Ruger Redhawk 357 Mag

[breacher]

Been looking for a beefy 357 mag to shoot hot loads long distances when I came across a NIB Redhawk in 357 mag. I read someplace that not many were made in 357 mag, most were 44 mag like the one I owned 20 yrs ago.

The shop wanted $800 and I don't usually frequent this store cause his prices are higher than all the other gun shops in town. He had a nice used Redhawk 44 mag for $600. as a comparison.

Is $800 high for the 357 or is it priced as a collectable? I want to buy something to shoot so I guess some collector value goes out the window if I start shooting it.

 

[Walkalong]

I think it is, but people are very proud of them since they are not that common. I would like one, but am unwilling to pay that much. I'll stick with my .41 and .44 Redhawks (Traded my .45 Colt), and shoot my Colt Trooper Mk III, which is a brute in its own right, just not as beefy as the Redhawk. You might consider a Dan Wesson. They were used with hot loads quite a bit for steel silhouette shooting.

 

[BCRider]

I understand your desire for a big and heavy gun for a lot of full power .357Mag. Yes the Redhawk would be nice. But the question you have to ask yourself is "How much would a similar condition S&W N frame Highway Partolman cost?". Because in the realm of full size .357Mag gun options I'd suggest that these are your two primary competitors for somewhat older and used.

For new or near new there's a couple of different N framed S&W Performance Center options such as the 327. They hold more than 6 rounds but they are built on the burly N frame.

 

[Lucky Derby]

For use you will get a much better price on a comparable S&W M27 or M28 N frame.
While the Ruger Redhawk in .357 is a very durable firearm, it is really a collector's item as so few were ever made. That is why the inflated price. They are rare enough that in twenty plus years of going to gunshops and gun shows, including working in a couple of shops, I have never seen one in person.

 

[gamestalker]

I also think that is a bit over the top for one. I love them and would love to own one in .357, but not for $800 unless it comes with a bunch of extras like several thousand rounds of brass, a quality holster and extra grips, you get the point.

 

[cluttonfred]

You could get a used 4" or 6" GP-100 for less and it would take more hot .357s than your shooting hand would enjoy.

 

[BullRunBear]

Gotta think he wants a collectible price. And if the gun is truly NIB and unfired it would be collectible and worth it. I've read that only about 5,000 of the 357 mag Redhawks were made in the mid-1980s. I have one in SS with the 7.5" barrel. Got it used but almost unfired around 1985. I traded a manual typewriter and a few dollars for it. I suspect it was just too heavy for the original buyer.

If you don't HAVE to use a double action, other less expensive possibilities would be a Blackhawk or a T/C Contender single shot. Either one, especially the Contender, should be strong enough for any sane load you come up with.

Jeff

 

[357 Terms]

800$ seems a bit high but; its probably not gonna depreciate.

 

[Mike Wazowski]

As a comparison, a new 44 mag stainless steel 7-1/2" Redhawk from Bud's Gunshop is currently list for $688.00. They are out of stock and the price is subject to change, probably higher. Ruger is not making any more 357 Redhawks. If this Redhawk is "new in box" for 8 bills it is a legitimate collector's piece, and not overly priced.

If it is the gun that you really would like to own, buy it and don't look back. You will soon forget the pinch of the added cost and have a handgun that you could give to your grandchildren.

You may not hear anyone responding to this thread admit it, but there is a lot of Ruger guys that would not think twice about buying that gun at that price.

Mike

 

[MachIVshooter]

Too much. It's a $500 gun that has been inflated due to limited availability.

Honestly, an L-frame S&W or GP-100 can handle the hottest .357 loads available just fine. As others have mentioned, too, you can get an N-frame S&W for that or less, just as burly as a RH and with a much smoother action.

One thing to watch with 6-shot N frame or RH .357's; The cylinders are HEAVY, and rapid DA fire will batter the cylinder stop.

 

[DC Plumber]

"One thing to watch with 6-shot N frame or RH .357's; The cylinders are HEAVY, and rapid DA fire will batter the cylinder stop."

I've heard the same.

I've always wanted a Redhawk in .357 too, but I fell in love with Smith and Wessons before I found one and now my craving has been fulfilled by L frame .357s, in particular my 4" 586.

But it's still a neat gun.

 

[skidder]

You should be able to get a used GP100 between $400-$500 and feed it max loads without worry.

 

[slick6]

The N-Frame certainly is not as burly as a Redhawk .357 and the strength of the Redhawk is far superior. Secondly, since the N-Frame also has a large diameter cylinder, it suffers from the same problem as the Redhawk .357 via doing rapid firing! It's never wise to do rapid firing with any large cylinder revolver. The Colt Anaconda is another huge cylinder revolver that should not be fired rapidly or else would suffer the same consequences.

 

[MachIVshooter]

The N-Frame certainly is not as burly as a Redhawk .357 and the strength of the Redhawk is far superior.

You have no idea what you're talking about

Secondly, since the N-Frame also has a large diameter cylinder, it suffers from the same problem as the Redhawk .357 via doing rapid firing!

That's exactly what I said.

The Colt Anaconda is another huge cylinder revolver that should not be fired rapidly or else would suffer the same consequences.

Not to the same extent, just as N-frame or RH .44's aren't as afflicted. There's a lot less mass in a cylinder bored for .44 or .45 cal than one of the same diameter with little .357 holes in it. To my knowledge, the Anaconda was never offered in .357 mag.

 

[cougar1717]

$800 is too high. It's definitely a collector's price, but not quite a collector's piece yet. I just wish Ruger would run a batch of the 357 RH every 8 years or make them a made to order item to bring them off their high horse.

 

[danjet500]

The GP100 will suit your needs nicely for a lot less money. Here's a candidate for you. I have no dog in this hunt.

http://www.rugerforum.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=122193

 

[slick6]

MachIVshooter:

1)I collect both S&W N-Frames and I have three Redhawk .357's. It's clear to me that you have never compared a Redhawk .357 to an N-Frame .357(M27, M28)because, if you had-then it would have been obvious to you, that despite how beefy the N-Frame is, it's just not built as ruggedly as a Redhawk .357. Here's a photo of the cylinder and the forcing cone comparing my nickel S&W M27-2 to one of my Redhawk .357's:

Here is a photo comparing both of the aforementioned revolvers. The Redhawk .357 is more massive than the S&W M27-2 in every way!


2)Yes, I agree that I made a mistake in overlooking the fact that you did say that the N-frame .357 with it's large cylinder also suffers from the same problem as the Redhawk .357. I apologize for this!

3)Although I agree with what you said above, I never stated that the Colt Anaconda was produced in the .357 caliber. My intent was only to indicate that with it's larger cylinder, that it would also suffer from the same problem as the Redhawk .357-and, of course, it's obvious that with the larger .44 cylinder holes this problem would not be to the same extent. But, thanks for pointing out that I had neglected to say this. Again, I apologize for this.

 

[MachIVshooter]

1)I collect both S&W N-Frames and I have three Redhawk .357's. It's clear to me that you have never compared a Redhawk .357 to an N-Frame .357(M27, M28)because, if you had-then it would have been obvious to you, that despite how beefy the N-Frame is, it's just not built as ruggedly as a Redhawk .357. Here's a photo of the cylinder and the forcing cone comparing my nickel S&W M27-2 to one of my Redhawk .357's:

I know they're bulkier. They wouldn't need to be so massive, though, if they were forged like the S&W. The cylinders may be milled from bar stock or may be cast, Ruger will never tell you which ones are which. Trust me, we've tried. There was an extensive thread about a year ago, I and others made calls and did a lot of digging, no one could find a conclusive answer. 1858 did, however, do a bunch of SEM imaging of both guns at his job. The results were pretty dramatic, and the cylinder on his Ruger appeared to have been cast. The S&W was obviously a machined forging. IIRC, the SEM magnification was as much as 200,000x.

I'm not suggesting that Rugers are weak, not even saying that they're not a little stronger than the S&W. What I am saying is that people are so quick to jump to the conclusion that they're "massively overbuilt" based on the heavy frames and top straps, not realizing that the cast metal is weaker than S&W or Colt forgings and MUST be heavier to be as strong.

Regardless, both the N-frame and RH are definitely overbuilt for the .357 Cartridge. It's like chambering .22 Hornet in a standard Remington 700.

 

[W.E.G.]

$800 for a Redhawk???

Somebody must be

 

[L-Frame]

I would suggest that they're way overbuilt because a number of companies test their high pressure ammo on Ruger revolvers like the Gp-100 and Redhawk.

Back to the subject of the post, the price is high but it's simply a case of is it worth that much to you, since they are difficult to find. They do pop up on websites like this off an on though. And, there is a reason that they didn't make very many: The handgun is massively overbuilt for the cartridge and WAY heavier and larger than any .357 needs to be. When the N-Frame first was introduced the original .357 was much hotter than it is today. Now, the N-Frame is also bigger than it needs to be for today's loads, and it is still a step down from the Redhawk.

Cool gun though.

 

[DWFan]

Grab it. These revolvers will never be made again and there weren't that many made to begin with. It was only made for two years. Comparing these to a S&W N-frame is a joke. The N-frame cylinder isn't even as large in diameter as the Blackhawk, much less the RedHawk. The .357 Redhawk will handle Magnum loads of up to 50 kpsi and overall lengths of up to 1.77". How do I know? Because that's what silhouette shooters used. That puts you into .357 Maximum territory, if not the .353 Casull.
BTW, Ruger Redhawk stainless cylinders are all machined from bar-stock. 410 stainless for the .357, .41, .44 and .45 Colt...465 stainless for the .454 and .480.

 

[BBDartCA]

Blackhawk here for a good price

http://www.seattleguns.net/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=49846

 

[MachIVshooter]

BTW, Ruger Redhawk stainless cylinders are all machined from bar-stock. 410 stainless for the .357, .41, .44 and .45 Colt...465 stainless for the .454 and .480.

Source?

The thread I mentioned involved extensive researching, and none of us could come up with anything that absolutely conclusive. The folks at Ruger are tight lipped, and internet research turns up that cylinders have been cast at their pine tree facility. For what guns or at what times is not known.

 

[DWFan]

http://www.cartech.com/techarticles.aspx?id=1608
They are more than happy to discuss particulars with anyone. Seeing as how they are the source for the materials used, I'd say they know what they are talking about.
Info on investment cast stainless can be found here:
http://www.netshapecastings.com/investment_casting/stainless_steel_castings.aspx

 

[CraigC]

Rugers are larger, beefier and more robust than S&W's. Period. Yes, parts of equal size, a forging will be stronger than a casting but the difference is negligible. It is well-proven that Rugers are stronger. There is a reason why custom five-shot .45Colts, .454's, .475's and .500's are built on Rugers and not S&W's. The frame's strength is far from the only issue. It is the cylinder that contains the pressure and cylinders are always cut from barstock. The .45Colt Redhawk would not be safe to 50,000psi were it not cut from barstock. The N-frame is at its limit with the .44Mag and that is only with later model guns, after the endurance package and only in limited quantities.

The issue here really is how much strength do you need and how much can you actually use? In the case of the .357, the Redhawk is simply waaaay more beef than is necessary for the cartridge. The large frame Blackhawk is way more beef than is necessary. The N-frame is large but it appeals in ways other than sheer strength. A mid-sized Blackhawk, Colt SAA (or replica), FA M97, L-frame or GP-100 are all plenty strong for the cartridge. With the Colt, FA and USFA (presently only the Shooting Master is chambered in .357) single actions being the strongest of those. Plenty strong enough to load the cartridge to its original ballistics. If you need more than that, you need a bigger cartridge. If you want to push the .357 bore to its limit, try a .357Max or Reeder's .356GNR.

.357Mag Redhawks bring $800 because that is what the market will bear. Very few of them were made and they're highly sought-after by those who like them. Guaranteed, someone will buy it at that price.