8-shot .357 Redhawk

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sergei Mosin

Sergei Mosin

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
1,918
Never mind the .44 GP100 - what about that 2.75-inch 8-shot .357 Redhawk that's also coming? I'd prefer a longer barrel, but eight rounds of .357 have my attention...
 
Question is does anyone one want to carry a 3+ lb 357 mag.
I have a 7 1/2 " Redhawk in 357 and it's 54 -57 oz. That a lot of steel for a plain jane 357 mag
 
I want a 12 shot 327 X frame from S&W. :D

With a longer barrel I'd consider the Redhawk, but I've already got a 686+. I can't see spending the money for one more round. I also have three .357s already.
 
You know how some guns are too pretty to shoot? Those slab-sided Smiths are too ugly to shoot.

A 4.2-inch .44 Redhawk weighs 47 ounces; a 4.2-inch GP100 weighs 40 ounces. Seven ounces for two more rounds isn't unreasonable.
 
I would sure like to at least see the specs on this thing. With only the 2.75" barrel, weight should be less than the 50 oz. plus range, I hope. And I'm also hoping the 8 cylinder holes as opposed to the original version with only six will help some with the weight. Any insiders with information on the upcoming Redhawk?
 
Seems to be neither fish nor fowl. It is a huge chunk of steel with a tiny barrel. A Redhawk cylinder is significantly larger than even an N-frame cylinder, but then it has a "carry length" barrel on it? I can't see what use I would personally ever have for it, but maybe someone else can. With a 5" barrel, it would be kind of interesting to me for some limited applications.
 
Then there's the TRR8... not much different than the M&P above
Click to expand...
The R8 has polygonal rifling unless that's changed; kind of a weird decision for a 357mag considering it makes common cast bullets a no-go for fouling. The TRR8 has normal rifling, and also has removable rails. Very, very light for the firepower on tap, and has the typical modern Performance Center DA/SA trigger (when mine was made it also had the three-point crane support ball bearings). Despite the weight, the size spreads out recoil enough that it is quite comfortable to shoot (apart from the blast, of course)

TCB
 
cant they just make a GP 100 thats not ugly as hell already? A nice wood grip without fingergrooves, and a half lug barrel. Basically a stronger Six series, instead of thse gimicks. Maybe if they could pull out a 5 shot 44 mag GP that would be nice. A redhawk in 357 could be neat, but I doubt they sell.
 
I have three Redhawks in 357mag from the 84/85 run. Two are 7.5", one a 5.5". They're MASSIVE pieces of steel, and rather foolish in their nature. Far too large for what they are - even if they would be an 8 shot. I use mine for hunting, so I could care less about 6 shots vs. 8 - it's just too dang big and heavy for a simple 38/357.

In a snubby barrel, the power to weight ratio becomes even more imbalanced - I have a Kodiak Backpacker, a 3.5" and a 5" 500, Ruger Alaskans in all 3 cartridges... THAT power level in their weight class makes sense - heck, I'd rather have MORE weight in some of them. But for a 357mag, the 8 shot Redhawk is just going to be way too heavy.

I'm sure it'll sell, and I really do hope it drives development of 4.2" and 5.5" models for IDPA type matches, maybe an 8" for revolver class silhouette even. But the snubby just doesn't make sense to me.

For a little perspective: I can carry two G19's (that's 30rnds loaded and ready) for the same weight as a Ruger Redhawk!!

I suppose it does illustrate, however, how irresponsible the Kodiak Backpacker really was - it wasn't out for long before owners were bemoaning the extreme recoil with the skinny grip neck, so they pumped out the 41mag, which still bucked in the hand pretty bad, and of course, cost a lot to feed... So the new firearms owner world we live in called for a pip-squeak 357mag version... All 40+ oz of it!
 
Walkalong said:
25-5 N Frame and Redhawk in .45 Colt.
Click to expand...

Those measurements are the same as what I found. Doesn't seem like much, but when you consider the step between a J and K frame is .14" and the step between an L to an N is .15", the Redhawk cylinder is another half-step up from the already-large N frame.
 
Sergei Mosin said:
Cut for moonclips - that tells me there are competition-oriented versions in the works.
Click to expand...
It sure looks that way. LOL! Imagine carrying a loaded 8 shot moon clip in your pocket for a defense gun.

Is that a moon clip in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?
 
Sergei Mosin said:
Cut for moonclips - that tells me there are competition-oriented versions in the works.
Click to expand...

I had the same thought, at first, but moon clips are making a resurgence among concealed carry revolver folks too, so I'm not 100% confident. I can't imagine Ruger would spool up an 8 hole gang ream and a moon clip machining step (especially after so many years of redesigning lines to REDUCE machining) with the intention of only producing ONE model, especially in such a short barrel.
 
The moon clips have just about got to be for competition purposes. I don't think many folks are going to be concealing a Redhawk, even a short-barreled one. I think the short barrel is more to save a few ounces and clear leather a little faster, maybe carry easier in a chest rig. Not everybody needs or wants a .41 or .44 Magnum, but a couple extra shots in a .357 for outdoors carry is no bad thing.

I'm not real big on the Redhawk myself - I prefer the GP100/Super Redhawk action - but obviously the .357 GP won't take an 8-shot cylinder and the way the Super Redhawk is built doesn't lend itself to a gun that carries very easily, so the standard Redhawk it is. This snubbie version isn't for me but a 4.2-inch version might well find its way into my collection.
 
I believe the Redhawk cylinder is long enough for the .360 Dan Wesson. Just sayin'.
 
barnbwt said:
The R8 has polygonal rifling unless that's changed
Click to expand...
The Smith & Wesson R8 does not have polygonal rifling. The source of this error is a Nutnfancy video linked at the S&W website. I emailed S&W asking about the R8 and TRR8. I got the following reply:

"Dear Customer,
We do not use polygonal rifling on either of those revolvers.
Smith&Wesson values its customers and we are happy to have served you today. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you require further assistance.
Regards, Ashley"

Here are some links to the S&W forum with discussions on the matter:

Smith & Wesson Forum Link 1
Smith & Wesson Forum Link 2
 
That's good; like I said, that never made sense to me for this chambering.
 
I actually find myself more drawn to this gun than the other new DA revolvers that were announced for this year such as the .44 Spl GP100 or the new Colt Cobra. It's definitely not something I want to carry concealed, but it looks like it would make for a nice nightstand gun with it's revolver simplicity and larger than normal capacity. I've also just been really digging these Redhawk snubs lately as the Kodiak backpacker from Talo really trigger my interest as well.

What I'm most curious about now is if this gun takes the same 8 round moon clips as the S&W offerings are if these are specific to the Redhawk like the .45 ACP / .45 Colt model. Ruger lists the clips on their store as being .025 thickness, which I believe is the same as the S&W 627 clips. The big question is if the chamber spacing is identical or not.
 
I like the idea as well.
It would be perfect for having on the nightstand. Maybe a bit heavy for CC, but with a decent OWB holster and blazer it would be fine for that as well.

Interested to see what the MSRP is going to be on it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
.357 Magnum Ruger Redhawk Revival??
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
Ben Shepherd
B
I
  • Locked
8 shot redhawks with longer barrels
Replies
20
Views
1K
NIGHTLORD40K
NIGHTLORD40K
L
  • Locked
.44mag recoil
Replies
20
Views
1K
Onty
O
S
  • Locked
Would you buy a 7/8 shot 357 Redhawk?
Replies
18
Views
1K
22-rimfire
2
S
  • Locked
just got new gp100
Replies
6
Views
728
standingbear
S
Back
Top