Redhawk 454 4" barrel..

[OregonJohnny]

Technically, if you have a .45Colt Redhawk, you don't need a .454 cylinder. The .45 Redhawk can be loaded to 90% of the .454's potential as-issued.

Awww, come on, CraigC, some of us need (WANT!) that extra 10%.

Seriously, my 4" Redhawk in .44 Magnum shooting Buffalo Bore's +P loads is about all I'm willing to handle. But the thought of touching off some nasty handloaded .454 from a heavy Ruger double action with a 4.2" barrel just makes me smile.

Plus, I really don't like the standard Redhawk grip frame. The SRH/GP100 grip frame fits my hand much better. I may be wrong, but my buddy has the SRH Alaskan, and the trigger reach feels a lot shorter and more natural than on my Redhawk.

 

[NM Mountainman]

I agree with the OP. A 4" barrel (or even 5") .454 would be a much better choice than the 2.5" barrel. If a 4" barrel version were available, there would be no real practical advantage or reason for preferring the 2.5" barrel.

I even have a suggestion for a name for the 4" version. Call it the "Real Alaskan."

 

[Deaf Smith]

I couldn't wait for ruger, so I did the best I could with mine.


View attachment 592828

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

Now if Ruger made THAT as a regular item, with the nitrate finish, I'd get one!

And I have severl N frames but I'd still get it!

Deaf

 

[NM Mountainman]

Deaf Smith: Thanks for the photo! That is an excellent, good looking, and very practical revolver.