Super Redhawk vs. S&W N-Frame

and decided to keep tossing in more powder.
Click to expand...

I'm so glad my ammunition hot rodding days are long over. It's been almost three decades since "let's see how hot I can make these" has grabbed my interest at all.
 
Have you actually seen and held an X-Frame? I have a .460 X-Frame with a 5-inch barrel. When I put my 4-inch barrel M629 .44 magnum next to it, it's about the same size disparity as putting my wife's 5-shot, .38 caliber M636 Chief's Special next to the M629.

The X-Frame is huge - way too big to be practical in .44 Magnum as the size / weight are much too large for the .44 magnum. There's no practical use for an X-Frame .44 as you can get the Redhawk and Super Redhawk in a reasonable sized revolver that will take the heaviest loads made.

I shoot 305 grain HSM loads out my 3-inch Super Redhawk Alaskan, and it's about the same felt recoil as standard 240 grain .44's out of the M629.
 
Last edited:
redhawk_vs_pre27.jpg


Just a picture comparing the Redhawk to the N frame in the same caliber. Redhawk is in stainless in the picture.
 
^^^^^^ Excellent picture.....should be a stickey or something.....

Ruger design puts the bolt stops between the charge holes.
S&W and Colt put the bolt stops right on the charge holes.

Elmer Keith ran into this issue way back when, when he blew up a SAA .45LC working up some hot loads.
 
Ugh, that pictures is extremely annoying.

Let us all hail the mighty Redhawk .357 for it's strength...
...for it's durability
...for it's beefy nature
...for it's brilliant off-set locking notch location
...oh, and let us not forget:

for Ruger's ONLY ONE YEAR OF PRODUCTION, then ceased, never brought back, seemingly never to return.

That picture shows 1985. That's 30 years ago.

Hell yes I want one of these beasts but until I can figure out how to get the flux capacitor running once again...

(it's not that they haven't made them in three decades that is the real issue... it's that they only made them for one year)
 
The Super Redhawk is a big, robust, sturdy machine that has grips a normal sized hand will fit. Ain't no 'N' frame that'll do that.
1024 pixels is too big.
 
"S&W and Colt put the bolt stops right on the charge holes."

Colt DA revolvers had the stop notches offset, and it was a point often made by Colt salesmen at the time. Of course, the S&W is more than adequately strong for any reasonable load; it can be argued that Elmer Keith's loads were not reasonable, and some touted today may not be, either.

Jim
 
Sevens,

I bought both of mine in the course of maybe 3 weeks after I started looking for them. I had never heard of them. Learned about them here, started poking around and turned up two quickly. I think I spent about $800 for one and $950 for the other but heck they are both in great shape.

Just do a search for a while. They turn up.

redhawks.jpg


Now back to the thread.

redhawk_vs_others.jpg


Just to put a comparison out there between Redhawks and N-frames and Pythons.

Or the picture that gives me comfort when I am playing with hot loads.

redhawk_cylinder.jpg
 
Rather than having a xframe .44mag., I would prefer the mountain model, or their new L frame. The Ruger SRH's makes a great boat anchor, a multitasker.
 
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.
Click to expand...

I've passed on many, many used Rugers over the years that showed obvious signs of abuse (heavy flame cutting of the top strap, bits missing from the forcing cone or heavy erosion of the forcing cone, barely any lockup remaining, etc). I've resolved to never buy a Ruger sight unseen because of this. The one exception I've noted are SP101s, they are usually in excellent condition.

If someone has a .357 mag but wants to achieve .44 mag power levels, isn't it advisable to just buy a .44 Mag? :confused:
 
I've passed on many, many used Rugers over the years that showed obvious signs of abuse (heavy flame cutting of the top strap, bits missing from the forcing cone or heavy erosion of the forcing cone, barely any lockup remaining, etc). I've resolved to never buy a Ruger sight unseen because of this. The one exception I've noted are SP101s, they are usually in excellent condition.
Click to expand...
Odds are a S&W would not have survived the beating those Rugers took.
 
Odds are a S&W would not have survived the beating those Rugers took.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but it doesn't sound like the rugers really "survived" those beatings either...what, with all that damage jad0110 is talking about

I question the sanity of hot rodding rounds like the .44 magnum anyway....it's already a magnum and already has plenty of power, and there are already other guns out there better suited for getting more power if you really need and want it. More isn't always better.
 
beefy

An X-frame in .44 Mag would certainly make a heavy, shootable revolver, but the thing would weigh a ton and to my way of thinking, would not be all that portable. The only X I've handled seemed gargantuan, soo too the BFR family.

Personally, I found even the 6" m29, and the 7-1/4 SuperB bulky for holster carry afoot, and a pain if carried in a belt holster in a vehicle, ATV. My .44 tastes went the other way, and I ended up with a 4" Mtn Revovler .44. Full house ammo in it is lively, but I don't find myself "needing" .44 mag power all that much, and find 1000 fps loads plenty satisfying and good enough.

As a match competition gun for steel critters, toted to the line and back to the truck, an X /.44 might be indeed more pleasant..... but never played that game.
 
You know...all this talk about the size of the X-frame....well the 4" 500 it is just a mere 3oz heavier than the SRH. Not sure if they will ever offer it in a 44mag, but when it was introduced it's cylinder was completely oversized even for the 500S&W...It is built to the COL of the 223/5.56 nato...so maybe we will see this happen in the future.
 
I've appreciated all the replies. And it's become obvious that the prevailing opinion is that a 44 Mag on an X-frame is not needed or desired by many. Guess that explains why there's no such animal - lack of market demand.

I'd still like to have one. Proportionally, it would seem to be about the same as a 357 on an N-frame. Just my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top