[MJRW]

I'm thinking about .44 and up and I want a Ruger. Love Ruger revolvers. But frankly, I think their redhawks are ok looking and their supre redhawks downright lame looking. Why don't they make a nice looking big bore revolver like Taurus does. It upsets me. Is a full underlug asking too much?

[happy old sailor]

lame? never thought of it that way. had to fetch my SRH and take a look. first thought: big. second thought: heavy. third thought: gee, its all scratched up.

it aint purty, but, it aint lame. at least, not to me. i have a few handguns i think are pretty, at least to me. but, i didn't get them to look at. now, they all show signs of use. my SRH shows a LOT of use. no matter. i still like it as well as the day i brought it home. same for my woman of 23+ years. looks be damned. i'm keeping both.

[Braz]

Humm,

Gotta agree Rugers aren't really pretty. But imo, underlugged revolvers are just as ugly. Giant see through ramps on top and a large addition beneath the barrel isn't classic art to me. I like SAAs and early revolvers with a stand alone barrel. Just me. :)

[PATH]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder or in this case the shooter.

[Chuck Dye]

My own take on Taurus Raging Whatever cosmetics, especially those foolish names and hideous roll marks, is that they were designed by the same folk who do the 40 ounce malt liquor labels. I'd rather have my Ruger Redhawk or save up for a Bowen conversion.

[WonderNine]

I agree, they look lame as crap, handle as crap and oh ya....

They're heavy and ugly.

[WESHOOT2]

"Looks", as pertaining to handguns, does not compute.

I laid out my four Redhawks to determine if I thought they looked 'lame'.

Nope; they look like the ultra-serious tools they are.

Whatever (I remind myself it IS 2003).

[Sarge]

I wouldn't call this lame-

http://www.imagemagician.org/images/invssgt/Redhawk44.jpg

Now THIS is lame. One very 'lame' whitetail doe that went close to 200 pounds, rendered so by the same poor old ugly Redhawk in the above photo. Bullet was a 300 XTP@1300, at about 20 yards...


http://www.imagemagician.org/images/invssgt/stevesdoe111602.jpg

The Redhawk will shoot a steady diet of these loads indefinitely. Try THAT with your purty little Taurus or S&W. We'll be watching for the surviving parts (assuming there are any) on e-bay.

[Nightcrawler]

I want a Redhawk, eventually, for when I start handloading .45 Colt beyond what my 25-5 can take. I don't think they're ugly, really. How the rear edge of the frame contours along with the curvature of the cylinder looks more like a single action than the traditional (Colt/S&W) double-action look, but it's not too bad. I do think the factory grip looks too small for the frame, but that's not a huge deal, as grips can be changed.

I wish Ruger would make a 4.5" version, I really really do. And bring back the .41 Redhawk!!

[MikeJ]

We all have our opinions on what is good looking, whether it be cars, members of the opposite sex or guns. Personally I find the Taurus Raging Bull to be very unattractive and my 5 1/2" stainless Redhawk very nice looking. Most of my revolvers are S&W which I really like but then again I find the Ruger GP100, in the 3" and 4" with the full underlug versions, to be very appealing. As I've always said, if you don't like it then don't get it.

[461]

I personally think my 5 1/2" Redhawk is a very attractive gun as well as an outstanding performer. I'm not overly partial to the Super Redhawks though as the extended frame looks a bit awkward to me although I wouldn't question the strength of it. Function sometimes must outweigh form when it comes to performance, and isn't performance what you want in a firearm?

[Edward429451]

why are redhawks so...lame looking?

You must have something in your eye would be my first guess.:D

[Tamara]

"Looks", as pertaining to handguns, does not compute.

One of the members (I believe it's young Justin) has a brilliant sigline on this topic right now. Something to the effect of "Guns may just be tools, but I've never seen an ivory-handled pair of pliers.". ;)


This is why I put wood grips on my guns. (well, that, and the fact that rubber grips suck for CCW; always hanging up on your clothes and such...)

If I have a choice between two tools which work equally well for the task I need them for, I'll pick the more attractive one every time. :cool:

[Gerald McDonald]

SRH lame, Ha! Take a look at a Glock.
Gerald

[stans]

Ruger Redhawk's and Super Redhawk's are for shooting, Smith & Wesson's are for looking. Ruger builds guns that work well and are very durable, esthetics runs a distant second.

[JohnKSa]

I don't care for the barrel profile of either of the DA .44 Rugers. I'd put the Redhawk out in front on looks, but neither is really an eyecatcher IMO.

I wish Ruger would make a .44 that looked like the GP-100...

[tex_n_cal]

I actually think the SRH, in .480 or .454 doesn't look too bad. That dark gray of the Carpenter Custom 465 they're made from gives it quite a distinctive look.

That said, the standard Redhawks don't do much for me. Actually, none of Ruger's pistols look good, except the SA revolvers. They were of course based on the Colt SAA.

I don't quite know how the Old Man designed such purty rifles and such homely pistols.

And yes, my Bisley shoots like a house afire. I suspect most Redhawks do, too.

[Mikul]

Sarge, what finish is on your Redhawk? It looks too black and matte to be the stock blueing.

[foghornl]

Rugers are perhaps not the most AP weapons (Aesthetically Pleasing), but they will always go BANG! when you need it.

[redhawk44p]

To the eye of a hunter Rugers are beautiful. MY SRH 454 is almost invisible to game that is beautiful. If I was worried about pretty things I would buy a nice necklace.
I think a gun that has a lot of slop after you shoot heavy loads in it for awhile is ugly.

http://www.roberteast.net/44ani.gif

[Tamara]

I didn't say they sucked, I just said they were homely. :cool:

If I was looking for a .44 Mag to eat a steady diet of 300gr grizzly manglers, a Super Redhawk would be at the top of my list, ugly or no.

If I was looking for a gun to shoot plain ol' midrange 240gr loads, or especially if I was looking for a 3" totin' sixgun, I'd shop for an N-frame.

(...and if I wanted a real pretty paperweight, I'd buy an Anaconda. ;) )

[Sarge]

That's the factory blue, circa mid-80's.

[Shane]

I think my Redhawk is very nice looking. I do agree that the Super Redhawks are a little on the homely side though. They're all good shooters though, IMO.

[Dave T]

When stronger and uglier guns are built, Ruger will build them.

[Erich]

Just funnin' ya :p - I agree they're somewhat brutal looking, though I wouldn't say lame. Certainly not pretty like those new Beretta things. I agree that other companies make revos that look better, but I sure like my RH for solid!

[Master Blaster]

I think the huge labels on the Taurus is as Ugly a Rollmark/Laser etching as yoou will ever see. The underlug adds extra weight for no apparent reason, especially on the .22lr models. The Vent rib:barf: Dont they put those on shotguns to help with the swing??? A vent rib on a handgun

:uhoh: why?

Then there is that uglier than sin Ribber grip, it looks like the handle on an OXO potato peeler.

I really like my Redhawk .44mag 7.5" it balances nicely for such a large frame revolver, and its not muzzle heavy like those full underlug barrels. It also has a well contoured grip frame and nice wood grips. But if you like rubber pachmeyer makes nice ones to fit it. The barrel has a graceful contour like a long legged woman.:D

The smith .44 mags are nice looking also but they have that cylinder backup problem if you shoot too many heavy loads in them.

[dairycreek]

They are, however, somewhat esthetically challenged. Good shooting;)

[redhawk44p]

Master Blaster, you rock, preach it brother!!!!!!!!:D

[Pappy John]

I wish Ruger would make a .44 that looked like the GP-100...

Then it would shoot itself loose under dinosaur stoppers, just like those pretty 629's.

[Poohgyrr]

I had a nice looking 7 1/2" Redhawk; kinda wish I still did. But it aint ugly.

There are ugly guns, Glocks represent that remark. Kinda like me when I first wake up in the morning. But my wife says she still loves me anyway; isn't she sweet ;)....

[Tamara]

Master Blaster sez-- Dont they put those on shotguns to help with the swing???

Er, I thought they put them on shotguns (and revos) to have a flat raised plane to sight along (the "vent" part is because it's lighter than a "solid rib"...)

I agree that a Redhawk is vastly less hideous than a Super Redhawk.

Pappy John sez-- Then it would shoot itself loose under dinosaur stoppers, just like those pretty 629's.

I agree that if you mostly shoot "dinosaur stopper" .44 Mag loads, then an early 29 or 629 probably isn't for you. Since the vast majority of the .44 Mag stuff I shoot is Georgia Arms 240gr LSWC @ 1100 or 240gr GDHP @ 1325, this isn't a big worry of mine. If I buy really scary .44 Mag ammo, I pop it off in my Bisley Vaquero (pansy swingout cylinders be danged!). ;)

[JohnKSa]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wish Ruger would make a .44 that looked like the GP-100...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then it would shoot itself loose under dinosaur stoppers, just like those pretty 629's
I don't mind them being BIG, I just don't like the barrel profile. The Super RedHawk looks like someone built a revolver, stuck on half a revolver barrel and then decided to finish it off by jamming a rifle barrel on the end.

And, I don't care for the partial underlug barrel on the RedHawk.

I LIKE the barrel profile on the GP-100. Why can't they do that on the .44s?

[Gmac]

The Ruger SRH is accurate ,dependable ,and will digest a mountain of hot loads without a hiccup! But let's face it folks, they're buttugly!!!!

[firestar]

The Redhawk is O.K. but I have to agree, the Super Redhawk is Super Lame.:neener:

P.S., I love my Ruger Speed Six.

[MJRW]

It seems we have a general agreement:

SRH. Pretty? No. Works? Yes.

Then we still have the question of "why not pretty?" I mean, would it kill them to clean up those lines and make it less of a block with a rod on the end?

[redhawk44p]

Jeez this is getting lame, with all this pretty this pretty that it sounds like a hairdo/makeup forum in here. I must be getting old what happened to the time when men worried more about function than how lovely their tools looked. What is next wrenches with filagree?

http://www.roberteast.net/454ani2.gif

[MJRW]

I don't think its asking alot. If form doesn't hinder function, why not include some form?

[biglmbass]

Personally speaking,

I've always thought the 7.5" Redhawk is a serious and handsome looking piece. Not sure about the 5.5" model.

Now the SRH is flat out an ugly gun. Opinions may vary...

[redhawk44p]

I have struggled to understand how you folks can call a true masterpiece that U word. I now understand!!!! I think of John Wayne as huge, brutally effective, completely reliable under all conditions and always there when needed but I have also heard him described as ugly. The man was a legend and admired by millions a real Super Redhawk kinda guy.