The Redhawk has been off of Ruger's online catalog for several months, and still is as of a few seconds ago. It was also off of Davidson's catalog for a while too. It is back on Davidson's website and 7.5" 44 Magnums are showing available here. I know some folks here are in the know when it comes to Ruger's production. What gives?
Redhawk back in production?
- Thread starter mmb713
- Start date
trapper9260
New member
I got one years ago and you will need to check around on the going rate on them some places are high price like one that is stated that have it over 900.I paid years ago for my that was over 400 from and sports shop.
chrisintexas
New member
which one would you buy considering the recoil?
how is recoil in alaskan .454 casull?
how is recoil in alaskan .454 casull?
Model12Win
Moderator
I agree with Colt46.
Ruger needs to do aways with the Redhawk and just make the Super Redhawk, which is a superior revolver with a much stronger design.
Ruger needs to do aways with the Redhawk and just make the Super Redhawk, which is a superior revolver with a much stronger design.
Pond James Pond
New member
I've read some say on here that it is the other way around...
I very much prefer the original Redhawk. I had one in each of the three chamberings, but traded them off as my cravings changed. My favorite of the three was the 5 1/2" .41mag. I had the express sights on it, and it was just a joy to shoot. The .357 was too much gun for that cartridge.... I'll bet American money that you will never see a "shot-out" Redhawk in .357. Or, in any of the other calibers, either. Great guns, just on the borderline of being too heavy to be a comfortable carry gun, but definitely manageable.
Double action trigger was spectacular, and the single action was better than it had to be.
I still want to get me a Redhawk in .45 Colt, 5 1/2" barrel. I would't cry if it was a 4", but I'd prefer the longer one.
Double action trigger was spectacular, and the single action was better than it had to be.
I still want to get me a Redhawk in .45 Colt, 5 1/2" barrel. I would't cry if it was a 4", but I'd prefer the longer one.
Model12Win:
I have both. The SRH and the RH. I definitely prefer the RH. The RH is an American icon of innovation, brute strength, and ingenuity. Bill Ruger was proud of the RH design. Ruger Inc may keep it around a while longer.
And no, the SRH is NOT stronger than the RH.. And the RH is lots purdier..
I have both. The SRH and the RH. I definitely prefer the RH. The RH is an American icon of innovation, brute strength, and ingenuity. Bill Ruger was proud of the RH design. Ruger Inc may keep it around a while longer.
And no, the SRH is NOT stronger than the RH.. And the RH is lots purdier..
Nakanokalronin
New member
The regular Redhawks look a lot better than the Super Redhawks IMHO. I still regret selling my 5.5" Redhawk in 45 Colt.
Model12Win
Moderator
Ruger needs to come out with an 8 shot Redhawk in .357 magnum.
There is about a quarter inch o' steel between the chambers on the .44 Redhawk, and S&W has an N-frame 8 shot .357, and the Redhawk has an even larger cylinder diameter than the N-frame .44s do.
No reason it can't be done. I'd like one in stainless with a 4" bbl and black rubber grips please!
That is, IF Ruger is ever going to make the Redhawk again.
There is about a quarter inch o' steel between the chambers on the .44 Redhawk, and S&W has an N-frame 8 shot .357, and the Redhawk has an even larger cylinder diameter than the N-frame .44s do.
No reason it can't be done. I'd like one in stainless with a 4" bbl and black rubber grips please!
That is, IF Ruger is ever going to make the Redhawk again.
Dragline45
New member
Still waiting to find a 4" .45 Colt Redhawk, because even when they were in production you couldn't find them.
Just about every company that makes revolvers do the same. How boring would it be if S&W made one size revolver. Plus I think the Super Redhawk is ugly as sin.
Just about every company that makes revolvers do the same. How boring would it be if S&W made one size revolver. Plus I think the Super Redhawk is ugly as sin.
Waspinator
New member
Couldn't agree more. That pencil thin barrel coming off such a beefy frame does nothing for me.. at all. The Alaskan doesn't look bad, but then again, it doesn't have that little pipe coming out of the end either, lol. The original Redhawk looks more proportionate to me and thus more appealing to the eyes.
Just my opinion, nothing to do with the function of the gun, just it's looks.
The Super Redhawk may well be the stronger design, but I wouldn't touch one. If I need a handgun that big, I'd rather carry a rifle. I think there are enough folks like me who feel the same to justify the Redhawk. I haven't seen any production numbers, but would bet the Redhawk outsells the Super by a wide margin.
Pond James Pond
New member
They could solve that so easily by going full or half lug based on the SRH existing lugged region, ie the Alaskan frame portion of the gun.
Most agree that the Alaskans are good looking snubs.
Aside from weight I can't understand why they decided on that tank cannon impersonation amalgam....
