Some photos of the Ruger Redhawk KRH-45-4 (.45 Colt)


August 29, 2008, 07:54 PM
Here are some photos of the revolver STILL at the gun shop. They're not the best photos ever taken but I'll take more once I get my grubby paws on the Redhawk but due to our state laws, I won't be able to pick it up until 9/11. I "visited" it today to take some photos and chat to the store owner. I was concerned about some scratches on the frame, the condition of the cylinder and overall appearance so I called Ruger to find out when it was made/shipped and if it was a new revolver. They told me it was built and shipped to one of their distributors in December of 2007. I bought the revolver from (owned by TGSCOM, Inc. in WI) and called them also to ask if it was new or used. They told me they only sell new "stuff". I asked a woman in the technical dept. at Ruger if she could tell me how Ruger tests their revolvers. She told me that they fire three shots from the revolvers, wipe the revolver down and ship it out. Almost every nook and cranny has a red, powder-like substance in it which I was told is the polishing compound that Ruger uses.


If you enjoyed reading about "Some photos of the Ruger Redhawk KRH-45-4 (.45 Colt)" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
August 29, 2008, 07:56 PM
Here are some more photos ... I particularly like the last photo since it shows how much "meat" the frame has in it ... it's a "chunky monkey" for sure.


August 29, 2008, 08:03 PM
Yep. Its sexy.

I just picked up the new Ruger catalog. Still had my heart set on a Blackhawk 'til I saw that Vaquero Montado.

Keep us posted on how that beauty shoots when you get it home.

August 29, 2008, 08:07 PM
man i love 45 Colts. nice pics

Gary in Pennsylvania
August 29, 2008, 08:14 PM

That's one sexy revolver!

Ironically, I tried to get the KRH-444 ordered through my local dealer, but it was out of stock.
I have since spent my cash on a NIB Marlin 336Y Spikehorn .30-30.

I'll be gettin' the Ruger in March or so.


Great pics, by the way!

August 29, 2008, 08:28 PM
Thanks for the kind words and enthusiasm. The one thing I did manage to bring home is the fired case that came with the revolver. That's one ugly case by the way ... nickel plated with red paint all over the base. I opened the "sealed" package since we don't have to submit fired cases when we register a firearm here.


August 29, 2008, 11:52 PM
I've had several Big Reds of .44 bore...well, .429, while yours is actually .452...mine were both early guns, both were astoudingly accurate 1" or less at 25yds...only problem was light strikes in DA mode, a pretty common complaint, but I never used them DA anyhow....I've known folk who have fired .45 loads in Big Red that I won't bother mentioning, let's just say they've treaded on the heels of custom 5-shot cylinder loads and lived to write about it....I regularly fired published safe loads out of my .44's that would send a 180gr XTP downrange at shouldn't be going for those velocities with a .45, but you CAN go pretty fast....if you're in good with an orthopedics guy....

August 30, 2008, 12:35 AM
Purty gun.

What's the felt recoil like on one of those?

August 30, 2008, 01:45 AM
What's the felt recoil like on one of those?

That's a VERY good question and not one that I can answer yet. I made a post a week or so ago asking about the difference in recoil between a "hot" .44 Magnun (which I have experience with) and a "hot" .45 Colt (which I have no experience with) and got some good feedback but no definitive answers. I hope to answer that question in the coming months.

mtngunr, I think I'll be aiming for about 1200 fps with a 300 grain hard cast bullet for the great outdoors and possibly a 250 grain JHP for home defense loads moving at about the same velocity or maybe a little less.


August 30, 2008, 03:43 AM
Really nice piece....

Always had a fondness for the .45 Colt round. Big, slow bullets have a great deal going for them. Having a Ruger in that caliber just means that you'll have a .45 Colt that you can pass on to your great-grandchildren. Excellent idea! May have to acquire one for myself.

August 30, 2008, 06:29 AM
Recoil with slightly warm .45 Colts (255gr LSWC @950 fps) in my 5.5" SS .45 RH with OEM wood grips was still light enough that my wife would shoot it as a plinker - and she preferred it as her 'house gun' then. operationally, only the odd DA ftf was noted - along with a fast ejection of empties occasionally resulting in the ejector star riding over the .45 Colt's dimunitive rim and jamming the gun for a bit.

My gun was ordered by my pusher for me - I took it sight unseen - and shipped it back to Ruger within days due to what I could 'see' as QC problems when I got home. It took a new cylinder, trigger, & other parts - and some TLC - before they returned it.

I have seen current 4" .44M & .45 Colt RHs - and current GP100s - it's almost like Ruger has someone else making them now! No tool marks, great fit, decent triggers - especially that GP100. I sold my 5.5" RH - never got 'close' to it... I could shoot my 625MG in .45 Colt more easily and accurately. I got a second 625MG. Now, I might just 'try' another RH - that .45 Colt 4"-er looks good to me... gotta wear wood, though. Congratulations!


August 30, 2008, 03:05 PM
Looks real good, like a beefed up GP100.

CM Rich
August 30, 2008, 03:28 PM
Gorgeous little workhorse. I'm already jealous. Always wanted me a Super Redhawk, and the 45 Colt version is intreguing.

Stainless, I assume?

August 30, 2008, 05:02 PM
My gun was ordered by my pusher for me - I took it sight unseen - and shipped it back to Ruger within days due to what I could 'see' as QC problems when I got home. It took a new cylinder, trigger, & other parts - and some TLC - before they returned it.

Stainz, how long ago was that? To be honest, I was disappointed with the scratches on the frame and the fit between the cylinder "swing arm" and the frame. My S&W 629-1 and my Python have ZERO gap but if you look at the second and fifth photos in my first post there's a significant gap there (below the barrel). That said, I was VERY happy with the overall appearance, the feel, the weight, the trigger and the general impression that this is a serious revolver. I paid $637 for it from compared to the MSRP of $836 so perhaps these are Ruger's "grey market" offerings ... who knows! I don't know if I'll be going the wood grips route. I plan on shooting some hot loads and may need as much recoil damping as possible. Generally, I don't sell/trade my firearms even if a particular model becomes redundant so I think this Redhawk will be with me until the end. I'm interested in the Ruger Super Redhawk KSRH-2454 "Alaskan" ( along with a S&W 625 Mountain Gun but that won't be for a while yet.

Always wanted me a Super Redhawk ... Stainless, I assume?

CM Rich, welcome to the board. That's a Redhawk rather than a Super Redhawk and yep, it's stainless.

August 30, 2008, 06:55 PM
Is the Redhawk made in 45LC currently?

August 30, 2008, 07:00 PM
Is the Redhawk made in 45LC currently?

hawk45, welcome to the board ... I've only been a member here a short time but it sure is addictive!!

The photos of the KRH-45-4 above are of a .45 Colt Redhawk that I recently purchased, so to answer your question ... yes!


August 30, 2008, 08:22 PM
Very nice Redhawk. I too am a big Ruger fan and love the .45 Colt cartridge.
In a Ruger it is very versatile cartridge.

August 31, 2008, 01:57 PM
My 5.5" SS .45 RH was bought new 3/04. A friend ordered one, too, picking his up the day after I did mine. His went back after mine, too... Ruger sent him another new RH - his original new one had a crooked frame! I cannot find the sales slip - but I think we paid $460. Some months later, CDNN had them on closeout, of course! Incidently, when we called Ruger with the s/n, they offered to send the pick-up slip - an oddity for Ruger (S&W will send you a pick-up label if you don't like the finish on your new S&W... and even the call is on their dime - an 800#!). He got his replacement revolver - and sold it - before mine was returned.

BTW, part of my 'cosmetic' QC problems 'revolved', so to speak, around the cylinder's exit bore face - there were burst casting bubbles between exit bores! Whether they appeared during finish grinding the face or not, only a blind QC inspector should have passed that!

I have no doubt a new 4" RH in .44M or .45 Colt is better, QC-wise, than my RH was. The GP100s look/feel so much better than the earlier examples I tried. But... my experiences in 'cleaning up' rough innards, etc, of BHs, Vaquero's, as well as that RH and a .32 M SSM & SP101 had been enough... they all went. My Ruger 'collection' now consists of an Old Army SS .45 BP and a MKII, the latter actually being on shakey ground. Over six years ago, my wife bought me a new 625MG in .45 Colt - I traded a 5.5" SS .45 Bisley BH for an older version 2.5 yr ago - my .45 Colt needs are now aptly met (See below.) - the pair's only other .45 Colt friend here is a 24" SS oct barrel Rossi/Puma M1892. The 625MGs in .45 Colt are keepers.

The MGs are periodic offerings, with the only pictures of them, actually a .45 Colt 625 and a blued .41 Magnum 57, I've seen in an S&W catalog being in the '06 catalog (pg 29). Mine was $519 8/02 - the current latest production 625MG in .45 Colt in my pusher's display has crept up - it may be over $669 now. Believe me, they are fine revolvers, with none of the ftf problems - or ejector star riding over the rim problems, either - like I had with my RH. No, they are not rated at nuclear level loads, but the 25/625 S&W revolvers share their components with the 21+ kpsi .45 ACP, so a bit more than the 14 kPSI of a SAAMI spec'd .45 Colt shouldn't hurt. Great feel, even at SAAMI limits, with Ahrends wood - or the S&W Dymondwood grips. Just fun... but I'll bet that 4" RH will also be fun.

Use a dedicated 'pull' and Federal primers, and you can have zero ftfs. Allow gravity to help empty spent rounds , ie, point the muzzle up, and jamming that ejector star may be someone else's fable. Good luck - enjoy your new popper!


PS The far right round shown above is a .45 Schofield (S&W) round - also called the '.45 Short Colt'. It was originally a detuned .45 Colt round made for the US Calvary - with changes by Col. Schofield - that fit a S&W Model #3 top break variant of the old '.44 Russian'. It's rim is 'normal size', ie, larger than that of the .45 Colt, so extraction is more sure - 100% with my RH. Starline makes the brass.

August 31, 2008, 03:42 PM
Stainz, I always enjoy reading your posts and you post some great photos ... those are beautiful looking mountain guns. I can definitely see a MG in my future although I'd have to live with the ugly lock above the cylinder release if I bought a new one. Why any company has to change every model to appease one or two states is beyond me. Ruger doesn't do that!!

BTW, part of my 'cosmetic' QC problems 'revolved', so to speak, around the cylinder's exit bore face - there were burst casting bubbles between exit bores! Whether they appeared during finish grinding the face or not, only a blind QC inspector should have passed that!

I find this comment particularly interesting since I was under the impression that all cylinders are machined from solid stock and not cast as such. I saw an episode of American Rifleman recently and I seem to remember one of the Ruger engineers making some comment to the effect of "all frames on all firearms are cast but the cylinders, bolts etc are machined from solid steel stock". Anyway, defects are defects regardless of their origin. As the consumer, it's not our job to figure out the problem, we only have to be happy with the product.


August 31, 2008, 03:57 PM
Cylinders are indeed forged.

August 31, 2008, 04:11 PM
They were irregular and grainy in appearance through a magnifying glass... but one was between two adjacent exit bores. They listed a replaced cylinder, trigger, hammer, and some internal parts on their work order/letter. I assumed they were cast - then reamed/machined.

Don't get me wrong - I liked my .32M Rugers, a BHG SS 4.6" SSM and 4" SP101, for example. I had cleaned up their many faults - except one - their chambers were at the max ID (.337+"), while commercial ammo and resizing dies are at .334" max OD. That .003+" of swelling when you discharge those rounds, besides making for less than optimum brass life, causes the ferret flatulance loads I shot (115gr LRNFP @ 800fps) to be hard to extract. Cute guns - cute and fun rounds - too much aggravation - .38s are little more in cost to reload - and S&W makes great .357/.38s. That started the mass migration of my remaining Rugers.

Another Ruger I miss is my homebrewed 'custom' SBH - a 4.6" SS one I fitted a QPR BHG to. Neat and different... and swapped for a new .32 Seecamp, ammo, & holster - and a C-note. My wife got it all... it's like I just gave away that revolver!

I don't miss the 4.6" SS .45 BHG Vaquero - or the 5.5" SS Bisley or RH. Oddly, that RH was my wife's house gun - she just recently asked where it was... it's been gone for two years! I have a 2" 10 for her 'house/car revolver'.

I'll be back at the Pusher's this week - and I always peruse the Rugers - they are in the display case by the door, so I can't just walk past them... the S&Ws are next in line... then, ugh, Glocks!


September 1, 2008, 12:48 PM
I like it!

Rio Laxas
September 1, 2008, 01:07 PM
I have a 4" Redhawk in 44 mag. I love the revolver, but taking the grips off is too difficult. I'm thinking about replacing the grips with wood ones.

I really wanted one in .45 Colt, but this one came my way first. I do have problems with the sight elevation screw turning itself due to recoil.

If you enjoyed reading about "Some photos of the Ruger Redhawk KRH-45-4 (.45 Colt)" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!