Ruger Redhawk VS Super Redhawk...what say you?

M

Mr. Tettnanger

Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
232
Ruger Redhawk VS Super Redhawk...what say you?

Which would you prefer for handgun hunting, whitetail deer?

I have owned a few Redhawks and only one Super Redhawk. I sold off my last Redhawk and ended up getting the SRH. Recently, a Redhawk (Hunter with scope ring cut offs) that I sold off came up for sale. I am very tempted to buy it back. Unfortunately, I can not afford to keep both.

Which would you prefer...and why?
 
Since I've only owned the redhawk my answer may not carry as much weight as some on here, but my example is a 7.5" barrel 44 mag with a houge rubber grip, and after 23 years of use and adventures, I am very familiar with it. I would buy another one in a shorter barrel, but as a dedicated hunting revolver I would probably go with the super redhawk, especially with a barrel longer than 6". Scope mounting is a lot easier on the super redhawk than on my old style redhawk without the scope ring cuts, and while I've gotten away with not having a scope on mine, I think it would be a great addition to a dedicated hunting handgun. Grips are the other good reason for the super over the standard redhawk, and there are more caliber options in the super if 44 mag isn't the flavor you're looking for...
 
My standard Redhawk was more than strong enough to digest loads that were on the hot side for the Ruger .44 Carbine without a hiccup. I had to file the lead off the top of the 300 gr. JSPs to fit them in the cylinder, and they were stuffed with Blue Dot up to the base of the bullets.
Plenty strong enough for me, and better looking than the Super Redhawk.
 
I have one of each, both 7.5” models.

IMG_3362.jpeg IMG_3359.jpeg

The Redhawk is a .41, the SRH is a .454.

The grip on the SRH is a bit more versatile, and scope mounting is a cinch. (My .41 is from before they offered scope ring cuts on the RH.)

I like the looks of the Redhawk over the SRH, the odd frame/barrel size almost makes the SRH look like it was assembled from a pile of parts. (I like the Redhawk 5.5” model best of all.)

Both are big, burly revolvers that will shoot a boatload of ammo before they give up the ghost. Try to shoot one of each and you can be sure you buy the one you want.

Stay safe.
 
Mr. Tettnanger said:
Ruger Redhawk VS Super Redhawk...what say you?

Which would you prefer for handgun hunting, whitetail deer?

I have owned a few Redhawks and only one Super Redhawk. I sold off my last Redhawk and ended up getting the SRH. Recently, a Redhawk (Hunter with scope ring cut offs) that I sold off came up for sale. I am very tempted to buy it back. Unfortunately, I can not afford to keep both.

Which would you prefer...and why?
Click to expand...
I have a SRH in 454 sold my RH in 45 colt I always liked the SRH better find it more versatile mainly because there seems to be more aftermarket stuff available and it will shoot 45 colt also my SRH is Target Gray 7.5 inch barrel very accurate gun. Plus I always liked the feel of the SRH better.
 
Mr. Tettnanger said:
Ruger Redhawk VS Super Redhawk...what say you?
Click to expand...
None of those. This one, GP-44:

RD04GP.jpg


index.php


Created by Bowen using modified SRH Alaskan frame and RH barrels http://www.bowenclassicarms.com/catalog/ruger_double_action_basic_packages.html . Unfortunately, such custom revolver comes with considerable cost and waiting period.
 
On a personal note I'm also in the camp that doesn't care for the looks of the Super Redhawk except for the Alaskan. And even the Alaskan won't win any beauty prize. But I do like the way the Alaskan handles and I shoot it well enough for what it is - a big bore snubby.

I've owned several Redhawks and never found one that I enjoyed shooting or that I could shoot very well at all. In the end I sold off all the Redhawks and will never own another. So I'm not much of a Redhawk fan either.

My favorite 44 Mag revolver is the S&W 629 hands down. I like the looks, the balance, the way they shoot, the action out of the box, etc. Never felt the need to tinker on mine. I have several in various barrel lengths and they've been solid performers at the range and as a hunting/camping/Jeeping sidearm.
 
I have a 7.5" Redhawk, and a 9.5" Super Redhawk, both in 44 Mag.

Both are big, robust, heavy revolvers suitable for hunting. Both will handle heavier loads than I am likely to ever use, but I understand the SRH can handle somewhat more pressure than the RH.
Both are accurate at the intended distances, and both are capable of shooting better than I can.

If I were to sell one, I would sell the RH.

I can shoot the SRH better. The SRH feels better in my hand, and the trigger is vastly superior.
I cannot find a grip that works for me with the RH, and I've tried several.

That being said, the RH looks better, more traditionally shaped.

The SRH is a blocky, chunky workhorse of a revolver; but my philosophy has always been that Form Follows Function. IOW, it looks the way it looks because it can do what it does.
 
Never owned a RH but I did have the SRH in .44mag 7.5 barrel with scope. Sold it and got the SBH Hunter in .44mag with Bisley grip. I'm just a fan of the Bisley for managing recoil a little better and I had no use for double action in .44mag. Personal preference for my handgun hunting...
 
IMO, since the cylinder is the weakest point on any solid frame revolver, and as far as I know cylinders on Redhawk and Super Redhawk are basically the same, so strength is the same.

What makes Super Redhawk significant step above Redhawk are grip and internal mechanism.

Certainly not the best illustration on this world, but you could see what is an idea: GP-44 Outdoorsman, on SRH frame, with right size (and weight) of the barrel and more ergonomic hammer:

GP-44 Outdoorsman.JPG

Hope I didn't offend anybody.
 
For me, it is a simple matter of the way the grip fits. The original-pattern GP100 factory grip, on the SRH, is a best fit. To make a Redhawk fit me would require grinding metal from the grip frame, and I most certainly do NOT mean creating a rounded-butt. (I have handled the factory rounded-butt Redhawk.) I did have a Redhawk, long ago. The standard Redhawk grip “feels” nice, but it is simply too large, in the wrong places, for my hands, especially for double-action shooting.

I did end up with a Super Redhawk, though thus far, only the Alaskan snubby version. I would probably most like the Toklat version.
 
Last edited:
A Redhawk was my first big bore around 1990. The factory grip was fine with .44Spl loads and I ended up shooting some pin matches with it. Magnums were a lot less comfortable and I never could find a grip that worked. When I discovered the Bisley, I stopped shooting it altogether and ended up trading it away. When Ruger introduced the .480 cartridge, I decided to try a Super Redhawk. I never thought it was as ugly as most seem to think, just different and in a more utilitarian way. I loved it. The grip was way more comfortable than the Redhawk, or any other double action. Through years of trial and error, I greatly prefer the optic mounted over the frame on a heavy sixgun, rather than the barre. I found that not only could I mount an optic and keep my iron sights in place, if the optic failed, it could be removed with a quarter and I'd be back in business.

There is no strength difference. Both even use the same cylinder in .44Mag, same Ruger part number. Aside from the frame extension, the dimensions are the same. The frame extension was allegedly done to alleviate the barrel separation issue that they found later was present on only one small batch of Redhawks and due to an assembly error.

The ONLY advantage the Redhawk has over the Super is looks. To me, these are pure hunting guns, so looks are secondary to function. The grip configuration, along with the optic/sight options and the two spring action just makes it a better platform for a hunting revolver. Its beauty is in what it does and what it does, it does very well. They also tend to be very accurate and my .44 below is one of the most accurate handguns I own, even compared to Freedom Arms.

SRH%2005.jpg
 
My late buddy Scott owned an early-production Redhawk that he could do interesting things with, like scoring an 11/40 in the standard silhouette course from a standing position shooting double-action. I thought that was pretty impressive.

The Super hasn't really tugged my strings except for the Alaskan model/edition. That one would make one heck of a nightstand gun.

Said friend Scott was 6'10" and 350 lbs., so I could picture him carrying one concealed if the Alaskan had been released before he passed.


1707410098605.png

I miss Scott for a bunch of reasons, not least for the way he filled the passenger seat of my 1968 VW Beetle.
 
Last edited:
I know the SRH has a big advantage for the double-action trigger, but I'm not sure that's how people hunt. I have neither handgun-hunted nor have I owned a Ruger double-action. Although I shoot my DA S&W exclusively in DA, I'm not sure that's what makes sense for hunting. Because I think I would shoot SA for hunting, I might favor a single-action revolver to do it. I do have a SA Ruger, though it would not be my pick for hunting (it's a New Vaquero in 357). The Super Blackhawk Hunter looks like a good outfit to hunt with a scope. For DA, I would try to win one of those Dan Wesson Super Mag's that I keep putting on my watchlist on GB. One of those might not be as long as my rifle, but at least it would weigh close.
 
Probably the Redhawk for me. The trigger is the main argument against it, in my book, but a really good gunsmith - Bowen, for example - can fix them. The SRH is just incredibly ugly in my eyes, and while I try not to let appearance interfere too much, in this case I just can't get around it.

Now, if the sky is the limit, then the SRH can have its snout chopped off, and along with a few other modifications, becomes a very attractive gun...
 
I can't comment on the SRH other than to say I have to agree with those who find it ugh-lee.

I have a Redhawk with a 4 inch barrel that is very accurate and has a sweet trigger. H aving said that let me say it didn't come that way out of the box. Initially I had trouble grouping at all even from a rest. It turned out that the crown was cut unevenly. It went back to Ruger. They straightened the cut and solved the accuracy issue. And while they had it they worked on the trigger. I got back a very nice, smooth trigger which also had a nice, clean, crisp SA break. The customer service was great but shouldn't have been necessary. It should have come out of the box the way it is now.
 
Follow up:

I ended up buying back the Redhawk Hunter.

I hate to admit this, but I think I like the SRH better. It feels better in hand. The Redhawk had a scope mounted on it. This model has the scope ring cutouts on the barrel. With the scope mounted it feels very top/front heavy. The SRH has the cutouts on the frame.

The Redhawk came with aftermarket Houge grips. They just don't feel right. I took them off and put the original wooden grips back on. It looks great....but looks don't put meat on the table!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Z
  • Locked
Night sights for Ruger Redhawk
Replies
0
Views
529
ztnedman1
Z
K
  • Locked
Redhawk or Super Redhawk for 4" conversion?
Replies
17
Views
5K
jaybar
J
R
  • Locked
Redhawk vs. Super Redhawk -- what's the difference?
Replies
19
Views
14K
MrAcheson
M
M
  • Locked
Ruger Redhawk .44 mag discontinued?
Replies
5
Views
1K
DPris
D
B
  • Locked
Ruger Super Redhawk felt recoil
Replies
18
Views
3K
iLikeOldgunsIlikeNewGuns
iLikeOldgunsIlikeNewGuns
Back
Top