ruger super redhawk vs taurus raging bull?

S

smokin' barrels

New member
im looking onto buying a .44 magnum revolver, i like the long barrels but i cant afford to spend the s&w price tag :( in terms of muzzle climb (obviously it will be pretty rough) durability and overall value, if taurus has really stepped up their quality control or do their cylinders still lock up after 50 rnds? if i can get away with spending $500 on a taurus raging bull rather than $750 on a super redhawk, i'd be a happy camper
 
You will get a lot of opinions on Taurus, most will admit they are hit and miss with their QA and mostly miss with their customer service. Ruger on the other hand, most will recommend their products and their customer service is highly rated.

In my book, if you can swing the extra money, the extra value you will get with the Ruger is worth more than the $250 you will spend.

On a side note, if you ever sell the gun, you'll make most of that $250 back as Ruger's have pretty good resale value. Taurus, not so much.
 
A Redhawk or Super Redhawk would be my choice.
In fact, it was my choice.

I picked up a SRH in 454 and don't regret it one bit. It's a bit heavier than necessary for a 44 so a Redhawk may be a bit better depending on what you're going to do with it.
 
I'm one of those who missed with Taurus quality and CS. With that being said I've heard far less complaints with their large frame revolvers.

Ruger is still a better choice. Like Kreyzhorse said, they are well worth the extra money spent.
 
Taurus is not a bad gun nor a great gun very middle of the road.
The Rugers are built like a tank and worth the extra money. They can handle hotter loads and after 25 years of hauling a Super Blackhawk around as a hunting and bear gun when camping and fishing she's been rode hard and never failed me.
 
Surely you jest.
I try not to bash any gunmaker (exc. maybe Lorcin, jennings, etc.), but there is no comparison between a Ruger and a Taurus. If you are seriously comparing the two, I assume you have the money to go to the Ruger. Do it and don't look back.
Just my $200. :)
 
I you go with the Taurus you may or may not get a serviceable gun. With Ruger you are almost guaranteed to get a good one. Don't waste your money on the Taurus.
 
I avoid Taurus completely because of my past experiences. I certainly would not want one in a heavy caliber like the .44 considering how poorly my Taurus steel .38's held up.
 
It may not be entirely fair to Taurus, but their trade in/resale value is low for the simple reason that folks look at sites like this and assume that a used Taurus was traded in because there is something wrong with it. The only way to get around that is for the dealer to price them low, which means a low trade in value.

Jim
 
Raging Bull

I have two Taurus Raging Bulls, a 44mag in 61/2" and a 454 in 5" (I prefer the 5" it's lighter). I did the revolver test pasted at the very beginning of this forum before I bought them. Thanks to the OP. I find the Raging Bull to pass every requirements of that test. Both of my Raging Bulls shoots with amazing accuracy and it really looks nice. I haven't experienced any problems with either one. It shoots just fine everytime. The casings comes out of the cylinder easily, no shavings whatsoever when shooting different types of bullets...

Perform the revolver test before you buy... Whicever one you choose should be fine.. Good luck!!!


regards,

RL
 
Of the two you mentioned, I'd pop the extra and get the Ruger. I think the Super Redhawk is just plain ugly, but the Redhawk, especially with a 5" barrel ain't too bad. It's not a Model 29, but it'll do. No question about how well it will hold up, or it's resale value. You might get a good Taurus. You probably will. But with a Ruger, that's not even a serious concern.

On the other hand. You mentioned that you can't/don't want to spend the money to get a Smith & Wesson. I've got two Model 29-2's that I've bought THIS year. A 4" and a 6", both in near new condition. I paid $750.00 for each of them. So if you WANT a Smith, don't let the price scare you off. You CAN find them in your price range. I admit they were both private sales, but they are out there.
 
Forget Taurus...Ruger all the way, better quality out of the box, hell for strong, and real world customer service...Rod
 
The Ruger over the Taurus every time. Why not save a little more money and get the Smith and Wesson you really want? Life is just to short to settle...
 
If you are putting a scope on it, super red hawk. No scope, red hawk. I have a red hawk in 44 mag and a super red hawk in 454 cassul. No problems in 10 years, several hundred rounds a year. Except that the cheap scope I bought lost its reticle about 150 rounds in. Quality matters with heavy recoil. Ruger all the way.
 
Kind of biased... SRH.

attachment.php


But then my two S&W 629s would be ok to. I find the SRH though can take just about anything I stuff in it. Way ahead of my .44 magnums.

Deaf
 

Attachments

  • Bearguns.jpg
    Bearguns.jpg
    38.5 KB · Views: 9,021
The Ruger is a known quantity. I have not had the two in front of me but I'd bet the Ruger is the nicer and better made gun. You don't have to worry about weird things happening and then hit and miss CS. Don't even think about it. Personally I'd get the Dan Wesson .44.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top