Ruger Redhawk vs. Ruger Super Redhawk

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

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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??

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.

Texan Scott said:

The Super Blackhawk, being a dedicated single action, would be my choice for handgun hunting (if I were so inclined, but I'm not).

Click to expand...

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.

Texan Scott said:

The regular old Redhawk won't do anything the others won't. I see no reason for Ruger to keep making it.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Pictures worth a 1000 words?

GP100 and SRH

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

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.

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...

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.

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


SBH

I am liking my new one, SRH 9.5" with a 2-6x on to in .44mag...

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.

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.

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.

CraigC said:

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. .

Click to expand...

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