Are the Super Redhawks any stronger than the regular Redhawks? They don't seem to be much heavier. For example, the Redhawk 44 mag in the 7 1/2 inch barrel is 53 oz while the Super Redhawk 44 mag in the 7 1/2 inch barrel is 53.5 oz...what gives? If I had my pick, I would take the Redhawk over the Super Redhawk any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Is the only difference the fact that one has scope mounts and the other doesn't?
A Question about Redhawks and Super Redhawks.
- Thread starter mathman
- Start date
Steve in PA
New member
They chambered the SRH in .480 and .454 casull, not the regular RH. I think that answers your question.
Yeah...I get it, obviously it must be stronger...or they wouldn't have built it. But when it is only a half oz heavier...I can't imagine that it is that much stronger. I guess I was looking for info from a Ruger fan who might really be able to break it down for me...
Last edited:
Incrementally, there's not a lot of extra material in the SRH. Most of what was added to the frame of the SRH came out of the barrel of the RH. The internals are different as well. The SRH uses seperate hammer and trigger return springs, just like the GP100. The RH uses one spring for both functions. I just bought a RH in .45 Colt. Had to look long and hard to find one, but I think it was worth it. The SRH has a better trigger. The SRH is stronger. The SRH is more readily available. But (in my opinion only), the SRH is butt-ugly compared to the RH. It looks interesting in the model that has the barrel bobbed at the end of the frame, but that's the only one that I could tolerate owning. Since I don't have much use for a hand-cannon snubby I'll have to pass on that one too.
A SRH made from pure lead would be MUCH heavier than a steel SRH.
But it also would be much weaker...Yes I know we are talking stainless vs. stainless, but my point is that weight is not the only factor that determines strength.
More important is where the extra reinforcemant is. The grip frames are very different. The RH has more metal in the grip frame than the SRH. But the SRH has more metal in the main frame.
Different (stronger) cylinder alloys are used in the SRH.
Additional heat treating methods must also be considered in the SRH.
Actually the RH and SRH are sorta different from each other. The actions are somewhat different. The grip frames and main frames are very different too.
The SRH is designed more like the GP-100 rather than the RH.
Which is stronger? The reinforcement, frame design, and metallurgy dictate that the SRH is the stronger of the two. Does it really matter? NO.....
For any safe and practical purpose, that you would use these two fine revolvers for, either one will provide more than a lifetime of safe shooting.
There is one thing though.....I have heard of a few people boring out the cylinders of their .45 RHs to make them into .454 RHs. If Ruger thought that this was safe to do...they would have done it themselves. To the folks that have done this conversion.......I hope you never find out what a big mistake you have made.
Ruger got it right on these two...
But it also would be much weaker...Yes I know we are talking stainless vs. stainless, but my point is that weight is not the only factor that determines strength.
More important is where the extra reinforcemant is. The grip frames are very different. The RH has more metal in the grip frame than the SRH. But the SRH has more metal in the main frame.
Different (stronger) cylinder alloys are used in the SRH.
Additional heat treating methods must also be considered in the SRH.
Actually the RH and SRH are sorta different from each other. The actions are somewhat different. The grip frames and main frames are very different too.
The SRH is designed more like the GP-100 rather than the RH.
Which is stronger? The reinforcement, frame design, and metallurgy dictate that the SRH is the stronger of the two. Does it really matter? NO.....
For any safe and practical purpose, that you would use these two fine revolvers for, either one will provide more than a lifetime of safe shooting.
There is one thing though.....I have heard of a few people boring out the cylinders of their .45 RHs to make them into .454 RHs. If Ruger thought that this was safe to do...they would have done it themselves. To the folks that have done this conversion.......I hope you never find out what a big mistake you have made.
Ruger got it right on these two...