[vynx]

I was looking at the Ruger website

http://www.ruger-firearms.com/Firearms/FASubType?type=Revolver&subtype=Double%20Action

and compared the weight of the Redhawk 7.5" revolver to the SRH w/7.5" barrel - the weight difference is only 1 oz. greater for the SRH.

Does this seem right to you guys?

From the picture the SRH looks much bigger, larger frame and the barrel looks thicker too. Yet Ruger lists the weights as 52.5 (redhawk scope mounting model) & 53.5 oz for the SRH?

I have heard the S&W is way off when they list their revolvers weights. Does anyone know about Ruger?

P.S. since I'm talking about SRH's anyone else think the alaskan is just a SRH with the barrel cut off at the frame?

[BlkHawk73]

Notice these weights are approximates only. Never compared them side by side (not my particualr favorites) so i cannot say. Compare the wieghts of the different bbl length models and you'll get an idea of how much that extra bbl length adds. Besides, you're talking ounces not pounds so what little difference there is is very small.

[vynx]

I noticed the 9.5" barrel goes up to 57 oz for 3.5 oz more thats in the .454

the .480 is only 55 oz.?

I guess Ill know for sure in a few days when the .454 SRH I bought arrives at the FFL's.

[azredhawk44]

The .480 will logically weigh less than the 454.

The cartridge hole is .475 instead of .454. The barrel is .475 instead of .454. That's less metal.

I had heard that the original Redhawk actually weighed more than the SRH. I could be wrong though.

[vynx]

What you say makes sense about the .480 having a larger hole.

And what you said about the redhawk originally weighing more may be true too - I compared a redhawk weight in .44 mag w/7.5" barrel to a SRH in .454 casull w/7.5" barrel.

I guess the .454 would also have a larger hole than the .44 mag.

But I still think the frame on the SRH looks so much larger than on the Redhawk? So shouldn't it weight much more?

I have already purchased the SRH in .454 so its just an intellection question.
Somthing I just happened to notice on the website.
I guess I'll have to try and compare a Redhawk to it if I ever see one at a gunshop.

[The Lone Haranguer]

Perhaps the grip frame of the standard would account for some of this. The Super has a GP100-like strut that only serves to contain the mainspring and mount the grip to. The standard has a grip frame of the same profile as the wooden stock panels.

[azredhawk44]

Haranguer hit it.

The grip frame is very big on the Redhawk.

[vynx]

Ahhhhh, that makes sense too. I haven't ever held a Redhawk while I have held the SRH so I didn't know they had the different grip frames.

I actually prefer the GP-100 strut style in theory or at least think I do - most of my current revolvers have the other style (Taurus, Python, S&W,).

I think this would put more of the weight forward which I think will be better for recoil or at least muzzle climb. I've never shot the .454 casull but I have shot .44magnum out of the 9.5" SRH with no problems. I figure I'll mostly shoot .45's and the .454 will be for IF I ever take it hunting or go fishing in big bear country (big IF there).

Thanks for your responses I knew someone on THR would have the answer.