Back to basics... Ruger wheelgun .44 Mag

F

Fivesense

New member
I've been fastidiously researching .44 Mag lately, vacillating between SA and DA, primarily Ruger. I've reach the point of diminishing theoretical comprehension.

My LGS has a Redhawk (model 5004)- it is gorgeous, feels balanced, and is .44 Mag (the caliber on which I've conclusively decided for woods protection).

How different is the build strength of this Redhawk vs. the Super Redhawk and Super Blackhawk? Is the "regular" Redhawk capable of shooting hot .44 Mag loads? Candidly, it's not a great question as I'd be using .44 Special at the range and would only load heavy .44 Mag in the woods, hopefully never shooting anything with them.

As stated in the opening, I'm now learning less, the more I research. Please set me straight. Do I go with the "in-my-face" Redhawk, or do I order and wait for the SA Super Blackhawk (I love SA so it's not a concession).
 
Each to his own, but I find the Redhawk the ugliest revolver I've ever seen. Strength, it's got, but oh my gosh...fugly.

I've owned a dozen Blackhawks over the years..currently have 7 in the safe. I really like the .44's, either the magnums or lately the Flat Top Specials. For hunting or back country carry where bear could be a problem, the magnums make more sense, since you have to be a hand loader to feed a Special the heavy loads you'd need for bear defense.

Overall strength: either is fine and I'll bet you shoot far more reduced loads that the full house magnums anyway. A 240 gr SWC at 1400 fps is an awesome defense load, but difficult to handle for repeat shots.

Ruger is a fine company, stands behind its products and builds accurate, strong, well finished handguns. You'll be well served with either type that you select. As an after thought, the 6-1/2" models shoot well but are a PITA to carry if you sit in any type of vehicle. I prefer the 5-1/2" or 4-5/8" bbl'd models for that reason, and find them every bit as accurate.

HTH's Rod
 
If I wanted a 44 Magnun, I'd get a Smith & Wesson Model 69. Oh wait. I have one of those. :)

BUT, if I wanted a Ruger, I'd have to go with the Redhawk with a 5" barrel. It's the only Ruger D/A that I think isn't as ugly as a mud fence. The Super Redhawk looks like it was put together in the pipe shop. (The same can be said for a lot of Smith & Wesson's these days I admit.) Maybe looks aren't important to some people but I look at my guns a lot more than I shoot them.

I had a Super Blackhawk back in the day. Darn good shooting gun. I'm just not really a S/A guy at heart. If you do like them, it's hard to beat a SBH.

And I agree with Rod above. Ruger is a good company. They stand behind their products, and make a good one. I think you'd be satisfied with any of them really.
 
I would go with the Redhawk over the Super Redhawk. Before you buy one, it would be a good thing if you could find someone that would let you try theirs to see if you like the way it feels when you shoot it.

I succumbed to the hype and bought a Super Blackhawk many years ago and found it to be the worst handgun I have ever owned as far as recoil goes. I sold that POS after shooting a mere fifty rounds through it and bought a S&W model 29, I still have that Smith.

I have never shot a Redhawk, but I do like the way they feel in my hand.
 
BUT, if I wanted a Ruger, I'd have to go with the Redhawk with a 5" barrel. It's the only Ruger D/A that I think isn't as ugly as a mud fence.
Click to expand...

:D

Definitely subjective I suppose, and I agree that many of the revolvers today do not look as handsome as in years past. That said, I'm leaning toward Ruger in the aesthetic department. I like the looks of the Redhawk and definitely the BH/SBH.

Like any other gun/caliber purchase, I may as well make peace with the fact that I'm not going to buy "just one gun," in this case a revolver. I've currently got more semi autos and haven't had a revolver in a few years, so this Redhawk will be my next purchase, until the next one!
 
IMHO

Practically speaking, a double action has no advantage in this caliber. Recovery from full house loads is the culprit. I've owned SBH and Smith N Frames since the 70s and prefer the SBH because it doesn't have the shoulder that bites the hand.
 
If you plan on putting any optics on it, I would go with the SRH. Otherwise, go with what looks and feels good for you. Both are great guns.
 
I guess ugly is in the eye of the beholder. I think my Redhawk .44 looks just fine:

attachment.php


And is, for me, just as accurate as the 5.5" model I used to have.

And, more comfortable to carry.
 
I don't think it's a matter of which one is stronger, but more of which one are you more comfortable shooting and whether you need a speedy reload or not. Speedy reloads aren't happening with the SA, which is the only downside IMO. I love the Ruger SAs, but haven't been able to justify carrying around one of those huge DAs in a big caliber.
 
How different is the build strength of this Redhawk vs. the Super Redhawk and Super Blackhawk? Is the "regular" Redhawk capable of shooting hot .44 Mag loads? Candidly, it's not a great question as I'd be using .44 Special at the range and would only load heavy .44 Mag in the woods, hopefully never shooting anything with them.

As stated in the opening, I'm now learning less, the more I research. Please set me straight. Do I go with the "in-my-face" Redhawk, or do I order and wait for the SA Super Blackhawk (I love SA so it's not a concession).
Click to expand...

I touched on this question a while ago, purely out of curiosity as I have my Ruger needs met already.

I opened this thread to ask this very question.

Basically, it seems that people vote the Super Redhawk the strongest, followed by the Super Blackhawk, followed by the Redhawk, in terms of sheer strength of build, but then certain members makes statements that put the Redhawk in second place, rather than third.

I think it is fair to say that the sorts of loads they can cope with, you'd really have to be pushing the envelope to find the difference between them. One point that was noteworthy is that the Redhawks have a longer cylinder than the Blackhawk, so if long, heavy bullets are your thing, you might struggle to get those to fit in the Blackhawk cylinder, and if you do, then you'd be right up to the cylinder gap, risking a bind if you get bullet creep from recoil.

I suppose it is only an issue with bullets over 300gn. For example, I have one load with 300gn and OAL not far off 2" (43.65mm), just, but I still have a fair amount of room in the cylinder.

Going back to the strength question, I have fired 275gn bullets at 1200fps from my Redhawk, as well as those 300gn at 1100fps, and a 240gn load at 1350fps. All from a 4" barrel. None had any sticky extraction issues.

In other words, none of them will leave you lacking, which ever you go for.
 
Last edited:
For what it's worth I think the SRH and RH are equal in build toughness. The difference is in the action design. RH is one big spring and a SRH is a bigger GP100 action.

SBH is probably weaker in build toughness than either, IMO. The SBH is a pretty light gun for its size and it has no lug to help with recoil either, so you feel it in an SBH.

I plan to buy both a RH and SRH but I think I'll be getting the RH first.
 
I opened this thread to ask this very question.
Click to expand...

Very cool thread- thank you for the link. I enjoyed reading those responses and felt they were very much inclusive of info I've been looking for...

(I didn't link your link here; hopefully those interested will have done so already.)
 
It is my understanding that the Redhawk and Super Redhawk have longer cylinders than the S&W 29s.

I just measured the cylinder lengths on my Super Redhawk and my S&W M29-3. For the SRH, cylinder length is 1.750". For the S&W, it is 1.700". I am assuming that the cylinder length on the Redhawk is the same. Seems like I've read somewhere that they are the same.

I don't know if the Super Blackhawk has the longer cylinder or not.

The longer cylinder of the SRH allows me to shoot 320gr SSK cast bullets. Those same loads are too long for the M29-3.

If you plan to hunt with your 44, I would suggest a Super Redhawk. It's built like a tank and has reliefs for the Ruger scope rings. My 7.5" SRH has taken a few deer at 100 yards with Garret Hammerheads and with my 320gr SSK handloads. It is equipped with a Leupold 4X scope.
 
Very cool thread- thank you for the link.
Click to expand...

Glad you found it useful. In all honesty, I bought my SS 4" Redhawk as it was that or a 6" GP100 at the time. I got it for a good price.
It's grown to be my favourite gun, but if I could, I think the SS 5.5" would really be the icing on the cake for me, so if you like it, I can well see why.
 
I handled a new Super Blackhawk 7.5" yesterday and own two Redhawks, the longer of which is 5.5". The Redhawks are 45 Colt, but in 44 Mag I would take the Blackhawk in a heart beat and put it in a nice cross draw holster. If, however, I expected to ever encounter a bear, moose, or other aggressive big critter, I would want double action in lieu of any real skills in fast handling of a single action.
 
Last edited:
In answer to the OP's original question, I bought mine in the 80's. I bought it because I thought the Super Redhawk was butt ugly. I've shot thousands of full power hot rounds through it, and it still holds good 100 yard deer hunting groups. If there are any issues of inferior strength, or reduced lifespan i'm not aware of them. At the time, the main difference seemed to be the scope mounts on the SRH. I never like the wood grip, didn't like the Hogue grip, loved the Pacmeyer. The only thing I would do differently today is opt for the stainless finish. If you like it, don't let fears of its durability affect your decision. Mine has been used and even abused at times, and in my opinion, is one of the most durable pistols you can buy.


Redhawk_zps6f311b5f.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top