Redhawk Options

S

Shalako

New member
Hi all,
I am posting to get some opinions from you on what would be the most versatile setup for a Ruger Redhawk. I want something to carry when out in the woods, something to hunt pigs and deer with, something for long range pistol target shooting, and an all around handcannon for handloading and adrenaline. Now, I’m pretty much settled on the Redhawk but am wondering if the 7 ½ inch barreled model with the Ruger proprietary scope ring cuts would be my best bet for quick addition and removal of a scope. Do the scope cuts offend any of the more refined handgunners? They seem pretty utilitarian and I hear they stay tight as heck. Also, is 7 ½ inches a tad too long for ease of carry in the woods? I appreciate any and all of your opinions to help me decide. (This may be my last handgun purchase as I am in CA).

Thanks!

-Shalako
 
5.5" .44mag would be my choice and I wouldn't want a scope.

If you do want a scope the 7.5 is the way to go. The rings work well. It can be carried in the woods, just not as quick from the holster as the 5.5, but with a scope it doesn't matter much.
 
Super Red Hawk?

Since you refer to the factory installed scope bevels on the revolver I think that you are referring to the Super Red Hawk (SRH) as opposed to the Red Hawk (RH). You are right when you say that they do a good job-they sure do.

Either the 7.5" or the 9.5" SRH is, in fact, a large, heavy handgun and IMHO there is not much choice between them as far as "carryability" is concerned. They are both large, bulky, heavy, and somewhat unwieldy handguns for carrying in the woods. Particularly true if you are carrying them in the woods with a scope on them. I have had good luck with carrying them in the woods with an Uncle Mikes shoulder holster rig chosen for appropriate barrel length. If I am carrying with a scope, once again, I use the Uncle Mikes holster made for scoped handguns. As to choice of barrel length I tend to opt for the 9.5" model over the 7.5" one. My logic is somewhat contorted here. If I am going to carry a big, bulky hand gun in the woods (and I am going to carry one); and, if I am going to carry it in a holster that is not particularly comfortable to wear (and I am going to do that too); then, I might as well "go all the way" and carry the longer barrel with the advantages that come with longer barrel length.
Good shooting:)
 
I have a 7.5 Redhawk (NOT super) SS with a 2X Leupold mounted in the Ruger rings. Good setup. Have killed hog, deer, etc and it is not hard to carry. I have carried it in a belt holster but I prefer an Uncle Mikes shoulder rig.

Shorter barrel would be better for belt carry (sans scope) but the shorter sight radius would make it harder to hit with as it would have a shorter sight radius.

Good luck with your rig.
 
I have the Redhawk Hunter 7.5 w/ a Leupold M8 2x in the Ruger mounts which I carry in an Uncle Mike's Sidekick shoulder holster. Works well for me, 'tho I still feel a little silly every time I see my reflection-it is a big rig. I have only done it a couple of times, but I am satistied that the mounts have maintained zero when I have removed and replaced the scope.

I have shot a Redhawk and a Super Blackhawk w/ the scopes mounted by drilling and tapping the top straps, and a Super Blackhawk Hunter w/ the Ruger integral mounts on the barrel rib. The difference in balance and handling is very noticable. The difference in eye relief, also. I strongly suggest you make an effort to try both before buying: I have a moderate preference for the Hunter models and the barrel mount, the owners of the other three revolvers are down right vehement about their choices.

A final note, many (most? all?) of the top strap mounts other than the Super Redhawk require removal of the rear sight and preclude pocketing the scope and continuing the hunt-advantage to the integral mounts.
 
Happy with 5.5 Redhawk

I have a stainless Redhawk in the 5.5 inch configuration. It is very portable and serves well as a backup or for 50 yard shots at whitetails. It is a fairly heavy piece but not too heavy for belt or shoulder carry. I usually hunt from an elevated stand and have a rifle along, too. I use the handgun for those close shots at bucks or head shots at does. I am not much on scoped handguns--if you need a scope on a handgun, why not just get a rifle? I also really like a Blackhawk loaded with Cor-Bons for deer.
 
Man, thanks a lot for the responses. I sure appreciate it. Definately a lot of good tips. I hadn't even considered the balance aspect of mounting the scope. Hmmm. Now that I think of it, when you guys are taking a shot in field conditions, do you try to find an improvised rest, or just go with a normal weaver stance? The balance issue seems to lesson if you find a rest of some sort.

Thanks again! I couldn't think of a better place to find this quality of input.

-Shalako
 
super cub,
That 5.5" redhawk sounds like it is getting the job done (and well I might add). I'm still thinking of that one as a choice also. I've got rifles that are plenty of fun and do the job well out past my present abilities, but a scopable/iron sight .44mag sounds like a real kick and one real sweet piece of machinery. Are you able to rest that revolver on your tree stand or have you had better results offhand? All in all, this .44 stuff has got me pretty fired up.
Thanks again for the feedback,

-Shalako
 
Shalako

As per your questions, I usually hunt from a box stand where I can rest the rifle on a sandbag on the ledge of the stand. Also, I'd never take a shot at a "trophy" buck with the handgun if I had a rifle along. Yeah, I'd shoot him if the handgun was all I had, but not at any distance. As for the .44, I am not qualified to comment---my Redhawk and Blackhawk are .45 Colt, loaded hot. See the attached photo for the pic of "Deer Stand Dennis" named because we salvaged the timbers from the river after TS Dennis in 1999.
 

Attachments

  • dennisnewlocation.jpg
    dennisnewlocation.jpg
    56.6 KB · Views: 145
Last edited:
I GOT ME SOME ESPEERIENCE

Got both 5.5" (3) and 7.5" (1); much prefer the 5.5" for carry.
No glass.

Suggest the 5.5" for ease of carry, and with decent sights and practice you're (I'm) good to 100 yds.

However, I enjoy the 7.5", and it's pretty fast too.

Use all for IPSC, so I'm not just chatting.
 
Dang, that's some 'speerience. IPSC even. Shucks, I may just have to stock up on them dern things and get both...

Thanks!

-Shalako
 
send the revolver to hamilton bowen

and have him fit it with a set of dan wesson 44 caliber interchangeable barrels. use the 4" for woods loafing the 6" or 8"
scoped for serious hunting. win -win situtation
 
Holy Carp! Thats a dam good idea. This-a-way, I could be up and running with the 5.5" and pursue the Bowen/Wesson alternative as funds permit.

You guys rock!

Thanks manyfold,

-Shalako
 
I like your original idea of a 7.5" RH with Ruger rings (some RHs are made to accept rings some aren't). If you're looking for a handy to carry belt gun then a 5.5" is the way to go. But for your stated purpose of a dedicated handgun for hunting & long range target shooting then a scoped 7.5" is a much better choice IMO.

With proper optics and practice you'd have a legitimate 125yd deer pistol, given a good field rest and a standing deer. Elmer Keith aside, a shot like that would be near impossible and arguably unethical for 99% of handgunners totting open sighted revolvers. I might catch some flame for that but IMHO it's true.

Heck, I recently attended a rifle sight-in clinic here in Wisconsin and I seriously doubt 1 in 20 of those shooting could hit a 8" black bullseye at 100 yds with an open sighted rifle.

I use a SBH Hunter and a 14" Contender, both in .44 Mag and both scoped. I have an Uncle Mike Shoulder holster that will fit the Hunter but don't use it anymore. I much prefer the camo Uncle Mike Bandoleer holster and now have one for both the Hunter and the Contender.

You might want to check out the price on the Bowen conversion. He makes some great stuff and his shop's quality is top shelf but they're pretty proud of their work. I could be wrong but it might be cheaper to just buy two pistols. -- Kernel
 
Last edited:
7.5" is now a 4"!!

I started out with a 7.5" barreled Redhawk, tried a scope, didn't like it. Got it Magnaported, didn't like it! Tried the ported version with a scope, didn't like it.

So I cut it down to a 4" barrel, remounted a new front fiberoptic sight, switched the rear blade to a V-notch, roundbutted the grip and am HAPPY!

I use this new cutdown Redhawk for my CCW piece, plus my hunter/plinker/general usage sidearm.

I was just out today with it at the range and able to make solid first shot 'kills' on a whitetail silhouette at ranges up to 50 yards. All field shots, standing, kneeling, sitting without artificial supports.

What it takes is finding a load the gun likes, then getting out and PRACTICING with it.

I use factory Specials for CCW/defense carry. I use Sierra 240gr JHC's over 22gr H-110 powder with WLR primers for hunting loads. This load works well out of my Marlin lever action as well.

So said, if I was to get a factory Redhawk again, I'd go with a 5.5" barrel for general usage. If it is STRICTLY for hunting, I'd look at a 7.5" again. I will NEVER get a SUPER REDHAWK as they are just too big and bulky. The Redhawks are stronger than what you'll ever need for a .44.

Good luck!
 
I agree with dairycreek. If you are going to carry a big gun, you might as well get the advantages of the longer barrel. I went with the Super Redhawk with a 9.5" barrel topped off with a 2x6x32 Bushnell scope. I also have a Super Blackhawk with a 10.5" barrel with standard sights. I carry in a large shoulder holster. These are great hunting guns for strength and accuracy.
I don't worry to much about the weight and comfort because some people even carry rifles to hunt with.
Jim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top