ruger super redhawk vs taurus raging bull?
- Thread starter smokin' barrels
- Start date
nicknitro71
New member
I've owned a S&W in .357 subnose, I still own a Taurus 608 9" (same frame as the .44 but .357 with 8 shots), and I have three Ruger revolvers all in stainless: Super Redhawk in .44 9.5", Super Blackhawk .44 10.5", and Blackhawk .357 6.5".
The Taurus is a copy of the S&W designs and they are good revolvers, don't buy in the 'junk' horse crap. Great stock trigger and super accurate.
Said that, other than Freedom Arms, I'm a huge Ruger sucker when it comes to their Revolvers. I will never again buy another Revolver other than a Ruger. It's a superior design in terms of sheer engineering. I've never liked the cassette type receiver of the S&W and their clones.
Ruger triggers are so so, like 99% of the guns out there, but with a bit of polishing and spring replacement you get some of the best triggers out there.
All my Rugers break like glass at 2.5 lbs with zero creep.
Nothing wrong with the Raging Bull, but money for money get the SRH!
The Taurus is a copy of the S&W designs and they are good revolvers, don't buy in the 'junk' horse crap. Great stock trigger and super accurate.
Said that, other than Freedom Arms, I'm a huge Ruger sucker when it comes to their Revolvers. I will never again buy another Revolver other than a Ruger. It's a superior design in terms of sheer engineering. I've never liked the cassette type receiver of the S&W and their clones.
Ruger triggers are so so, like 99% of the guns out there, but with a bit of polishing and spring replacement you get some of the best triggers out there.
All my Rugers break like glass at 2.5 lbs with zero creep.
Nothing wrong with the Raging Bull, but money for money get the SRH!
rickyjames
New member
i have a number of ruger products in different calibers, so i guess you could say i am a ruger fan. i own a 7 1/2" ruger redhawk in 44 mag. it is a great gun with no problems. i like it very much.
i also have a taurus model 44. it has a ported 4" barrel in 44 mag of course. the taurus shoots as accuratly as my 7 1/2" redhawk. the recoil of the 4" taurus is less than the 7 1/2" redhawk, probably due to the ported barrel.
i would like to scope the bigger redhawk and try hunting with it. the taurus is my go to trail or carry gun because of its more convienent size. the redhawk sits in my safe, waiting to be scoped.
i also have a taurus model 44. it has a ported 4" barrel in 44 mag of course. the taurus shoots as accuratly as my 7 1/2" redhawk. the recoil of the 4" taurus is less than the 7 1/2" redhawk, probably due to the ported barrel.
i would like to scope the bigger redhawk and try hunting with it. the taurus is my go to trail or carry gun because of its more convienent size. the redhawk sits in my safe, waiting to be scoped.
Capt Rick Hiott
New member
OK,,,,,Ill be the odd ball here.
I bought a used Taurus Raging Bull 454 from a gun shop a couple years ago.I have not had one problem with the gun. The ported barrel is so smooth I can shoot the gun comfortably with one hand.
I use it for hunting and have killed hogs up to 80 yards (So far) with no problem.
The gun is very accurate, and has a great trigger.Here is four shots while setting the scope at 100 yds.
I didn't adjust the scope after the last two shots..........
I bought a used Taurus Raging Bull 454 from a gun shop a couple years ago.I have not had one problem with the gun. The ported barrel is so smooth I can shoot the gun comfortably with one hand.
I use it for hunting and have killed hogs up to 80 yards (So far) with no problem.
The gun is very accurate, and has a great trigger.Here is four shots while setting the scope at 100 yds.
I didn't adjust the scope after the last two shots..........
Lost Sheep
New member
Gdown,
I think you are wrong
{where I think you are wrong}
A 50% price jump IS bad. ($500 + $250)
{Where I think you are right}
I would definitely go for a Ruger over a Taurus. And a used Ruger is likely to be right at the price point of a new Taurus, and just as strong as the day it left the factory.
Here's my reasoning (based on comparisons to Smith & Wesson revolvers, but Taurus' lockwork is similar, I believe).
I prefer Rugers. Here's why:
I owned two S&W revolvers in my past. Model 28 6" Highway Patrolman .357 Magnum and a K-22 Masterpiece 6" 22 rimfire. When I took the sideplate off the .22, I saw all those small parts inside (comparing it to my Dan Wesson, the only other revolver I owned at the time, which had about half the number parts as the Smith). I put the parts that sprang out back in, lubed the inside lightly and never opened it up again. I traded them off shortly thereafter. The Dan Wesson, in addition to having fewer parts, seemed to have more robust parts as well. Ruger parts are even more robust than the Smith or the DW. I like that.
On the strength question, Ruger's frames are one-piece frames without sideplates, the design was always inherently stronger (opinion alert). And Ruger doesn't just make Ruger guns. They make frames for other gunmakers and investment cast parts for many other industries. Bill Ruger was a pioneer in investment casting post-war and Ruger still is a player in the industry.
Anyhow, a little extra weight has its own advantage in a heavy-recoiling gun.
(edited here to reduce ambiguity which tripped up Feets #31 reading of this post. Thanks, Feets. I hate it when I do that.)
Springs. All the Ruger Revolvers use coil springs (Blackhawks, SP, S-Six models, SP and GP as well as both Redhawk models) but the Standard Redhawk's lockwork is unlike any other revolver ever made by Ruger or by anyone else. The Standard Redhawk uses a single spring to power the hammer AND the trigger return. This makes it a little harder to tune than a gun with separate springs, but if you like a unique gun, it is one.
I don't know what the Taurus has (leaf or coil) in it's large caliber revolvers, but I trust the Rugers.
By the way, the Ruger Redhawk 44 may not have the extra strength of the Super Redhawk, but it is no slouch and is probably more available (and many consider it better-looking) than the SRH. The extra metal in the frame of the SRH is overkill for the 44 Magnum cartridge. Redhawks have been around since 1980 or so and many guns are available in good condition on the used market as well as still being produced.
The SRH does have the same grip post and lockwork design as the GP100, so theoretically, grip shape is more flexible and tuning might be easier, but not so much as to make a material difference, I think.
Taurus is a fine gun and I have four (2 9mm, 1 45 Auto and 1 22 rimfire revolver nearlyl 20 years old). But my heart belongs to Ruger.
Good luck.
Lost Sheep
I think you are wrong
But first, let me thank you for the input and welcome you to the forum, Gdown. I am just rattling your cage. I agree with your conclusion.
{where I think you are wrong}
A 50% price jump IS bad. ($500 + $250)
{Where I think you are right}
I would definitely go for a Ruger over a Taurus. And a used Ruger is likely to be right at the price point of a new Taurus, and just as strong as the day it left the factory.
Here's my reasoning (based on comparisons to Smith & Wesson revolvers, but Taurus' lockwork is similar, I believe).
I prefer Rugers. Here's why:
I owned two S&W revolvers in my past. Model 28 6" Highway Patrolman .357 Magnum and a K-22 Masterpiece 6" 22 rimfire. When I took the sideplate off the .22, I saw all those small parts inside (comparing it to my Dan Wesson, the only other revolver I owned at the time, which had about half the number parts as the Smith). I put the parts that sprang out back in, lubed the inside lightly and never opened it up again. I traded them off shortly thereafter. The Dan Wesson, in addition to having fewer parts, seemed to have more robust parts as well. Ruger parts are even more robust than the Smith or the DW. I like that.
On the strength question, Ruger's frames are one-piece frames without sideplates, the design was always inherently stronger (opinion alert). And Ruger doesn't just make Ruger guns. They make frames for other gunmakers and investment cast parts for many other industries. Bill Ruger was a pioneer in investment casting post-war and Ruger still is a player in the industry.
Anyhow, a little extra weight has its own advantage in a heavy-recoiling gun.
(edited here to reduce ambiguity which tripped up Feets #31 reading of this post. Thanks, Feets. I hate it when I do that.)
Springs. All the Ruger Revolvers use coil springs (Blackhawks, SP, S-Six models, SP and GP as well as both Redhawk models) but the Standard Redhawk's lockwork is unlike any other revolver ever made by Ruger or by anyone else. The Standard Redhawk uses a single spring to power the hammer AND the trigger return. This makes it a little harder to tune than a gun with separate springs, but if you like a unique gun, it is one.
I don't know what the Taurus has (leaf or coil) in it's large caliber revolvers, but I trust the Rugers.
By the way, the Ruger Redhawk 44 may not have the extra strength of the Super Redhawk, but it is no slouch and is probably more available (and many consider it better-looking) than the SRH. The extra metal in the frame of the SRH is overkill for the 44 Magnum cartridge. Redhawks have been around since 1980 or so and many guns are available in good condition on the used market as well as still being produced.
The SRH does have the same grip post and lockwork design as the GP100, so theoretically, grip shape is more flexible and tuning might be easier, but not so much as to make a material difference, I think.
Taurus is a fine gun and I have four (2 9mm, 1 45 Auto and 1 22 rimfire revolver nearlyl 20 years old). But my heart belongs to Ruger.
Good luck.
Lost Sheep
Last edited:
Pointshoot
New member
I've owned two Raging Bulls in 454. The first one I got was a disaster - I didnt know anything about revolvers at that time (just had semi-autos). Poor trigger & timing - - - I got rid of it. The Raging Bull I have now is an excellent gun. Very accurate and reliable.
I'm a big Ruger fan, but IMO the Super Redhawk is one of the ugliest looking wheel-guns made. It looks like something that would be in a plumber's toolbox.
This is probably one of the only times I've leaned for a Taurus over a Ruger ! (But only if you were able to inspect the gun very carefully first before buying it.)
Now if it was between a Redhawk and a 44 Raging Bull - - - I would go with the Redhawk.
I'm a big Ruger fan, but IMO the Super Redhawk is one of the ugliest looking wheel-guns made. It looks like something that would be in a plumber's toolbox.
This is probably one of the only times I've leaned for a Taurus over a Ruger ! (But only if you were able to inspect the gun very carefully first before buying it.)
Now if it was between a Redhawk and a 44 Raging Bull - - - I would go with the Redhawk.
Lost Sheep
New member
This one is COMPLETELY inexplicable. $500 for a nearly new SRH?
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=302827177
Drawback is that it is 9.5" barrel and the seller only has a short history, but most of it good.
This one is 29 years old (same age as my 5.5" 44 RH) and the turn line on the cylinder indicates it probably has been shot a lot, but the cleanliness of the gun indicates good care.
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=303130212
Just examples of what you might find if you look carefully.
geez. After seeing the prices on GunBroker, I may have to revise my estimate of what these guns sell for. But the principles I advised still apply.
Lost Sheep
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=302827177
Drawback is that it is 9.5" barrel and the seller only has a short history, but most of it good.
This one is 29 years old (same age as my 5.5" 44 RH) and the turn line on the cylinder indicates it probably has been shot a lot, but the cleanliness of the gun indicates good care.
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=303130212
Just examples of what you might find if you look carefully.
geez. After seeing the prices on GunBroker, I may have to revise my estimate of what these guns sell for. But the principles I advised still apply.
Lost Sheep
I couldn't agree with you more.
Through the years I've had several Smith and Wesson revolvers (629, 66, 15, k-22) and found them to be fine guns, but my k-22 6" was my major turning point to Ruger. Yes, it was a nice shooter, but it went through several repairs. I was afraid something else was going to go wrong.
After reading this post by Lost Sheep, I realized something.... I've never sold a Ruger. My first was my sp101 in 1995, and since than every Ruger that has entered the stables has found a permanent home. That's saying a lot considering all the horse trading I've done in the past.
Here are the Rugers I currently own. I highly recomend getting the Ruger.
Brand loyalty...me too...I've currently got a dozen S&W's, make that a baker's dozen, in the safe...all but one have never given me anything but superb accuracy, and that famous S&W trigger pull. The one exception was a recent 637 purchase, new, that wouldn't rotate to fire the 5th shot. Smith made it good in one week from phone call to gun back in my hands on their dime. Can't say enough good about their CS.
All that said, there are 10 Rugers in the safe as well...I've got a love for their single actions that goes back to 1964. All are accurate, a few better than their caliber counterparts in the S&W line. None have gone back to the factory, tho one could have for a windage adj. on a New Vaquero .45 that I fixed with a little shade-tree file work. They're good guns too, just different than the Smiths. I've never owned a DA Ruger, know that they are strong, maybe stronger than the Smiths of the same frame size, and accurate but the frame ergonomics just don't appeal to me...too many years with Smith's I suspect.
Colts are good too, I've just not owned as many of them, but do have 5 of their big 1911s, as well as 4 double actions, currently...I've not had problems with any of them, three of which go back to the 30's (.32 New Police [.32 S&W Long]).
So my point is that anecdotal evidence doesn't prove a lot. It's the old Chevy vs. Ford truck argument. Now Taurus....they've got some serious customer service problems, not to mention QC,.....if anecdotal evidence is any criteria...
Rod
All that said, there are 10 Rugers in the safe as well...I've got a love for their single actions that goes back to 1964. All are accurate, a few better than their caliber counterparts in the S&W line. None have gone back to the factory, tho one could have for a windage adj. on a New Vaquero .45 that I fixed with a little shade-tree file work. They're good guns too, just different than the Smiths. I've never owned a DA Ruger, know that they are strong, maybe stronger than the Smiths of the same frame size, and accurate but the frame ergonomics just don't appeal to me...too many years with Smith's I suspect.
Colts are good too, I've just not owned as many of them, but do have 5 of their big 1911s, as well as 4 double actions, currently...I've not had problems with any of them, three of which go back to the 30's (.32 New Police [.32 S&W Long]).
So my point is that anecdotal evidence doesn't prove a lot. It's the old Chevy vs. Ford truck argument. Now Taurus....they've got some serious customer service problems, not to mention QC,.....if anecdotal evidence is any criteria...
Rod
Single Six
New member
I vote for the Ruger. Call me brand-loyal if you like...well, because I am.
stalkingbear
New member
Here's another vote for the REDHAWK, not to be confused with the Super Redhawk. Back when I was competing sil., I used a Redhawk with 300 gr bullet heavy loads. Over the course of several years, it shook loose several scope reticles including Leupold but there was NEVER a problem with the Redhawk. I currently have a Redhawk in .41mag and wouldn't take anything for it.
stalkingbear
New member
Actually the Redhawk DA trigger is hard to beat when tuned (spring kit & polishing). The DA pull on my .41 Redhawk is right around 5# and extremely smooth.
Better a used Ruger than two new Taurus Revolvers. The Taurus may shoot fine but it is like comparing a cheap Chinese butcher knife to a nice upper end Buck fixed blade. There is simply no comparison. I have a Taurus 38 here I took on a trade and it is not bad. Compared to my GP-100 or my sp-101 the Taurus feels cheap and and light in my opinion. Buy the Ruger even if it's used or takes longer. You won't regret it.