Ruger Super Redhawks are sharp lookin!
- Thread starter snacktrack
- Start date
MTMilitiaman
New member
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I am inclined to disagree with ya. Every Redhawk I have ever fired has been rock solid, reliable, built like a tank, and more accurate than most people can shoot them, but I tend to think that the Redhawks with barrels longer than the one in your picture look like ass. They look ridiculous, gangly, and awkward, like the barrel was attached as an afterthought and doesn't really belong there. I prefer the rib and underlug of the GP-100 and always wondered what was so difficult and different about the Redhawks that they couldn't go the same to them.
BusGunner007
New member
Looking forward to those pix.
MTMilitiaman:
I proposed a different look for the SUPER Redhawk over on the RugerForum.com.
The idea was to use the SRH platform because the gripstud allows for better cushioning of the hand than does the standard Redhawk gripframe.
The frame itself, where the bbl. screws in, would be VERY extended and still house the bbl.
It would look like a BIG GP-100, sort of...
It was met with disdain by most.
http://www.rugerforum.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/005941.html
MTMilitiaman:
I proposed a different look for the SUPER Redhawk over on the RugerForum.com.
The idea was to use the SRH platform because the gripstud allows for better cushioning of the hand than does the standard Redhawk gripframe.
The frame itself, where the bbl. screws in, would be VERY extended and still house the bbl.
It would look like a BIG GP-100, sort of...
It was met with disdain by most.
http://www.rugerforum.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/005941.html
WillBrayjr
Moderator
Some Rugers are ugly and some aren't. The fact still remains that they are among the most dependable firearms on the planet!
BusGunner007
New member
BUSTER51 said:
( deleted )...
What would your eyes behold as 'Beauty', then?
One thing I like about the Ruger SuperRedhawk is the fact that it looks like it was designed to have the features it does.
The frame is extended for a reason: to hold that CANNON BARREL in place!
It's SUPPOSED to look that way.
When I sent my new SRH to be refinished, I specifically wanted the barrel to be 'matte' against the 'polished' frame. It WILL look like a cannon barrel sticking out that way. Works for ME.
I'll have to restrict my comments here to what I like.
Negatively commenting on other Forum Member's choices might wreak havoc!
( deleted )...
What would your eyes behold as 'Beauty', then?
One thing I like about the Ruger SuperRedhawk is the fact that it looks like it was designed to have the features it does.
The frame is extended for a reason: to hold that CANNON BARREL in place!
It's SUPPOSED to look that way.
When I sent my new SRH to be refinished, I specifically wanted the barrel to be 'matte' against the 'polished' frame. It WILL look like a cannon barrel sticking out that way. Works for ME.
I'll have to restrict my comments here to what I like.
Negatively commenting on other Forum Member's choices might wreak havoc!
44mag@ucnsb.net
New member
BusGunner007,
I have to agree with you. Some people have little to say in the way of constructive comments. : ) But then again, you have those in every forum. Have a great one.
.44mag
I have to agree with you. Some people have little to say in the way of constructive comments. : ) But then again, you have those in every forum. Have a great one.
.44mag
snacktrack
New member
Hey I dont really care if someone else thinks they are ugly. You can disagree with me, but to me they are really unique looking. I have a S&W .357 snubbie, and I will admit that all S&W's tend to look very similar.
I just like how the frame and the barrel all look like one piece. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but I am sure there are many that agree with me this is a sharp looking gun.
I just like how the frame and the barrel all look like one piece. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but I am sure there are many that agree with me this is a sharp looking gun.
FirstFreedom
Moderator
The Alaskan is the Swan in the flock of ugly duckling SRHs.
"I've been called ugly, fugly, pugly, trugly; even pug-fugly...but never 'ugly-ugly'." --Moe Sizlak
"I've been called ugly, fugly, pugly, trugly; even pug-fugly...but never 'ugly-ugly'." --Moe Sizlak
perception
New member
I will second that. I used to hate looking at SRH's, but the Alaskan is one of the nicest looking guns I have ever seen.
BusGunner007
New member
Not shooting their heaviest loads?
Filling the cylinder with shorter cartridges?
Gently stroking the 'sweet' trigger, instead of puttin' the full-finger squeeze on it?
Being careful not to overstress the fragility?
Wondering at the age-old design instead of marveling at something a bit more 'fresh'?
I could go on.
Good thing I didn't say anything 'untoward'...
A Smith Model 29 w/ 5 and a half or 6 inch barrel
and/or a Smith Model 19 w/4 inch barrel.
Do I find Rugers ugly?
Matter of fact I do. To me they look exactly like what they are. Big hunks of cast metal.
Since I had zero say in the design or execution of either,,,,and I seriously doubt anyone here did either,,, why does anyone give a flying one thru a rolling one what pleases someone else's eye and what doesn't?
More to the point,,,why do so many people take personal offence to what someone feels is ugly?
jeeze it ain't an art gallery
Well, these are the least ugly SRH revolvers to date, and they do have their purpose. There is something to be said for short, handy revolvers firing cartridges in the upper stratosphere of handgun power- especially when they will hold a full six rounds.
The .454 actually makes sense for a bear/bad guy defense gun, since you can stoke it with .45 Colt loads before heading into Anchorage for a night on the town. Personally, I would probably buy the .480. You're not going to get much velocity out of that short tube no matter what you shoot in it; so you might as well make a big hole.
I wish ruger had taken this concept a little further, and offered this same model with a 4-5 inch barrel, encased in the shroud. They could have manufactured the frame from titanium, scandium, fantasium or whatever and kept the weight down to reasonable limits.
The .454 actually makes sense for a bear/bad guy defense gun, since you can stoke it with .45 Colt loads before heading into Anchorage for a night on the town. Personally, I would probably buy the .480. You're not going to get much velocity out of that short tube no matter what you shoot in it; so you might as well make a big hole.
I wish ruger had taken this concept a little further, and offered this same model with a 4-5 inch barrel, encased in the shroud. They could have manufactured the frame from titanium, scandium, fantasium or whatever and kept the weight down to reasonable limits.
I think a Super-GP look would be great. But I really do like the look of the SRH the way it is, with that frame extension and bull barrel, it has that "artillery" look.
For the Alaskan, if they'd just have made the frame extension 1/2" longer for a 3" barrel, it'd have been perfect.
I'd been considering one in .454 for the carrying of .45 Colts, but the more people talk about it, a heavy, cast .475 bullet at moderate velocity from the .480 would rule.
WillBrayjr
Moderator
SnackTrack,
The SRH Alaskan is unique looking, but not pretty. Looks take a backseat to function. Remember that these snubbies were built for bear protection. I advise against using the Alaskan for concealed unless it's loaded with 45LC
I always thought that Taurus was the bigbore snubbie King, but Ruger took it to an all new level
The SRH Alaskan is unique looking, but not pretty. Looks take a backseat to function. Remember that these snubbies were built for bear protection. I advise against using the Alaskan for concealed unless it's loaded with 45LC
I always thought that Taurus was the bigbore snubbie King, but Ruger took it to an all new level
BusGunner007
New member
[WARNING] Rant-mode ON:
Well, you guys will get to call my new SRH 'UGH-LEE' soon enough.
After buying it and sending it to the refinisher before I even fired it the first time, it'll be really different than anything I or you have seen on any Forum.
But, it's MINE, so you don't have to like it, nor do I care!
My point was that it's kind of like calling another Man's Wife a DOG.
Or telling him his car sucks, or whatever.
It seems a bit closed minded and brand blinded when I read this stuff on the different internet Forums.
There's one that has a section they might as well re-name the Controlled Round Feed ONLY part of the Forum. If you don't agree with THEM, you're just wrong.
And, so I see in this thread, the S&W Boys out in force to call the kettle black.
There's some S&W's I think look real nice, and others, well, I try not to say what I think, especially when it's somebody else's gun.
Changing things seems to be a character trait among gun enthusiasts, and if the brand or function isn't the same as what you prefer, changing the way you look at it might help you understand the other's guy's point of view.
It's all a matter of perspective.
I just try to appreciate the different preferences and ideas the members talk about and show here, and hold my tongue ( except for now ) if I don't.
Geez, that was WAY to Preachy!!!
Rant-mode OFF.
Well, you guys will get to call my new SRH 'UGH-LEE' soon enough.
After buying it and sending it to the refinisher before I even fired it the first time, it'll be really different than anything I or you have seen on any Forum.
But, it's MINE, so you don't have to like it, nor do I care!
My point was that it's kind of like calling another Man's Wife a DOG.
Or telling him his car sucks, or whatever.
It seems a bit closed minded and brand blinded when I read this stuff on the different internet Forums.
There's one that has a section they might as well re-name the Controlled Round Feed ONLY part of the Forum. If you don't agree with THEM, you're just wrong.
And, so I see in this thread, the S&W Boys out in force to call the kettle black.
There's some S&W's I think look real nice, and others, well, I try not to say what I think, especially when it's somebody else's gun.
Changing things seems to be a character trait among gun enthusiasts, and if the brand or function isn't the same as what you prefer, changing the way you look at it might help you understand the other's guy's point of view.
It's all a matter of perspective.
I just try to appreciate the different preferences and ideas the members talk about and show here, and hold my tongue ( except for now ) if I don't.
Geez, that was WAY to Preachy!!!
Rant-mode OFF.
perception
New member
I was windering if anyone has seen any real world ballistics numbers for the .454 Alaskan. I would like to get one, but I haven't been able to see any numbers yet and was wondering what kind of performance you get from that short barrel. All the ballistics numbers I've seen come from a 6 or 7 inch barrel and I want to know how much of a drop the barrel difference will give me.
progunner1957
Moderator
That's gonna leave a mark!!
I have a 4" S&W model 29, and recoil with magnum loads is, shall we say --- "stout." Quick follow up shots are not a possibility.
I would imagine that firing full house .454 Casull loads in the 2" Super Alaskan would result in a high speed trip to the nearest orthopedic surgeon!!
I have a 4" S&W model 29, and recoil with magnum loads is, shall we say --- "stout." Quick follow up shots are not a possibility.
I would imagine that firing full house .454 Casull loads in the 2" Super Alaskan would result in a high speed trip to the nearest orthopedic surgeon!!