.357 Magnum vs .45 Colt

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mr. Mosin said:
How is the Ruger Redhawk *not* a combat handgun ? Someone, please explain this to me.
Click to expand...
To big and heavy. A "modern" combat revolver is classically thought of as a revolver similar to a S&W K or L frame (ie Model 10 or 686) or a Colt D or E frame ( ie Police Positive, Python) with an 4-inch barrel (give or take an inch or so) Big enough and long enough to let 38/357 Mag do its thing, sight radius long enough to be accurate and yet still compact and light enough to ride in a duty rig all day with out causing back problems or issues sitting in a vehicle..

That said the S&W model 27/28 was for many the ultimate combat revolver despite being an N-frame and nearly as large and heavy as a Redhawk.
 
Mr. Mosin said:
I believe I've decided (based on cartridge) on the .45 Colt. However, I'm still gonna try to handle both the round butt and square butt Redhawk,and a GP100.
Click to expand...
There may be a square butt languishing in some gun shop, but Ruger's site only lists the round butt still available in a 45 Colt Redhawk. If into high power loads, you might look at the Super Redhawk 5" 454 Casull that allows 45 Colt. They show it, but it may not actually be obtainable now. The square butt is 357, 41, and 44 Magnums. I am shooting the discontinued 5.5" Redhawk square butt in 45 Colt. The shorter square butt I used to have was 4.25". I didn't think it balanced well at that length, and it looked like a little bulldog, same look as the 41 mag that is still shown on the Ruger site. I stayed with that style grip though.
 
Last edited:
Besides the size and weight, it has to do with the internal action mechanism. The Redhawk and SRH have a heavy double-action trigger and yet they still have a slow trigger reset. The wikipedia article for the Redhawk explains, "The revolvers also used a single spring for both the hammer and the trigger, and this meant that the force required to pull the trigger was higher than similar offerings from other manufacturers, and there was no way to adjust or correct this as it was inherent in the single-spring design." A rapid string of fire is not reliably practical. It's too easy to over-run the trigger. Maybe that has nothing to do with "real world combat" but since nobody seems to be able to define what's actually needed for "combat" we just have popular consensus to go by. Will a Redhawk stop a mugger? Probably. But it is not a reasonable option for IPSC, IDPA, or USPSA, which are more or less intended to test practical shooting. Certainly, it's not combat, but it is intended to have a measure of relevance to gunfighting. We can also look at police-issue. Redhawks were never intended for and were never used for duty.

The Super GP-100 gives us a revelation. What Ruger did was to put the GP-100 action mechanism into a Redhawk-size frame:



The Super GP100 is only available in 8-shot 357, but the same action is available in 6 and 7 shot GP100's in 327, 357, 40, 10mm, 44 Special etc. If Ruger offered the Super GP100 in 44 Magnum or 45LC/ACP, then they would have something really comparable to the Model 29/629 and 25/625 etc. But the market for "combat" 44's and 45's is limited. People shooting combat-style competition are mostly using 357 and 9mm and people carrying are mostly carrying .38/357 or a pistol (9mm etc.).

Again, I'm not trying to sell a cartridge. I just want you to be aware of the difference with a Redhawk action. Good actions are available in 44 or 45, but I'd recommend a 44 Special GP100 or a S&W Magnum or Long Colt, ACP etc. Ruger really offers their best options in 357 Magnum.

There's something else about Redhawks and SRH. It's sort of trivia at this point. There was a time when Ruger was using a chlorinated solvent or lubricant or cutting compound or something on the barrel threads of Redhawks. Apparently it embrittled the barrel, and the barrels would break off. While they were yet unaware of the cause, they designed the SRH frame with the massive lug for the barrel extending all the way to the front of the ejection rod. Then they identified the cause of the barrels breaking and stopped using that fluid. The SRH was already finished, so they went forward with it and the huge frame lug. Of course, another difference is the stem grip frame instead of the surround grip frame.
 
Gimme a break. Weight must be FAR more about perception and less about actual facts. The 4" Redhawk is a mere 4oz heavier than a 4" 686 or a loaded Glock 20, TWO OUNCES heavier than a 4" model 28 or all steel 5" 1911. So please, let us not speak of the Redhawk as if it's an X-frame. No, it wouldn't be the first choice of most for a combat revolver, whatever that is but if you think you couldn't properly defend yourself with one, stick to pepper spray and 911.

Labnoti, the Super Redhawk and GP share the same two-spring action. So the GP action has been in a Redhawk sized from for over 30yrs. The Super GP100 is not a GP at all but actually a Super Redhawk with a Redhawk style barrel.
 
All right, settle down. Let's not get our underwear all knotted up. If memory serves me, the Redhawk came along *after* the Golden Age of Revolvers- it never had a chance to be widely issued (or issued in general) for duty use. A S&W M29 Classic weighs in at 47.7 oz, 3.7 oz *heavier* than the Redhawk in .45 Colt. If *I* had the choice between the two ? Kick Dirty Harry to the curb and go with the Ruger.
 
Mr. Mosin said:
All right, settle down. Let's not get our underwear all knotted up. If memory serves me, the Redhawk came along *after* the Golden Age of Revolvers- it never had a chance to be widely issued (or issued in general) for duty use. A S&W M29 Classic weighs in at 47.7 oz, 3.7 oz *heavier* than the Redhawk in .45 Colt. If *I* had the choice between the two ? Kick Dirty Harry to the curb and go with the Ruger.
Click to expand...

Dirty Harry was a detective and his carry of a Model 29 was a personal choice, though not unheard for detectives of was far from a commonly issue rank and file duty weapon. Would it not be more fair to compare a 357 Mag Redhawk similarly configured to one of if the the larger revolver commonly issued to LEO? From the golden age of combat revolvers the Highway Patrolman (model 28) and the model 27 are certainly considered "combat revolvers" and were popular with LEO but were also the largest/heaviest of the commonly issue service revolvers. If we were to compare that to a comparably Redhawk would it not be better to compare it to the 357 Mag Redhawk (Model # 5059) The Model 27/28 with a 4- inch barrel partial under-lug and wood stocks weighed in @ roughly 41-42oz depending on the grips. The 5059 Ruger Redhawk in 357 Mag is an 4.2 inch partial under-lug barrel and weighs ~49 oz. Yes the barrel is .2 inch longer adding weight but the Ruger is an 8-shot and the 27/28 is/was only a six shot so the cylinder has two more chamber making it lighter somewhat though it does lack flutes. The S&W N-frame cylinder diameter is ~1.55 where the Redhawk is ~1.78. So compared to a "certifiable" large "combat revolver" the Redhawk is a bit heavier (nearly 1/2 pound, on your belt all day every day, "ounces equal pounds and pounds equal pain" as it were) and a bit more bulk if the cylinder diameter is any indication.

So had it been introduced during this age of the service revolver it might have been used but it would have been the biggest and heaviest of the options commonly in use especially when we realize that a lot of departments were still issuing K-frames and Colt equivalents in 38 special (and some in 357 Mag) that weighed only 34 oz with the 4-inch heavy barrel model 10/13 and less with the old tapered barrels. These revolver were slimmer and lighter and rode belt-duty much nicer. Having carried both larger N-frames on my belt all day and my K-frame on a belt all day that weight difference is noticeable at the end of the day. IMHO The L-frame and equivalent Colt (Python and similar) really did represent the combat revolver the best with a nice balance between these two extreme sizes and had the best balance between all day carry and shootablility .

Ruger certain has made "combat revolvers" I think the GP100 and the older Security-Six and its variants, the Service-Six and Speed-Six are combat revolvers that saw a fair amount of use in LEO type applications. The Redhawk is just too big for most to consider it a "combat revolver" in that classic LEO context many associate with the term "combat revolver" -rambling...
 
Ah. An LEO isn't handloading, and honestly probably isn't shooting that much, so there's really no need for something built as tank-like as a Ruger ? I'd personally love a Mdl 13 myself, though I think it has the same issue as the Mdl 19 (K-frame won't tolerate steady diet of .357 Mag, or something like that)
 
Mr. Mosin said:
Ah. An LEO isn't handloading, and honestly probably isn't shooting that much, so there's really no need for something built as tank-like as a Ruger ? I'd personally love a Mdl 13 myself, though I think it has the same issue as the Mdl 19 (K-frame won't tolerate steady diet of .357 Mag, or something like that)
Click to expand...
The new model 19's and 66's have an extra ball detent lock up and a beefier forcing cones than the old ones did. They switched to a two piece/ shrouded barrel. And you have a life time warranty. So chances are you won't be shooting it loose with today's standard 158gr 357's. They are no where near as hot as the old days of 158gr at 1500gps. Even though it was 125gr 357 loads was supposedly causing the issues. If you're looking for a nice to carry, and good shooter the model 19 or 66 fits your bill.
 
labnoti said:
Besides the size and weight, it has to do with the internal action mechanism. The Redhawk and SRH have a heavy double-action trigger and yet they still have a slow trigger reset. The wikipedia article for the Redhawk explains, "The revolvers also used a single spring for both the hammer and the trigger, and this meant that the force required to pull the trigger was higher than similar offerings from other manufacturers, and there was no way to adjust or correct this as it was inherent in the single-spring design." A rapid string of fire is not reliably practical. It's too easy to over-run the trigger. Maybe that has nothing to do with "real world combat" but since nobody seems to be able to define what's actually needed for "combat" we just have popular consensus to go by. Will a Redhawk stop a mugger? Probably. But it is not a reasonable option for IPSC, IDPA, or USPSA, which are more or less intended to test practical shooting. Certainly, it's not combat, but it is intended to have a measure of relevance to gunfighting. We can also look at police-issue. Redhawks were never intended for and were never used for duty.

The Super GP-100 gives us a revelation. What Ruger did was to put the GP-100 action mechanism into a Redhawk-size frame:



The Super GP100 is only available in 8-shot 357, but the same action is available in 6 and 7 shot GP100's in 327, 357, 40, 10mm, 44 Special etc. If Ruger offered the Super GP100 in 44 Magnum or 45LC/ACP, then they would have something really comparable to the Model 29/629 and 25/625 etc. But the market for "combat" 44's and 45's is limited. People shooting combat-style competition are mostly using 357 and 9mm and people carrying are mostly carrying .38/357 or a pistol (9mm etc.).

Again, I'm not trying to sell a cartridge. I just want you to be aware of the difference with a Redhawk action. Good actions are available in 44 or 45, but I'd recommend a 44 Special GP100 or a S&W Magnum or Long Colt, ACP etc. Ruger really offers their best options in 357 Magnum.

There's something else about Redhawks and SRH. It's sort of trivia at this point. There was a time when Ruger was using a chlorinated solvent or lubricant or cutting compound or something on the barrel threads of Redhawks. Apparently it embrittled the barrel, and the barrels would break off. While they were yet unaware of the cause, they designed the SRH frame with the massive lug for the barrel extending all the way to the front of the ejection rod. Then they identified the cause of the barrels breaking and stopped using that fluid. The SRH was already finished, so they went forward with it and the huge frame lug. Of course, another difference is the stem grip frame instead of the surround grip frame.
Click to expand...

Awesome! It is only a matter of time until this hybrid platform displaces current guns, both the Redhawk and the Super Redhawk in big bore calibers with fewer rounds, either in the regular line or distributor exclusives. I don't relate to a 357 Magnum competition gun, but a 45 Colt, 41 Magnum, and 44 Magnum would be really interesting. The current guns are hard to love for various reasons, but this new concept could create a strong following. I can shoot my Redhawk, but it is a skill all its own because of the spring.
 
RealGun said:
Awesome! It is only a matter of time until this hybrid platform displaces current guns, both the Redhawk and the Super Redhawk in big bore calibers with fewer rounds, either in the regular line or distributor exclusives. I don't relate to a 357 Magnum competition gun, but a 45 Colt, 41 Magnum, and 44 Magnum would be really interesting. The current guns are hard to love for various reasons, but this new concept could create a strong following. I can shoot my Redhawk, but it is a skill all its own because of the spring.
Click to expand...

I *personally* want Ruger to release something like the S&W Mdl 10 or 13. Six shot, .38 Spl/.357 Mag, 4 inch barrel, fixed sights, with either a round butt or square butt (like what the Redhawk has now).
 
Mr. Mosin said:
I *personally* want Ruger to release something like the S&W Mdl 10 or 13. Six shot, .38 Spl/.357 Mag, 4 inch barrel, fixed sights, with either a round butt or square butt (like what the Redhawk has now).
Click to expand...
Sound like you're describing a security/speed/service six
img_6947.jpg
 
Last edited:
Good luck finding one of these in decent shape anymore. The Speed Six and Security Six are pretty much the only Ruger DAs I've ever liked, but it seems as though the owners of these are hanging on to 'em for dear life. And if you see one in the used case of your LGS, the dealers look to be seeking premium prices ...
 
Old Dog said:
Good luck finding one of these in decent shape anymore. The Speed Six and Security Six are pretty much the only Ruger DAs I've ever liked, but it seems as though the owners of these are hanging on to 'em for dear life. And if you see one in the used case of your LGS, the dealers look to be seeking premium prices ...
Click to expand...

What, are they just *that* well made ?
 
Yep. One employer I worked for issued the Service Six before the autopistol transition; these things were incredibly durable. Service Six and Speed Six have fixed sights, the Security Six adustable. Allegedly, there were complaints that the Six series were like the S&W K-frame .357s, wore out too quick with a steady diet of full-house magnum load, hence the advent of the beefed-up, clunky GP-100.

Good luck if you're looking for a Security Six (the .357) in good shape; I haven't seen one for sale in forever.
 
Old Dog said:
Yep. One employer I worked for issued the Service Six before the autopistol transition; these things were incredibly durable. Service Six and Speed Six have fixed sights, the Security Six adustable. Allegedly, there were complaints that the Six series were like the S&W K-frame .357s, wore out too quick with a steady diet of full-house magnum load, hence the advent of the beefed-up, clunky GP-100.

Good luck if you're looking for a Security Six (the .357) in good shape; I haven't seen one for sale in forever.
Click to expand...
There's always a few listed on gun broker. Sometimes you get lucky and find them at a LGS or armslist, but not very often
 
Mr. Mosin said:
Oh. Didn't know Ruger made something to that effect.
Click to expand...
They stopped and replaced them with the gp100 and sp101, Ruger no longer repairs them. But they usually don't need that service. Not as strong as the GP/SP but they are a very nice handling gun. IIRC the only have two points of lock up vs the 3 points rugers newer stuff uses.
 
Old Dog said:
Good luck finding one of these in decent shape anymore. The Speed Six and Security Six are pretty much the only Ruger DAs I've ever liked, but it seems as though the owners of these are hanging on to 'em for dear life. And if you see one in the used case of your LGS, the dealers look to be seeking premium prices ...
Click to expand...
Probably nothing compared to a Security Six chambered in .38-200, with a lanyard ring....
 
Old Dog said:
Yep. One employer I worked for issued the Service Six before the autopistol transition; these things were incredibly durable. Service Six and Speed Six have fixed sights, the Security Six adustable. Allegedly, there were complaints that the Six series were like the S&W K-frame .357s, wore out too quick with a steady diet of full-house magnum load, hence the advent of the beefed-up, clunky GP-100.

Good luck if you're looking for a Security Six (the .357) in good shape; I haven't seen one for sale in forever.
Click to expand...

After the Newhall incident, police were compelled to train and practice with the rounds they carried for duty and not lighter loads. For agencies that carried .357 Magnum, that meant a lot higher volume of magnum rounds through their guns. This is when the issue with the K frame Magnum came to light. Was it a real issue? Did the Speed/Security/Service Six Rugers have similar problems? Are the old guns still vulnerable? I have doubts the problem is meaningful to people today. If I was responsible for a population of revolvers the size of NYPD or LAPD, then maybe. Whether the problem was real or perceived, S&W's solution was the L frame. Ruger simply responded to market demand with the GP100. The "Six" series action is preserved in the LCR series, but unfortunately, the 21 oz, 3", 5-shot, .357 Magnum is the largest LCR they make.

A few years ago, S&W introduced a new K frame model 66 and 19. These guns use a crane detent on the yoke instead of the ejector rod as the forward cylinder lock point. Because of this, the ejector rod can be thinner. Therefore, there is room for a full-diameter forcing cone and barrel face and there is no flat machined on the bottom of the barrel for clearance. The GP100 is similar. The Dan Wesson also used a yoke detent, but it was first used by the S&W "Triple Lock" .44 Hand Ejector 1st Model New Century, which used both the forward ejector rod and a yoke detent in belt-and-suspenders fashion.
 
There’s something else about Redhawks and SRH. It's sort of trivia at this point. There was a time when Ruger was using a chlorinated solvent or lubricant or cutting compound or something on the barrel threads of Redhawks. Apparently it embrittled the barrel, and the barrels would break off. While they were yet unaware of the cause, they designed the SRH frame with the massive lug for the barrel extending all the way to the front of the ejection rod. Then they identified the cause of the barrels breaking and stopped using that fluid. The SRH was already finished, so they went forward with it and the huge frame lug. Of course, another difference is the stem grip frame instead of the surround grip frame.
Click to expand...


May I ask from where you gleaned that bit of “trivia?”
 
CraigC said:
Gimme a break. Weight must be FAR more about perception and less about actual facts. The 4" Redhawk is a mere 4oz heavier than a 4" 686 or a loaded Glock 20, TWO OUNCES heavier than a 4" model 28 or all steel 5" 1911. So please, let us not speak of the Redhawk as if it's an X-frame. No, it wouldn't be the first choice of most for a combat revolver, whatever that is but if you think you couldn't properly defend yourself with one, stick to pepper spray and 911.

Labnoti, the Super Redhawk and GP share the same two-spring action. So the GP action has been in a Redhawk sized from for over 30yrs. The Super GP100 is not a GP at all but actually a Super Redhawk with a Redhawk style barrel.
Click to expand...
Or is it a Redhawk with a GP100 action, or Super Redhawk action, if you will? The Super Redhawk is superficially defined by its ugly frame extension over the barrel, better looking trimmed down to an Alaskan. This new gun is classy looking as a marriage of a Redhawk with either a GP100 or a Super Redhawk, depending on how much one wants to argue.
 
RealGun said:
Or is it a Redhawk with a GP100 action, or Super Redhawk action, if you will? The Super Redhawk is superficially defined by its ugly frame extension over the barrel, better looking trimmed down to an Alaskan. This new gun is classy looking as a marriage of a Redhawk with either a GP100 or a Super Redhawk, depending on how much one wants to argue.
Click to expand...

All it is the super redhawk with the frame extension removed and a shrouded barrel installed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
.45 Schofield vs. .45 Colt same diameter, but shorter?
Replies
3
Views
2K
owlhoot
O
P
  • Locked
.357 Magnum vs. .45ACP...in a revolver?
Replies
21
Views
3K
priv8ter
P
H
  • Locked
45 colt vs 44 spcl
2 3 4
Replies
89
Views
7K
sig220mw
S
B
  • Locked
357 vs 41 vs 454
Replies
13
Views
2K
YosemiteSam357
Y
R
  • Locked
.357 - Most Holy Magnum
2
Replies
28
Views
3K
AStone
A
Back
Top