Which is more robust? RH, SRH or SBH.

P

Pond James Pond

New member
Just a random thought.

All these threads about Ruger only loads, my own request for Ruger choices and questions about .44 and .45 cal choices, I started thinking about which of these platforms would be sturdiest, most robust and has the greatest "handload-resilience"!

On a recent thread, a member explained that an experienced gun expert had claimed the Redhawk was the strongest of the bunch and my 4" has certainly shrugged off the rowdier of my .44 Mag loads.

As I continue to fluctuate between DA/SA's and SA's as a possible future purchase, I'd like to know if I can use the same category of handload in a SBH as I can the Redhawk, for example.

What is your experience, taking the .44Mag as a common calibre?
 
Experience? Well, I own a Redhawk and a Black Hawk, so I have experience in handloading for, shooting, and owning these, but I can't logically claim experience in the field of which is the "strongest" platform.

I suppose my knee-jerk reaction is that the Super Redhawk platform would be the "strongest", but realistically, I would prefer to answer the subject question in this manner. And -NOT- because I'm trying to be adversarial. ;)

I would say it doesn't matter.
I would suggest that you'd have a terribly difficult time truly wearing any one of the three out. And in .44 Magnum, I'd suggest you would have to hire some schmuck to do the shooting, or you'd end up doing massive, long-term damage to your hands and wrists if you attempted to wear one of them out. (I am serious)

And from another angle... it seems to me that if you could concoct a handload or series of handloads that would compromise any ONE of these revolvers, you would already be well past sanity in the other two revolvers as well.

I think the Super Redhawk just oozes strength and muscle in it's look. Can't decide if I like the bruiser look or if it looks like a body builder -- where after the initial "Holy cow" you end up with "man, that guy looks ridiculous..."

I am a genuine fan of the Redhawk, it just seems to bring together classic, understated style with solid build quality. The trigger makes me giggle a bit because it's opposite of what I expect. It's got a decent, predictable and enjoyable DA pull, but the SA trigger break seems sub-standard, IMO. Which seems 180-degrees from what I'd expect. (but I'm a S&W guy)

The Blackhawk is wildly popular but single action hoglegs are pretty much lost on me. I don't care for much about them. The look doesn't do much for me, the extremely annoying S-L-O-W ejecting sequence grows absolutely tiring by the seventh shot and the design of the breech face that allows a "too-long" COAL cartridge to load, kind-of, but then LOCK UP when it gets to the other side of the clock just angers me.*

I'd be choosing between the two Redhawks. And because I'm me, the choice would come down to whichever USED gun deal presented the better package. :D

(*before anyone suggests that I'm a poor handloader, my BH is a .30 Carb model and the brass stretches... just a wee bit at a time and until you've owned one & dealt with it at the load bench, you truly have no clue where I'm coming from.)
 
I'm going to read between the lines here, Sevens, and guess that you feel the Rugers are quite capable... Go on. Admit it: I'm right, aren't I? :D

I think the Super Redhawk just oozes strength and muscle in it's look. Can't decide if I like the bruiser look or if it looks like a body builder -- where after the initial "Holy cow" you end up with "man, that guy looks ridiculous..."
Click to expand...

I can definitely see where you are coming from here. The full length SRH looks like a Navy destroyer gun has been shoe-horned into a tank and then has a Hogue grip stuck to it. Certainly is a unique look...

All in all, it is good to know that they can all shrug off a beating. Having read the accounts of how one Vaquero is no longer as tough as a previous model, I wanted to see if this was more widely spread.
 
Ask Hamilton Bowen?

If you ask me it's the Redhawk.
Click to expand...
You, sir, are no Hamilton Bowen!
(sorry, had to do it, seemed funny to me... :p)

I love this idea, though. Hamilton Bowen has forgotten more about revolvers than most of us will -EVER- know.
 
The Redhawk and Super Redhawk are equals. They are also capable of handling higher pressures than the Super Blackhawk due to their larger cylinders. Their cylinders are also longer which allows for heavier, longer bullets. Handloader magazine had an article on heavy Redhawk/SRH .44Mag loads in the 50,000psi range.
 
I own the Super Redhawk alaskan 454, and by what I have gleened from them is that the Super Redhawks cylinders are made with a stronger steel and then heat treated.

I know I can load 38.2 Gr of H110 in my 454 and the cases will eject just fine and there have been no problems at all.
 
The Super Redhawk has the most steel in it, so in theory would be the strongest.

But, unless you are testing to destruction, I don't think it matters much.

You can blow up anything, Rugers included.

Sticking with .44 Mag, you are going to be well outside the "sane" envelope before the difference in the strength of the guns becomes a serious factor.

It will be other factors than just pure strength that determine the safe max loads for each individual gun. Fit and finish of the chambers, case head expansion of the brass you are using, things like that play a part in sticky extraction. And when cases start to stick, that's your top end max working load for that combination of components and firearm. No matter if you are getting the velocity you want, or not.

You can go hotter, but you shouldn't. You should, in fact, back off the load a little bit, and then call it good.

If you want to shoot those uber heavy for caliber 300, and 300+gr bullets, go for the Super Redhawk. Its the cylinder length that allows those slugs, not the intrinsic strength of the gun.

Personally, I've never had a need or use for anything more than a 240/250gr bullet in the .44.
 
Wise words, 44 AMP

Its the cylinder length that allows those slugs, not the intrinsic strength of the gun.
Click to expand...

Whilst I load my longest cartridges in my Redhawk, it would be a shame not to have the option in revolver number 2, assuming I go for the .44Mag again, hence why the RH faction have an advantage of the BH variants.

However, for me, I think it is also that strength "safety net" that I like. Some may wag their finger at me for that statement and so be it.

I reload and handload. I am not very experienced, but have had good results with my .44 calibre loads (Mag and Spl). I don't want to load them ridiculously hot, but enjoy producing loads that were once described by a member as "smokin' ".
I liked reading that....:o

Still, all it means is that I can play around at the upper end of loads, without being silly about it, and it somehow feels like the Ruger's brawn has "got my back".

So far, I've had a few split cases, but never any sticky extraction. I have never gone on to keep the load recipe which had produced a case that split.

Bullet weight wise, I have 200, 240 & 275 bullets. I use those for Mag and Spl plinking, palm stinging and "save me from the bears" respectively.

Some 330gr bullets may follow but purely for the "will my arm fall off after this" experience. I plan to buy 100 of those and that should see me through the next decade...

If my second revolver plan pans out, it is presently a 3 way contest between the 6" GP100, 7.5" Bisley Hunter and 9.5" SRH.

Which ever wins, if I even decide to go the wheelgun route, there will eventually be a scope involved!!
 
Last edited:
The .454 and .480 Supers are made from stronger alloys. As I said before, the Redhawk and Super Redhawk are of equal strength and Ruger uses the same cylinders for both.
 
If we are talking about "blowup resistance" the Redhawk and SuperRedhawk have the same massive cylinder and it is always the cylinder that cuts loose first unless the frame is abnormally weak (meaning "definitely not a Ruger"). So those two are tied and a bit ahead of the Blackhawk/SuperBlackhawk family.

HOWEVER, if the question involves how many normal shots each can fire and last the longest, I would pick the SuperBlackhawk, SO LONG AS you upgrade the base pin to something that can be bolted in (Belt Mountain, Bowen, etc.). and add lok-tite (blue!) to the screw at the end of the ejector rod. The action parts are insanely tough in the SBH and all other large-frame and medium-frame Ruger New Model single actions.
 
Isn't the 454 cylinder unfluted? Why else would Ruger have gone to the trouble of lengthening the frame if not for increased strength?
 
The cylinders are the same between the two guns and it is the cylinder that must contain the pressure.

An unfluted cylinder is not stronger than a fluted cylinder.

Ruger stretched the frame for two reasons. One was to have somewhere to mount a scope with their proprietary rings. Two was because of an issue that arose with the Redhawk. What they thought was a weakness turned out to be a batch of guns with thread adhesive on the barrel shanks that was allowed to dry for too long before assembly. The result was too much torque on the barrel shank and on some guns, it just broke off.

Jim March is correct in that while the Redhawk and Super Redhawk can handle more pressure, they will also shoot loose before the Super Blackhawk.
 
Jim March is correct in that while the Redhawk and Super Redhawk can handle more pressure, they will also shoot loose before the Super Blackhawk.
Click to expand...

As I understand this is only relative issue. As in "all things being equal after 100K bazillion rounds" the Blackhawk might be in better shape, unless those rounds were ++P++ and very long, in which case the Redhawk will be in better shape.

Does that sum it up?
:)
 
The Redhawks can handle more pressure but the single actions will live under their respective maximum pressure for longer. Either way, it's a crapload of shooting and few shooters will ever see the difference. It's mostly academic. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top