Redhawk vs. Super Redhawk -- what's the difference?

[Richard.Howe]

So I'm ready to take the leap into the 44mag for whitetail, and have settled on the Ruger product line -- although they're uglier than the southern end of a northbound yak -- because I plan to load hot.

What's the difference between the Redhawk and the Super Redhawk?

Thanks all,
Rich

 

[BluesBear]

Well there are the obvious differences;

Redhawk

Super Redhawk

 

[Brasso]

Barrel length, weight, and the way they look. Either one is as strong as the other.

 

[P95Carry]

Strength is name of the game .. personally I don't find these over fugly - rather more, ''functional'' ... IMO - excellent hunting cannons.

 

[GUNKWAZY]

Redhawk

The Redhawk is the earlier of the 2 designs. It's lighter and not quite as beefy as the Super Redhawk. Don't get me wrong, it's still a very stout gun. The Super Redhawk has built in scope recesses for scope rings. It's built like a brick $hithouse and the frame is bigger all over. The original Redhawk design was tested by one of the gun mags a few years back and shot with 10,000 full power 44 magnum loads and the gun showed no signs of wear. A screw came loose from what I remember, but the gun held up like a trooper. They cleaned it once in every couple thousand rounds. 2 guys hand shot all 10,000 rounds switching off between the 2 shooters. I think they actually did group testing as well thru-out the entire test and the gun shot well and improved the action and group sizes from what I remember. Either gun should last a lifetime.
The actions out of the box on the Rugers are more mechanical feeling than say a Smith or Colt, but they are very tough guns that can withstand lots of punishment.
Hope that helps.

Jeff (GUNKWAZY)

 

[Marshall]

Heck, I think the SRH beats the X Frame in looks hands down. That's the most out of proportion looking revolver I have seen.

But, I have seen many guys with butt ugly women so I am absolutely positive that looks are in the eyes of the beerholder.

 

[DT Guy]

The Super Redhawk looks like it was made out of a revolver and some Savage rifle parts....


And Ruger supported the AWB!


Larry

 

[Preacherman]

The Super Redhawk was made to be tougher, last longer, etc. than the Redhawk: but since (AFAIK) no-one's ever worn out a Redhawk, that's kinda irrelevant...

Actually, the Super Redhawk uses lockwork and a grip frame similar to the GP100, whereas the older Redhawk is more equivalent to the Security/Speed Six line. The former was an evolutionary upgrade to the latter.

A lot depends on how you plan to use the gun. Because I plan on carrying a revolver while hiking through difficult terrain, I chose the plain-jane Redhawk with the 5½" barrel, as this is easy to carry in a hip or cross-draw holster. The longer-barreled Redhawk, or the even longer barreled Super Redhawk, are really a bit too big for hip carry, and require a chest holster or some other method to carry them in comfort.

 

[BusMaster007]

I gave my 5.5" Redhawk .44 to my buddy and I'm planning ( always subject to change until the money is spent! ) to get a SuperRedhawk .44.

I found the 5.5" about as uncomfortable to carry as anything I can imagine, so I don't expect a BIG .44 of ANY configuration to be a joy to have on your hip, shoulder, chest or anywhere else on your body while hiking in the woods with a rifle looking for animals...

Which brings me back to having that nagging .454 Ruger SRH 'Alaskan' staring at me. Bitch to shoot, I'll bet, but it's GOT TO BE more comfortable to carry than anything else I've seen! If it were only a .44...
Ask P95Carry or anyone else about my 'quest' for the SRH.
I've flip-flopped more than John Kerry!

Good Luck on YOUR choice!

 

[Fumbler]

I need friends like you

I have a friend who sold me his GP-100 that he shot two cylinders of ammo through and left on his shelf for 4 years for $300 though, that's not too bad I guess.

 

[Master Blaster]

I have a redhawk .44mag it has built in scope mounts on the barrel rather than the frame and came with the SS rings pictured on the super, but these are an option on the redhawk AFIK, and it can also be bought without them.

The grip frame is different as is the lock work.
The gripframe is finished on the red hawk and much better looking IMHO and you can have the backstrap and frontstrap exposed. The Super redhawk, is like the sp101 in that the entire grip area is like a big railroad spike, and must be covered with a total wraparound type of grip.

On the redhawk there is only one spring (if you dont count the tiny handspring) So tuning it requires using a wolf spring kit, IIRC I put the 13 lb spring in mine (kit has 12, 13, and 14 lb IIRC and the stock spring is like 17 lb). The super redhawk has a couple of springs a main spring and a trigger return spring, so the trigger is more tunable.

I like the balance of the redhawk better, so that is what I bought, also I felt the .44 mag 300 grain bullet loads it can handle would be as much recoil as I would want to handle in a handgun.

 

[moxie]

As noted above, the grip is different. But the main difference is the grip to trigger distance is less on the SRH.This may mean a lot to you if you have less than big hands or you like the feel of a smaller trigger pull distance. You need to hold both in you had to find out for yourself whether this is important to you. You have more options in getting the grip just right. By the way, the RH in 7 1/2 barrel also can be had with scope rings and integral mounts just like the SRH. Overall the SRH is a more modern, better thought out handgun, IMHO.

 

[Tom C.]

One minor point. Due to the differences mechanically between the two designs, it is usually easier to get a better single action trigger pull on the Super Redhawk, and a better double action trigger on the Redhawk.

 

[P. Plainsman]

The one .44 Super Redhawk I've shot was very accurate and had a nice DA trigger. It was a rental range beater with many rounds through it.

Which raises an issue: the SRH is essentially a big GP100. Stands to reason its action will grow noticeably smoother with use, like the GP's does. (My GP has come a LONG way in a year's time.)

Is that also true of the Redhawk, with its different action?

 

[Roland of Gilead]

Which raises an issue: the SRH is essentially a big GP100. Stands to reason its action will grow noticeably smoother with use, like the GP's does. (My GP has come a LONG way in a year's time.)

Is that also true of the Redhawk, with its different action?

From what I hear yes. Also the SRH is lighter even though it looks heavier.

 

[halvey]

Which brings me back to having that nagging .454 Ruger SRH 'Alaskan' staring at me. Bitch to shoot, I'll bet, but it's GOT TO BE more comfortable to carry than anything else I've seen! If it were only a .44...

Couldn't you just buy a used .44 mag and have it cut down? I just saw a .44 for $300 and for around $100, you could get the barrel shortened. Still cheaper than the Alaskan.

I thought about doing just that with a .45 Colt in 3.5" or 4".

 

[P. Plainsman]

A snubby Alaskan SRH in plain .44 Mag -- now that'd be useful. Tough competition for the S&W Mountain Gun. Load it with Cor-Bon's hot .44 Special and you'd have a great car/truck/bedside revolver. Would fill a .44 niche the Redhawk doesn't (shortest RH barrel is 5.5").

 

[BusMaster007]

I wish Ruger would do a lot of things!
They won't in time for me, though, so I'm going to back off on the .454 Alaskan and hope for a good, used well but not much unit in a year or so. Someone on another Forum suggested this and I hadn't thought about it that way...good advice. The Alaskan won't be out until April or May, and I don't want to wait until then. What I need to do is practice and waiting puts me behind too far, especially with the .454.

In the meantime, I want a brand new SRH .44 to start my project with.

 

[Camp Cook]

The biggest difference is that you can get the SRH in 454 Casull.

No more needs to be said......

 

[MrAcheson]

About the only similarity is that they both have "redhawk" in the name. Oh and both can be had in .44 magnum.

The SRH is a GP100 on steroids. The Redhawk is the older ruger single-spring action. The SRH is much easier to work on because it has two springs. Neither is as easy as a S&W, because the sideplate on a smith action lets you get a better idea of what is going on in the gun.

If you want a short barreled .44mag you could buy the Alaskan. Shoot the "Ruger Only" .45lc ammo through it that is loaded in the .44 mag range. Plus it might be a bit lighter because of the marginally larger holes.