barrel length vs velocity vs convenience

[Rio Laxas]

I carry a Ruger Redhawk in .45 Colt with the 4.2" barrel frequently here in Alaska. Despite being a Smith & Wesson collector, the Ruger fits my needs for a packable, powerful revolver better than anything else. I've had and carried other revolvers in .44 magnum, .45 Colt, and .454 Casull by both S&W and Ruger, and the 4.2" Redhawk is the best of the bunch in my opinion.

I do think a 5.5" Redhawk is a nice revolver as well, and I wouldn't hesitate to go for that one if that is your preference. I would not, however, get the 2.75" Super Redhawk Alaskan. I've never owned one, but I've shot several and really didn't like the short barrel on such a large revolver.

Getting good grips has been the only challenge. I didn't like the Hogues that came with it or the Pachmayr's that I replaced it with. I tried wood Ruger panels and found them to be too small. Right now I've got Herrett Ropers on it and they are pretty nice, but it did take 2 trips back to them to get the fit to the frame right. Apparently there were fairly significant differences between their older Redhawk and mine. After I got the Herrett stocks, I noticed that Eagle Grips came out with their classic grips for the Redhawk. I would have considered those if that they had been available when I was looking for replacement stocks.

 

[buck460XVR]

Well, the load I use in the rile is less of a "pet load" and more like something I worked up in haste (actually, I copied it from a friend), but it seems to shoot accurately enough (under 2" at 100 yrds) and has lots of energy, so I use it.

But yeah, neither gun is going to perform up to its potential with a cartridge that is either designed for another gun or designed to be all things for all guns.

Given that I don't always have that 44 rifle with me (I often will carry either a shotgun for birds/fowl or a 243 for caribou or I'm fishing), then it's probably best for the revolver to have its own ammo.

FWIW, If you are getting the carbine to shoot under 2'' groups @ 100 yards, I'd say you lucked out big time with your hasty load recipe. Odds are you could tweak loads till the cows came home and not do any better. While many handguns have a preference to ammo, I've found that when running upper end loads, with standard for caliber weight bullets,(240s in .44 mag, 158s in .357) recipes that shoot well outta my handgun caliber carbines, also shoot well outta my revolvers.

 

[gun_with_a_view]

Four-inch holsters were popularized by LEO's as they transitioned from horses to automobiles. The old six and eight inch handgun barrels went out the window. And with them a loss of firepower.

 

[IlikeSA]

I OC a Redhawk 5.5 in the woods. They are very heavy, but they do soak up recoil. I would recommend getting a chest holster, particularly if you are also carrying a long gun. This will make it easier to carry and keep it out of the way. I carry mine in a belt holster on a gunbelt, but that's all I can afford for now.

If you had the chest holster, you should get the 5.5, because you can squeeze more velocity from it. While it is nice to have a short barreled revolver, I always try my make my guns double as fun guns as well. It is only a few more ounces.

 

[The Alaskan]

Almostfree,

Thanks for your AK-specific input. I appreciate it. Yeah, like I said earlier, those Rugers are pretty highly regarded amongst Alaskans.

Grips and holsters...yeah...without ever even having held the 4.2, I can tell from the photos I don't like the grips. I figured that would be something to deal with on a trial and error basis. To be honest, I once had a Security Six (what an AWESOME gun, regret selling it) with original wood grips and found I liked them a lot, but that was on a 357, not a 44.

Holsters...I think I do plan to use a shoulder type holster, specifically a Guide's Choice Holster. They're hand made here in AK (Wasilla, actually) by Diamond D Leather, another shooting item that is popular amongst Alaskans. I have their hip holster for a smaller revolver. They make a very high quality, very durable product. Great service. Spendy, but I feel like, if I'm spending upwards of $800 on a gun, why skimp on a holster?

At any rate, I do a lot of canoeing and fishing and, if nothing else, the shoulder holster will keep the gun high out of the water when wading. (And hey, I can still carry the smaller revolver on the hip, so that way, with THREE guns, I'll be like the Outlaw Josey Wales, ready to be charged by Brown Bears or Grouse. lol)

 

[Rio Laxas]

I think the Guide's Choice would be an excellent holster for your intended use. I've heard great things about them, and it's on my to do list to get one made for my Redhawk.

Right now I'm using a Simply Rugged pancake holster as both a hip and chest holster. Simply Rugged is formerly of Wasilla but is now in Arizona. They make a really nice holster, but I think their removable chest rig is a little too complicated, and the Guide's Choice is better as a dedicated chest rig.

 

[RalphS]

I have both the 4 inch and 5.5 inch Redhawks.

They both come out of the holster fast enough. I don't notice any difference in the draw but this is different for everybody. I have long arms.

The advantage with the 4 inch in a belt holster is that you can sit down on a log, on a rock, in your car without the barrel digging in. The 5.5 inch is just a little too long and ends up banging on everything.

But if I was facing a charging bear, I'd rather have the 5.5 inch. I'm more accurate with it.

Not interested in a 2.5 or 2.75 unless I had to conceal carry it and if I couldn't conceal a 4 inch RH, I probably couldn't conceal a 2.75 inch RH either.

With the 4 inch RH, you'll be able to get a 300-325 grain hardcast bullet going at 1200-1250 fps with H-110.

I've tried different grips and have settled on the Pachmayr Presentation grips (after a little work with a file to smooth out the edges between the two halves) with the Uncle Mikes/Butler Creek grips a close second (no longer made but try Numrich). These grips work well for the hot loads.

 

[natman]

The choice is between the 4 and the 5.5. A 2.75 barrel is kind of silly on a RH; the gun is awfully big to try to conceal. The 5.5 is twice as long as the 2.75 with a cartridge that can use every millimeter of barrel length it can get.

Personally I'd go with the 5.5 unless you plan to do a lot of sitting with the gun on your hip. Then I'd go with the 4.

 

[CraigC]

I agree on the 2.75" vs 4". I really don't think there is any practical reason to choose anything shorter than the 4".

 

[The Alaskan]

Well thanks one and all for your thoughts. You've kind of changed my way of thinking. I wasn't really considering the 4.2" barrel as I felt it was the wrong compromise. Now I'm thinking the guns on the opposite ends are the wrong compromise. (Short doesn't equal fast draw, and long doesn't equal much more velocity.) So that was the easy part. The hard part is deciding if I want to part with other guns to buy it, or try to scavenge some money somewhere.

 

[SDGlock23]

The 4.2" Redhawk is a very nice gun, I had the .45 Colt version and it's a great packing size. Holster wise, look into something from Simply Rugged, they have great holsters at reasonable prices and they also have a chest harness setup that looks great, going to order one for my Super Redhawk 5" Toklat 454.

Also, don't worry about losing performance from a shorter barrel. Yes velocities will be lower but if you're shooting big heavy hardcasts you'll never notice any difference in penetration as 100-200 fps here or there won't matter hardly at all. You probably won't lose penetration with JHP bullets either, if it's a warm load, but might lose a little bit of expansion as often times less velocity means more penetration at the cost of less expansion.