One thing I didn't like about the 454 bull is porting. I don’t see porting on a handgun as beneficial. I'd rather have recoil then gas shooting back at me. I also have a BFR in 500 and I shoot it all the time, no porting necessary. The grip is to narrow for my paws and the lockup and general quality of the machining is not even close compared to either my Rugers or smiths...old or new. To me its just an inferior weapon. This has nothing to do with brand favoring and I think the op should consider the number of experienced shooters on this forum and the general consensus that the Ruger is just a hands down better pistol is enough to make his decision.
trying to choose: Ruger Redhawk or Taurus Raging Bull which one is a better buy ?
- Thread starter triggerhappy101
- Start date
- Status
Ghost Tracker
Member
I think: asking a question in the form of a thread on a reliable firearm forum would be a GREAT way to gain some information. You'd think so too if more people were voting for YOUR pick!
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Well, certainly. And as I said several times, I HAVE handled a RB up close.
For me, the flash/flame, and noise/blast increases are more detrimental than the recoil reduction benefits, which I feel are minimal. Others don't agree, of course, but I personally run full house .44 Mags (300 gr. @ 1,250 fps) through my 4" 629 without pain or difficulty. Our IDPA club has done "magnum side matches" where we shot them weak-hand-only, ran "Bill Drills," etc. I don't need ports, I don't like the drawbacks, and so I wouldn't buy a gun that came with them given other equal choices.
I've looked at a number of Taurus guns that I felt had rough machining on the inner surfaces, under the crane, etc. The last Raging Bull I played with did not have that issue, that I recall anyway, but I thought the lockup on that one was sloppy. Admittedly, some guns shoot fine even when they feel like they aren't "tight" and as I said, I didn't shoot that one.
Oh, of course! Last night I shot a Ruger LCR. Didn't particularly want one before. Don't really, really want one now -- though I have to admit I was favorably impressed. But I'll shoot anything, given the chance!
Uhhh, not really. Like I've said, the Taurus' just don't appeal to me for several reasons. I had the option in the past and I made other choices, which I've been very happy with.
If it fits his budget, sure. I've got ~15,000 rds through mine and it's doing just fine. Hey, there's some direct experience!
Uhhhh...maybe. That's a niche gun due to cost, rarety, and general Colt-ness.
I've honestly never held one, but folks tell me they're pretty good.Because of the porting? Perhaps. But I find that to be such a fine line to tread. The reduction in recoil just doesn't seem to be all that significant. You can tame recoil a heck of a lot more by simply changing what ammo/load you're using than you can through porting. If you're not ready to handle full-power magnum recoil, you don't have to go to porting just to beat that problem. Change your ammo, get some help with your stance and grip, and practice! (And, if you really like porting, you could always get the Redhawk ported. You don't have to go with the Taurus to get that.)
Well absolutely! I kind of hate answering the "which would you buy" question with a simple, "go figure it out yourself" answer, though. I have an opinion, and if asked, I'll share it. But in the end the potential buyer should try for him/herself if he/she at all can.
Oh, no worries! I'm not that thin skinned!
squarles67
Member
I have two Taurus, one is good the other is crap
I have 5 Rugers including one Redhawk and all are great
I have 5 Rugers including one Redhawk and all are great
cooldude14
Member
Ruger
pharmer
Member
I bought this Redhawk used for $375 at a gunshow. Had a broken rear sight. Sent it to Ruger. Got a new sight assembly in the mail in a week. I vote Ruger. Joe
I've owned my .44 Redhawk since 1983. I have fired a couple thousand rounds through it and taken over a dozen deer with one shot each. I will not part with it, but I might make room for a .500 S&W. I would not even consider a Taurus.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Who?
Taurus (firearms) has been removed from my vernacular so I don't understand the question.
I'd rather have a gun that functioned for a lifetime rather than have a gun with a lifetime warranty. I've had enough first hand experience with Taurus to know to steer clear of them. Redhawk, Super Redhawk, that is the question.
I'd rather have a gun that functioned for a lifetime rather than have a gun with a lifetime warranty. I've had enough first hand experience with Taurus to know to steer clear of them. Redhawk, Super Redhawk, that is the question.
buddyemily
Member
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2011
- Messages
- 53
+1 on that.
you have never heard of gunblast.com let me try to put a link up http://www.gunblast.com/
Duckingit88
Member
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2011
- Messages
- 12
I have owned several taurus and a few red hawks. at one time I had a raging bull in 41 rem mag and a red hawk in a 44 mag that I used for hog hunting. I am not going to bash either company, but the taurus did seem to get loose over a quick period of time. Its not like the gun broke all you had to do was tighten the screw in that held the cylinder in place and it was fine, the red hawk worked great most of the time with only a few problems with the cylinder turning after getting mud in it and the taurus this never seemed to happen. but it depends on what you are going to use the gun for and your budget.
Earlier this year I purchased a new 44 Tracker with porting. I was disappointed to find out the porting was not recommended for the CCI shot loads (my fault for not doing the research). This was a minor disappointment compared to their CS department. Shortly after I purchased the gun I noticed some defective parts that were serious enough to where they told me to send it in. A week or so passed and the gun came back not fixed?? I called them and asked if they could send me the parts, and they did. Why didn't they fix gun when it was at their facility??????? The gun worked great after I received the parts and fixed it myself, but I sold it due to lack of confidence in the gun and their so called "warranty". No, this was not a Raging Bull, but it was a Taurus. I still have one Taurus, but I will never buy another.
The gun worked great after I received the parts and fixed it myself, but I sold it due to lack of confidence in the gun and their so called "warranty". No, this was not a Raging Bull, but it was a Taurus. I still have one Taurus, but I will never buy another.
Damon555
Member
I've owned both. The Taurus raging bull 44 mag was pretty much a flop from the get go. I bought it because those grips felt great in my hands. After owning it a short time the cylinder locked up on it. I got the darn thing working only to find that it was a major problem. The center part of the cylinder used to advance it while cocking the hammer was chewed all to bits. With only 1 or 2 boxes of ammo through it this should never have been a problem. Needless to say I took it back and luckily my buddy at the gun shop swapped it out for a super blackhawk.
I've got a Redhawk now that is head and shoulders above any Taurus revolver that I have ever shot. Save yourself the trouble and just shell out the extra money for the Ruger now....you will not be disappointed.
I've got a Redhawk now that is head and shoulders above any Taurus revolver that I have ever shot. Save yourself the trouble and just shell out the extra money for the Ruger now....you will not be disappointed.
lobo9er
Member
According to a google shopping search it looks like there is only about a 100 dollar difference between the two. I'd say a ruger is 100 dollars better.
I can't speak from experience about Ruger but I can tell you that Taurus stands behind their warranty. It's just too bad that one needs to exercise the need as often as I have.
Of six revolvers of various models three were returned for warranty. One of those three was returned twice. The third was replaced with new gun twice. The problems occurred right out of the box or in the first 500 rounds.
While Taurus does certainly honor their warranty obligation the aggravation of needing it so often devalues that warranty.
Consider that the shipping cost to Taurus in Miami is yours. If the firearm is replaced then you have to pay a dealer to process the firearm to you as if you purchased it. In my neighborhood that's $30-50. Last, I like to put a few hundred rounds through a gun before I depend on it. I did that three times on the gun that was replaced twice. All of these costs added to cost of the original purchase will deter me from buying another Taurus.
Of six revolvers of various models three were returned for warranty. One of those three was returned twice. The third was replaced with new gun twice. The problems occurred right out of the box or in the first 500 rounds.
While Taurus does certainly honor their warranty obligation the aggravation of needing it so often devalues that warranty.
Consider that the shipping cost to Taurus in Miami is yours. If the firearm is replaced then you have to pay a dealer to process the firearm to you as if you purchased it. In my neighborhood that's $30-50. Last, I like to put a few hundred rounds through a gun before I depend on it. I did that three times on the gun that was replaced twice. All of these costs added to cost of the original purchase will deter me from buying another Taurus.
jad0110
Member
Taurus returned it in the same broken condition you sent it? Wow, consider yourself fortunate. You are one lucky guy
! When I sent mine in (a .22 LR Model 94 with a binding cylinder and crunchy DA trigger) they actually managed to fudge it up even more prior to returning it 
:banghead: (the cylinder still jammed, the trigger still felt like it had rocks in it and as an added bonus Taurus somehow managed to turn it into a lead spitter).Don't get me wrong, I've had one excellent Taurus (a Model 66) and currently own another nice one (a 431). In fact, I wish I had never let that 66 go. However, when I buy a Taurus, I never do so without VERY carefully inpecting it (ever since my Model 94 experience ... I should have checked that gun more closely). For example, I just recently passed on a Taurus 96 (S&W K-22 look alike) that passed all the tests, except the rear sight assembly was wobbly, a problem I've noted on many Tauris, particularly older ones from the early 90s and before.
Lastly, the Taurus lifetime warranty is meaningless to me, given my aforementioned experience with their Customer DIS-service Department (I'll just deal with a reputable local gunsmith if need be). Not only did they mess the gun up, they included a terse, nasty little response with the returned gun stating that I needed to clean it more often (I told them IN WRITING that I always ejected the empty cases straight down towards the floor, and I even resorted to cleaning the gun every 50 rounds in an effort to avoid the cylinder binding).
As for the Redhawk or Raging Bull? As I said, I'd at least consider both, but porting would be a no-go for me.
For the record, I own a 5.5" Redhawk and love it. Paid $300 for it a few years ago, came with an MTM pistol case, nylon shoulder holster and 50 rounds of .44 Mag JHPs. Not too shabby of a deal.
Last edited:
jad0110-- My date with their CS was actually more bizarre than what I wrote, but I didn't want to bore y'all with the details. Santa's elves would do a far better job and they ain't even real, but then again....Is there really a Taurus QC/CS department?? I wonder if the shipping is prepaid to the North Pole??
Mikhail Weiss
Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2009
- Messages
- 508
I'd give build quality, reliability, and durability points to Ruger. But my experience with Ruger and Taurus revolvers is limited to these, thus consider this data merely anecdotal.
Ruger Super Redhawk .454 Casull
Taurus .44 Magnum (don't recall which model, as this wasn't mine)
The Ruger has been absolutely reliable and a blast to shoot. Love the trigger and the ability to shoot 45 Long Colt, hot .45 loads, and .454 Casull.
The Taurus was fun to shoot in single action, but the double action pull often failed to fire when the hammer fell. Worse, the Taurus cylinder would lock up after shooting a dozen or so rounds, neither turning nor opening until the gun had cooled down a lot. After the second such stoppage, the fellow who owned it set it aside and we never shot it again. Dunno if he still has it or not.
That said, I don't mind the Taurus looks at all, and I'm intrigued by their Tracker guns and the .44 Magnum Ultralight. But at the same time I'm simply suspicious of quality issues, given their mixed reputation and my poor initial experience. If I bought a Taurus, it would likely be after having first bought something else (in the same category) that I expected to be more reliable, as I apparently have no real expectation of quality from Taurus.
Ruger Super Redhawk .454 Casull
Taurus .44 Magnum (don't recall which model, as this wasn't mine)
The Ruger has been absolutely reliable and a blast to shoot. Love the trigger and the ability to shoot 45 Long Colt, hot .45 loads, and .454 Casull.
The Taurus was fun to shoot in single action, but the double action pull often failed to fire when the hammer fell. Worse, the Taurus cylinder would lock up after shooting a dozen or so rounds, neither turning nor opening until the gun had cooled down a lot. After the second such stoppage, the fellow who owned it set it aside and we never shot it again. Dunno if he still has it or not.
That said, I don't mind the Taurus looks at all, and I'm intrigued by their Tracker guns and the .44 Magnum Ultralight. But at the same time I'm simply suspicious of quality issues, given their mixed reputation and my poor initial experience. If I bought a Taurus, it would likely be after having first bought something else (in the same category) that I expected to be more reliable, as I apparently have no real expectation of quality from Taurus.
woad_yurt
Member
Redhawk, all the way.
Michael R.
Member
redhawk
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
- Locked
- Poll
