Ruger Redhawk vs. Ruger Super Redhawk


PDA






SullyVols
March 7, 2013, 09:17 PM
Are they both comparable to the GP100?

I've heard that the 'Ruger Redhawk' is built on an older action set up than the GP100 - so I'm wondering how they compare to each other and the equivalent S&W (29 or 629).

All thoughts and experiences welcome.

If you enjoyed reading about "Ruger Redhawk vs. Ruger Super Redhawk" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
rcmodel
March 7, 2013, 09:23 PM
Same exact gun, except the frame on the Super is extended and weighs more.
Both use the same action, wich might be similiar to a GP100, but certainly not the same.

THey don't compare to the S&W 29/629.

I can lift a 29/629, but I can't lift a Super Redhawk.

The Ruger is better suited to super-hot handloads.
But either of the S&W's will take more factory load .44 Mag shooting then you can afford to buy ammo for.

rc

Alaska444
March 7, 2013, 09:24 PM
The SRH is built on the GP100 platform and the Redhawk is an animal all to itself. My choice was the SRH to be able to handle the heaviest loads. In that regard the SRH has no equal as far as what it can handle. The 629 cannot handle the stoutest loads from companies such as Buffalo Bore.

This new load is designed ONLY for certain firearms. They are as follows; Ruger Red Hawk, Ruger Super Red Hawk, Ruger Super Blackhawk or Vaquero, Freedom Arms Model 83, Taurus Raging Bull, Colt Anaconda and Dan Wesson Revolvers. Suitable rifles include T/C Encore, "modified" Marlin 1894 (see next paragraph), Winchester 1894, any rifle with a falling block action and the Handi Rifle. We get hundreds of emails asking if this load can be fired in S&W revolvers or some firearm other than what is in the above list. The answer is NO.

https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=54

SullyVols
March 7, 2013, 09:29 PM
I'll go a different direction and ask if a used Anaconda is worth between $800 and $1600 compared to the $700-$800 for a Ruger (or Smith)?

VA27
March 7, 2013, 10:16 PM
Yup, the RH and the SRH are two different animals, though the cylinders are the same size. I like the RH design because it uses one spring to run the trigger and hammer-very JMB-like, making one part do mulitple tasks. I also like that I can use wood grips with a Tyler T-Grip for an old-school look.

I'd like to have a 4", 45 Colt Anaconda, but I wouldn't pay that much for one. I guess I don't want one that bad.

Jaymo
March 7, 2013, 11:07 PM
SRH is too big for me.
I love my RH. I think the SRH is ugly as a monkey's butt. It looks like a GP100 snub, on steroids, with a length of heavy rifle barrel stuck on the end.
Many people love the SRH, I'm just not one of them.
I'm not familiar with .44 mag ammo that is too hot for the RH. If such a load exists, it's powerful than I need for hogs and deer.
And more powerful than my wrists/elbows want to shoot.

The older I get, the more I like .44 Spl and .45 Colt.

Any of the three revolvers you mentioned are excellent hunting guns.

I had a friend in the early 1990s, who cut off the round protuberance and made his SRH into a snub. It was pretty sweet. It was very cool looking. He got the idea from a local cop who had one.

silicosys4
March 8, 2013, 01:12 AM
I don't have a redhawk, but I am very much a fan of my .44mag super redhawk. I don't mind that its ugly as sin, lol...I didn't buy it for its waistline or its bosom....function over form for me. I bought it because its a big, heavy, strong revolver that can take a scope from the factory, it has a longer than standard cylinder for heavy bullets, and can soak up enough recoil to make shooting the stoutest loads tolerable if not fun. I don't CCW it, and if I can carry an 8lb rifle into the woods, I can just as easily carry a 4 lb revolver. If I want something small, I'll strap on a model 10. The trigger is not as smooth as the s&w's I've handled, but it is far from gritty or heavy.
It is damn accurate as well, but if one plans on shooting nothing but normal pressure 240 gr. factory loads...it probably wouldn't be my first choice in a revolver.
Now, I feel the redhawk is just as strong as the super redhawk. The reason I went with the super redhawk was its availability over the redhawk, especially scope-able redhawks...the super redhawk is just easier to find, the added weight is unnecessary, but welcome as it helps reduce recoil.

Texan Scott
March 8, 2013, 02:24 AM
The Super Blackhawk, being a dedicated single action, would be my choice for handgun hunting (if I were so inclined, but I'm not).
The Super Redhawk is ugly as mud, but a super-strong double action, if DA is what you need (for dangerous game, maybe). In 480, it's a BEAST.
The regular old Redhawk won't do anything the others won't. I see no reason for Ruger to keep making it. (Though if they used it as a platform for a fixed sight 8-shot 357, I'll take two!)

ANY of these will handle 44mag loads that should never come near a S&W.

22-rimfire
March 8, 2013, 11:04 AM
Not an expert, but I have always understood that the Super Redhawk had a different action than the older Redhawk design. The SRH is based on the GP-100.

I have had both, but for shooting, I'd take the SRH. I just wish Ruger would take a little more time in the production to smooth out the exposed sharp edges. What is it going to cost? $20 more??

hardluk1
March 8, 2013, 11:18 AM
The SRH are in the same family of revolver design as the gp100 . The RH is a bit different revolver to a point still with many parts the same. All are very strong and well designed.

If your looking for a hunting revolver get the SRH. Stronger were it counts and design for optics. Buy a chest holster for carry in the woods. The weight of it and maybe the others gets old after a few hours.

The colt is a good revolver too but is it worth the extra cost. Nothing better as a hunter.

silicosys4
March 8, 2013, 02:43 PM
The Super Blackhawk, being a dedicated single action, would be my choice for handgun hunting (if I were so inclined, but I'm not).


When you are within handgun range on a spooky buck, cocking an SA super blackhawk is noisy enough to ruin your day.....its pretty loud. That double action lets you take a shot without being noisy.

Buck13
March 8, 2013, 05:23 PM
The regular old Redhawk won't do anything the others won't. I see no reason for Ruger to keep making it.

Another vote here saying the SRH is too weird looking. If I was buying a .44 from Ruger, the Redhawk is the only one I'd want.

I fired my brother-in-law's Redhawk just before New Year's, and really like the wooden grips, too. I recently bought a GP100, and I'm not thrilled with the grips. I'll probably try an aftermarket grip to see if I can get a better fit.

jmr40
March 8, 2013, 05:38 PM
As said the Redhawk is a completely different gun. The SRH is just a beefed up GP100 with all of it's improvemnts.

The SRH is just plain more handgun than I want. If I wanted something that big I'll carry a rifle. Between the 2 I'd buy the Redhawk. Actually I'd buy the 629, which I did. I had a Redhawk at one time, not a bad gun, just not my cup of tea.

*NOVA*
March 8, 2013, 05:41 PM
GP100 and SRH
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=172911&d=1349386075

Lost Sheep
March 9, 2013, 03:34 AM
The Redhawk has a single spring powering the Hammer and Trigger return. Lockwork unlike any other gun ever built. Not the same as the Security-Six, Service-Six, Speed-Six, either, nor the GP or SP lockwork.

The Super Redhawk has the same action as the GP-100 with separate springs, mainspring and trigger return.

The Redhawk has a full grip frame

The Super Redhawk has a post on which the stock is mounted. Theoretically this makes stock design more flexible, but the makers of aftermarket stocks have not stepped up, that I can tell. But my SRHs are a bit more comfortable than the RHs. The wood stocks/grips of the original RH are brutal with the exposed steel backstrap. The new RHs come with Ruger/Hogue grips which cover the backstrap with rubber and are more comfortable. The SRH always came with rubber grips and are marginally more comfortable in recoil than the RH Hogues.

My RHs and SRHs fit the same holsters, though the SRH is significantly tighter and will eventually make a holster stretch out to where the RH fits loosely.

Lost Sheep

CraigC
March 9, 2013, 08:20 PM
Seems to be some misconceptions here.

They're not the same gun. The Redhawk is based on the Security Six design and is basically just an enlarged version. Same for the Super and GP. Despite common perception, the Super Redhawk is not bigger and bulkier than the Redhawk. The frames are nearly identical in size, the cylinders are interchangeable and the weight is comparable. The only significant difference in this regard is the frame extension and the grip stud on the Super. This puts a little more weight forward on the SRH but overall, the weights are comparable. Due to the larger holes, a .480 SRH is actually an ounce or two lighter than a comparable Redhawk or even a Bisley Hunter in .44Mag. In comparable chamberings, there is no strength difference between the two. The .454's and .480's are stronger due to better materials. I find the original style rubber grips on the SRH to be more comfortable by far than anything you can ever put on a Redhawk.

jstein650
March 10, 2013, 05:29 AM
BRIEF:

Ruger Super RedHawk = UGLY and crazy strong.
Ruger RedHawk = PRETTY and crazy strong.


I'll take the RH in .44Mag and not think twice. If I do, I'll know my gun is one handsome beast before I touch off the load...

SullyVols
March 10, 2013, 09:52 AM
Just to be clear I already own a 629 but it has some warranty work that needs to be done to it - I like the balance and trigger.

I just want to have two revolvers in the .44 magnum. Choices are a Model 29 (pinned). Colt Anaconda. Ruger RH and SRH. and... How about a single action revovler? The Ruger Blackhawk Hunter in 7.5" has my attention.

skidder
March 10, 2013, 01:30 PM
The Redhawk is in a class all its own. It has the triple-locking cylinder of the GP/SRH, but the grip frame of the Security Six.

The Redhawk incorporates a single spring design that works off a lever and hook system in the grip frame. There is no separate trigger return spring like the Security Six, GP, SP, and SRH. The hammer sports a swiveling hook that attaches to the lever in the grip frame.

Some don't like this design, but I do. Out of my 6 Ruger DA's my Redhawk has the smoothest and lightest trigger pull.

Here are some pics of my Redhawk taken down.


http://i1212.photobucket.com/albums/cc456/exlogger/Redhawk/RedhawkGripFrame_zps8e13e1cf.jpg

http://i1212.photobucket.com/albums/cc456/exlogger/Redhawk/RedAction_zpsff9c4297.jpg

Steve in PA
March 11, 2013, 08:57 AM
Sorry, but in my opinion, anyone who thinks the SRH is ugly......needs their head or eyes examined! LOL!

I own a SRH and a SBH, but I do most of my hunting with a scoped SRH. The few times I do hunt with a rifle, I carry the SBH. However, the SRH is my favorite handgun to shoot, by far!

I have no experience with the regular Redhawk.

SRH
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d159/Steve_in_PA/Guns/20111128072854.jpg

SBH
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d159/Steve_in_PA/Guns/20120107141135.jpg

msjayhawk
February 21, 2014, 11:22 PM
I am liking my new one, SRH 9.5" with a 2-6x on to in .44mag...

Jaymo
February 22, 2014, 12:28 AM
20/20 vision, and the SRH is butt-ugly.

It's also no heavier than the RH.
The frame is a little beefier, but the grip frame is just a stump.
6 of one.
Either one can handle the hottest .44 mag loads.
In other words, they can handle real .44 mag loads, not the glorified .44
Special loads the factories load now.
The .44 "mag" ammo that current Smith N frames can handle isn't really .44 mag.

Nothing against Smiths. I love them. Great guns. Some of the nicest revolvers you're likely to find.
BUT, the N frame is not well suited to real .44 mag ammo.

eldon519
February 22, 2014, 01:26 AM
The RH trigger is probably the worst off the Ruger triggers that I have experienced. Maybe it is equal to an SP101, but definitely worse than the GP100 I own or the two SRHs I have owned. I have never taken a postal scale to them, but Ruger always listed the plain Redhawk as heavier than the Super Redhawk for comparable barrel lengths. I prefer the looks of the Redhawk, but the one I owned is the least favorite of all the revolvers I have ever owned.

msjayhawk
February 22, 2014, 01:42 AM
Eldon... The one I got has a really easy pull on double action, and you can feel the second you hit full cylinder and almost go into a single action mode. I know exactly when the trigger will break in single and double, and if feels super smooth. No drag or rough feeling like I get on some of my guns, before I break out the diamond polish and smooth them out.

TennJed
February 22, 2014, 01:46 AM
Seems to be some misconceptions here.

They're not the same gun. The Redhawk is based on the Security Six design and is basically just an enlarged version. .

Yep and here is a visual. My babies. Redhawk 45 colt and Security Six with stag grips

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3791/9472744349_fc61087347_z.jpg

Desertrat357
February 22, 2014, 02:20 AM
TennJed,
Did you order those stag grips direct from Ruger? And if so how much did they cost? I want a set for my 4" Redhawk. I know it will never happen, but I would love to see a Redhawk chambered for 480 Ruger!

TennJed
February 22, 2014, 02:29 AM
TennJed,
Did you order those stag grips direct from Ruger? And if so how much did they cost? I want a set for my 4" Redhawk. I know it will never happen, but I would love to see a Redhawk chambered for 480 Ruger!
No Ruger doesn't sell real stag. I got them from Grasshorn Gunworks. Here is a link to his websight. Looks like the current prices are $175 ($195 w/ medallion) for Redhawk and $145 ($165) for Security Six. Top of the line quality.

http://www.grashornsgunworks.com/

Desertrat357
February 22, 2014, 08:01 AM
Thanks, I love how those look!

CraigC
February 22, 2014, 10:37 AM
They grow on you, as does a 425gr at 1200fps. ;)

http://photos.imageevent.com/newfrontier45/sixgunsiv/large/IMG_2766b.jpg

red rick
February 22, 2014, 11:04 AM
I have always heard that the S&W trigger is better and in most cases ( except j frames ) it has been in the few Rugers that I have handled .

I just bought a Redhawk and was pleasantly surprised with how good the trigger felt , very comparable to my 686 -3 . I bought this Redhawk used , so it might of had some trigger work done to it , but I doubt it . The original owner bought it new Feb. 2013 from our LGS .

Rick R
February 22, 2014, 12:05 PM
The photo of the revolvers with stag grips makes me wonder if there's a Security / Redhawk vs GP / SRH bias among us. I like my Security Six and Redhawk, not thrilled with the SRH or GP even though I've fired them and they're very good designs. I think the newer S&W N frames are stronger than they're given credit for but not nearly as strong as either Redhawk. I like the actions better on the N frames but can shoot the Redhawk equally well.

You just have to make your own choice and remember that you're not married to it for life. :)

Lost Sheep
February 23, 2014, 04:58 AM
Are they both comparable to the GP100?

I've heard that the 'Ruger Redhawk' is built on an older action set up than the GP100 - so I'm wondering how they compare to each other and the equivalent S&W (29 or 629).

All thoughts and experiences welcome.
The two guns are entirely different on the inside.

Redhawk has a single coil spring design (Mainspring and trigger return) which is unique among guns.

The GP100 and Super Redhawk share a very similar design using two separate coil springs for trigger return and mainspring.

Which gun is more reiable or easier to tune or having a superior trigger pull by design is open to question.

The Redhawk has a full crip frame. The Super Redhawk has a post, allowing a wider range of grip shapes. The GP100 and SRH grips are interchangeable between the two guns.

I know of at least one person who interchanged the cylinders between the two guns (creating a 454 Casull Redhawk from a SRH cylinder and a RH frame) and claiming that no gunsmithing was required.

My SRH fits the same holsters that my RH does, but goes in and out a little tighter.

Popular tales have the SRH frame being developed because of some failures in the RH barrels. So the extended frame was developed . Ultimately, the failures were determined to be due to a lubrication problem when installing the barrels in the RH frame. But they have kept the SRH frame despite the extended front end being unnecessary. This is the tale I have heard.

Lost Sheep

Peter M. Eick
February 23, 2014, 12:07 PM
http://eickpm.com/picts/redhawk_vs_pre27.jpg

Here is a comparison of the Redhawk to an N frame (both in 357 magnum). It is pretty obvious that the Redhawk is in a different league then the N Frame.

They are tanks and weigh a lot but are fun to shot.

98Redline
February 23, 2014, 01:07 PM
I have one of each RH and SRH.

From a looks standpoint, I like the lines of the traditional RH much better.
From an accuracy standpoint, the SRH is significantly better.

If I were to have to choose between the two, I would pick the SRH. As someone posted earlier, form follows function and there is no denying the accuracy of the SRH platform.

If you happen to have a ton of extra cash lying around, you can get the best of both worlds with the Bowen GP-44 conversion.

http://www.bowenclassicarms.com/image/workshop/The_Real_Super_Redhawk.jpg

To the poster above me, it isn't really a fair to compare a .357 RH to any other revolver. The .357 Redhawk is probably the most overbuilt revolver ever produced. Because the cylinder is the same size as the one used for .44mag, those tiny little .357 chambers leave lots of meat in the surrounding metal.
That RH is capable of withstanding loads that would turn any other .357 into scrap and make the TC Encore guys flinch.

Peter M. Eick
February 23, 2014, 05:46 PM
But isn't a 629/29 still just an N frame? How is that any different then my Pre-27 I showed in the picture?

I thought (maybe incorrectly) that an N frame cylinder was the same size regardless of caliber.

Thus my picture I thought was reasonable. It shows the relative size of the guns for the same caliber and for the question he was asking about the N frame 29 vs. a Redhawk.

If you enjoyed reading about "Ruger Redhawk vs. Ruger Super Redhawk" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!