Concealing a Ruger Redhawk

Not to mention, the round butt grip on those Redhawks is much less comfortable than the GP100.
Click to expand...

This.

I own one of the beasts and though it is visually appealing, I realized that I don't care for the round butt at all when it comes to squeezing the trigger.

If it works for you, it would certainly aid in concealment.
If I were to consider concealing mine, it would be in a Kangaroo Carry Air Marshall like I wear daily with a 3" SP101 .327.
You wouldn't forget that it was there, but it wouldn't be a problem in that holster.
 
I own a 2.5" GP100 and love the way it shoots. That gun is what got me interested in the Redhawk in the first place... Does the Redhawk feel significantly larger than the GP100 when carried IWB or OWB... ?
Click to expand...

Do you carry the GP100 now? Is it EDC or just for occasional carry? I ask because the same qualities that help it to be a good shooter also work against it as a daily carry gun. It's relatively big and relatively heavy for what it offers. The Redhawk takes that balance another step in the wrong direction for EDC. It can be done but like so many others posting before me, I have to ask: Why?!?

I'll wait for the OP to answer before I say anything else.
 
Cosmodragoon said:
Do you carry the GP100 now? Is it EDC or just for occasional carry? I ask because the same qualities that help it to be a good shooter also work against it as a daily carry gun. It's relatively big and relatively heavy for what it offers. The Redhawk takes that balance another step in the wrong direction for EDC. It can be done but like so many others posting before me, I have to ask: Why?!?

I'll wait for the OP to answer before I say anything else.
Click to expand...
I am interested in the Redhawk mainly as an addition to my collection, and was just wondering about it's practicality as an EDC. I have carried .40 and 9 mm semi-autos for years, but I have always enjoyed shooting larger calibers. I am not a big 1911 fan, and most of the 45's designed for concealed carry have very limited capacity. I enjoy the GP100, and am able to conceal it without difficulty (at least in the colder months). If the Redhawk was similarly easy to carry, then it would be worth it to me just for the extra round.

As for the people asking how I could think a larger and heavier revolver would not feel significantly larger when carried, it is a matter of total effect vs. proportionality. For example, while everyone would notice the difference between a 50-pound dumbell and a 100-pound dumbell during a bench press, the difference between a 10-pound dumbell and a 5-pound dumbell would hardly be noticed, despite both examples being twice as large/heavy as their counterpart. Similarly, a quarter is significantly larger than a dime, but no one is able to tell the difference in weight when carrying these coins in a pocket.

Normally, I would just go my LGS and hold a Redhawk, but finding one in stock has proved to be much more difficult than expected. While every store seems to be able to order a Redhawk, no one keeps one on the shelf. I appreciate all of the advice.
 
The Red snub is significantly bigger, bulkier & heavier than the GP snub.
The Red WILL add up during the day.
And one extra round would not balance that out, for me.
We're trying to answer your original post.

There IS quite a difference between the two in size & weight.
Your choice, but I don't think we can phrase it any more clearly, and we're talking about CARRYING that weight for sustained periods, not just doing a few lifts, so your dumbbell analogy doesn't apply. :)
And the Redhawk is considerably heavier than a coin, so that one doesn't fly either.
Denis
 
wmg1299, I think I get it. Rounding out your collection is a good reason to buy a Redhawk. (Cue the "Great Enabler" song from Tom Gresham's Gun Talk.) Getting to carry the guns in your collection is good too. Setting aside some of the recommendations for scratching itch that with a longer-barreled .44, is it a safe bet that you really like this particular model and might end up buying it anyway?

If that's true, this discussion may be more about whether or not to invest in a holster. I know what you mean about qualifying "winter months". I carry an LCR 327 for about two thirds of the year and then switch to a high-capacity semi-auto when I know I'll be wearing a lot more. Big changes in wardrobe in places with big seasonal variances affect both what we can comfortably carry over the course of a day and how we might want to carry it. That said, it's easy to imagine the GP100 falling within the boundary and the Redhawk crossing the line. I'll be very curious to hear about your experiences if this project goes ahead.

Since you are familiar with semi-autos and you did mention capacity as a factor, here are a couple of things to consider. Either of these may be easier to carry than even the shortest-barrelled Redhawk and are likely to have much more capacity:

.357 Sig isn't a bad replacement for .357 magnum at lighter weights, especially when the latter is coming from a sub-3" revolver. At the time of its development, there was still a lot of love among Law Enforcement for the 125-grain JHP in .357 magnum. They undoubtedly had that in mind when crafting it. It's still the most popular weight in .357 Sig today.

10mm is also an option. Getting a 180-grain projectile up around 1200fps is nothing to sneeze at. (That's not counting Buffalo Bore and such.) Doing it with at least 50% more capacity and maybe an easier carry experience might be worth considering. I'd even consider .40 S&W with the right ammo but that's me.
 
DPris said:
The Red snub is significantly bigger, bulkier & heavier than the GP snub.
The Red WILL add up during the day.
And one extra round would not balance that out, for me.
We're trying to answer your original post.

There IS quite a difference between the two in size & weight.
Your choice, but I don't think we can phrase it any more clearly, and we're talking about CARRYING that weight for sustained periods, not just doing a few lifts, so your dumbbell analogy doesn't apply. :)
And the Redhawk is considerably heavier than a coin, so that one doesn't fly either.
Denis
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I will phrase my question in a firearm specific form using other firearms in my collection. At different times I have carried both the Glock 26, and the larger Glock 19. Despite the difference in size and weight, the 19 did was not significantly more difficult to conceal because it did not require any change of wardrobe or carry position and the weight difference was not noticeable. I purchased a Glock 42 several years ago, which I can pocket carry with certain pants. I own a Glock 17, but it is a home defense gun that I have never attempted to conceal.

I can conceal the 7-round GP100 fairly easily. Would switching from the GP100 to the Redhawk be more like switching from a Glock 26 to a Glock 19, or more like switching from a Glock 42 to a Glock 17?
 
wmg1299 said:
Fair enough. I will phrase my question in a firearm specific form using other firearms in my collection. At different times I have carried both the Glock 26, and the larger Glock 19. Despite the difference in size and weight, the 19 did was not significantly more difficult to conceal because it did not require any change of wardrobe or carry position and the weight difference was not noticeable. I purchased a Glock 42 several years ago, which I can pocket carry with certain pants. I own a Glock 17, but it is a home defense gun that I have never attempted to conceal.

I can conceal the 7-round GP100 fairly easily. Would switching from the GP100 to the Redhawk be more like switching from a Glock 26 to a Glock 19, or more like switching from a Glock 42 to a Glock 17?
Click to expand...
The width of the G19 and G26 is the same, the only difference is length (which doesn't affect concealment) and height, which does affect concealment, but not necessarily comfort.

Those Glocks are polymer framed and thus are going to be light, the GP100 and Redhawk are all steel.

No, it would not be liking switching from a G26 to a G19. It'd be more like switching from a Glock 19 to a .45 Hi Point.
 
I think the issue becomes carrying a Redhawk at all, let alone concealed and at any barrel length. Smith N-frame pretty much the same. In terms of only the weight, for me it would cross the line by a lot for what would require me to wear belt suspenders. My Redhawk is massive compared to my Match Champion, but both are over the line for burden that would have me hitching up my pants every two minutes. What would work with my Redhawk is the Alaska shoulder/chest carry rig that fits over outerwear, essentially a bear gun.

I gather that you do not care to be dissuaded. Holding out for having guns in your hand to compare kind of makes this thread meaningless.
 
Agree.

If you want the gun, get the gun.

My 4-inch Reds fit a couple of 4-inch Smith N-Frame holsters I have here.
Tight fit & obviously bigger than an N, but can still use some of the same leather.

I personally have never had any problem whatever in carrying a 3-inch GP .357 concealed, and I've toted the 4-inch Reds in the wilds.
I have never carried the Redhawk platform concealed, because it's just too heavy for all-day regular concealed carry, and even though I do have adaptable leather that would allow it, there's no practical reason to do it.

Same deal with the .44 Mag Kodiak snub Red.
I COULD wear it concealed, size-wise, but I have a chest rig for that one.
A comparable .357 Mag Red snub would offer only one more round than a 7-shot GP .357 snub, and the addition of one more round is just a no-balance trade over the smaller & lighter GP.

Without somebody taking detailed photos & precise measurements of both Red & GP for you, not much more can be said.

You want the gun, get it.
Then you'll find out for yourself.
Denis
 
To the OP: I read your first post and quickly started commenting before reading the rest of the replies. I’m a fairly skinny guy with a bit more height than you. I have carried my 5.5” Redhawks, on occasion, concealed even out of convenience of just not taking it off. Anyways, even with the longer barrel it is doable. The butt pokes out of my shirt when I bend over or reach for something, but just standing with even a longer T-shirt will hide this gun. Get a good pancake style holster and it will hold it tight to you and offer good support as well.

8af448b1d157dfe1f9b912bf9324f361.jpg


e4fd45962e1bf60a9f155ab488906948.jpg


462d421f63dcd1fc0867fa11e6f7133e.jpg




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
My good fortune to find this thread. I'm considering the Red in 44 Mag with a 2.75" barrel as a carry gun. I'm 5'9", 200 pounds and used to carry a GP-100 with a 4" barrel. Hated it. IMO the barrel was too long for comfortable carry and too short for target shooting.

The short barrel appeals to me and I'm looking at both the Ruger Redhawk and S&W model 69 so am interested in all the comments. I would not get the Redhawk in 357, like others I think there are better options for that cartridge.

OP - thanks for starting the thread.
 
I think an Alaskan at any load level of 45 Colt would be another possibility. The innards are improved over the regular Redhawk. That gun would actually be 454 Casull, so you can shoot mild to wild in it according to your limitations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top