[Elkslayer]

The intended use of this revolver will be as a companion to my Marlin 1894 44 mag. and will be carried in a holster on my person.

I would imagine the primary targets would be the occasional varmint or predator I would encounter while on a long walk in open sagebrush country. And I always have to be on the look out for rogue beer cans! :uhoh: :eek:

I suppose I might try to use the pistol to pop a close-in coyote or two during a winter calling session. But mainly I'd like to have a handy 44 and I fear the 7.5" model would be unwieldy.

[bigmike45]

I have both and prefer the 5.5" version. It's easier to carry, balances in my hand better and will be easier to move, if needed, in a tight place. JMHO!!:D

Here is my family of Rugers......Redhawks and SP-101's
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f43/mike_seale/TheRugers.jpg

[eastwood44mag]

I've got the SRH in a 7.5 and wouldn't take anything shorter. Difficult to aim, but accurate as all get out.

[Dispatcher]

I have 2 of 5.5s and do not like anything longer. Just personal preference.

[Black Snowman]

If you are going to carry and draw my vote is for the 5.5"

[wheelgunslinger]

Another vote for the balance of the 5.5.

[evan price]

If you are gonna scope it and hunt with it I vote for the longer barrel. I have a SRH 7.5" and it is not too big. Recoil is OK.

[Lennyjoe]

7.5 for dedicated hunting platform and 5.5 for carry out in the bush just in case.

[Nail Shooter]

I'd go with the shorter version. I've got a 7 1/2" early blued version, it is my LEAST ACCURATE revolver. I'm thinking about chopping it for a carry piece, the 7 1/2" is too long IMO.

NS

[azredhawk44]

I've got a 5.5" that I bought expressly as a sidearm, not a hunting piece. I could probably hunt with it out to about 40-50 yards.

When I get into pistol hunting, probably next year, I will get a 9.5" SRH or a 10" Freedom Arms. Not interested in a scope at this point, don't like the weight of them. I will also carry a hunting pistol cross-draw, with a shorter serviceable gun strong-side.

The 7.5" seems like an odd gun. Just too long as a sidearm, IMO, but if you want a hunting pistol, there are longer barrels out there available.

I'd strongly suggest the 5.5" gun, and get it blued while you can. A good blued revolver is becoming more and more rare.

[Stainz]

For a 5.5", it'll have to be a Redhawk. If you need the more rifle-like 7.5", go with the Super Redhawk. I would suggest a more packable .44M, one with a 4" tube. A 629 Mountain Gun is ideal, although not currently being made. The standard 4" 629 has a bit more mass in the larger hammer and trigger - and more out in that full size barrel, still with that nice traditional half lug - and great trigger. Spend $35 on the S&W Accessories sourced .460/.500 Magnum Hogue grip, it fits K/L, N, and X-frames - and pads that backstrap - a great boon to 629 recoil, believe me. New, they are all about the same price. The 629 MG weighs 39.5 oz, the standard 4" 629 is 42 oz, the 5.5" Redhawk is 49 oz, and the 7.5" Super Redhawk is 53 oz. If you shoot SAAMI-spec'd .44 Magnums, the S&W will do fine. Super .44M loads, go for the Ruger... or the rifle!

Stainz

[Blacklabman]

I have owned a 5.5 Redhawk, and a 7.5 SRH .454 Casull.
Both have been sold, but I prefered the 5.5.
I despise snub nose revolvers, along with the heavy, and ungainly 20ft contraptions. For a hunting revolver 6.5" is my max.
Frankly, I prefer and use the 5" 629 Classic for Deer, and Elk hunting.
It meets the 3 P's, and is more than accurate with open sights out to 50 yards. Put a Bushnell Holosight on it, and I can go out to 100 yards.
Between the two, my choice would be the 5.5 Redhawk.

[dairycreek]

From personal experience with both the 7.5 and the 5.5 - I have found the 5.5 Redhawk to be a superior carry gun in the woods. I have used it to take an elk without any problem. So, I just find it a lot more handy to carry. FWIW!