Redhawk Question (or maybe it's a rant).

D

dayman

New member
I'm a fan of ruger revolvers. I have a sp101, and this summer bought a gp100. I shoot them both well, I like the over-built construction, and I honestly prefer the looks of both to their S&W counterparts.

I'm at the point that I'd like to get a more "hand cannony" revolver - mostly just for fun. But, I'm really not a fan of the 1/2 underlug that seems to be present on every redhawk, and I'm definitely not a fan of whatever is going on with the barrel on the SRH. I know they make the "Alaskan" snubs, but what I really want is a 4" .44 mag that looks like a scaled up version of my 4" .357 mag.
Why doesn't Ruger make that? (that's my redhawk question)
Have they ever made a .44 styled more along the lines of their .357's?

I can't be the only person that's not a fan of the looks.

I know that looks shouldn't be that big of a deal, and if I needed a 4" DA/SA .44 I'd probably buy a redhawk anyway. However, I don't see why they can't make a full underlug version so that those of us who prefer that could get a gun that is both built like a tank, and pleasing to the eye.
I'm probably going to wind up getting a SBH instead - I've always wanted a "cowboy gun" anyway - but if Ruger ever decided to make a non-snub .44 with a sp101/gp100 style barrel I'd probably buy 2.
 
Just a suggestion, but Ruger used to make a blued 5 1/2" .44 Redhawk that was IMO more ascetically pleasing than the current production guns. They didn't have a full underlug but if you've never seen one you might want to take a look. Probably could find a good used one pretty easily if it suits you.
That's not to say there's anything wrong with the SBH, they're great guns and I'm a huge fan of the Blackhawk line. Not sure if this helps or not, sorry I don't have a better answer for you.

Best of luck, Bill
 
A half lug on a Ruger does not it less durable than it's full lug counterpart and aesthetics are subjective and second to the intended purpose of the weapon. The full lug only adds weight to reduce muzzle flip. The Redhawks are already large framed and heavily built so they saw no reason to add more weight to the rugged design by adding a full lug. Most Rugerites actually prefer the classic retro look of the half lugged models, especially the GP100's.
 
I understand what you're saying. I know looks are in the eye of the beholder, but I can't stand the looks of the SRH. I ended up going with a SBH Hunter in 45 Colt since I hand load. (I know you're after a 44, lots of them made in this model)

I'm waiting for my bullets to get my hand cannon loads made and sighted in. It takes the 255gr RNFP over 9 gr of Unique like a 38 is in it. Going with a single action for a hunting hand gun may be something to look into?

IMAG0174_zps79d00975.jpg
 
The Redhawk came out before Ruger ever made a full-lug DA revolver. The only DA revolver that Ruger had ever produced prior to the Redhawk was the Security/Speed/Police Service Six series none of which were offered with a full underlug (prior to the 1980's, a full underlug was kind of synonymous with Colt). Many of the features of the GP100 such as moving the third locking point from the end of the ejector rod to the crane were originally introduced on the Redhawk.

Also, as others have said, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Not only do I personally prefer the look of a Redhawk with a half-lug barrel, but I wish Ruger would bring back the half-lug barrel on the GP100 too as I find them much more visually appealing that way.
 
A half-lug gp100 would probably be a good idea too, for the people that prefer them. How much harder would it be for them to offer both configurations?
 
IMHO, The full length lug makes the 6" GP100 unbalanced (way front heavy) and adds un-needed weight to the gun for the caliber it is. The added carry weight (45 oz) brings it so close to my 4" Redhawk (47 oz) that I just as soon carry it.
 
I would like to add to my above post reply that the 6" GP100's have been very accurate for me. No complaints in that department.
 
I don't want to start a new thread since this is so close to the topic already, but I have a similar question. I also prefer the full underlug design and so far haven't seriously considered the Redhawk because of it. But I've seen a few, not many, pictures of blued versions with 5 1/2" barrels which I do like. There isn't a single one for sale on GB though. Is this a rare version I'm going to have to wait forever to find if I were wanting to buy one?
 
The recent half-lugged fixed-sight GPs were a parts cleanup. Ruger had the frames laying around & decided to use 'em.
It's possible they may do some again at some point, but I'm thinking they're probably gone for good.
Shame, my 25-year-old GP in that configuration's my favorite one.

Ruger will be ramping up Red & Super Red production, send your request to Fifer.
They MAY put out a full-lugged version.

I think most of us would not want the extra weight, I wouldn't myself. :)
Denis
 
Ruger used to make a blued 5 1/2" .44 Redhawk that was IMO more ascetically pleasing than the current production guns

I agree, in fact I have one...
 
I have that very 4" RH and wouldn't part with it, unless absolutely necessary. If you can live with the looks, you are unlikely to be disappointed!
 
I wasn't trying to say there's anything wrong with the current RH. Just - for me - a 4" Redhawk with a full underlug would be the "perfect" .44mag. I just wish they made it. And, based on the number of revolvers that do have a full underlug I assume I'm not alone.
The 4" SBH is a close second though, so I'll be fine. I just like the idea of having a matching set of sp101, gp100, Redhawk.
I'll probably wind up getting a Redhawk some day anyway, but not being in love with it's looks moves it from the "need to have" to the "nice to have" list.
 
One option would be to buy a redhawk with the 7.5" barrel and then have the barrel cut off and recrowned at the end of the longer underlug.

I am not sure if they are still making a longer underlug on the 7.5" models, but they used to, in this century I mean.
 
I shortened the barrels on both my blackhawks and my red hawk to 5.5".
Just buy whatever you want and have the barrel shortened to the length you prefer.

Personally I don't care for the Alaskan. A 2 inch barrel just seems like a waste on a .44 mag.
 
I'll agree with the OP in regards to Ruger's leaving much to be desired in the aesthetics department. However, when it comes to a .44 Mag, I like the overbuilt heft of the Super Redhawk to soak up the recoil.

If I wanted a 4-inch gun that I wasn't going to mount a scope on, I'd totally go for S&W. But if you're looking for a "hand-cannon", Ruger is the way to go. Everyone loves blasting away with my 7.5 inch Super Redhawk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top