Considering a new Ruger Redhawk in .44 Magnum

[sequins]

Hello friends,

I'm considering a new double action .44 Magnum revolver and I'm a big fan of Ruger, so naturally the Redhawk in .44 Magnum seems like a good selection. I'm not sure if I'd rather get the 5.5" or the 7.5" barrel though. I think the 5.5" Redhawk in SS is quite a looker but I have a Super Blackhawk in .44 with a 7.5" barrel that is just a hoot to shoot and I don't know if I'd like it nearly as much if I had opted for a shorter barrel... Should I get the shorter more 'reasonable' barrel for my Redhawk or get a long barrel?

The other thing is that if I settle on the 7.5" barrel I then have to ask myself whether or not I'd like the hunter model or the regular. I prefer the look of the barrel/frame without scope rings because I wouldn't use optics, but are there any other features of the hunter model that I might want to consider? If you have an opinion I'd be interested with regards to Hunter vs. Regular configuration for the Redhawk in .44 Magnum as well as your opinion on barrel length.

If you think I should get another barrel length or some other revolver or whatever let me know that too, thanks guys.

 

[adcoch1]

I would get the 7.5" barrel in the redhawk, mine is an absolute pleasure to shoot and insanely accurate. The 5.5 would probably be less stable to quick fire in double action, and you already know how accurate the 7.5 barrel is. I would go the hunter myself, I don't really like the scope ring cuts either...

 

[Panzerschwein]

What are you going to use the gun for?

 

[Mosin Bubba]

A Redhawk with a 7.5" barrel is a very nice gun. IMO, the 5.5" barrel is a too short, at that point the gun starts to kick a bit too much for me.

 

[gamestalker]

If I could purchase any 44 magnum I want, it would be a toss up between an M29 S&W, or the Super Red Hawk. I had a SRH back in the early 90's and absolutely loved it. Never owned an M29, but I sure drooled over one my friend had every time I shot it, and looked at it. Both have their beauty and functional advantages, with the SRH hands down the better range gun choice IMO.

Anyway, to answer the OP's question, if I were to purchase another SRH, I would go with the 7.5" with a nice optic sitting on top. I don't see either one, the 5.5" or the 7.5" as anything that would ever be deliberately carried as a self defense weapon, not unless a situation presented when that was all that was available at the moment. I would want it for hunting and serious range use, so probably the 7.5" would be the direction I would go. Now if the 7.5 hunter is what floats your boat, then by all means, go with what you like, you'll be the one shooting it.

Another very, very fine revolver to consider is Freedom Arms, they have a really nice wheel gun. They're probably a bit more expensive than a SRH, but as wheel guns go, they have a reputation of building top shelf wheel guns.

GS

 

[CajunBass]

About the only Ruger revolver I would consider buying is a 5.5 Redhawk. I just like the way that gun looks for some reason, and since I have no practical reason at all for a 44 Magnum, looks is the deciding factor for me.

I DO have a Smith & Wesson Model 69, but I admit I think of it more as a 44 Special that can shoot magnums also. I don't, but I can.

 

[tallpaul]

I bought a stainless 5.5 as a 21 year old 30 years or so back... still have it,still shoot it and still like it...
I have a blued 7.5 hunter I got a couple years after that.... still have it,still like it and shoot it ....

Have an open sight stainless 7.5 and acquired a stainless 7.5 45 colt redhawk hunter....


I LIKE the redhawks

I agree with the looks of a Hunter barrel being not as nice without the optics... It is however more versatile.

As far as barrel length it depends on how you plan to use it. As an open sighted range gun either will be fun. As hunter either will work. As a woods type carry gun the 5.5 gets the nod although a good holster can help even with the long barrel.

If you think that you may ever think you may add optics I would go that route. Age makes us all rethink all sorts of sight options

If you like the 7.5 you won't go wrong- then again if you already have a 7.5...

So I guess my real answer is one of each-5.5 and a 7.5 regular and a 7.5 hunter other than that really its just a personal choice depending on your personal preference and intended uses...

 

[Rio Laxas]

I like my 5.5" Redhawk more than the 4.2" for everything but carrying, but for a fun gun, I would choose the 7.5" model

 

[sequins]

I think I'd only really use the gun at the range for kicks, same as my super blackhawk, but I might if anything use it as a woods gun. I am a very novice hunter (just finally found someone who will take me out and teach me, not even taken game yet I'm so novice) so hand gun hunting isn't an application I'd consider until much further down the road, although that "some day" vibe is why the hunter model is on the table, and the more I think about it the more I think I'd rather have the scope rings cut and never use them than wish I had 'em and not. I really don't see myself handgun hunting though.

 

[stoky]

One of the first couple of hundred, s/n 500-00xxx, bought NIB back in the day. It's been great.

 

[SwampWolf]

My wife gave me a Ruger Redhawk with a 7.5" barrel for Father's Day in 1983. Needless to say, I still have it and found it more pleasurable to shoot than a S&W Model 629 with a six inch barrel I once had (though I like the looks of the Smith better and it did have a lighter sa trigger pull). To garner all the practical ballistic advantage the .44 Magnum cartridge offers, I wouldn't want a barrel shorter than six inches-unless I planned on carrying it regularly in a holster on the hip.

I don't like optics on any revolver or semi-auto, even when hunting with one; so no Hunter model for me. However, if you think you might ever want to mount a scope on a Redhawk in the future, I'd definitely opt for the Hunter model (even though I think the cut-outs for rings look unsightly).

 

[Hammer059]

I voted 5.5" Redhawk out of your listed choices.

But my real vote would be a 4" or 5" S&W 629. I don't dislike Ruger revolvers, however I love Smiths.

 

[sequins]

Out of curiousity to the 5.5" voters, are you as attracted as I am to the looks? I feel like the 5.5" is the best dang looking revolver ever, but I really am skeptical of .44mag out of such a short barrel. It definitely won't be the best performance but it might not even be the most fun to shoot- I really want to know if those 18 votes are for looks or for shooting.

If the 5.5" is a good shooter it's almost a done deal for me based on how good it looks and how unlikely my hunting with it is (I might well buy a SRH in .480 as well and if I ever hunt use it instead of my other options)

 

[IKE]

I'd had a 5.5" for several years and then got a good deal on a lightly used 7.5".......I traded off the 7.5" after a year or two and kept the 5.5".

I just like the 5.5" better.

 

[tallpaul]

As a .44 lover and owner I will say you will be well served by a 4-5 inch gun for general and even open sighted hunting... especially if you might be starting out hunting where ranges are not extreme usually. Most 44 guys that I know shoot mild and wild loads in their guns it they shoot them alot. There is no need usually for rip snortin nuclear loads for most game. A LOT of game has fallen to the .44 mag out of 4-6.5 inch guns over the years... the failure is not usually the rounds fault.

I like the looks of the regular/hunter redhawks in any flavor really. not so much a super redhawk ...

 

[tallpaul]

My first 2... 5.5 then the blued hunter... Only thing I dislike is the old Billboard on the barrel

 

[bannockburn]

My brother had a 5.5" barrel on his Redhawk when he lived in Alaska. He took it with him every time he went for a hike. The size and weight were very manageable and he liked the overall balance and handling of the gun with the 5.5" barrel.

 

[MCgunner]

I never really desired one. But, if you're going to get one, get a longish barrel. These things are HEAVY and just not my cup of tea, prefer the Blackhawks. But, that weight soaks up recoil and on a hunting handgun, weight is of no consequence. I'd own it for hunting as it's pretty worthless as a carry...thus a longer barrel, 10" ain't too much IMHO.

 

[stoky]

5.5" for looks and/or perceived ergonomics. 7.5" (or +) for longer sight radius and higher velocity, with less muzzle flash, recoil and noise.
hmmmmmmmm

 

[Richard Head]

I voted for the 5.5" barrel because 4.2" wasn't an option. I agree with Elmer that a 4" 44 magnum is more than adequate for most jobs.

 

[Elm Creek Smith]

Given your choices, I'd go with the 5.5 inch barrel. I had a 4 inch S&W 629 that I sold after getting my elbow rebuilt, and my wife still misses that gun! She kept it loaded with Winchester .44 Special Silvertips.

Don't let the naysayers tell you it doesn't make a good carry gun. My 4 inch S&W 686-6 weighs about 40 ounces empty and rides a security holster on my duty belt 8-16 hours a day, 5-6 days a week. That's in addition to the X26 EDW, handcuffs, 26 inch collapsible baton, two double speedloader pouches, and a Motorola XTS 5000.

 

[MCgunner]

Don't let the naysayers tell you it doesn't make a good carry gun. My 4 inch S&W 686-6 weighs about 40 ounces empty and rides a security holster on my duty belt 8-16 hours a day, 5-6 days a week. That's in addition to the X26 EDW, handcuffs, 26 inch collapsible baton, two double speedloader pouches, and a Motorola XTS 5000.

Well, do you carry it IWB? I wouldn't even wanna open carry a Redhawk, though. They make a 686 feel like an airweight. Good hunting revolver, about all it's good at IMHO, at least practical uses. But, to each his own.

If I had one it'd be wearing a 2x optic and carried in a shoulder or bandoleer rig. That's why I checked "hunter" model.

 

[eldon519]

Of the 5 Ruger DA guns I've owned, the Redhawk was my least favorite. The trigger was not very good, and the grip was not very comfortable with powerful loads (5.5" .45 Colt). I'd look at the Super Redhawk or a S&W instead if it were my money. I've got samples of both and prefer them to the plain Redhawk.

 

[tallpaul]

well grips are easily replaceable.... and a springkit makes them pretty nice. Mine are not bad at all... and I own smiths and target guns... they all need a lil' tweeking...

 

[Manny]

I had a 5.5" Redhawk in .44 mag some years back that was very accurate, but kinda seemed like neither fist nor fowl, just bigger & heavier than I cored for in a belt gun. The 7.5" while an awesome range gun is just far more than I would care to carry. A year or so ago, I found a 4.2" Redhawk in .45 Colt that I like VERY much. Still kinda big & heavy, but manageable. IMHO this is the "just right" size.