I've recently come across the Super Redhawk "Toklat" special edition at Cabelas and at my LGS. I am in the market for a DA 45 Colt to go along with my Blackhawk 45 Colt so I was interested. I handled it at my LGS. Here are some of my impressions.
First off it is not nearly as heavy as it looks.
Secondly, it is not as ugly as it looks in pictures.
Thirdly, it is still a pretty damn ugly revolver! I thought the whole point of the gun is to provide more ballistic performance than the SRH Alaskan but not be as unwieldy as the 7.5" SRH. Why on earth they included the unsightly scope ring cuts on the frame is beyond me. If you want more portability you will never scope the gun. If you want to sacrifice handiness for precision and scope it you are much better off going with the better ballistics of the 7.5" or 9.5" SRH. I doubt anyone that buys the SRH Toklat will ever scope it. It should have been built with the Alaskan frame sans scope ring cuts.
The stubby slab sided barrel sticking out of the extended frame doesn't work for me either. I think if they added just a half an inch more it would look better balanced. The slab sides look out of place too. It may not be as heavy as it looks but it is still a heavy revolver. Using a round barrel a half inch longer can't add but a couple ounces or so to an already heavy gun, not enough to really make a difference carrying it. If they want to add more lines to the gun I think using a round barrel with a top rib that is flush with the frame and the front sight base would look a whole lot better than the slab side.
I am planning on getting a 45 DA revolver in the spring with my tax return but if Ruger had built the Toklat on the Alaskan frame with a 5.5 inch round barrel, with or without a top rib, I would have plunked down a credit card and picked it up right then. As it is I will pass.
First off it is not nearly as heavy as it looks.
Secondly, it is not as ugly as it looks in pictures.
Thirdly, it is still a pretty damn ugly revolver! I thought the whole point of the gun is to provide more ballistic performance than the SRH Alaskan but not be as unwieldy as the 7.5" SRH. Why on earth they included the unsightly scope ring cuts on the frame is beyond me. If you want more portability you will never scope the gun. If you want to sacrifice handiness for precision and scope it you are much better off going with the better ballistics of the 7.5" or 9.5" SRH. I doubt anyone that buys the SRH Toklat will ever scope it. It should have been built with the Alaskan frame sans scope ring cuts.
The stubby slab sided barrel sticking out of the extended frame doesn't work for me either. I think if they added just a half an inch more it would look better balanced. The slab sides look out of place too. It may not be as heavy as it looks but it is still a heavy revolver. Using a round barrel a half inch longer can't add but a couple ounces or so to an already heavy gun, not enough to really make a difference carrying it. If they want to add more lines to the gun I think using a round barrel with a top rib that is flush with the frame and the front sight base would look a whole lot better than the slab side.
I am planning on getting a 45 DA revolver in the spring with my tax return but if Ruger had built the Toklat on the Alaskan frame with a 5.5 inch round barrel, with or without a top rib, I would have plunked down a credit card and picked it up right then. As it is I will pass.