PDA

View Full Version : Ruger Redhawk .44 Rem Mag--opinions?


Heat
December 11, 2008, 00:44
I have been thinking of getting one of these pistols--anyone have any experience with them?
I have looked at the 4" blued version--seems like a reasonable size to carry and still afford good accuracy/ballistics--looks stout as well, typical Ruger toughness?

thanks!

URBAN ASSAULT
December 11, 2008, 04:04
My old man has a stainless Super Redhawk .44 with an 8" barrel. Built like friggin' a tank and is accurate to boot. Had it for almost twenty years now and it is still going strong.

-urban

K. Funk
December 11, 2008, 06:03
I have had a stainless 7-1/2" Redhawk since 1986. It is one heck of a sturdy and pretty revolver. It is accurate and has held up to full power loads all this time without as much as a hiccup. It is one of 2 dozen + Ruger handguns I have, verypleased with them all.

krf

skeeterbay
December 11, 2008, 08:50
While I prefer a single action Blackhawk. I have to agree with the others. Very strong revolver and accurate. Mine has had a boat load of full power 300 grain bullets shot through it. She has yet to loosen up. If your looking for a strong double action revolver that will last you a life time. You can't go wrong with the Redhawk.


Skeeter!

MAINER
December 11, 2008, 09:54
It's UGLY! :cool:

skeeterbay
December 11, 2008, 17:30
Some folks say I ain't all that pretty. So it seems only right I should carry an ugly gun. :D

If you find any of those old "ugly" flattops down your way. Send them on up here. I will be happy to take them off your hands. :wink:


Skeeter!

ActionYobbo
December 11, 2008, 18:43
I have 1 and I like it. best 44 I have had. the weight is a good thing. I have had light 44 mags and they dont help when shooting alot of shots.

Blackmore
December 11, 2008, 19:09
I don't find them ugly, particularly the stainless 4".

http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/Redhawk_102108_003_lo-res.jpg

http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/Redhawk_102108_004_lo-res.jpg

Heat
December 12, 2008, 00:15
Whats the story on investment casting that Ruger does? Do other manufacturers do this as well..I heard years ago that Ruger had problems with air bubbles etc in their steel and that it weakened it--

BUFF
December 12, 2008, 00:31
While investment cast parts aren't as strong as forged parts if the dimensions are the same, investment cast parts can be extremely strong when done right.

Ruger does it right. Their investment casting facility does a lot of work for things other than parts for their own firearms.

skeeterbay
December 12, 2008, 09:02
I own or have owned at one time an awful large amount of Ruger firearms. Were talking dozen's of revolvers and rifles. While some types I didn't care for. I never found any of them lacking in strength.


Skeeter!

MAINER
December 12, 2008, 09:25
Ruger's Redhawk is OK, I was thinking of the Super Redhawk. They are tougher than sledgehammers however. That takes a lot of ugly away.

Use to be a character around called "44 Joe". He liked 44 Mags and claimed to get 1800fps out of a 7 1/2" barrel with 240 gr. slugs. He used tri-plex loads, Bullseye, Herco and IMR 4227. :eek: Joe thought Ruger Super Blackhawks weren't up to snuff for his purposes and was last seen abusing a 44 Super Redhawk.
I have a Ruger SB topstrap and rear sight from one of his less than successful trial loads. :tongue:

Skeeterbay; Have only been privileged to liberate two "Flattops" before the collectors got to them. You can see my dilemma, only got one for each hand and no back-up! :(
I keep lookin'

fry
December 12, 2008, 13:56
i bought a 7 1/2 ss redhawk new in 1989 for $319, i liked it well enough and put several thousand rounds through it. i traded it off a couple years ago and now have a 29 and 629 that i like way better. it was an anvil and had the best double action trigger i have ever felt out of the box on any ruger.

skeeterbay
December 12, 2008, 15:03
Fry, I think the Smith model 29 is more sleek, and better balanced than a Redhawk. They make nice carry guns for sure! I will also admit I have owned some VERY accurate Smith's. I have one right now that is scarry accurate. However if I could only have one revolver and it was going to see HARD field use. Shooting heavy loads day after day over many years. I (personally) would want a Ruger.

Mainer, I shoot heavy loads but they are within book specs or if they are slightly over. They have been worked up to ensure no signs of pressure. I was in a local gun shop up here one day. The owner was telling me about a feller that loaded his Blackhawks extremely hot. The shop owner said he never saw a revolver recoil like that. He was always waiting for the Blackhawk to come apart but never saw it happen. He also said he refused to take any of this guys guns in on trade.


Skeeter!

fry
December 12, 2008, 16:10
agree. if i could only have one to be used and abused for a lifetime of experimenting hot loads, i would do it to it with ruger.

Heat
December 17, 2008, 19:05
Question..can you use moonclips/speedloaders with this revolver (44mag Ruger Redhawk)?

skeeterbay
December 17, 2008, 19:24
Heat; Yes they make speed loaders for the Redhawk. There are a couple of different types. Myself, I prefer the turn knob type from HKS for a hunting revolver. Just start the ends of the bullets into the chamber and twist the knob. The bullets will fall right in. The push button type speed loaders have a habit of dumping the bullets on me when I don't want them to. Also if you are planing on using a speed loader case. Get one that is hard and not one of the soft nylon ones. You will have an awful time getting the loaders out of the cheap soft cases. I use leather ones but there are some good hard plastic ones out there also. That or you can toss a couple of speed loaders into your coat pocket. That works good too. You can see the different types of speed loaders at places like Midway USA and Natchez Shooters Supply.


Skeeter!

bykerhd
December 17, 2008, 20:18
The HKS speedloaders are simple, fast & appear to be quite rugged.
Most of the used ones I've come across, in any quantity, are former police issue.
You can bet a lot of those have been banged around quite a bit.
Those heavy donut shop doors are tough on the things attached around the perimeters of the body sometimes.:wink:

If you are hunting with a coat on, grabbing a loose one speedloader out of your coat pocket is likely a lot faster than scrounging one out of a speedloader pouch. There are some nice speedloader pouches. Unfortunately, the nice leather ones are intended more for police use and have heavy, noisy snapped down retaining flaps.

Heat
December 18, 2008, 01:36
thanks guys--sounds like the revolver isnt as antiquated as some would lead us to believe--I hear some guys can reload a revolver like this faster than loading a mag in a semi auto

STGThndr
December 18, 2008, 05:59
I like my 5'' Redhawk. Want a flap holster for it but I'll have to make it myself I guess. And matching speedloader pouches. That Redhawk has taken loads as stout as I care to shoot. Tried Pachs on it and removed em pretty quick cause the rubber traction was causin my wrists to bend rather than the slipping in the hand allowed by the smooth wood grips. Someday to satisfy my vanity white horn or ivory will be replacing the wood.
The revolver shoots well but is a bit clunky-heavy... Havent shot the four inch model but would like to. Spect it has muzzle flash.... but would carry easier and look more like a revolver sposed to look...

skeeterbay
December 18, 2008, 06:52
Heat wrote: "sounds like the revolver isnt as antiquated as some would lead us to believe"


I suspect a lot has to do with gun magazines and T.V. A proper caliber revolver in the right hands will do anything that needs doing. In many cases better than an auto. I never felt under gunned with a revolver.


Skeeter!

TideWater 41009
December 18, 2008, 22:10
Originally posted by MAINER
...Use to be a character around called "44 Joe". He liked 44 Mags and claimed to get 1800fps out of a 7 1/2" barrel with 240 gr. slugs. He used tri-plex loads, Bullseye, Herco and IMR 4227. :eek: Joe thought Ruger Super Blackhawks weren't up to snuff for his purposes and was last seen abusing a 44 Super Redhawk.
I have a Ruger SB topstrap and rear sight from one of his less than successful trial loads. :tongue: ...

Did 44 Joe later change his name to Clark?

Heat
December 20, 2008, 19:39
Just handled a brand new RedHawk 4" SS .44 mag today--sweet! $639 is all I need

Artful
December 21, 2008, 13:52
It's a very sturdy horse pistol - for shooting at the range love the Ruger, I do prefer my S&W for toting over hills. Very accurate and weight of the gun helps hold recoil to a minimum.:]

rustyswarf
December 24, 2008, 22:42
Love my 5" SS Ruger Redhawk. Fell in love with it the 1st day I shot it. Threw a soda can out about 20 feet, and started shooting. The can ended up 65 yards away. Hit it all six times. The wife watched me with it one day and said, "I'll never worry about you working at the prison again. If you've got a gun, nobody's got a chance against you." (Didn't tell her we don't carry guns INSIDE the prison!)
The massive Redhawk was so nice, I later bought the same thing in a 5" blued version. Uncle Mike's make a nice ballistic nylon convertible full flap to open top holster (black only) for hunters.

MasterChief
February 16, 2009, 02:57
1985-vintage Redhawk 5-1/2" barrel I bought new, Millet rear sight, Bullseye spring kit, a little internal polishing, Hogue (hard) MonoGrip. Regular load of 250gr cast SWC, 22 grains of 2400, magnum primer. Many rounds downrange in 23+ years. Gun-to-Pig Missile. Best wishes, Dave. (300gr Sierra JSP shown here, classified amount of 2400, magnum primer, stings a bit at both ends).

http://www.fototime.com/6A433FFEE24B6A2/standard.jpg

JohnnyV1966
February 16, 2009, 11:55
I think a S&W Model 29, or 629 would be a much better choice. They are better balanced, a little lighter and usually have much better trigger pulls than the Rugers hammer coil spring would ever allow.

That beckons another question, why would someone opt for a Larger Magnum pistol with a relatively short barrel when most magnum handguns are best used with relatively slower burning powders?

Eric Bryant
February 16, 2009, 18:22
IMO, the Redhawk has two drawbacks:

1) It uses a single spring as the mainspring and trigger return spring. This makes it more difficult to reliably tune the trigger pull compared to other Ruger revolvers that use the two-spring configuration.

2) The grip frame is oddly-shaped (forced somewhat by the aforementioned single spring), and thus doesn't offer the same range of grip size as other Ruger revolvers that use the GP100-style grip frame.

If you can stand the looks and need the strength, the Super Redhawk addresses both of the above issues. If the above issues don't bother you, then the standard Redhawk is a rather nice piece, and rugged as a brick.

For those who think that standard .44 Mag loads are sufficient (and they almost always are), then the S&W M29 is probably a bit nicer piece. The big-bore Rugers are virtually overkill for standard loads.

troubleticket
February 16, 2009, 21:57
OK,
#1 I have NEVER seen a Redhawk have to go back for rework.
5K rounds is what you will get with a 29. Then the timing is gone.

#2 I'll put my Redhawk up against any model 29 for single or double action trigger pull. Weight AND feel (You just need the right GunSmith)


#3 If the diff between a 29 and redhawk makes you uncomfortable,
get a .22.

29s are great for 44 SPL loads, even warm 44spl loads. But 44MAG(the old Carbine load) will eat them up. Redhawks....no problem.

Now, I have 29s, redhawks, 27s, etc....etc...they all have there place.

If I could only have 1 handgun, it would be a redhawk.

gunseller
February 17, 2009, 10:07
When they came out I had to have one. I traded a 3 screw Super Black Hawk with 75 percent of the bluing gone for a 5 1/2 inch SS Red Hawk. I still have it and have no idea how many rounds it has fired. I have tried many different grips on it but keep coming back to the stock grips. To disagree with Eric Bryant I like the feel of the grip frame. The load I fire for years is the same one MasterChief stated. There have been others that were hotter. The load I shoot most today is 18 grains of 2400 under the same hard cast bullet. I know I am getting old. I carry one of two custom 4 3/4 Ruger Super Black Hawks with Black Hawk grip frames. 22 Grains kills my middle finger and 18 grains will kill coyotes out to 125 yards and deer at close to 200 yards. Although it is fun showing some people my middle finger and telling them how hard the trigger guard hits it. Oh, if you don't have the idea yet I would go the Ruger Red Hawk.
Steve

Eric Bryant
February 21, 2009, 11:21
Originally posted by troubleticket
#2 I'll put my Redhawk up against any model 29 for single or double action trigger pull. Weight AND feel (You just need the right GunSmith)

Mind giving me the name of such a gunsmith? Finding someone to work on a S&W wheelgun isn't tough, but I haven't heard of anyone who specializes in the Redhawk. I'm currently not happy at all with the trigger on my Redhawk.


#3 If the diff between a 29 and redhawk makes you uncomfortable,
get a .22.

29s are great for 44 SPL loads, even warm 44spl loads. But 44MAG(the old Carbine load) will eat them up. Redhawks....no problem.

Now, I have 29s, redhawks, 27s, etc....etc...they all have there place.

If I could only have 1 handgun, it would be a redhawk.

I currently have only one centerfire revolver - it's a Redhawk in .44 Mag with the 5.5" barrel. Nothing I stated above was intended to imply that the S&W is a better piece, but I felt that it was only fair to mention some of the Ruger's drawbacks because some folks have different priorities than mine or yours.

The Redhawk is indeed massively strong. But the simple fact of the matter is that most folks don't need to use loads that are too strong for the S&W 29. But if we set practicality aside for a moment, there is a certain satisfaction to throwing 340gr chunks of lead at 1400 fps from a very "packable" wheelgun :D

The nice thing about this debate is that there are choices. My next wheelgun will likely be a Model 29, but I also won't give up the Redhawk to get it.

crcksht
February 24, 2009, 12:05
Owned the same model as shown in the pic posted by MasterChief. Also have owned the 6 inch Smith M29. There was no difference in accuracy I could tell between the M29 and the Redhawk. The M29 had a slightly better trigger pull, but the difference was not that great. In my opinion both revolvers have a poorly designed grip-frame for a magnum revolver. The steel frame tends to pound your hand with nothing between the steel and your hand to soften the blow of magnum-load recoil. The Super Redhawk is vastly superior in this regard with the frame totally enclosed in rubber. Regarding accuracy, the Super Redhawk in .44 Mag is a tack-driver and like the Redhawk has a much stronger action than does the M29.

If you are satisfied with light to medium loads and will rarely shoot full-house magnums, the Smith's are fine. If you intend to shoot lots of heavy magnum loads, go with a Ruger.

yarro
March 19, 2009, 22:29
The Redhawk and Super Redhawk are the most durable DA .44Mag made. The will outlast a S&W or Colt DA .44Mag by far. I love my Super Redhawk. Need to convert the press back to .44 so I can crank out some ammo to shoot again.

-yarro

Ironhandjohn
March 21, 2009, 10:03
I've owned 2 over the years, and would have them both if I hadn't thought I needed something different. 7.5" and 5.5" stainless. Solid as bank vaults, heavy, a bit clunky, but will digest loads that make S&W cower...



Damn, I think I need another one now........

STGThndr
March 21, 2009, 16:26
Ironhand John says:
Solid as bank vaults, heavy, a bit clunky, but will digest loads that make S&W cower...
STGThndr says: I do agree, and that most whole-heartedly! I like the balance of the Smiths better but they just dont seem to take the pounding. A couple friends and I traded a 4 inch model 29 around for awhile.. we managed to shoot it loose, the cylinder did get a bit sloppy. The Redhawks we've abused seem to take it and take it. My 5.5 inch stainless has taken loads that I shoot in my carbine (they werent comfortable) and one of the old OLD shooters around here recommended a load he called the "BAR load"- 22 gr of 2400 under a 240 hard cast semi wad. Im no pussy when it comes to recoil, but that one hurt and I had to back off. I would never ever try that one in a Smith. Dunno who would be hurt worse... the shooter or the "BAR"... Follow-up shots were problematical.... Now I still need to come up with a flap holster and a belt rig for it.... a belt with loops as well as a spot to hold two speed loaders in place. Probably have to make it myself or hire it done. I know what I want but just havent seen it.

koathmann
March 23, 2009, 10:20
I have a 629 5 inch for sale or trade pm interested

Powderfinger
April 03, 2009, 10:15
Originally posted by fry
agree. if i could only have one to be used and abused for a lifetime of experimenting hot loads, i would do it to it with ruger.

Randy Garrett would agree also.
The Redhawk is one of 3 non-custom revolvers that get the green light for use with Garrett 330 gr. Hammerhead +P ammo and 1440 ft/lbs. of energy.

trucksurfer
April 28, 2009, 19:38
Originally posted by Heat
thanks guys--sounds like the revolver isnt as antiquated as some would lead us to believe--I hear some guys can reload a revolver like this faster than loading a mag in a semi auto

Are you aware of an old Cajun by the name of Miculek? Watch some of the stuff he does with a revolver and you'll know wheel guns ain't antiques.

ActionYobbo
April 30, 2009, 07:40
took my redhawk out yesterday and fired 3 hand breaker loads. I always put in 6 but usualy just fire 3 to get a group. I like the ruger because its strong looks good and handles these hot loads. the weight also helps save the hands. I have let other people fire this nice revolver but no one has got past 2 shots. it seems to scare them (they are not enthusiasts)