Smith & Wesson X-Frame vs Ruger Super Redhawk

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jan 18, 2022
Messages
56
This question builds on my last post, but strictly in your opinion, which frame design do you think is the most reliable and toughest? Obviously, they are designed for different calibers, but I guess the 454 can be the common denominator.

I know there won’t be a right answer; I’ve just never seen this topic discussed.
 
The X-frame starts at 70 ounces and the super redhawk starts at 50 ounces.

The super redhawk cannot accommodate 460 or 500 cartridges, so I'd say the one with 30% more steel and weight is stronger, that one being the X-frame.

You're comparing L-Frame to N-Frame though essentially...
 
I know there’s a big size difference, but I’ve also heard about X-frame barrels going bad early, cracks occurring, etc. I guess the same can happen to the SR frame.
 
Well defects are not the same as durability IMO, you keep sending em back to the mother ship until you get a good one.

I have a ruger super redhawk in 44 and look to buy one in 454 once I find one, I don't want an X-frame. If I scope an X-frame I need a sling, and would rather sling a rifle. I can barely handle a super redhawk off hand but I can. I see the X-frame as impractical and own super redhawks.

I would be expecting assistance at S&W's expense if I had issues with an X-frame, and I have no doubts of their quality and durability personally.
 
In my opinion, pound for pound, the Ruger is a more robust, stronger and more efficient design. Think about it, all they had to do with the SRH to have it accommodate the 65,000psi .454 is change the cylinder's alloy. Not only is the X-frame more massive in every direction, it is also a five-shot. All they'd have to do to accommodate the .500S&W is stretch the frame/cylinder and change to a five-shot. It would still be at least as strong and much lighter than the X-frame. The S&W's sideplate is the major design flaw. It allows too much flex, which is what leads to endshake. Ever hear of an SRH shooting loose? Nope. I've seen several reports of range rental X-frames shooting loose in 3000-5000rds.
 
The X-frame starts at 70 ounces and the super redhawk starts at 50 ounces.

The super redhawk cannot accommodate 460 or 500 cartridges, so I'd say the one with 30% more steel and weight is stronger, that one being the X-frame.

You're comparing L-Frame to N-Frame though essentially...

The X-frame can weigh less, my JRC500 weighs 57oz iirc.

But yes, they are massive. Top gun in this pic is an 8" 44 mag and its quite a big gun. The X-Frame dwarfs it.

index.php


Never handled a redhawk. I do have a blackhawk in 45 Colt but its not a very big gun.
 
Well defects are not the same as durability IMO, you keep sending em back to the mother ship until you get a good one.

I have a ruger super redhawk in 44 and look to buy one in 454 once I find one, I don't want an X-frame. If I scope an X-frame I need a sling, and would rather sling a rifle. I can barely handle a super redhawk off hand but I can. I see the X-frame as impractical and own super redhawks.

I would be expecting assistance at S&W's expense if I had issues with an X-frame, and I have no doubts of their quality and durability personally.

+1. Saved me from having to say the same thing.


For me, I find a 454 super redhawk as much as I care to carry or shoot. It's big, heavy and has substantial recoil. For the size & weight of an x frame, a light carbine is better for me. I won't judge anyone for owning monstrous magnums but I'll say the stretched frame/cylinder is not appealing to me but if I ever get an x frame I'll choose a 500 mag chambering and a 4-5" barrel.

Do I think one is stronger than the other? It's hard to say. The 454 casull has a higher max pressure than the 500 magnum. The cylinder and frame need to contain similar pressures and ruger does it with less mass. That leads to the question, where is a s&w n frame 454 casull? The cartridge will physically fit the cylinder of a modern s&w 25 (ridiculous ) , so that tells the story, the design is not as robust. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

I wouldn't comment on this but the ruger hating crew likes to mention cast vs forged and that the ruger is not stronger but just thicker to accomplish the same strength as the s&w. Also mentioned is that "ruger only" 44 mag & 45 colt loads are solely restricted due to cylinder length , not strength. I call nonsense . imagine if ruger produced an x frame sized revolver...

All of that is irrelevant, either a super redhawk or x frame will last a long time. Most folks don't try to shoot thousands of full power loads in either, either can live forever shooting moderately loaded cartridges . I'm interested in 500 jrh and intend to get one because it's at the power level most folks will typically shoot from their 500 mags and is chambered in a normal sized frame .

It's true that the 500 mag is the king of commercially available monster magnum handgun cartridges . It's also true that the hottest 454 casull loads from a super redhawk is as much or more than the majority of folks care to shoot. Makes comparison not quite equal, to me it's irrelevant because I don't need more power than a 454 casull in a handgun, the extra you get from bigger rounds doesn't justify the size & weight to me.
 
In my opinion, pound for pound, the Ruger is a more robust, stronger and more efficient design. Think about it, all they had to do with the SRH to have it accommodate the 65,000psi .454 is change the cylinder's alloy. Not only is the X-frame more massive in every direction, it is also a five-shot. All they'd have to do to accommodate the .500S&W is stretch the frame/cylinder and change to a five-shot. It would still be at least as strong and much lighter than the X-frame. The S&W's sideplate is the major design flaw. It allows too much flex, which is what leads to endshake. Ever hear of an SRH shooting loose? Nope. I've seen several reports of range rental X-frames shooting loose in 3000-5000rds.

This is very interesting. I wonder why there’s so much difference between the two. Since Smith got to build the x-frame from the ground up for the 460 and 500, I wonder why they kept the side plate design. Seems like they would incorporate some of what makes the Redhawks successful, but I know nothing about what goes through the minds of gun designers.
 
I dare anyone to fire a 500 S&W using the 500 grain JFN rounds without having a sore wrist or bruised web between the thumb and forefinger after only five rounds. Don’t think it can happen.

I have a S&W 500 and a Ruger Super Alaskan in 454 Casull. Both are awesome handguns but the S&W is hands down the massive hand cannon. I hear people say they’ve read a S&W shoot themselves apart. But have yet to meet someone who it’s happened too. My S&W is getting close to 1000 rounds and it still rock solid. Mostly using rounds in the more manageable 300grain range.
 
I believe the .460 and .454 PSI max is 65,000. .500 is 60,000.

SRH has a six shot cylinder, 460 XVR and .500 has five. S&W has a pound plus of extra steel in their design, the SRH has a solid frame.

Both of these gun designs have some leeway, they’re both tough as nails.

I’ve shot a Smith .460 and a .500, I own a SRH .454, they all buck pretty vigorously. (I’m glad that .500 had a brake! )

Stay safe.
 
In my opinion, pound for pound, the Ruger is a more robust, stronger and more efficient design. Think about it, all they had to do with the SRH to have it accommodate the 65,000psi .454 is change the cylinder's alloy. Not only is the X-frame more massive in every direction, it is also a five-shot. All they'd have to do to accommodate the .500S&W is stretch the frame/cylinder and change to a five-shot. It would still be at least as strong and much lighter than the X-frame. The S&W's sideplate is the major design flaw. It allows too much flex, which is what leads to endshake. Ever hear of an SRH shooting loose? Nope. I've seen several reports of range rental X-frames shooting loose in 3000-5000rds.

I've seen several "range" .500s that were beat absolutely to hell. Rentals live a hard life, but I've rarely seen any that looked ready to fall apart...

My personal .500 has seen many thousands of rounds and is still essentially new. The huge majority of those rounds were mild to moderate loadings with cast bullets, though. Five or ten "full house" rounds are plenty, on a given day.
 
I believe the .460 and .454 PSI max is 65,000. .500 is 60,000.

SRH has a six shot cylinder, 460 XVR and .500 has five. S&W has a pound plus of extra steel in their design, the SRH has a solid frame.

Both of these gun designs have some leeway, they’re both tough as nails.

I’ve shot a Smith .460 and a .500, I own a SRH .454, they all buck pretty vigorously. (I’m glad that .500 had a brake! )

Stay safe.
There is quite a bit more steel in between the chambers on the X frame cylinders. To get 6 rounds it would have to be even bigger.

I'm only good for about 4-6 cylinders (460V). The concussion wears on me before my hands get close to getting wore out. None of my friends fully understand why I insist they have plugs inside their muffs... no exceptions. But after the first round, it becomes clear. lol
 
Any truth to the rumor that Ruger
is about to introduce a 4-shot
revolver in .85 Caliber operating
at 175,000 pounds of pressure?

Update: It'll be known as
The Bearly Enuf.

I can hardly wait. ;)
 
Last edited:
Any truth to the rumor that Ruger
is about to introduce a 4-shot
revolver in .85 Caliber operating
at 175,000 pounds of pressure?

Update: It'll be known as
The Bearly Enuf.

I can hardly wait. ;)

Bearly There......?
No truths.
However one can still acquire a Red hawk or
S&W M25 in 45 Colt - then go on shooting a
Sensible and sane cartridge?
 
SW used the side plate design because that's what SW builds.

They don't know anything else.


I'm sure it's more a matter of "if it ain't broke...". Smith is the gold standard for DA revolvers, whether we like it or not. We can argue the weaknesses, compared to Rugers all day long, but Smith is still iconic and in demand. If they had gone with a radical redesign, would the trigger be as good? Would it garner as much hate as the hillary hole? How would that affect sales and reputation? By scaling up their traditional design, it not only kept what consumers loved, it also became a comically large gun, to house a comically large cartridge. Over the top in every sense, which has served it well in popularity....

Personally, I have no desire to own one. I'd rather have a .50jrh redhawk, if I were going larger than .454 casull.
 
I dare anyone to fire a 500 S&W using the 500 grain JFN rounds without having a sore wrist or bruised web between the thumb and forefinger after only five rounds. Don’t think it can happen.
I guarantee it's more pleasant than this thing. A 440gr at 1350fps is a different beast in a 48oz sixgun. The S&W is massive, heavy and most of them have a muzzle brake.

IMG_8934b.jpg
 
I'm only good for about 4-6 cylinders (460V). The concussion wears on me before my hands get close to getting wore out. None of my friends fully understand why I insist they have plugs inside their muffs... no exceptions. But after the first round, it becomes clear. lol

Same here with both my .460 and .500. That and only those friends that have been around guns and know to shoot plus the fact that if it's their first time shooting an X-frame then only one round goes into the cylinder.
 
Seriously, and I am serious, Jag and
Army Dog, you're both destroying your
hands, wrists and forearms for no good
reason. I repeat, for no good reason.
 
If I scope an X-frame I need a sling, and would rather sling a rifle. I can barely handle a super redhawk off hand but I can.

I have a sling on my X-Frame. Makes for a great way to carry it when I'm not expecting to shoot. The only reason to have either either a SRH or X-Frame in .454 or larger is for distance. Only way to make that legitimate, is to rest it. Period. Under 40 yards, I have done it no problem with all of my hunting revolvers, but even at those distances, I prefer to rest the gun. I'm sport hunting, not playing Matt Dillon. I highly doubt if there is anyone here good enough to shoot offhand at a deer past 80 yards with a revolver. Some may try, but ethics and respect for they quarry says they shouldn't. A sling don't make a handgun into a rifle. Nor does weight. The phase I hear most often when folks talk about the big super magnums is "If I have to carry a handgun that big, I may as well carry a rifle!". In reality, no one HAS to carry a handgun while hunting regular gun seasons. Those of us that do, do it by choice, because of the increased challenge it presents. Carry a rifle if you prefer, but it ain't never gonna be handgun hunting.

I hear people say they’ve read a S&W shoot themselves apart. But have yet to meet someone who it’s happened too. My S&W is getting close to 1000 rounds and it still rock solid

Same here. I reload for my X-Frame and even then, rounds are over a buck a pop. Unless one has very deep pockets, they'll go broke long before they ever shoot one out. If you do, and you bought he gun new, S&W lifetime warranty will mean you will always have a safe and reliable X-Frame as long as you live.

I'm only good for about 4-6 cylinders (460V). The concussion wears on me before my hands get close to getting wore out. None of my friends fully understand why I insist they have plugs inside their muffs... no exceptions. But after the first round, it becomes clear. lol

Yep. Shooting bags take a pounding too.

I guarantee it's more pleasant than this thing. A 440gr at 1350fps is a different beast in a 48oz sixgun. The S&W is massive, heavy and most of them have a muzzle brake.

The weight is what I think is a big "Pro" for the X-Frame. It makes for a more comfortable shooting experience than any SRH in .454 I have shot. Massive recoil does not make make for a better shooting or a harder hitting handgun. Always baffles me why some folks feel that shooting a magnum must hurt. I have had 11 year old kids and 90# women shoot my X-Frame. They have shot it very accurately. They shoot it more than once, they ask to shoot another cylinder full and they have a smile on their face when they are done. I cannot say the same for other platforms in similar calibers. As for the brake.....it too contributes to reducing recoil and muzzle flip. Again, making shooting more fun. Having a enjoyable shooting experiences contributes to more shooting, meaning a more accurate shooter. Ain't no one going to shoot a SRH in .454 without some form of ear protection.....not unless they want hearing damage. So any extra noise from a brake with ear protection is moot.

Seems folks either love X-Frames and SRHs or they hate 'em. Seems to be very little middle ground on them. Me, I think both platforms are good for their intended usage, and folks need to shoot before they make judgement on either.
 
Seriously, and I am serious, Jag and
Army Dog, you're both destroying your
hands, wrists and forearms for no good
reason. I repeat, for no good reason.
Not really. That was my point. The X-frames aren't 'that' punishing. You have to do A LOT of shooting before it starts affecting your joints. If John Taffin is the example, he does it for a living and it took him decades.


The weight is what I think is a big "Pro" for the X-Frame. It makes for a more comfortable shooting experience than any SRH in .454 I have shot. Massive recoil does not make make for a better shooting or a harder hitting handgun. Always baffles me why some folks feel that shooting a magnum must hurt. I have had 11 year old kids and 90# women shoot my X-Frame. They have shot it very accurately. They shoot it more than once, they ask to shoot another cylinder full and they have a smile on their face when they are done. I cannot say the same for other platforms in similar calibers. As for the brake.....it too contributes to reducing recoil and muzzle flip. Again, making shooting more fun. Having a enjoyable shooting experiences contributes to more shooting, meaning a more accurate shooter. Ain't no one going to shoot a SRH in .454 without some form of ear protection.....not unless they want hearing damage. So any extra noise from a brake with ear protection is moot.
All true. This might shock some people but recoil ain't my thang. I only tolerate it when necessary, not all the time. Full loads in the .500 aggravate the hell out of my tendinitis.
 
The X frames, at least in .460 S&W ( I haven’t shot a .500 S&W) are pretty darn tame due to the weight of the gun and a very effective muzzle brake. Now for the blast coming out of the thing, different ball game all together, it can blow the hair on a buzz cut.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top