the RH, and the RH in a holster that was previously used for an SRH will fit looser than it used to fit). They are close, but not identical.

Lost Sheep
 
S

SwampYankee

New member
Personally, I think the Super Redhawk is the ugliest thing Ruger ever made. I have 3 Redhawks (in .45 LC, .41 Mag and .357 Mag) and if I wanted .454 Casull, I would purchase a Ruger Alaskan or anything by Freedom Arms. If I wanted a .44 Mag I would buy the Redhawk. The Super Redhawk was a matter of convenience and overly aggressive safety response to potential litigation (once bitten, twice shy). Ruger could have done any caliber in the standard Redhawk configuration, it was just easier not to.
 
B

BIG P

New member
I use a SRH all the time in 454 casull hog & deer hunting the extra weight helps with recoil & a scope is a plus,The intergal mounts in the frame really help under heavy recoil of the 454. with it can be a Beast with heavy loads.;)
 
S

skidder

New member
I know the classic design is what gives the Redhawk it's appeal. I think the SRH is a good gun and serves it's purpose. I'm a DA purist and the Redhawk is the last of it's kind. Ruger kept it alive for people like me who can't handle pegs and rubber grips. I now have a Security Six to go with my Redhawk and I will keep them both till the Lord comes.

attachment.php


attachment.php
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top