Super Redhawk vs. S&W N-Frame

N

Nick_C_S

New member
Okay, I know the subject has been beat to death, but I'm putting a spin on it. . .

I'm a Smith fan. Big Smith fan. But it can not be denied that the Super Redhawk is a big, robust, sturdy machine. Truly impressive. I actually consider comparing the SRH with the N-Frame to be something of a mismatch. I would think S&W would want to counter punch.

My question is: I wonder if Smith & Wesson has considered making a 44 Magnum on an X-Frame? (six shot)

It would seem to be a good combination if you ask me. I mean, I like the 44 Magnum round, but it's a bit . . . intense, when loaded to full power. If Smith were to make a 44 Mag on the larger X-Frame, many may find it more tame and manageable, I'd think.

I'm just curious how many other revolver enthusiasts would find an X-Frame 44 Magnum something they'd consider owning?
 
That would be like building a 50 cal. rifle on a 105 howitzer carriage. I pack a 329 PD in 44 mag. for CCW and love it, but no way would I carry an X frame unless I was wanting a lot more stopping power than the 44 mag. If you want more power than the 44 mag. get a 454, don`t load to dangerous pressures.
 
Actually not a bad idea. Maybe then it will finally be able to handle those Ruger only loads you find in the back of most reloading manuals
 
I think the huge X-Frame would be a total waste of steel in a .44 Mag.
No real practical reason for such an ungainly gun just to shoot .44s. :)

Too bulky, too heavy to carry, no gain in performance.
If you want to shoot .44 Mags & the recoil bothers you, just go Ruger for the added weight & strength over the Smith N-Frame.
Allowing brand loyalty to get in the way of practicality is not particularly efficient.
Denis
 
I think one reason people get big-bores is for the sensation of the kick. Admittedly too much kick is not nice, but a good balance of a recoil-absorbing heavy frame and all the while feeling that you are shooting a powerful cartridge is a great combo.

However, I think that, as good as it may appear on paper, having a .44Mag that felt like a mild .44Spl would not be as entertaining...

In other words, taking the frame size too far might not be so good.

As DPris said: the SRH is plenty big enough yet still seems to let you know you have a big-bore in your hands.

I'd say the likely market would be niche.

On a side note, I think the thread title is a little misleading. Not much SRH vs "N" going on but rather a question about merits of a hypothetical .44 revolver.
 
If you want more power than the 44 mag
Click to expand...

I don't.

don't load to dangerous pressures.
Click to expand...

I don't.

Smith puts 357 Mag on J, K, L, & N frames. Why not put 44 Mag on a frame bigger than N (which I consider the 357 Mag equivalent to be the K frame)?

That's all I'm asking.

Thanks for the responses so far. It sheds light on others' viewpoint.
 
Maybe then it will finally be able to handle those Ruger only loads you find in the back of most reloading manuals
Click to expand...
I'll admit its been a few years since I've reloaded, but, in the 25 years I did reload I don't recall ever seeing "Ruger Only" load data for anything other than 45 Colt. Could you list some of this manuals?

As far as a 44 X frame, I owned a X frame in 500 S&W. Did not like it. The gun is just to big. But then, I don't like the Super Redhawk either - it's butt ugly.
I'll take my standard Redhawk anyday.

Jim
 
Soon as Ruger started making DA revolvers people started saying they were strong because they are so big. Not really. They are massive because they use cast frames rather than forger steel. Cast has to be thicker to achieve the same strength as a more compact forged frame. Naturally Ruger ads talked up their massive size and hinted (without actually lying out out) that the bulk equaled greater strength. S&W responded with this magazine ad...

standard.jpg



Totally subjective...in the eye of the beholder...all that jazz...but to me all Ruger DA revolvers are just about as ugly as ugly can get. The Super Redhawk (again, in my opinion) is particularly hideous. But that's just me.

I have no interest in any revolver bigger than a 44 Magnum. Really, the 44 is too much for me and I don't enjoy shooting one. But I own two anyway (I know, crazy) and they look like this...

standard.jpg


standard.jpg
 
Soon as Ruger started making DA revolvers people started saying they were strong because they are so big. Not really. They are massive because they use cast frames rather than forger steel. Cast has to be thicker to achieve the same strength as a more compact forged frame. Naturally Ruger ads talked up their massive size and hinted (without actually lying out out) that the bulk equaled greater strength. S&W responded with this magazine ad...
Click to expand...
Cutesy ads don't change the fact that they are indeed stronger. A lot stronger actually. The Ruger Redhawk and Super Redhawk frames are larger and more robust. There is no sideplate, the trigger mechanism drops from the bottom. The barrel shanks are beefier. The lockwork is more robust. The cylinders are larger and those are still cut from barstock. The locking notches are between the chambers rather than over them. The N-frame was designed around the .44Spl over 100yrs ago. It was adapted to the .44Mag. The Redhawk was designed around the .44Mag with a much broader safety margin. There's a very good reason why there are factory Super Redhawks in .454 and .480 but the N-frame is at its limit with the .44Mag.
 
Rugers ARE stronger than Smiths, and it's because of design, not merely the cast frames.

Besides the above, Ruger crane/yoke areas are also markedly beefier than the Smith counterparts.

I own revolvers from both companies, for different purposes.
I have no strict brand loyalty to either.

If I want brute strength & longevity, Ruger hands down.
Ask a knowledgeable gunsmith. :)

But, again- I can't see any sustainable market for an X-Frame in .44 Mag.
Way overbuilt.
Denis
 
I love a lot of things about a lot of guns... and I really love my S&W revolvers. Beyond all else, the ONE thing I love best about S&W revolvers is the smooth, predictable and ever-so enjoyable double action trigger feel.

Not something I take advantage of in an X-frame, and I do also believe it's just -too- big for a .44 Mag.

I'll say this, though, if you want to "feel" what an X-frame .44 Mag might feel like, I bet you could get seriously close to the "feel" by developing a .45 Colt handload that sends a 240/250 grain slug to 1,200 or 1,300 fps in a S&W .460 Mag revolver.

It would absolutely tame down a .44 Magnum, no doubt.
 
My question is: I wonder if Smith & Wesson has considered making a 44 Magnum on an X-Frame? (six shot)
Click to expand...

You may have heard XVR owners say that shooting .460 S&W out of an XVR is more pleasant than shooting .454 Casull out of most guns chambered for it. There's a good reason for it. The X-frame combined with a muzzle break and that amazingly cushy grip goes a long way towards mitigating big recoil.

Just to get an idea, try shooting some .45 Colt through an XVR. They can be loaded to approximate anything from the lightest .44 special to the hottest .44 magnum.

I think the real question is if it's possible fit seven rounds of .44 magnum on that cylinder, like they did with .357 magnum on the L-frame.
 
To my eye, a heavy lug, round butt N frame is only slightly more appealing than a SRH. Well maybe quite a bit more appealing but the standard RH and nice regular barrel, (heavy or slim profile) square butt N frame are much more desirable to me. I have no use for a post type grip frame and a round butt on a anything butt a snub Smith ain't for me. To my eye's a 4, 5 or 6 inch slim barreled Smith, 24 , 25, 27, etc... are the best looking while still being perfectly functional revolvers out there. Not a fan of the X Frame either, but as mentioned above, a 7 shot 44 mag with a more traditional barrel profile (for me) may not be that bad. With a square butt though!;)
 
Last edited:
Why not put 44 Mag on a frame bigger than N
Click to expand...


Because it's not needed. The N-Frame is more than capable of handling .44 mag loads. If you need more than what SAAMI specs as a .44 mag, then move on to an X-Frame and shoot .460 or .500. If you can't handle the recoil from a .44 in an N-Frame, get one of their longer piped comped models. I have a P.C. 629 Magnum Hunter that is pleasant to shoot all day even with max hunting type loads.
 
My 7.5 Redhawk 44 Mag is pleasant for me to shoot all day. My 7.5 Freedom Arms 454 can be downright painful. I seem to remember that they used to offer Magnaporting(?) to help mitigate recoil. Does anybody do that any more?

I would think an X frame 44 mag would have appeal to some of the handgun hunters. I would think it would help the shooter for those longer shots.
 
As far as a 44 X frame.....The gun is just to big. But then, I don't like the Super Redhawk either - it's butt ugly.
Click to expand...

A 44 Magnum, "X" frame?

Wouldn't interest me one bit. I look at my guns a lot more than I shoot them. X-frames, Super Redhawks...just too ugly to bother with.
 
... I look at my guns a lot more than I shoot them. X-frames, Super Redhawks...just too ugly to bother with.
Click to expand...

I'm in that boat too, but only as a matter of time and money. :(

I agree about the Super Redhawk but I think longer-barreled X-frames are fairly attractive. If Smith and Wesson would stop putting that darned lock hole in the side of them, they might even be beautiful.
 
I shot a S&W 460 the other day; "HOLY COW", that was more than a "HANDFUL" and clearly more gun than I would ever want or need.
Made my 41 Magnum feel like a pea shooter. Never shot a Ruger 480, but the owner of the 460 said the 480 was slightly above a 44
but less than a 454 Casull, either way I'm happy with my 41's. :D
 
One of the drawbacks of Ruger's reputed super strength is that a lot of folks have believed the nonsense that "there is no way you can blow up a Ruger" and decided to keep tossing in more powder. And they proved that, yes, you can blow up a Ruger. Then they return the gun to Ruger, demanding replacement under warranty because of claims never made by Ruger.

Jim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top