Ruger Super Redhawk! Need a Scope!

Status
Not open for further replies.
A. With the Burris 2x20mm Handgun Sight, Leupold Medium Height rings seem a tad bit tall... I was wondering if Low Height Rings would leave enough clearance for the rear sight.

B. Need some help with aftermarket sights #2, in conjunction with the front sight base #1... Should I just get the shortest front sight with the assumption that I can bottom out the rear sight and still shoot at 25 yards?

1. Ruger Redhawk DX - Type Front Sight Base

Ruger Super Redhawk DX-Type Front Sight Base [P412] - $59.95 : +Parts Store+, Bowen Classic Arms

2. HiViz LitePipe, Front

Litewave H3® Tritium/Litepipe S&W DX Interchangeable Front Sight - HIVIZ® Shooting Systems | Manufacturing high quality firearm fiber optic and tritium sights

SWN3001 0.250 Height
SWN3002 0.208 Height
SWN3003 0.310 Height

C. Shims: Hammer + Others

Yay or nay?
 
Last edited:
I think the height is perfect. Low rings would get the scope into the rear sight.

I'm not gonna be any help on front sight height. I don't think I've even shot it with the iron sights. I kinda got mine in haste before the water buffalo hunt of 2017 and only shot it with the UltraDot. I would default to the tallest height available but I also shoot heavy bullets out of mine.
 
CraigC said:
I think the height is perfect. Low rings would get the scope into the rear sight.
Click to expand...

You’re probably right.

I'm going to postpone shooting this pistol until I get to install everything I want, with all the parts tidied up...

There are sharp burrs everywhere!

You can feel it when you work the action!

Ruger should've sold this pistol with a strop and some fine grit...
 
Last edited:
CraigC said:
I think the height is perfect. Low rings would get the scope into the rear sight.

I'm not gonna be any help on front sight height. I don't think I've even shot it with the iron sights. I kinda got mine in haste before the water buffalo hunt of 2017 and only shot it with the UltraDot. I would default to the tallest height available but I also shoot heavy bullets out of mine.
Click to expand...
are those medium leupold rings with the ultradot?
 
For reference...

The clearance between Ruger’s Scope Rings (came with the revolver) is 47.7mm.

Between the Leupolds, it’s 49.2mm.

Come on, Ruger! Even your scope rings have sharp edges and burrs! I’m not kidding!
 
Last edited:
Does anybody detach their scopes AT THE BASE with any degree of frequency (red dot today, crosshairs next week) for different purposes?

Like, the scope rings are left affixed and appropriately torqued on the scope body, but the base screws get loosened / tightened multiple times due to scope swapping?

I was wondering if there'd be any ill effect on the scopes due to such - I'm assuming there's some degree of tension exerted by the bases on the scope body.
 
LaneP said:
I bought a set of Warne rings for my Bushnell Elite that I plan to test out in the near future. Recoil of heavy, 325 to 360 gr bullets at full power is brutal on mounts and rings.
Click to expand...

Nice!

The lighter the scope, the less ill effects there should be...
 
LaneP said:
I bought a set of Warne rings for my Bushnell Elite that I plan to test out in the near future. Recoil of heavy, 325 to 360 gr bullets at full power is brutal on mounts and rings.
Click to expand...

Curious about the behavior of the Ruger M77 mount - no experience with it, only fiddled with scoped rifles prior - do they inevitably get marred from regular use? The way the rings are designed, it appears as though a lot of clamping pressure is placed on a very small surface area, more so with the Leupold rings.
 
Last edited:
The Glockodile said:
Curious about the behavior of the Ruger M77 mount - no experience with it, only fiddled with scoped rifles prior - do they inevitably get marred from regular use? The way the rings are designed, it appears as though a lot of clamping pressure is placed on a very small surface area, more so with the Leupold rings.
Click to expand...

That is something I hope to find out soon when I get a chance to shoot it toward the end of this month.

I have higher hopes for the Warne M77's as opposed to the Ruger rings or the Weigand mount. The reason being, they apply full surface clamping to both frame cuts and full contact in the top cuts. The Ruger rings offer full surface mating on the top, but only on the screw side of the side cuts. The opposite side shown here, only grips a small part of the very top of the side frame cut, and that isn't enough for the jarring recoil of heavy loads.

JKpiv7V8U2hfPPrIDdNLckSzJ2kaoHIeWwFxnFEVr1nIYlo6JNcWs5aDWH1Acg0xi1w3AQhI=w950-h760-no?authuser=0.jpg

I could never keep those rings tight, even using red Loctite thread locker. Loads pushing a 325 gr cast bullet to 1450 fps, or a 300 gr XTP to 1650 fps, jarred the rings enough to mar the steel of the frame on the side cutouts and loosened up within a few cylinder loads.

The Weigand mount offers the full surface mating to the side frame mount slots (and an anchor in the rear sight base), but uses spring pins to anchor into the top frame slots. The problem there is those spring pins offer only very small surface area contact. I shot about 6 cylinders worth, removed the mount, and found the pins were driving up divots in the top strap.

oKApa0UO3pePBFkd66sMoMSW0KI25tnuATw5Wv-VQ66eDdEviqp4_uRgyg8h--o_hfXVed8=w1000-h714-no?authuser=0.jpg

For those familiar with the SRH, the steel of the frame is not as hard as you would think on a revolver containing that much pressure, actually moderately hard. This pic shows the spring pins of the Wiegand mount beginning to flatten, and the bright areas where anodizing is missing is from friction with the divot of metal being driven up on the frame.

MEWnCyVsjWk-K6GNfNgoH4VJVHo8_1WA4K74MDIYZcoLZeK8XzcxHvZDa8KFas1IMD51sZQ=w1190-h893-no?authuser=0.jpg

This is the Weigand after mounting, but before I took it to the range.

_6v_ZeuWTGVHtNtttjvJGMtdd5F7EO6Ft4T8-tile22sc-loirlQLOrKLvBkqa9tGCWyp-qg=w950-h561-no?authuser=0.jpg

So the Warne M77 mount separates into halves, offers full mating contact to both sides of the frame cuts, as well as full contact with the top strap cuts, basically exactly what I was looking for. I expect this will be as good as it gets, and if they fail too, I'll have to back down my loads enough so the recoil torque isn't as violent.

So far, the scope tube is holding up fine through all previous testing, with only moderate evidence of anodizing coming off at the ring pressure points. Looks like the Bushell Elite is no longer in production, but I bought it because it was rated waterproof, fogproof, nitrogen purged and capable of handling .454 recoil. It's doing a whole lot better than the mounts I've tried so far.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Scope on a Super Redhawk
Replies
14
Views
2K
ID_shooting
I
C
  • Locked
Scope for Super Redhawk .454
Replies
1
Views
415
umc180gr
U
G
  • Locked
Need scope advice for a Super Redhawk .
Replies
6
Views
450
Brian Williams
Brian Williams
P
  • Locked
Ruger super redhawk
Replies
7
Views
826
Marshall
M
M
Ruger Redhawk VS Super Redhawk...what say you?
2
Replies
43
Views
1K
d2wing
d2wing
Back
Top