Redhawk .44---4" or 5.5"?

[danweasel]

Hi fellas,

I am really close to my goal of a Ruger Redhawk. I just have one final question. What is the actual performance difference between the 4 and the 5.5 inch barrels. I really wanna be able to wring this gun and the .44 round in general out but at the same time I am going to carry it hiking and if the difference is slim to none I'll probably go with the shorter barrel.

Well thanks in advance ye ol' experts!

 

[Harve Curry]

For me the deciding difference is in the length of sight radius. I had a S&W 629 4" and found I had to really watch the fine details of sight alignment, another inch to 1 1/2" makes a good noticable improvement. Another deciding factor is how tall or short you are, I'm of the latter being less then 5' 5" and my prefernce is 5".

 

[mbt2001]

I got the 5.5" Redhawk because I would primarily use it for hunting and an additional 1.5" makes a difference in the velocity of the round.

 

[swampboy]

I had one in .44 mag with the 7 1/2" bbl years ago. Even with the longer bbl, it was still pretty "rowdy" when shooting the heavier stuff. With a hand cannon like that, you might as well get the longer bbl & carry it in a chest rig or crossdraw setup. The weight is not going to be THAT much different. The frame is a BEAST anyway.

I don't have any data to back me up, but I'm thinkin' that the 7 1/2" might get you a little more out of the .44's potential.

I see you're in AK, so you might actually have a legitimate use for one. Here in GA, I soon found that I had no use whatsoever for a handgun that big and sold mine off.

 

[content]

Hello friends and neighbors // I have carried (solo hiking Montana/Canada) a Ruger Redhawk 7 1/2 inch. // I don't think you gain any velocity after a 5" just accuracy (but I'm rusty on this) You do gain velocity and acurracy with a 5" over a 4" so I would go with the 5" // Out in those woods wolves are a worse threat than Bears to me.( I recommend carrying some MAGSAFE, easier to hit a wolf with 3 balls then 1 bullet) // Don't know about Alaska, envy you the experience( I carried several things including revolver in a chest bag just in case I had to drop pack ... watch your backtrail.... content

 

[ClemY]

I think there is a little increase in velocity of perhaps 100 fps, and the increase in sight radius helps, but it is really just personal preference. I prefer the 5 1/2", but you get to decide for yourself.

 

[middy]

Out in those woods wolves are a worse threat than Bears to me.

Because of all those wolf attacks, right?

There's never been a documented case of a healthy, wild wolf killing a human in North America. Some children under ten have been attacked and bitten... but bears are a much more imminent threat.

Correction: There has been one likely case of death by wolf in the last 100 years. Deer and bear kill a handful of people every year.

 

[danweasel]

Hey, I appreciate the help guys. I know it is going to have to come down to handling both but I wanted to know about the performance difference in 1.5" of barrel. So is 100fps the final word? Not that I don't believe you, ClemY, hahaha.

 

[mbt2001]

depending on the load, it is approximately 220 fps difference in velocity. That is a rough approximation rounded to the high side, but yeah it can be that substantial or more.

 

[ArmedBear]

IMO the 4" Redhawk is a big heavy beast for a 4" revolver.

I checked out the 4" Redhawk, 2 1/2" Super Redhawk and the 4" 629 Mountain Gun. I ended up buying the Smith and Wesson without reservation. It's a bit under 40 oz. unloaded, and just a great package in that size.

The shortest barrel I have on a Ruger revolver is 6 1/2", but I'd definitely go down to 5 1/2". The Redhawk, to me, seems best suited to a barrel 5 1/2" - 7 1/2". I've really liked what I've shot, in the longer barrel lengths.

YMMV

 

[ChCx2744]

You should get the Ruger Redhawk Alaskan that has a tiny little stubbie barrel! HAHAHAHA YES!

 

[danweasel]

Oh man, I shot an Alaskan full of some friends handloads a little while ago. I think my eyebrows are still growing back!

I am defintely leaning toward the 5.5". Weight is no problem, I am a big guy, I just wasn't really sure if there was a big difference in the performance as I only have a few semi autos with shorter barrels and no revolvers. Recoil is also no big deal. I also like the longer site radius for plinking.

I really appreciate all the responses and by all means if anyone has anything to add I'm all ears (or eyes I suppose).

 

[ArmedBear]

Before I started shooting shotguns, I wasn't all that aware of a gun's balance. Now I am.

When I said it is a heavy beast for a 4" revolver, I meant that the shorter barrel doesn't really fit the gun all that well, to me. The 5 1/2" barrel feels "right" as does the 7 1/2", again, to me.

The sleeker, slimmed down Mountain Gun is the overall package I prefer in a 4".

But I believe the 5 1/2" Redhawk really feels and shoots well, additional performance notwithstanding.

 

[84B20]

I have the 5.5 in. and wouldn't think of having a shorter barrel. The recoil on Garrett Cartridges or Buffalo Bore is bad enough on it let alone what it would be on a 4 in.

 

[woad_yurt]

danweasel:
Even if there was no performance gain, it's much easier to acquire and keep on target with a longer barrel. The sight radius is about 40% greater with the longer barrel. That's a big difference. I just got a 7.5" Redhawk, my first .44 magnum. When I shot it for the first time, I was pleasantly surprised. It's a very accurate shooter with much less recoil than I expected.

Also, there is a big power difference with a little extra velocity. Someone above said that it may be as much as 200 fps. Look at what a difference 200 fps makes:
240 gr at 1200 fps = 767 ft lbs
240 gr at 1400 fps = 1044 ft lbs

All Redhawks weigh a ton so why not get the longest, most effective barrel?

 

[mbt2001]

All Redhawks weigh a ton so why not get the longest, most effective barrel?

Because if the barrel is 7.5" in length and you are under 5' 10" the holstered gun goes to your knee...

 

[woad_yurt]

Oh, I was thinking of a shoulder holster.

 

[ArmedBear]

Because if the barrel is 7.5" in length and you are under 5' 10" the holstered gun goes to your knee...

This isn't true IME.

I'm about 5'10" and I can carry a 10 1/2" Super Blackhawk in a standard belt holster, a Triple K Carry-Lite, not a pancake or high-rise, with no problem squatting low on the ground, etc. Wouldn't sit in a car with it, but that's probably true from 5" on up.

 

[Rio Laxas]

I had the 4" model and didn't care for the feel of it, and I do like Ruger revolvers. Now I have a 629-1 6" and I love it. I have thought of buying the 5.5" Redhawk though, and I may some day.

 

[dairycreek]

I have both the 4" and 5.5" Ruger Redhawk revos. I also have a S &W 629 and the purpose of this post is not to compare Rugers and Smiths. Both are fine.

However, it you are carrying in the woods or hunting for large game e.g. mule deer, or elk, or whatever then the Ruger is the choice. Because it has a longer cylinder it can take the longer, "hot" ammo such as Garrett manufactures whereas S & W cannot. Garrett is quite specific as to which ammo should be used in a particular gun.

I have taken two elk here in Oregon using my 5.5" inch Redhawk and, because of the longer sight radius, prefer it. The pic is of my 5.5" Redhawk in a holster made for it by Simply Rugged

If hunting is your goal then I would recommend the 5.5" ruger for its longer site radius. If just carrying in the woods for general purposes then I like the 4" Redhawk as the shorter barrel makes for a somewhat easier carry combination.

As to differences in performance the extra 1.5" of barrel length on the 5.5" will give you (on the average) about an extra 100 fps over the 4". In my experience that is really not significant and I would not be able to choose one over the other based just on the idea of performance. FWIW!

 

[Dogbite]

I like the 4". Don't worry about velocity, whatever gets shot by it isn't going to notice the difference, I promise. Get whichever feels better to you.

Just to give you an idea about velocity, here are some figures, from another post here on THR.
Load: 23 gr/H110/250 cast H&G bullet
Revolver 1: S&W M629, 4" barrel = 1131 fps
Revolver 2: S&W M629, 6" barrel = 1271 fps
Revolver 3: S&W M629 Classic, 6.5" barrel = 1296 fps

 

[Walkalong]

I vote 5.5"

 

[danweasel]

5.5" it is!

The more I thought about it and read these responses, the more I realized that basically all factors weigh in favor of the longer barrel: Better balance, accuracy/site radius, performance and all in exchange for a few ounces on an already heavy gun and 1.5 inches more length. I am 6'2 and 235 pounds (of solid muscle no less, hahaha). So that shouldn't matter much. Also I will be shooting some max loads and the longer barrel can't hurt. I guess I was just thinking in semi-auto terms with the size concerns at first. Did I mention this is going to be my 1st revolver?

Anyways, thanks so much guys,

Dan