Ruger Redhawk vs Super Redhawk

P

Photon Guy

New member
With Rugers, both the Redhawk and the Super Redhawk come in .44 Magnum. The Super Redhawk is a bit larger, the frame is thicker, and its a bit sturdier but the Redhawk is also I believe sturdy enough and its not as bulky and heavy and therefore easier to carry and deploy. The Super Redhawk would trump the Redhawk as a choice for a sidearm for hunting but for personal carry and defense I believe the Redhawk might be better.
 
R

Radny97

New member
The bigger difference is internal. The Redhawk uses a single spring whereas the super Redhawk has a set up similar to a gp100 but bigger. So the trigger is nicer. Super Redhawk also accepts the same grip configurations as the gp100.
 
G

gbran

New member
I have the SRH .454. I would have chose the Redhawk for 44mag. I love S&W's but think the Redhawk is more substantial than the S&W 629's.
 
P

Photon Guy

New member
I have the SRH .454. I would have chose the Redhawk for 44mag. I love S&W's but think the Redhawk is more substantial than the S&W 629's.
Click to expand...

I would agree. And I believe Dirty Harry would've been best off with a Ruger Redhawk. He used a S&W 29 which is just a blued version of the 629.
 
K

Kosh75287

New member
The RedHawk is discernibly larger than the S&W M29, and was originally designed, I believe, to chamber the .454 Casull in an M29(ish)-sized package. Of the two, the M29 is probably the more tunable platform, and a bit more portable. The 5.5" RedHawk is marginally portable for non-hunting carry, though the longer barreled models lose this attribute.

I regard the Super RedHawk as a hunting-only proposition, entirely too big for consideration as a defensive arm to be carried in non-hunting conditions. If one lives in territory frequented by the larger bears and other species reacting poorly to human interaction, either revolver may sensibly be pressed into service as a defensive arm, but the larger one is really no more portable than a scout-style rifle, and the smaller is still more difficult to manage than a similarly powerful M29.
 
R

Roughedge

New member
I have a SRH Alaskan but if I got a longer barrel I would get the RH because I dont like the way the barrel changes on the SRH. Looks kinda dumb changing in the middle of the barrel.
 
G

Guv

New member
I like the grip on the standard Redhawk, it's also much easier on the eyes!:) The SRH was made for the 454, if I had the 7.5", that's the cartridge it would fire.
 
P

Photon Guy

New member
The RedHawk is discernibly larger than the S&W M29, and was originally designed, I believe, to chamber the .454 Casull in an M29(ish)-sized package. Of the two, the M29 is probably the more tunable platform, and a bit more portable. The 5.5" RedHawk is marginally portable for non-hunting carry, though the longer barreled models lose this attribute.
Click to expand...

With the RedHawk being larger that can make the recoil less of a problem as a larger, heavier gun will absorb more of the recoil. That will make the weapon more accurate. A 5.5 barrel shouldn't be a problem for non-hunting carry. My uncle knew this guy who got a S&W M29 with an 8 inch barrel. He got it right when the Dirty Harry movie came out and the weapon was made popular by Clint Eastwood's use of it. He got it stolen, got it back after about three years. Anyway, he carried it concealed in a shoulder holster and contrary to what some people might think, the long barrel was not a problem.
 
B

BBarn

New member
For a 44 Mag., I would choose the Redhawk over the Super unless you want a 9 1/2" barrel. The Redhawk is plenty strong for the 44 Mag.

The Redhawk didn't exist when the first few Dirty Harry movies were made. Later on he took a liking to a 44 AutoMag. Personally, I liked it when Clint carried a SA.
 
T

tulsamal

New member
The Super RH wasn't "made for the .454." It was made for .44 Magnum and it wasn't until years of .44 Magnum production that they added .454 and .480.

The barrel doesn't "change in the middle." The barrel is a bull barrel full length. What is different is that the front of the frame extends out further along the barrel. This wasn't done for strength so much as an extended base for optics. The original Redhawk couldn't accept scope rings. Later they added them but had to put them on the barrel. Which works but you end up with a scope that is quite far out there. I've got a 2x Leupold on my SRH and it is easy to see right there on the frame.

True, the triggers and springs are different. So statistically the SRH's have better triggers. And they are easier to gunsmith to a better pull if you buy one that is lacking in that area. With the Redhawk, an aftermarket spring is about the only safe option, if that doesn't get you where you want to go, you just live with it. Otherwise you may end up with a hammer that doesn't reliably detonate magnum primers in DA.

The grip is where the differences are really stark. When I bought my first Redhawk (5.5" ss .41 Magnum) I actually liked the feel of the stock grips. Dry fired it a bunch and loved it. Finally got out to the range and put some rounds on target. First six, looked good. Even the second six. Then I was starting to shake my hand a bit and saying, "crap, that hurts." I look down and the back of my thumb is bleeding. That exposed hump will eat you up over time. But if you put on proper grips that cover it up and give you more hand grip... they become too big to be comfortable. The Nill wood grips from Germany are the best I've found for mine but they really are a bit too big for quick sight access. I have to slightly adjust my grip before firing. They are pretty and help a lot with recoil.

But the SRH doesn't have that very large grip frame. It has the stud sticking down like the GP100. Same size. So there are thousands of grips out there you can try on your SRH. From tiny little things that would look quite odd to big giant ones if you have XXL hands. You could fit a block of wood to that stud and cut a custom set in any odd configuration you wanted to try.

IMO, the SRH is a bit ugly. Or at least homely. But sometimes you want real utility over looks. Scope mounting, SRH. Trigger, SRH. Grip, SRH. For a deer stand revolver, SRH every time. Now if you want to put it in a belt holster and carry it all around with you... then you have the Redhawk. I love mine in .41 Magnum but it is a totally different gun than my scoped 9.5" SRH.

There was no 8 inch M29. That's 8 3/8th inch.

And the 29 isn't a blued version of the 629. The pre-29 was introduced in JAN 1956. They started stamping M29 on them in 1958. The M629 wasn't even introduced until 1979. So 24 years later. The 629 is a stainless version of the M29, not the other way around.

Finally, there are some newer versions of the Redhawk that are interesting. 4.2" barrel in .44 Mag and .45 Colt.

http://gunblast.com/Ruger-Redhawk45.htm

A 2.75" version with a round butt. (That fixes some of the grip problem since then you have a smaller grip frame.)

http://gunblast.com/Ruger-RedhawkTALO.htm

And now they are making the 4.2" version in .41 Magnum And a round butt 4.2" version that shoots .45 ACP and .45 Colt. Full moon clips for the .45 ACP. Interesting gun. I may have to buy the .41 Mag version.

http://gunblast.com/Ruger-RH45ACP.htm

Gregg
 
P

Photon Guy

New member
For a 44 Mag., I would choose the Redhawk over the Super unless you want a 9 1/2" barrel. The Redhawk is plenty strong for the 44 Mag.

The Redhawk didn't exist when the first few Dirty Harry movies were made. Later on he took a liking to a 44 AutoMag. Personally, I liked it when Clint carried a SA.
Click to expand...

I've got both. I first got the Super Redhawk because I wanted it for its thicker and more sturdy frame but as the weapon is large, heavy, and awkward I wanted something easier to carry so I recently got a regular Redhawk and its a really awesome gun, (so is the Super Redhawk, depending on what you're doing.) They do make the Super Redhawk with a short barrel, the Alaskan version as its been mentioned in this thread.

And yes you're right, the Redhawk didn't come out until 1979 which was after Dirty Harry had been made and shown but it would still be an awesome gun for Inspector Callahan to use.
 
J

Jim Watson

New member
H. Bowen will cut down the receiver ring extension of a SRH to look like a Redhawk but with the SRH/GP grip and action. But it's $895 on your gun.
 
W

win-lose

New member
I think the 4" Redhawk is one of Ruger's all time best looking handguns. I regularly cc it with no difficulties. The Alaskan conceals a bit easier with the Lett grips. As for strength, with the exception of the Super Redhawk, I don't know of a tougher DA 44 mag than the Redhawk.
 
W

win-lose

New member
Both of 'em are way too big for personal carry and defense. Redhawk weighs 54 and the Super 53 ounces with the 7.5" barrel. That's 3 and a bit pounds.
Redhawk uses two springs. Page 34. http://stevespages.com/pdf/ruger_redhawk.pdf
Click to expand...

That second spring is to hold the trigger assembly latch in place, it is not part of the "action".

Also, why pick the largest barrel available to demonstrate its inadequacy for cc.

I've been carrying a 4" Redhawk for many years without problem. I'm not a huge guy. It can be done and with a lot less effort than you'd expect. A quick change of ammo and I go from the woods to the streets without issue.
 
T

tulsamal

New member
So how does a 41 mag RH make your thumb bleed?
Click to expand...

The Redhawk has a very pronounced hump at the top of the grip frame. With stock grips, the entire grip frame is open, front and back. And that includes the big stainless hump at the top. As I said, it felt great in my hand dry firing... but the gun would recoil up and back, and slam that hump right into the top of my thumb. Right at the base where the bone sticks up a bit. Only hurt a bit at first but it seems like each shot took off a bit of skin. Until the blood started to ooze out. And I guess that exposed flap of skin also left some nerves open to more stimulation.

We aren't talking about a gusher here.. but I was definitely bleeding. And I'm a VERY experienced revolver shooter. Including the big boys. In retrospect, I should have slid on a shooting glove but I didn't expect a problem with the big Redhawk and .41 Mag.

Will the more hand filling Nill grips, no problem. I sadly put away my stock grips in the extras bin and the Nill's live on the gun. They do look very nice! (Got a really good deal on them on eBay.)

Gregg
 
G

Guv

New member
Gottcha, I used to have some Hogue Nylon grips on mine and thought they were great. They seem to let your last two fingers contribute more in controlling the recoil.
 
J

jackmoser65

New member
The Super Redhawk is a bit larger, the frame is thicker, and its a bit sturdier but the Redhawk is also I believe sturdy enough and its not as bulky and heavy and therefore easier to carry and deploy.
Click to expand...
This is all patently false. They are the same size. Externally, the only difference is the frame extension/barrel and the grip frame/stud. The cylinders are even the same part number. The frames are the same dimensions. The weight is the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top