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

Overbuilt heft of a Super Redhawk?
My 7-1/2" 454 SRH is the exact same weight as my 7-1/2" 45 Colt Redhawk.
The Super has the weight forward on the frame and the RH has the weight in the grip.

As to which I like better?



My 454 is up for sale.


To the OP: before you make a decision on pretty, get your hands on a Redhawk. It's a really nice piece and you're not going to miss the rest of the lug. It's simply not needed.
 
To me the SRH looks like a snubby with a round barrel sticking out of it. The shape of the gun just doesn't fit with the shape of the barrel.
 
alaskan_zps014d69fe.jpg


Cmon if the SRH looked this awesome you'd have to admit they'd sell even MORE of them.

I'd own one.
 
I, too am wondering why they don't make a SRH in 4" or 5" as suggested by Mr. Venom.
I understand that the SRH 2.5" underlug (frame extension) was to address the barrel separation issue with the RH. That being said, since I don't like the really short or really long barrels, I found a used 5.5" RH and am loving it so far. But if they extend the lug to the end of a 4" barrel in an upcoming SRH model, I may just have to get one.
 
I agree that the SRH looks terrible. If they looked like the pic that Venom posted, I would own one in a second.
 
As the owner of a 4 inch redhawk, a 7.5 SRH 454, and a 7.5 inch SBH Hunter Bisley, I prefer the grip, grip angle and handling of the RH the best. A full under lug RH would make that gun way too heavy. It really is not necessary either.

Personally, I like the looks of the standard RH. The SRH kind of grows on you. The SBH Hunter in Bisley is gorgeous, I just am having a hard time finding a decent set of grips for my SBH Bisley. The factory Bisley grips are terrible!
 
If they looked like the pic that Venom posted, I would own one in a second
Click to expand...
Ha Thank you. amazing what u can do with a few min of microsoft paint. :p

I bought a Redhawk instead of a SRH just due to the barrel. why have ugly when u can have a pretty gun?
 
As the owner of a 4 inch redhawk, a 7.5 SRH 454, and a 7.5 inch SBH Hunter Bisley, I prefer the grip, grip angle and handling of the RH the best. A full under lug RH would make that gun way too heavy. It really is not necessary either.
Click to expand...
Codefour, just out of curiousity do you have the Hogue grip on your RH or the traditional wood stocks? (I can't remember if the 4" was available with wood, though I'm sure it was at one time....)
 
Honestly, when I am looking down the sights of my RH, or a SRH I used to have or the current one .... a 7.5" 480 ..........

I don't see the under lug.

Now, granted ........ mine are shooters and yes, it's nice if they look good but in all honesty ........ BALANCE matters more to me .........

I have a gorgeous like new Monson DW in .41 mag and it has a 6" full lug ....... and it's not balanced worth beans .........

I would like to find a shroud with an abreviated lug for that one.

Three 44s
 
I'll agree with the OP in regards to Ruger's leaving much to be desired in the aesthetics department
Click to expand...

Oh , I don't know about that. ;) I think this factory bright polished stainless Redhawk (GKRH 445) looks pretty darned nice, and balances quite nicely. A full lug would likely foul that nice balance IMO..



 
Well, I guess we all have different tastes. I don't like full underlug revolvers generally. I find them to feel slow handling to me. I do have a S&W 686+ with 4" full underlug barrel which is the max length I'd go in a full underlug revolver. On the other hand I have Redhawks in 44 Mag and 45 Colt and like them with the barrels they came with, without a full underlug.
 
Now if Ruger would just take that Super Redhawk and give it an 8 round cylinder in .357 Magnum, a 2.5" barrel, adjustable sights, and replace the gawd-awful Hogue grips they put on everything now with nicely checkered wood grips or the wood-inlay rubber grips they used to use, THAT would be an ideal revolver for home, school and office.

For me, Ruger keeps coming soooo close to exactly what I want, but never quite hitting the bullseye. Why do I have to look to Taurus and S&W for modern materials and creative configurations? The only problem with those 2 companies is a total lack of value - Taurus for indifferent quality control, and S&W for outrageous prices. Ruger is ideally situated to get it done right at a fair price, but their corporate crystal ball is forever a bit cloudy.
 
Codefour, just out of curiousity do you have the Hogue grip on your RH or the traditional wood stocks? (I can't remember if the 4" was available with wood, though I'm sure it was at one time....)
Click to expand...

Barefoot, my four inch RH came with a smaller, well, shortened Hogue grip. I like the stock wood grips more than the original 4 inch, Hogue grips. I later replaced the factory grips with a new, larger Hogue set. They are decent. I'm still looking for a good custom set of hardwood grips which is what I prefer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top