44 Redhawk V. 44 Super Redhawk

M

mobias

Moderator
Would there really be much difference between the two in terms of ability to digest hot loads. I own a few S&W model 29s and 629s, but don't shoot much hot stuff in them as I have read and heard that they can't take the pounding. Any input would be appreciated. I am leaning towards the standard blued Redhawk, mainly because I just prefer blued guns. But if the Super is demonstrably stronger I would consider it. Thanks.
 
Mobias,

Everything I've read suggests that the SuperRedhawk is, indeed, the stronger of the two. I have a SRH and am quite pleased with it. However, I've never shot either a RH or a SRH until it broke, so can't state for certain which will last longer ;). I remember reading an article in Shooting Times a while back about a 10,000 round test of the SRH using full house Black Hills ammo. The results were pretty impressive.

Bottom line: if strength is your criterion, I'd vote for the SRH.
 
I have a SRH in stainless and was told by the FFL when I purchased it that the SRH was generally considered the stronger of the two. I've shot quite a few rounds in it (nowhere near 10,000, though) and it seems like a fine gun to me...no complaints whatsoever.
 
The 10,000 round test was done with a regular Redhawk, not the SRH. The writer specifically chose the smaller sized RH to do the test figuring if it passed, the SRH certainly would.

I really don't think that the SRH is any stronger than the RH. I think the RH is strong enough that the extra beef of the SRH doesn't really add any more strength.

I purposely chose the regular Redhawk becasue I didn't want the extra bulk and I prefeer the scope mounted on the barrel rather than back over the reciever. Other than the extra weight helping with the recoil, I see no purpose for it?

I can't see dealing with all the extra bulk for a .44 Mag when it is un-necessary. It is IMHO too much bulk for a .44. Now when it is chambered in .454 I can understand it and don't think it is overkill.
 
Suggest regular Redhawk will provide all the strength you'll (and your descendants) ever require.

Besides, the Redhawk (I prefer the 5.5") really does balance better in most hands.

Own four....all calibers.
 
I chose the regular Redhawk because I wanted a 'scope on it. Mounting it on the barrel rather than the frame (as on the SRH) makes the pistol balance better.

In terms of strength, I don't see that the bulkier frame of the SRH adds strength where it would be most useful, in the cylinder. The regular Redhawk will stand up to a LOT of .44 Magnum loads - probably several times as many as an S&W will, if the .44's are all full power.

Now, if Ruger only used the improved steels in their .44 Mags that they do in their .454's, they'd really be on to something...

(Afterthought: I'm told that, if you're into custom action work, the SRH trigger can be tuned up more than that of the regular RH.)
 
I had a trigger job done on my SRH w/ 9.5" barrel. With a B&L scope, it weighs in at about 66 ozs. Sound heavy? It is, but that is the way I wanted it, and mag loads are very tolerable.
 
The Super Redhawk has one very significant advantage over the standard Redhawk, and that is that it uses a two spring system. One spring determines trigger pull weight, and one spring drives the hammer. The Redhawk depends upon the same spring to determine both. Consequently, one can only lighten trigger tension by going to a lighter main spring, which lightens hammer strike, which can easily lead to misfires. As to strength differences, they are for all practical purposes, the same. The cylinders of the two guns are identical.

Best regards, Randy Garrett
http://www.garrettcartridges.com
 
I never have understood why Ruger brought out the Super Redhawk. It's much heavier and bulkier than it needs to be to handle the .44 Magnum cartridge in any sane loads (although only marginally strong for the .454 with a six shot cylinder) and is as ugly as a dead horse in an unmade bed. The Redhawk is no thing of sleek beauty, either, but can be accepted on the basis that form at least follows function.
The Super, when 'scoped, almost demands a sling, or possibly even a caisson, for convenient transport. For the same weight and bulk, I'd choose a carbine, thanks. A Redhawk at least can be holstered.

But then, Ruger never asked me...
 
allmost demands a sling

my RH is heavy enough, you'd have to use a bi-pod on those
9.5" barrels, with a scope too,I'm sure recoil would be way
less than RH,a Ruger auto rifle would be nice,slabe sides
your right for sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top