Redhawk 44 magnum barrel length

I want a 5.5. Badly

5.5 or longer if possible!

Longer would reduce recoil a bit...but I had a 7 inch or whatever the original length in 1982 was and it was too long to tote around in the woods. Now days, guys use a chest rig, which may be better. I prefer under 4.5 for hip carry.

But its been a long time since I toted a revolver and only carry Glock's, so what do I know? not much, obviously...

I have the redhawk with the 4.2" barrel.
It is fun to shoot, easy to carry on the hip and quite capable of shooting some heavy duty magnum rounds.
If you are going to stick with specials for home defense, I would go with the 4.2" barrel.

For your purpose I would go with 4.2" lighter/smaller for carry. If it was primarily for hunting and targets I would go with the 5.5"
Safe shooting!

For your purposes I would take the 4.2” as well.

I have a 5.5" and it's a lot of gun to tote around only to not shoot it. For your needs, I'd take a 4.2".

Easy answer. BOTH!

Like much else in life, barrel length is a personal preference. I prefer my Redhawk with a 5.5" barrel, although I have a 4" 629 Mtn gun. My SBH is also 5.5".

I have a 4" Redhawk chambered in 45 Colt. It would be a bit more convenient to carry than a 5.5" barrel version.

I like shooting my 6" S&W Model 25-5 (45 Colt). The longer barrel is easy to accommodate for longer range shooting. I've even pressed this 25-5 into shooting an IHMSA handgun match although hitting the 200 meter rams was an interesting exercise.

So, the choice of which barrel length when shooting 44 Special loads in a Redhawk chambered for 44 Magnum depends on what your carry plans are.

If I was hunting in the woods, I'd want a bit longer barrel. If I was looking for protection against 4 legged predators, a four inch barred version would be more convenient to handle.

I have a few Redhawks , a 4.2” 45 Colt, a blued 5.5” 44 magnum and a 7.5” 6 shot 357 and regardless of barrel length they are beefy revolvers.

With regards to that 1.3” difference in barrel length between to 4.2 and 5.5” versions, carry and performance wise it doesn’t make much difference.

Asthetically, I prefer the looks of the 5.5” version.

If you want a magnum revolver you can shoot for a hundred years you can’t go wrong with the Redhawk.

Gratuitous Redhawk pics:



5.5” Blued 44 magnum (Dates from 1984)



4.2” 45 Colt (Dates from 2008)



7.5” 357 Magnum (Dates from 1983)

My brother had a Redhawk with the 5.5" barrel and I really liked the way it handled and how well it balanced in my hand. Try both barrel lengths if you can and take it from there.

For a general purpose holster gun, definitely 4".

It's contrary to conventional wisdom but I also believe longer barrels increase recoil.

CraigC said:

It's contrary to conventional wisdom but I also believe longer barrels increase recoil.

Click to expand...

I tend to disagree. A Redhawk in 44 Mag with a 7.50 inch barrel weighs 54 oz, with a 5.50 inch barrel it's 49 oz, with a 4.20 inch barrel it's 47 oz and with a 2.75 inch barrel it's 44 oz. There's ten oz difference in weight between the 7.50 inch barrel and the 2.75 inch barrel. Are you telling me that the heavier longer barreled revolver is going to have more recoil than the one with a 2.75 inch barrel that weighs 10 oz lighter?

As was stated, the 4.2 will be a tad handier for your stated purposes.

As was also stated the RH is a brawny gun that’ll last you for generations with .44 Spl loads.

Stay safe.

Milt1 said:

I tend to disagree. A Redhawk in 44 Mag with a 7.50 inch barrel weighs 54 oz, with a 5.50 inch barrel it's 49 oz, with a 4.20 inch barrel it's 47 oz and with a 2.75 inch barrel it's 44 oz. There's ten oz difference in weight between the 7.50 inch barrel and the 2.75 inch barrel. Are you telling me that the heavier longer barreled revolver is going to have more recoil than the one with a 2.75 inch barrel that weighs 10 oz lighter?

Click to expand...

Yes. Longer barrels produce greater velocity and have more leverage against the wrist. Shorter barrels just have more muzzle blast and that makes people 'think' there's more recoil.

So you're saying that despite the greater than half a pound difference between the 7.50 barrel and the 2.75 barrel with the longer barrel being the heaviest. That the longer barreled and heaver revolver is going to have more recoil than the shorter barreled one?

I think I already said that. The velocity and leverage has a greater impact on felt recoil than the weight. Feel free to disagree but I came to this conclusion by comparing guns that were identical, save for barrel length.

I don't have a .44 magnum, but I have a calculator. According to "Ballistics By The Inch," the muzzle velocity of a 240 gr Cor-Bon JHP is 1095 fps from a 2 inch barrel and around 1470 fps for a 7.5 inch barrel.

Since energy is proportional to the square of the velocity, the energy of the 3 vs. the 7.5 is in the ratio of 1::1.8. The weights are in the ratio of 1::1.25. That means even allowing for the increased weight, there's like forty percent more energy to absorb with the longer barrel.

I am sure this ignores a lot of issues about how we feel recoil and the structure of the human arm and stuff, so take it for what it is--a first attempt to offer an actual number. I look forward to the people that actually know something about ballistics explaining how I have completely messed it up.

On another issue, I am enjoying all the comments about .44 magnums. I am giving some thought to getting one, and I was thinking the six inch looked way cooler. I have no serious large-animal concerns here in the middle of Minnesota, unless I am charged by a bull.

Thunderchicken said:

I don't have a .44 magnum, but I have a calculator. According to "Ballistics By The Inch," the muzzle velocity of a 240 gr Cor-Bon JHP is 1095 fps from a 2 inch barrel and around 1470 fps for a 7.5 inch barrel.

Since energy is proportional to the square of the velocity, the energy of the 3 vs. the 7.5 is in the ratio of 1::1.8. The weights are in the ratio of 1::1.25. That means even allowing for the increased weight, there's like forty percent more energy to absorb with the longer barrel.

I am sure this ignores a lot of issues about how we feel recoil and the structure of the human arm and stuff, so take it for what it is--a first attempt to offer an actual number. I look forward to the people that actually know something about ballistics explaining how I have completely messed it up.

On another issue, I am enjoying all the comments about .44 magnums. I am giving some thought to getting one, and I was thinking the six inch looked way cooler. I have no serious large-animal concerns here in the middle of Minnesota, unless I am charged by a bull.

Click to expand...

I'm a little surprised that the velocity is nearly 400 fps more with the 5 1/2" additional barrel length. I threw some numbers into a calculator online using 200 fps more velocity with ten ounces more weight. The recoil was almost identical.

I bought a Ruger Redhawk, 41 magnmum , with the 4.2" barrel s few years back. I changed the Hogue nylon grips for a set of older wood grips. I carry it in a chest holster. It is way too heavy to carry in a belt holster. A Redhawk is a big, heavy revolver any way you cut it. I will handle the heaviest loads with ease. I don't carry it much anymore. I have found there are revolvers, that are much lighter, that carry easier. I would suggest you look at other options available , that may suit your needs in an easier carrying and lighter revolver, unless you need super hot loads. After a few hours and a few miles of walking, a Redhawk gets heavy. I have found i can do everything I need to do with a lighter revolver and lighter loads. Mainly in .44 specials in a S&W 4" 624 or a 4 1\4" Freedom Arms model 97. The older I get, I find easier carrying and lighter recoil much better. When I was younger, I loved the heavy, hot stuff. I would look at other revolvers if carrying was my main need. I am not saying a Redhawk is not a good revolver. They will handle most anything one can stand to shoot through it and hold up for a couple lifetimes. They are rugged, well made revolvers, they are just on the heavy side. There are other options if heavy loads are not your main interest. If a Redhawk is what you want and need, get one. It will be a fine revolver. A set of Wolff springs and a bit of polishing will do wonders for the trigger. A 4.2" may be a bit easier to carry but the 5 .5" balances better and in a revolver that size 1.3" in barrel is not that big of a difference. Just look at at handle both before you buy and get which ever you like best.

Make and Model Barrel Length Ammunition Hi Lo Average Extreme Spread Barrel Cylinder Gap
S&W 629-4 Performance Center 7.5in Ported Ultramax Match 240gr Semi Wad Cutter 1186 1170 1181 16 0.006
Reloads 8.5grains of Universal/Winchester LP Primer 1084 1031 1059 53
Reloads 18.5grains of 2400 1333 1321 1325 12
Taurus M44 6in Ported Ultramax Match 240gr Semi Wad Cutter 1168 1155 1163 13 0.007
Reloads 8.5grains of Universal/Winchester LP Primer 1070 1059 1062 11
Reloads 18.5grains of 2400 1378 1352 1360 26
S&W 629-4 Performance Center 3in Power Port Ultramax Match 240gr Semi Wad Cutter 1070 1056 1064 14 0.006
Reloads 8.5grains of Universal/Winchester LP Primer 986 945 965 41
Reloads 18.5grains of 2400 1287 1275 1279 12
S&W 29-4 8.3/8in Ultramax Match 240gr Semi Wad Cutter 1158 1132 1146 26 0.006
Reloads 8.5grains of Universal/Winchester LP Primer 1021 1001 1012 20
Reloads 18.5grains of 2400 1284 1262 1273 22
S&W 629-8 Classic 6.5in Ultramax Match 240gr Semi Wad Cutter 1171 1165 1168 6 0.004
Reloads 8.5grains of Universal/Winchester LP Primer 1059 1032 1048 27
Reloads 18.5grains of 2400 1262 1236 1249 26
Ruger Redhawk 7.5in Ultramax Match 240gr Semi Wad Cutter 1199 1185 1191 14 0.006
Reloads 8.5grains of Universal/Winchester LP Primer 1098 1052 1073 46
Reloads 18.5grains of 2400 1340 1328 1331 12
S&W 629-6 Competitor 6in Ultramax Match 240gr Semi Wad Cutter 1150 1126 1137 24 0.005
Reloads 8.5grains of Universal/Winchester LP Primer 1034 995 1016 39
Reloads 18.5grains of 2400 1146 1130 1137 16
Winchester 94 Trapper 16in Ultramax Match 240gr Semi Wad Cutter 1329 1308 21
Reloads 8.5grains of Universal/Winchester LP Primer 1234 1178 56
Reloads 18.5grains of 2400 1563 1517 46


I am sorry team but I know this is hard to read there was no other way for me to post it I do not want to break rules and point you to a different website. Though I am passionate about this topic, plus it is fun. I have done barrel length testing against 8 different 44 magnums and what I found is barrel length really only plays a very small part in velocity. I tested reloads, factory in different barrel lengths. With my testing I seem to raise more questions than I got what I thought would be clear cut questions. What I have posted above is the data dump and some short barrels are turning in greater velocity than longer barrels. Ported barrels turning in greater velocity than non-ported. And yes I did record barrel to cylinder gap of each revolver.

I like the longer barrel, I have the 7.5" barrel with my Redhawk 44mag, not sure I'd want less than a 5.5". My Bisley 357 has a 5.5".