Redhawk, or Super Redhawk?

Chambered in .44 Mag or .45 Colt, which do you prefer?

  • Redhawk

    Votes: 35 50.0%

  • Super Redhawk

    Votes: 35 50.0%
  • Total voters
    70
Status
Not open for further replies.
WrongHanded

WrongHanded

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2017
Messages
4,771
Two heavily built revolvers with some big design differences. Both are capable of safely handling .44 mag +P or 'Ruger Only' .45 Colt loads.

But they feel different, look different, and internally work differently. So which do you prefer and why?
 
I voted SRH. Because although I don't own one and have now modified my Redhawk enough that I'm happy with its ergonomics and function, I think that would have been much easier to achieve with a SRH. I also think the SRH is capable of a much better SA trigger, and some can have optics mounted without disruption to the iron sights, which I count as a big plus.
 
I have a Redhawk, with 7.5 barrel. It shoots well, and I like the looks better than the SRH. I'm happy with my hits out to 50 yards, without a scope, but limited shooting with my friends SRH suggests I could eke out a bit more accuracy with that model.

So despite the fact that I wouldn't trade my RH, I voted SRH because of what I see as better grip options and the somewhat better trigger. I guess I just need to get one of those, but in .454.
 
I was 16yrs old in 1990 when I got my first big bore handgun, a .44Mag Redhawk. Spent the next 10yrs shooting the Redhawk. Even shot some bowling pin matches with it while still in my teens. Never could get along with the factory grip very well and all the aftermarket rubber stuff was no good. When I discovered the Bisley, the Redhawk went away. Then I got my .480 SRH in 2005 and found it to be so much more comfortable to shoot than the old Redhawk ever was. Even with much heavier loads. Not to mention much easier to scope. Now I've got .44 and .454 versions, all mounted with UltraDots. They are my first choice for a scoped hunting revolver.

IMG_0071b.jpg
 
I have the 7.5" barrel Super Redhawk, I use it Single Action most of the time though. But I wanted to have the DA capability for the times I use it.
 
A capable gunsmith can make the SRH trigger better than he can the RH trigger. The amount of work it takes to make the SRH reasonably attractive, though, is considerable - I personally think the stock version is Nagant-level ugly.

So in a no-holds-barred custom by a top revolversmith, I will take a thoroughly worked-over SRH. In a stock or mildly modified gun, the I will put up with the RH trigger just to avoid being seen with a Super Redhawk!
 
CraigC said:
When you learn to appreciate the positives, you look beyond the ugly. I used to think they were ugly but eventually learned that I was just looking at them wrong. ;)
Click to expand...

Those who love Rugers have learned to see the gun's soul and admire the outward appearance as a result.

It takes some boxy lines and thick top straps to contain this soul I speak of.
 
I chose redhawk because of the 20 years I have into mine. It has seen so many adventures it is practically part of the family. But I now can fully appreciate the value in the SRH, and I am looking for one in 454 or 480 if the price is right. I have never had a handgun with optics other than target 22s, so eventually a SRH will come home and get a 2x scope on top. Just a matter of time...
 
For my hands, the original-pattern GP100 grip is the nest handgun grip I have ever used. This same grip fits the SRH, so, that is how I “voted.”

I had a .41 Mag Redhawk, in the Nineties. Nice enough gun, but the grip was not really good for my hands.

Obviously, this is an individual thing. One should select the weapon, based upon one’s own hand fit and experience.
 
I've had 2 SRHs , have one left. Didn't have a use for the 9" 44 mag after I got a 5" 454 & a single action also in 454 with a 10" barrel.
Bit I like the looks of the SRH , it reminds me of industrial equipment and just looks strong. The ability to add optics without any modifications is great and I like the margin of safety that exists. As a handloaders errors can happen and if you're on the ragged edge of pressure max the SRH inspires confidence.
My 5" came with a decent sa trigger out of the box, and has gotten better. Da is heavy but very useable.
An added bonus is that they're easy to completely strip too, not sure if the redhawk is that way too.
I like the 45acp/lc redhawk and will likely get one at some point.
 
Obturation said:
An added bonus is that they're easy to completely strip too, not sure if the redhawk is that way too.
Click to expand...

It is. The only major difference I'm aware of is that whilst the SRH (like the GP100) has a hammer spring and separate trigger return spring, in the Redhawk it's one spring that does both jobs.

It means that only one spring is being compressed for a DA trigger pull, which makes for a good DA trigger. But it also means that in SA mode, when the hammer is back all that spring tension is also put on the trigger. Therefore, when the trigger is pulled in SA mode, you have to overcome all the spring tension from the hammer being cocked. Which is quite a lot.

I had put a reduced spring in it, and after light strikes in DA with a 12# spring, settled on a 13#. Months later, that 13# took a set. Although SA still functioned flawlessly, DA was not 100%. I could have upped to the 14# in the spring kit, but opted to just put the original back in. The SA trigger is now very heavy (again), but the DA is good and smooth and reliable. As I don't intend to hunt with this gun now and carry it only for woods defense, the DA trigger is more than good enough.
 
.38 Special said:
A capable gunsmith can make the SRH trigger better than he can the RH trigger. The amount of work it takes to make the SRH reasonably attractive, though, is considerable - I personally think the stock version is Nagant-level ugly.

So in a no-holds-barred custom by a top revolversmith, I will take a thoroughly worked-over SRH. In a stock or mildly modified gun, the I will put up with the RH trigger just to avoid being seen with a Super Redhawk!
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly.

I don’t own any Rugers, but if I were ever to buy a DA Ruger, it would be a Redhawk in .44 Mag. I’ve shot stock RHs and SRHs, and I don’t recall a great difference in trigger quality between these unmodified guns — none were anything special. Since I leave my wheelguns stock, the SRH’s extra potential would be wasted on me. The SRH is no stronger than the RH, and I can’t abide the SRH’s looks, so the Redhawk it would be.
 
A comment on grips: I have only used my redhawk with the Hogue rubber grip, which fits my hand like it was made for my hand specifically. My opinion would probably be much different if I had wood grips. On the other hand, the SRH has LOTS of aftermarket availability and designs so finding a grip that works for you is easier...
 
I put a hogue grip and a weigatinny rail mounted red dot on my Redhawk. I really like it for fast double action 44 shots.
 
Olon said:
Those who love Rugers have learned to see the gun's soul and admire the outward appearance as a result.

It takes some boxy lines and thick top straps to contain this soul I speak of.
Click to expand...

That it certainly does!!
 
I just couldn't get along with Hogue or Pachmayr rubbers and those were the days before I had an aversion to rubber grips. Too narrow left to right and too long front to back. For me, the factory rubber/insert grips on the SRH are just much more comfortable. My .44 SRH is on its way home with a fresh set of burl wood grips as we speak.
 
Ostensibly the same gun....the frame extension and the grip frame being the only difference.
Click to expand...
The SRH is basically a scaled up GP100. The Redhawk is a different design. Similar in some ways, admittedly, but pretty different in other ways. The lockwork is not the same even though there are some general similarities. The SRH gives a little more leeway in terms of smoothing the action, but obviously the demand for the Redhawk has stayed strong enough to keep it in production even though the SRH has been around for decades now.

I have an SRH, and even though I like it and it shoots well, it is an ugly gun. I have owned it for years, but I still don't care for the look of the round barrel in the square frame extension.
 
WrongHanded said:
Not quite Max. As I mentioned up thread, the different trigger spring and hammer spring setup makes for very different trigger quality potential.
Click to expand...

Reread what I said - grip (as in grip frame) and frame extension. Maybe I wasn’t clear. All other dimensions and construction are the same.

Ruger took the Redhawk, replaced the grip frame with the GP100’s, and added the frame extension so that optics could be mounted on the frame instead of the barrel via the supplied rings.

Some folks don’t like the looks, but from a pure functionality standpoint, they’re GREAT revolvers, particularly in the field. If you’re optic goes out, two screws later and your irons are there ready to go.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Redhawk?
Replies
16
Views
2K
Spoonman
S
K
  • Locked
Redhawk or Super Redhawk for 4" conversion?
Replies
17
Views
5K
jaybar
J
whatnickname
  • Locked
Ruger Redhawk .45 ACP / .45 Colt
Replies
18
Views
4K
huntsman
huntsman
Fatelvis
  • Locked
Differences between Redhawk and Super Redhawk
Replies
10
Views
2K
Marshall
M
K
  • Locked
Called Ruger (.45 Colt Redhawk)
Replies
9
Views
1K
BlkHawk73
B
Back
Top