8 shot redhawks with longer barrels

[IlikeSA]

It looks like Ruger is offering the Redhawk in .357 again, with more capacity and longer barrels. What becomes of the old 6 shot Redhawks in .357?

http://www.ruger.com/products/redhawk/models.html

 

[BigBore44]

They will still be made. If they are discontinued, the 6 shots will go up in value.

 

[mcb]

It will be interesting to see if this longer barreled version of the 8-shot Redhawk will make any inroads into USPSA Revolver division. Ruger has never really had a revolver that could compete in the division (before or after the 8-shot rule change) but now with a 4.2-inch and 5.5-inch 8-shot 357 they might get some share of the USPSA Revolver competitors. Will be interesting to see.

 

[Walkalong]

Sweet!

 

[Sam1911]

I like model 5033.

I think it's kinda cool to carry a revolver as wide as it is long!

 

[JohnKSa]

They will still be made.

I thought Ruger hadn't made any 6 shot .357Mag Redhawks for years...

 

[RealGun]

They really need to work on a more user-friendly grip for the Redhawk. I like the compact used on the shorter barrels and got one for my 5.5" 45 Colt (no longer offered in that length). That grip is bulky in my small hands but handles just fine as a total package. The key is to expose the backstrap for a shorter trigger reach and to close in the knuckle-rapping area behind the trigger guard.

 

[steve8261948]

Looks like Ruger is trying to keep up with the Jones(S&W) but, in the really big calibers over capacity turns to five rounds?
Steve

 

[RealGun]

Looks like Ruger is trying to keep up with the Jones(S&W) but, in the really big calibers over capacity turns to five rounds?
Steve

Hmmm...my 45 Colt Redhawk holds 6 rounds, about as big a round as they come. I don't understand your statement and wonder if you are referring to S&W, where their big bore in an L frame is 5-shot. Perhaps you refer to the GP100 in 44 Special. I was reading in the context of the Redhawk, maybe Super Redhawk, which are all 6-shot to my knowledge.

 

[Walkalong]

I like model 5033.

I think it's kinda cool to carry a revolver as wide as it is long!

Yea, it would be "chunky" for sure, even more so that my 2 1/2" barreled 686, which I really like.

They really need to work on a more user-friendly grip for the Redhawk.

A lot of people feel that way, or at least I see it posted a lot, but I actually like them.

 

[9mmepiphany]

RealGun said: ↑
They really need to work on a more user-friendly grip for the Redhawk.

A lot of people feel that way, or at least I see it posted a lot, but I actually like them.

I really like them also.

Many folks mistake them for being similar to the S&W Magna grip, whose appearance they are designed to invoke, but the frame of the Redhawk is deeper behind the trigger guard to properly position your hand

 

[RealGun]

I really like them also.

Many folks mistake them for being similar to the S&W Magna grip, whose appearance they are designed to invoke, but the frame of the Redhawk is deeper behind the trigger guard to properly position your hand

I think there was good reason to change the grip for the Super Redhawk design...trigger mechanism too. I believe it would generally be only guys with big hands that might favor the grips shaped like the frame. The frame is so far back that replacement grips are open back strap, which avoids an even longer trigger reach.

 

[ATLDave]

Any of these cut for moonclips?

 

[mcb]

Any of these cut for moonclips?

I believe all of the 8-shot Redhawks are cut for moonclips.

ETA: I might be wrong. Only the 2.5 inch version list moonclips on Ruger's website. The pages for the 4.2 and 5.5 inch version do not list moonclips. Though it would seem silly to not machine them for moonclips if there are already doing so for the 2.5 that came out last year.

 

[Walkalong]

I think there was good reason to change the grip for the Super Redhawk design...trigger mechanism too. I believe it would generally be only guys with big hands that might favor the grips shaped like the frame.

Mine are medium length and wide.

 

[ClemY]

While I have 5 1/2" Redhawks in both .44 mag and .45 Colt, my 8 shot .357s are S&W 627s. I like the Redhawks, but I don't think I will be rushing out to get one in .357.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

It looks like Ruger is offering the Redhawk in .357 again, with more capacity and longer barrels. What becomes of the old 6 shot Redhawks in .357?

http://www.ruger.com/products/redhawk/models.html

The 6 shot .357 was discontinued in 1982. This is my "grail gun," but I will settle for an 8-shot until I can convince someone to relinquish a vintage one.
Like the moon clips on the new ones.
Don't like the MIM parts.
HATE the 2-piece barrels.
Would rather have a 7.5", but will take a 5.5.....
I'm gonna give this thing a try as soon as Buds gets em in stock, wish me luck!

 

[FN in MT]

Has Ruger gone to the two piece barrel system, like S&W has on certain models??

Not a Ruger fan so seldom look at their products.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

Has Ruger gone to the two piece barrel system, like S&W has on certain models??

Not a Ruger fan so seldom look at their products.

Yep.

I gotta give their ad guys credit, they talk about it like an improvement, rather than a cost-cutting feature.

 

[9mmepiphany]

I gotta give their ad guys credit, they talk about it like an improvement, rather than a cost-cutting feature.

It isn't like it isn't true.

In general, two-piece barrels on S&W revolvers are more accurate than the one-piece models. Having barrels that are held under tension from both end usually makes them capable of better accuracy...the early Dan Wesson revolvers were the cutting edge in introducing that feature

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

It isn't like it isn't true.

In general, two-piece barrels on S&W revolvers are more accurate than the one-piece models. Having barrels that are held under tension from both end usually makes them capable of better accuracy...the early Dan Wesson revolvers were the cutting edge in introducing that feature

Guess you could make an engineering argument either way. After all, aren't rifle barrels supposed to be free floated? Also, I don't buy that the two piece design is in any way good for harmonics, rigidity or strength- the forcing cone is much thinner than on the one piece barrels.
On the other hand, yes, I suppose it could be theoretically more concentric.
However, has anyone complained about the Redhawk being inaccurate over the last 38 years? And if Smith and Wesson found it so successful, why haven't they continued and expanded the practice?
It may very well have an accuracy benefit- but I don't believe for one second it isn't primarily a cost control measure first and foremost.
In any event, I still think this gun is strong enough to handle any .357 loads I'm likely to feed it, so I'll bite.

Gonna keep lookin for that old 6 shot though......