Which .45, Redhawk or S&W 25 Series?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Scowboy said:
...I've always heard Smith was more accurate...
Click to expand...
CraigC said:
...People often say that but I have to wonder why...]
Click to expand...


Craig,

I would have to think that it is said because S&W revolvers have continually shown up in the winners circle in competitions. I know when I shot PPC, I could count on one hand the number of shooters who used some other than S&W.

Nice shooting by the way. But I guess you knew that!

Kevin
 
Of the two, Ruger Redhawk. Both are too large for me, in the reach-to-the-trigger dimension, for DA shooting. Both, with appropriate grips on them, feel good in my long hands, but my index fingers are medium-length. One difference, in my hands, is that I like the Redhawk factory grips, but the S&W would need aftermarket or custom grips.

If I were going to try to shoot these DA, with an unwise, ergonomically-compromised hold, the narrower trigger of the Redhawk is better for me. Most S&W N-Frames come with a wide trigger, which increases the effective reach, and is, to me, generally annoying.

If I am going to cock for SA, I’d rather it be the Redhawk. I prefer its hammer spur.

The Ruger has strength to spare, if I ever to carry where Grizzly Bears are out and about, and carry the ammo specific for that task.

This is not brand hate. I have smaller-frame Ruger and S&W revolvers. I have generally avoided S&W revolvers with keyholes.
 
StrawHat said:
Craig,

I would have to think that it is said because S&W revolvers have continually shown up in the winners circle in competitions. I know when I shot PPC, I could count on one hand the number of shooters who used some other than S&W.

Nice shooting by the way. But I guess you knew that!

Kevin
Click to expand...
I always figured it was because model 10's were cheap and plentiful. The S&W action has always been preferred for its swift trigger return.
 
My earlier reply post, in this thread, addressed what I would choose, from the given choices. In this reply post, I will add that my actual DA .45 Colt revolver, on hand, for “safety” purposes, where extremely large mammals might be a threat, is a Ruger Super Redhawk Alaskan, which now wears a GP100 grip. I would like to acquire the 5.5” (or so) Toklat version, sooner or later, but, for now, if 180-grain hard-cast ammo, in one of my usual .357 Mag GP100 or Speed Six revolvers, is deemed insufficient, I have the SRH Alaskan snub-gun. Being functionally ambidextrous, I may well carry both and SRH Alaskan, and a GP100. ;)

Here, in Texas, I am OK with .357 for the problem mammals, whether they move on two legs, or four. (On a specific parcel, of private land, owned by relatives, I tote a Benelli M2.)
 
Last edited:
Master Blaster said:
Crazy thought Sounds like you want a .44 magnum, then you can run the spectrum from .44spl cowboy loads to .44 mag full power with no worries. The Smith is going to be more refined and more accurate. The redhawk is going to be larger...and harder to get a good DA trigger. You will have a much easier time finding a .44 mag Redhawk than a .45 convertible.
Click to expand...

Again, using talk-to-text in gaps at work, please forgive strange spellings, word insertions, and a general lack of editing.

It's true that the Forty Fours are much more abundant, particularly with the longer barrels. And I thought about going 44 magnum before I started this whole journey buying 45. But from all the research I've done the 45 does have more versatility, and I can shoot both hot and cowboy loads in the rifle. Which means...and this part was big for me...the same rounds I can use in my cap and ball conversions I can use in the rifle. And that same rifle will handle way hot loads.... hotter than I ever hope to shoot out of a Redhawk actually LOL. My reloading equipment is also for 45, and it took months to piece that together because of availability issues. I still need equipment for a caliber I already had, that's totally unrelated to cowboy stuff. And I can use the same lead bullet in my 45 ACP that I can in my cowboy guns or 45 Redhawk. And because my only other Big Bore caliber is 45 ACP, as long as I get the convertible, then I have a revolver that will shoot literally every big bore bullet I own. It streamlines my life, which is good as far as I'm concerned LOL

And I'm one of those wack jobs that just find magic in certain historical things. Even though 44-40 was probably more important, there's a magic to 45 Colt in my mind. Same way there is 45-70.

It's not necessarily that I would have gone wrong going the 44, but 45 just seemed a better choice overall for me. And I know I could just get a Redhawk in 44, but then I have a different caliber that I have to worry about, and to be honest, locally I have had way more success finding 45 ammo than any other large Bore Ammunition. Weather that should have played into it or not, I don't know, but it probably did on some level.

And I know if I got a 44, I'd want to get it converted to 45, and I can't afford that LOL
 
09E58954-6559-4122-8694-7C5A355181CC.jpeg I’ll recommend the Redhawk also. Mine is the 45 convertible with a 4.2” barrel. Also have a 4 5/8” New Model Blackhawk in 45 Colt. I load my own, and can load mild cowboy loads, or heavy Ruger only loads.
 
People often say that but I have to wonder why. This is about typical for what the SRH pictured above does with everything I've fed it. The poorest shooting loads are still in the 1" range at 25yds. This one is 5/8".
Click to expand...
Rested?
 
If I want 45, here would be my choices:

For mid level loads in 45 Colt:

- Flattop Blachawk Convertible 45 Colt, 45 ACP https://www.ruger.com/products/newModelBlackhawkConvertible/specSheets/5241.html
- Flattop Bisley Convertible 45 Colt, 45 ACP (not sure that if this one was offered, but standard BH Flattop could be always converted to Bisley)

For "Ruger" level loads in 45 Colt:

- Full size Blackhawk Convertible 45 Colt, 45 ACP, https://www.ruger.com/products/newModelBlackhawkConvertible/specSheets/0463.html
- Full size Bisley Convertible 45 Colt, 45 ACP, https://www.ruger.com/products/newModelBlackhawkConvertible/specSheets/0472.html
 
StrawHat said:
I have owned both brands in the past. Rugers are certainly overbuilt for the job. Bill Ruger liked them that way and his choice of manufacturing methods required a bit more metal for safety. They are all heavy for the cartridge they chamber.

S&W is a lighter weight revolver. Well built and classic in design.

Both are having QC issues so let’s leave that out of the mix.

It really boils down to how much “over power” loads you want to shoot and how much weight you feel like carrying.

My choice?
View attachment 982386

Kevin
Click to expand...
Nice! The Tyler's T grips look great on S&W revolvers. I have one on my 3" 65 and I'm not really crazy about the feel, but it looks so good I leave it on anyway.
 
I have a Redhawk and a couple of N-frame Smiths and they are different enough and the same enough for me to have a hard time choosing between the two if I could only have one. I think the Ruger is slightly more "robust" if that's important to you and the S&W to have a superior trigger (both sa and da) and to be better finished.
However, unless you reload (and even if you do, I suppose), I would choose the .44 Magnum over the .45 Colt. Around here, at least, .44 Magnum ammunition comes in more varied and available configurations in terms of factory loadings, bullet types and configurations. And, of course, there is the .44 Special...
 
Last edited:
No experience with 45 Colt, but I’ve had a couple of Rugers and Smiths in 44 Mag. I’m a lousy pistol shot, but I found the N frames seemed to have more jump and recoil when firing 240 grain factory loads. The Rugers were easier to control. You definitely want to go with rubber Hogues or Pachmyars on either. Wood grips may look nice, but I don’t have enough points on my Man Card to shoot them.

Out of the box, my Smiths seemed to have better and lighter triggers and actions. If you’re into trying to ruin a perfectly good gun with some DYI gunsmithing, the Smiths might be easier to work on.

In my case, the “Wheel Gun Of Life” has gone around a couple of times and I’m back to a S&W N frame, but I sure wish I had kept my last Redhawk. Based on your original post, my vote is for a Ruger.

YlBYkCC.jpg
 
Get the one you can get the best deal on or what you like the most. If you want to not have to worry about the load being too heavy get the Ruger.

I'm of the opinion like some on here that think a 45 Colt should be a singe action :)

-Jeff
 
Bartojc said:
I'm of the opinion like some on here that think a 45 Colt should be a singe action :)
Click to expand...

Why not both? ;)
I have 2 Vaqueros, an original Vaquero and a New Vaquero in .45 Colt and I just bought a model 25.

@Scowboy
I guess my earlier recommendation is now tainted. I purchased a S&W model 25 Classic in .45 Colt yesterday.
I have been waiting months for either a NEW Redhawk or a Blackhawk in .45 Colt with no luck, unless I wanted a used one at stupidly high prices.
I was goofing off Weds night doing a search and found a new model 25 so I went and bought it yesterday. I pick it up in 9 days.
 
Redhawk has the best double action trigger; the Super Redhawk the best single action trigger. Both are beasts and will handle loads that S&W will not over time. Rugers are M1 Abrams tanks, S&W are Shermans. Rugers you can hand down to your great-grandchildren
 
MatrixReality said:
Redhawk has the best double action trigger; the Super Redhawk the best single action trigger. Both are beasts and will handle loads that S&W will not over tim
Click to expand...
In fairness - the proper apples to apples of Super Redhawk to S&W, would be the S&W 460 - which is more than a match to any Ruger in a factory configuration.
 
AustinTX said:
Far, far more than "slightly."
Click to expand...
Everyone always says the the Ruger is more robust and yet I think that is some what misleading. The Redhawk is certainly a stronger frame and cylinder. Super hot 45 Colt loads that would damage a S&W 625/25 the Redhawk digests fairly easily. BUT on the other hand there a many S&W N-frames out there that have run many tens of thousand of round of lighter loads without issue. There is a reason that S&W dominates the competitive practical shooting world. They have a better double action trigger and one that can hold up to tens of thousand of rounds of very fast double action shooting. I am not sure the (Super) Redhawk trigger will ever be as nice in double action and if the timing with last as long put through the same paces as a USPSA shooter puts a S&W through. There are very few people running Rugers in USPSA there might be a reason for that.
 
Hal said:
In fairness - the proper apples to apples of Super Redhawk to S&W, would be the S&W 460 - which is more than a match to any Ruger in a factory configuration.
Click to expand...
I don't agree. The X-frame is 20oz heavier than an SRH. The RH/SRH and both originally Ruger's .44Mag DA.
 
mcb said:
Everyone always says the the Ruger is more robust and yet I think that is some what misleading. The Redhawk is certainly a stronger frame and cylinder. Super hot 45 Colt loads that would damage a S&W 625/25 the Redhawk digests fairly easily. BUT on the other hand there a many S&W N-frames out there that have run many tens of thousand of round of lighter loads without issue. There is a reason that S&W dominates the competitive practical shooting world. They have a better double action trigger and one that can hold up to tens of thousand of rounds of very fast double action shooting. I am not sure the (Super) Redhawk trigger will ever be as nice in double action and if the timing with last as long put through the same paces as a USPSA shooter puts a S&W through. There are very few people running Rugers in USPSA there might be a reason for that.
Click to expand...
Not misleading at all. The only reason S&W dominates shooting sports is because of its faster trigger return. I never heard anyone with any credibility doubt the longevity of a Ruger DA.
 
I don't agree. The X-frame is 20oz heavier than an SRH. The RH/SRH and both originally Ruger's .44Mag DA.
Click to expand...
S&W lists the 460XVR @ 60.7 ounces (https://www.smith-wesson.com/product/model-460xvr) & Ruger lists the Super Red Hawk @ 47 ounces. - both having 5" barrels.
That's a difference of 13 ounces - not 20 ounces. Where did you come up with 20 ounces?
Plus - it stands to reason that the S&W, being a 5 shot & the Ruger being a 6 shot - the S&W will be heavier.

The S&W M25 comes in at 42.5 ounces & the Ruger Redhawk comes in at 44 ounces - which is pretty much apples to apples & is also what the OP was asking about.
Why drag the SRH into things?

"The RH/SRH and both originally Ruger's .44Mag DA" ? That's jibberish. I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean.
 
Hal said:
S&W lists the 460XVR @ 60.7 ounces (https://www.smith-wesson.com/product/model-460xvr) & Ruger lists the Super Red Hawk @ 47 ounces. - both having 5" barrels.
That's a difference of 13 ounces - not 20 ounces. Where did you come up with 20 ounces?
Click to expand...
The 8 3/8" .460 is 72oz. The 7½" SRH is 52-54oz, depending on chambering. 72 - 52 = 20.


Hal said:
Plus - it stands to reason that the S&W, being a 5 shot & the Ruger being a 6 shot - the S&W will be heavier.
Click to expand...
The cylinder has very little to do with it.


Hal said:
The S&W M25 comes in at 42.5 ounces & the Ruger Redhawk comes in at 44 ounces - which is pretty much apples to apples & is also what the OP was asking about.
Why drag the SRH into things?
Click to expand...
Why not? I guess you're one of those with the misconception that the SRH is some bloated version of the Redhawk. It ain't. Cut off the frame extension and they're the same dimensions. They even use the same cylinder part numbers. They weigh the same. In fact, the 5.5" SRH Toklat .454 weighs the same as a 6" bull barrel N-frame. So there would be no reason to consider one but not the other.


Hal said:
"The RH/SRH and both originally Ruger's .44Mag DA" ? That's jibberish. I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean.
Click to expand...
The N-frame is S&W's home for the .44Mag. The RH/SRH are Ruger's counterparts. You're obviously saying that because the SRH is chambered in .454 and .480, that it should only be compared to the X-frame. There is no rational reason that the N-frame should only be compared to the Redhawk and that the SRH should only be compared to the X-frame. THAT is "gibberish".
 
The Redhawk is way way more than "slightly" more robust than an N frame. It's closer to the difference between k frame 357s to L frame 357s.

There are +p+ 44mag loads out there that are designed around the Redhawk. Not one is safe to fire in an N Frame
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

1
  • Locked
S&W Mod 25 vs Ruger Super Redhawk in 454 Casull?
Replies
21
Views
2K
MachIVshooter
MachIVshooter
K
  • Locked
.44 mag --> .45LC Redhawk or S&W Mod 629 conversion
Replies
18
Views
2K
Katigroszek
K
Pat Riot
  • Locked
Anyone know about the Ruger Redhawk 5050 .45 ACP / .45 Colt?
Replies
5
Views
2K
Pat Riot
Pat Riot
MTNSTRYDER
  • Locked
45/45acp Redhawk
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
mcb
mcb
D
  • Locked
.44 S&W SPL. or .45 COLT.
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
CSA 357
CSA 357
Back
Top