redhawk vs super redhawk

I can't say anything about performance (I don't own either) but IMO the Super Redhawk is ugly as sin. :)
 
I would go for the SRH as I already have a 4" RH in .44M and the SRH has scope ring mounting points. I don't believe the RH does as standard: I may be wrong.

Besides that, given that I already have one, I'd have a go with the other.

As it happens I have been battling this little conundrum myself recently.

Performance-wise remarks from other members on my own similar thread suggest that there is not much in it when it comes to the punishment these can handle: As I understand it you would be in the realm of silly loads when either started to show signs of not coping.
 
I have both for heavy Colt loads.
My large hands prefer the RH grip.
If you play with double action shooting the RH has a non-stacking trigger. However, I have been able to tune the SRH action into a nicer and lighter pull.

Both guns are the same size and weight with 7.5" barrels.

Picking one over the other is tough. I haven't learned how to shoot the RH as well as I can the SRH. Trigger time would probably work that out.
 
I love my SRH in 44 mag. It is a 9 1/2 inch barrel though with a 1.5x7 Redfield scope on it. It's a monster, but shoots incredible. I would choose the SRH as you already have a RH.
 
I can't say anything about performance (I don't own either) but IMO the Super Redhawk is ugly as sin.

I've owned a Redhawk for many years and it's been a fine shooter. I have to agree, though, the Super Redhawk is way too ugly to take up space in my safe. :eek:
 
I own a blue Redhawk with a 5.5" barrel in .44 magnum, which is great. I'd never choose the SRH because I think it is one of the ugliest guns ever (recently surpassed by the Beretta Pico) but, if that in itself doesn't bother you, then I'd get the Super Redhawk simply because it's different and as mentioned you have better tuning out of the box
 
I handled both and went with the one my hand liked: not my eye. I got the 7.5" SRH. It feels the best in my hand and is a big bro to my gp100, which I shoot more.

My hands have shortish fimgers and medium palms. I have the old-school rubber/wood grips and the ones from the alaskan, withe the sorbothande rear spine. Rubber/wood feels best, but others let me shoot 50 rounds comfortably.
 
The RH is a nice looking gun, 5.5 blued is really sweet, kinda like a big old Colt or Smith. The SRH while a very functional tool is pretty hard on the eyes to me. The Alaskan I don't mind so much, if it's short you want.
 
I have the SRH 7.5 and really like it. Bought it mainly for deer hunting and the ability to easily mount a scope. I've taken many more cotton tails than whitetails with it over the years. IMHO, I think the 5.5 RH is the best looking double action Ruger.
 
Last edited:
Super Redhawk might be ugly, but she sure can cook. 454 shoots like a rifle. 45 Colt ROL makes a nice 454 Special. Stock grips are just fine.
 
And the strapless grips can be had in more different shapes and materials.

This only seems to be true in theory, not so much in reality.

I've found very few manufactures outside of Hogue, and Badger (and the Altimont copies of the old Ruger factory grips) that do grips for the Ruger grip stud type grips.

There aren't bucket loads of grips for the regular Redhawk either for that matter, but there seems to be more options.

I'd LOVE to see some nice, non laminated wood grips on a GP, SP or SR. If anyone has pics, post away!!
 
As I have a 454 SRH 7.5 inch, 44 Mag RH 4.2 inch, and a Super BH Bisley Hunter in .44 Mag...

I like the grip of the SRH most. But stout 454 Casull loads flat hurt more than my full house loads in my 460 XVR.

The RH has the best trigger after I stoned it and put a Wolfe spring in it.

I'm starting to really like the BH Hunter Bisley frame though. I'm waiting on my customs grips cuz the factory Bisley grips are just HORRIBLE..!

If I could only have one it would be the RH in 5.5 inch barrel (still on order).
 
Back
Top