Are Redhawks as reliable as GP100s?

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lucky Strike

Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Messages
410
Location
Salem, OR
When looking for my GP100 I had very little reservation about getting a used one since they have a legendary reputation for reliability. Is it the same for the Redhawk? I bought the GP100 on a ruger forum for sale thread and it's been great. I'll be getting a Redhawk later this year and would like to save the $140 or so by going used. Just wondering how their reliability stacks up compared to the GP100
 
I don't know, but thats a good question. For whatever reason, it seems like very little is ever mentioned about Redhawks. I am interested in seeing what comes of this.
 
Redhawk

Lucky Strike: Sir; the Rehawk will serve you well.

Rugers history of overbuilding didn't and hasn't changed.

If you were to encounter an issue; PICK up the Phone and real people will answer and get you going quickly.

I wouldn't and haven't hesitated to buy a Ruger used.
 
Redhawks? did you say Redhawks??(Jim Mora-like)

I hope there's no issues with Redhawks.:uhoh: I just won one on gunbroker the other day.:what:
pix3104862062.jpg
 
The Redhawk is every bit as reliable as the GP100. And, as strong as an GP100 is, the Redhawk is much stronger and is just a bullit proof tank(So to speak!)! The Redhawk is considerably stronger than the Smith and Wesson N-frame .44 magnum revolvers! The Redhawk is a great gun! Go for it!:D
 
As long as you dont mess witrh the springs the Redhawk will be reliable in DOUBLE ACTION. Reduce the springs to get rid of the 10 lb single action pull like I did and even the 17 lb spring will produce two or three misfires per cylinder.

If you only plan to fire it SA you wont have a problem but youd be better off with a blackhawk its a much better gun and much smaller.

Thats my experience with my redhawk .44mag. YMMV
 
I'm a little biased, as I have, um, we'll say several redhawks in every caliber they were ever offered in.

My 41's particularly, are so accurate it's almost wierd.

As far as strength? A 357 redhawk IS the deffinition of overbuilt.

Triggers? Just polish the parts up, don't change the springs and shoot the gun.

Filed stripping them is a breeze.

The only drawback at all is that some folks think they are a little chunky, not as smooth lined as a smith.
 
I own a 7.5" stainless redhawk, and a gp100. The designs seem very very similar. The redhawk is of course a bigger frame/cylinder etc, they will last just fine.
 
This Redhawk has run the gamut from 180 gr HPs to 305 gr solids that fried a scope from recoil. It has never failed and offers good accuracy. I can't seem to bring myself to sell it, though I don't shoot it much anymore. I'm just more of an auto man. The Super Redhawk is built more like the GP100, but the original Redhawk was no less burly, and was a cleaner design in my opinion.
100_0457.jpg
 
Cool....pretty much the responses i was hoping for.

Were there any significant changes in the design that improved/worsened the gun to where I'd it'd be a situation like "oh if you can make sure you get one made before/after 19xx"?


Thanks for the suggestion Ben......I think i want the DA and easier loading/unloading but the ability to get a Blackhawk for a cheaper is definitely something to consider
 
I own a Ruger GP100 and a Supre Redhawk, both stainless. In twenty years of ownership I believe that these 2 guns are as reliable, fun and just plane gorgeous as anything out there.

I'm a little biased perhaps, I own 5 Rugers.

Terry,

Albuquerque, NM
 
I bought my Redhawk in 1985 and my guess would be at least 10K full power loads and at least that many (probably more) reduced loads. I never saw any reason to change springs or anything else. It's been 100% reliable and shows no sign of giving up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top