Ruger GP vs Redhawk

O

Ocraknife

New member
I'm not very savvy when it comes to revolvers. Can someone educate me on the differences between the two? Is the Redhawk a lot better? I'd like a .44 mag woods gun.
 
I'd like a .44 mag woods gun.
Click to expand...

You sure aren't going to get that with the GP100. :rolleyes:

PS: Why do you think you need a .44 magnum as a "woods gun" in Tennessee? A .357 GP100 with hard cast 180s or 200s will do you very well on black bears and you'll have faster follow up shots, plus greater ammo versatility since you'll be able to shoot cheap .38 special loads as well.
 
Mostly size. The GP100 is a great smaller home protection or even carry revolver. The Redhawk is a big bore larger revolver great for hunting, woods protection and will stop any threat coming in your home. Ruger is, in my opinion, the very best revolver out there.
 
The GP 100 doesn't come in 44 mag, the Redhawk is available in 44 mag. The Redhawk is a larger frame than the GP 100. And they are both awesome guns built like a tank.
 
I'm not opposed to a .357 mag but how close would a 10mm get to that?
Click to expand...

Oh boy, get ready for pages and pages of different answers to this question. Someone pass the popcorn, it's time for the show.
 
I'm not opposed to a .357 mag but how close would a 10mm get to that?
Click to expand...

I have revolvers in all of those calibers. In a apples to apples comparison (same platform-similar barrel, etc) , the 44 mag has the most energy, the 10mm is next and the 357 mag is just behind it. I like all three of them but I really like shooting the 10mm revolver. You can safely run a little more pressure with it so it is very efficient.

SingleActionCenterfire3-A_zps8aa5d9f5.jpg
 
Your questions about the two guns were answered.
You can look up various ballistic charts that'll show comparative energy figures between .357 & 10mm.

No need to delete the thread.
Denis
 
Ocraknife said:
OK, Forget I asked then. How do I delete this thead?
Click to expand...
Without help from an administrator, you can no more delete a thread than you can call back a bullet.

However, it is a good thread.

10mm is similar to 41 Magnum. but the 41 Magnum allows for heavier bullets. Heavier bullets are far superior to lighter bullets when it comes to defense against dangerous, thick-skinned threats.

Ruger Redhawk in .357 Magnum (no longer made) is a heavier gun than the GP100. They were favored by silhouette competition shooters because you could load them hotter without stressing the gun overmuch. The .357 Maximum did better, but that is another story.

The Ruger Redhawk in 44 Magnum vs the Ruger Super Redhawk is the question I think you might have had in mind. The Redhawk (RH) was Ruger's second entry into double action revolvers and the action is unique, using a single spring for both the hammer and trigger return. A novel concept that worked quite well. The Super Redhawk (SRH) uses an action very similar to the GP100's action, with separate springs. Which one you might perfer is up to you. Both perform equally well in the field by all reports.

The SRH is said to be uglier than the RH, but though the frame looks larger, it fits the same holster only a little bit tighter than the RH. Only slightly heavier, too.

For hunting, the SRH (except for the Alaskan, short-barrelled model) comes with scallops on the frame to accomdate 'scope rings. To get the same ability on the RH, you need to get one labelled the "Hunter Model Redhawk". It has the scallops on the top rib of the barrel. A nice touch, sine it puts the eyepiece of the scope forward of the hammer, so it clears the way for thumb-cocking.

For woods defense, though, the RH offers more option of barrel length. Especially if you add 45 Colt to the mix of caliber choices. The SRH offers only the ultra-short Alaskan model and 7.5" and 9.5". Of course, a gunsmith can easily shorten a barrel to the more convenient 5.5" or 4" barrels available on the RH (which also offers 7.5", too).

The RH has a full frame for the grips. The SRH has a post, allowing a greater latitude in shaping of the grips. No makers I know have taken full advantage of this latitude, but Hogue and Pachmayr may have allowed for a bit of cushion behind the post, where the RH prevents a deep cushion there. I have revolvers in both designs and using the wooden grips on the RH is more punishing than the rubber grips on the RH or the SRH. But between the RH with rubber and the SRH with rubber, there is not much difference to my felt recoil or control of followup shots.

Note that a 45 Colt RH or 454 Casull SRH can be "cut" to accept 45 ACP on moon clips without sacrificing the ability to shoot the 45 Colt (RH) or 45/454 (SRH). My friend has a S&W 625 and using moon clips is FANTASTICALLY convenient. But moons for the Rugers are pricey. $6 to $8 (I hear) for the Ruger clips vs $2 to $3 for the more commonly available/abundant S&W clips. They are not interchangeable.

I hope this information makes you glad you started the thread and gives you something more to think about.

There a a number of people who carry 10mm Semi-Autos in Alaska for woods protection. A number of others in the same woods still prefer the revolvers for the greater bullet weights available and greater ultimate power levels.

The catch-phrase that comes to mind when talking about woods defense is, "start with a '4'. Any caliber that starts with a '.4' will do." I have also heard this sage advice, "Any animal shot dead with a 41 Mag will SWEAR it was a 44." Look in the ballistics charts and see that the power levels of the 41 equal the power levels of the 44 until bullet weights get into the higher range, where the 44 has superiority.

Good luck.

Lost Sheep
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top