RedHawk Vs. SuperRedHawk


PDA






Liquid Metal
December 20, 2006, 07:00 AM
Ruger makes a Redhawk 7.5 (KRH-44R) and a SuperRedHawk 7.5 (KSRH-7). It seems that the catalog has the same specification between the two.

So what are the differences?

Thank You

If you enjoyed reading about "RedHawk Vs. SuperRedHawk" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
tantrix
December 20, 2006, 07:15 AM
They are almost identical except every Super Redhawk comes with integral scope mounts and 1" Ruger scope rings, while on the regular Redhawk it is optional.

evan price
December 20, 2006, 07:37 AM
The Super Redhawk is also a heavier built gun, thicker frame, and has a two-spring design unlike the Redhawk single spring design.

Either if them would not leave you feeling undergunned and both will last several lifetimes.

Stainz
December 20, 2006, 08:00 AM
They are quite different. The RH is an older design, employing partially lugged barrel and a single coil spring to both power the hammer and return the trigger, a la the GP-100's predecessors. My 5.5" .45 Colt SS RH, with it's original spring, was still tempermental as to primers, requiring my Federally primed loads - and still giving occasional ftf's. The trigger pull seems to be a bit long, too... and no speedloaders will work with the stock grips, as they haven't been dished out. The Ruger scope rings mount to a rib running the length of the barrel on 'scope ready' models. They were available in 5.5" & 7.5" lengths in various calibers, with only the .44 Magnum now being available.

The .44M SRH, like the .454 & .480 versions, is an acquired taste. They have a simple, but very rugged, barrel protruding from the frame, making for a bit less traditional 'look'. The scope rings mount on the long frame top. They have a better trigger, utilizing the same fine lockwork as the GP-100's. They will allow HKS speedloaders to be used. I liked my 7.5" .454 SRH, which I had for years, but chose to keep my newer 5.5" .45 RH, as it grouped better with the wimpy rounds I shoot. If I wanted a Ruger .44M DA, I'd opt for the SRH... which is a couple ounces lighter, oddly, in the 7.5" variant than the RH. The backstrap enclosing absorptive stock rubber grips can be gripped higher - and offer better recoil control - than the RH's wood stocks.

Actually, when I needed a .44 Magnum, I opted for a S&W. Their 629's are fine for my uses - and what a fine trigger!

Stainz

Odd Job
December 20, 2006, 08:08 AM
Thanks, I also wanted to know that. I have only fired the SRH. If you run out of ammo, you can just club somebody with it.

Liquid Metal
December 20, 2006, 08:14 AM
Thanks everyone!

Tantrix, KRH-44R actually can mount scope too. It is the only Redhawk that has scope mounting.

Stainz, that is the problem. I am either getting the KGP-161 and SuperRedHawk KSRH-7 or the SW 686 Plus and 629.

In terms of look, I prefer the Ruger pack but in terms of mechanic, everyone that I talked to thinks the SW pack is better. If I am going to get Ruger, I am going to stick with Ruger revolvers and vice versa with SW.

I shot both packs a while back but can't remember because they are both so close in feel. Therefore, I am now doing my research.


Also, the Super Redhawk comes in 7.5 and 9.5 length. What are the advantage and disadvantage besides accuracy. It would be better to have a shorter barrel for home defense. Anything else?

Do they make rosewood grips that are similar to Ruger's grip GP100 and SRH for 686 and 629?

Also, I am trying to look for the best price for these guns where I live. Any suggestions? Turner's Outdoor sell 686 Plus for $619.

Thank You

tantrix
December 20, 2006, 10:36 AM
As mentioned above, they do have minor differences internally and slightly different looks. I should have been more specific about the integral mounts...I meant to say that all SRH's have them, while is it optional on the regular Redhawk.

From behind the gun, trigger-wise you might not really be able to tell them apart unless you've shot one or the other for a while. Like Stainz, I prefer the SBH because I feel they have a slightly better trigger. The the rubber grips feel better with harsher recoiling loads too.

The differences between 7.5" and 9.5" are very minimal, so if you prefer the shorter barrel length for home defense it will do just fine. A 7.5" barrel is very cumbersome inside a house, so the 9.5" is even worse. I have the 10.5" SBH and it is a monster inside.

Liquid Metal
December 20, 2006, 02:42 PM
Thank You tantrix

Jim March
December 20, 2006, 04:31 PM
Tantrix wrote "SBH" when he meant to say "SRH".

There are now some short-barreled SuperRedHawks that lack scope mounts - the "Alaskan" series inspired from some one-offs by Wild West Guns in Alaska.

Legionnaire
December 20, 2006, 09:07 PM
I wish they made a 5.5" SRH.

tantrix
December 20, 2006, 09:41 PM
Tantrix wrote "SBH" when he meant to say "SRH".

There are now some short-barreled SuperRedHawks that lack scope mounts - the "Alaskan" series inspired from some one-offs by Wild West Guns in Alaska.

Thanks, just edited to correct that. :banghead:

If you enjoyed reading about "RedHawk Vs. SuperRedHawk" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!