Redhawk vs SUPER Redhawk
I'm usually not a buyer-seller, just a buyer-keeper. I'm considering getting my first .44 double action and being a fan of Ruger revolvers (owning 4 right now) I figured I would go with a Redhawk. I'm wondering what the difference is between the old Redhawk 44's and the new Super Redhawks and which one is preferred.
0
-
I have had and shot both. I only have the RedHawks now, no Super Red's. I think the size and ergonomics of the RedHawk is better than the Super Red, for 44 magnum sized rounds.
My RedHawks are not in 44 Magnum though I did have one in 44 Magnum. The pair I have are the 7 1/2 barrel, with the scope ring cuts. One is still bare back, the other is wearing a 3-12x Burris handgun scope. They are 41 magnums, and you can find them from time to time, along with the 357 magnums too. The RedHawk in 357, has to be the strongest 357 I know of.
Best
EDIT 1
I can tell you that my scoped RedHawk in 41 Magnum, will keep them in a coffee cup, from a good rest at 100 yards, and I would not be afraid to shoot a deer, out to 150 yards with it, and feel perfectly comfortable doing so.0 -
Main difference is that the Super Redhawk has a beefier frame that extends over the barrel where it attaches to the frame.
Longer frame adds weight, which is either good (reduces flip and recoil) or bad (makes gun heavier for carry and slower to point) depending on your point of view.
Longer frame makes it easier to mount a scope.
Some think the longer frame is uglier. (That's subjective, obviously).
Super Redhawk is probably stronger, and is built like the proverbial tank, so you can run super-max type loads through one all day long if you like.
Super Redhawk uses the same grip "stud" design as the GP100, meaning you can (in theory) put any size/shape grip on there you like. That's potentially a plus if you have very large or small hands.
Internals of the two are somewhat different. Redhawk is more like the older Security/Service Six, and the Super Redhawk is a scaled up version of the GP100 revolver. In practice, this means the trigger on the Super Redhawk offers a bit more flexibility for tuning, if you are inclined to do that.
I think that covers everything.
Which one to get is a matter of personal preference. If you want the lighter/sleeker gun and (arguably) the nicer looking one, get the Redhawk. If you want the tougher/stronger/heavier gun or are determined to put a scope on there, get the Super Redhawk.
Edit: I've shot both, and owned neither. Of the two, I like the Super Redhawk better, well. . .because its more "super" (ie its just bigger/beefier, and its built like you could use it for a sledgehammer if you had to. But you can't really go wrong with either one.
If you're not sure which you want, I think the best thing to do is just to handle both (shooting them side by side would be even better, though maybe not possible/practical). Do that, I think one or the other will stand out.
Edit #2: Stainless.
Seems to me like if you're going to carry it a lot as a "working" gun, have smallish hands, aren't interested in pushing it with max or high volume loads, and aren't going to scope it, the one you want is the (regular) Redhawk0 -
I'm kinda small handed and I have NO intention of putting a scope on any handgun. I have a security six and LOVE that one so it sounds like a Redhawk is the way to go... 0 -
I like the Redhawk better as I have small hands. Mine has the factory ring set up and a 2X Leupold on it. I sent it to Magna-Port for the muzzle cuts that help recoil. It has taken dear for all the years I've had it using my 240gr 44mag loads. 0 -
The Super Redhawk is a BIG handgun (Not S&W 500/460 or BFR sized, but a tank anyway). The Redhawk is also a big and strong firearm, just a bit smaller in frame size than the ARH. IMHO for the .44 you'll be well served with the standard RH with the 5 1/2 barrel. (My SRH in .454 with the 7 1/2 incher is a real chore to lug around on the hip all morning.) 0 -
For strength and durability, go with the SRH versus the RH.
I have owned and shot both... a lot. I competed in the IHMSA for many years with my SRH. It has a tuned trigger, and the superfine sight elevation screw.
The RH is a very good & dependable gun, but I am not sure if it would have survived all of the tens of thousands of hot loads I have shot through my SRH...27.5-grains of WW-296 under a 220-Grain FMJ-SIL bullet. For all of you S&W and Colt Python fans... DO NOT try this load!
My 2?0 -
I VERY rarely shoot anything but factory loads in anything, so strength of the frame under hot loads isn't a contributing factor to me. This weapon will primarily be for "casual hunting", by which I mean I will take it to scout (I occasionally help manage a game ranch) and bust a pig every now and then. Other than that, it will be an occasional shooter and I just want the dang thing because I love things that go boom and a 44 makes a BIG one! I'm also considering the SBH.
Another question: Blue or Stainless?0 -
Stainless. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Bert H.
For strength and durability, go with the SRH versus the RH.
I have owned and shot both... a lot. I competed in the IHMSA for many years with my SRH. It has a tuned trigger, and the superfine sight elevation screw.
The RH is a very good & dependable gun, but I am not sure if it would have survived all of the tens of thousands of hot loads I have shot through my SRH...27.5-grains of WW-296 under a 220-Grain FMJ-SIL bullet. For all of you S&W and Colt Python fans... DO NOT try this load!
My 2?
Anaconda [;)]0 -
I have smaller hands and I have a Redhawk I purchased before the Super Redhawk came out. One more difference is that a scope mounts on the barrel of the RH and on the frame of the SRH.
For everyday shooting with 220's and 240's I go to my S&W 29's and 629's. For serious loads, like 300's, I use the RH.0 -
As much as I love blue and walnut...stainless handguns are much easier to keep looking new. Especially if you get them wet or sweaty during carry. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
11 comments