Ruger Redhawk .357 4.2inch

R

Rollcrimp1

New member
Just added this monster to my revolver collection. 8 rounds, takes moonclips. Looking forward to developing some loads for it. Anyone else on board with this one?
 
I go back and forth. "I'd love to have one"..."but it's too heavy." "It would make a great outdoor carry choice"..."you already have three .357s. Get a semi 10mm." "I'm a revolver guy" "get a revolver in a different caliber"

In short, I don't know which inner voice is going to win the great debate.
 
This is one of the few handguns that has really tickled my fancy of late.

So far I haven't gone so far as to part with any money--but then I also haven't seen one in person yet...
 
Any Redhawk that shoots a bullet smaller than .40 caliber has no reason to exist.

Seriously, I wish Ruger would advertise the .357 Redhawks as "An extra round for an extra pound" cuz that's what you trade off going from GP100 7 shot .357 to a .357 Redhawk.
 
I bet the recoil is extremely gentle.

If I am going to CC a handgun, I prefer it to be light. If not, it might as well be large and heavy.

I wish I could afford one.
 
What recoil?

I’ve only had it for a couple of weeks. Only shot a few boxes of factory junk but from what I see so far this thing is a tack driver. Decent smooth trigger and good sights. The weight ...what recoil? I bought this thing to develop some heavy loads with it which I’m sure it can handle. Since I haven’t started reloading for it yet I’ll keep you all posted!!
 
Any Redhawk that shoots a bullet smaller than .40 caliber has no reason to exist.
Click to expand...
Light recoil and an extra round means fun at the range and might even make a decent home defense gun for some folks.
Seriously, I wish Ruger would advertise the .357 Redhawks as "An extra round for an extra pound" cuz that's what you trade off going from GP100 7 shot .357 to a .357 Redhawk.
Click to expand...
That's a big part of what makes it look like fun to me. And I'm actually thinking a longer barrel (which would add more weight) might be even more fun.

Besides, I like things that are overbuilt. Another gun I'm really thinking hard about is the 10 shot GP100 in .22LR to replace my SP101 in .22LR.
 
I've always wondered at the point of a "big, heavy" gun (in a magnum caliber) with a short barrel. It made some sense before there were medium and later small frame guns in .357 Mag, but nowdays, why get something that most folks think is "too big" for CCW and not get a barrel long enough to actually use more of what the magnum is capable of??

And, by that I mean 6" or longer. Sure, not every pistol is meant to be the best CCW thing, but with so many other choices, why go with a short barrel, on a big gun?

Unless, you happen to like the balance, of course, then makes perfect sense. ;)
 
Longer Barrels

Actually a longer barrel doesn’t always mean better ballistic performance. A 4.2 inch barrel is pretty ideal in in squeezing out about 90% of the ballistic performance of the .357 Mag while allowing for a not unreasonable carry piece. If you want to know more about barrel length and effect on performance there’s a terrific website called www.ballisticsbytheinch.com that does a great job of explaining how it all works and actually debunks a lot of misperceptions on the subject. I highly recommend it.
 
"...bullet smaller than .40 caliber..." Nonsense.
The thing does weigh 49 ounces. (Three pounds for those who can't divide.) That 9 ounces more than a 4.2" GP 100. Still fits normal sized hands. There is a $310 difference in MSRP though.
 
49oz is a unreasonable carry piece. Don't make a difference what the barrel length is. If I was going to carry some thing that heavy it would be a long barrel and primary hunting
weapon in hip holster. Still don't need 8 shots so I would be carrying 6 shooter. 8 shot guns are range or game guns.
 
Depending on who's numbers you look at the 7.5" Ruger SuperBlackhawk goes 47 or 48 oz. A 6" S&W M29 is 45oz, according to Wiki.

For generations, gun writers have said the big issue with concealing a revolver was the bulk of the frame/Cylinder and the grips. Barrel length was a minor consideration for concealment.
 
Wouldn't mind a 5.5"er myself & would have a hard time saying no to a 7.5" "Hunter" model. If the cylinder would take the pressure, it ought to be long enough to ream to a .360DW/1.4" .357.
 
A 4.2 inch barrel is pretty ideal in in squeezing out about 90% of the ballistic performance of the .357 Mag while allowing for a not unreasonable carry piece.
Click to expand...
The .357Mag is one handgun caliber that really does benefit from a couple more inches over 4".

Looking at the BBTI data, going from 4" to 6" nets you, on average, over 200fps.

You don't always get a lot of bang for the buck going from 4" to 6" in a pistol caliber, but the .357Mag makes it pay.

For comparison, based on the BBTI data, going from 4" to 6" in a 9mm, buys you, on average, a little less than 130fps.

I don't know how to calculate what percentage that is (e.g. 90%) because you'd have to pick a length that offers 100% performance for reference. If we do that--and assume that an 8" barrel is 100% performance in .357Mag, then 4" gives you 82% performance and 6% gives you 93% based on the BBTI data.
 
Longer Barrels

If you look carefully at BBTI it gives you some references to real world guns that dispels the notion that you can simply make generalizations based on a simple FPS comparisons by length of barrel only. Yes I would agree with what you say, all things being equal. But they never are. That’s why BBTI was created in the first place.
 
You certainly can't say that X barrel length will give you Y velocity with any decent certainty and expect that to apply accurately to a specific firearm.

However what you can do is look at how the velocity changes over a number of loads as the barrel length changes from M to N inches. That average change will be pretty consistent even if you don't know what the starting point is.

In other words, you can get a really good idea of what the velocity difference (on average) will be going from 4" to 6" even if the data doesn't give you a very accurate idea of what velocity you'll actually be getting from a specific firearm with a 4" barrel.
 
As a matter of semantics, sure I agree with you. But I also agree that when you discuss performance of a cartridge you have to dig into the firearm you’re going to be using it in and what kind of performance you can squeeze out of it. All of which brings me back to the reason(s) for getting a Redhawk in 4.2 inch, .357 in the first place. Within a few months I’ll let you know how the loads I’ll be developing for it are working. And if my hunches are true it will be a fun experience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top