Ruger Super Redhawk! Need a Scope!

Status
Not open for further replies.
BCCEB2CF-5559-475E-886C-31EB178B7669.jpeg

CraigC said:
It looks like it will fit. If not, they also have extension rings.
Click to expand...

@CraigC

If you have some time - could you humor me and take some measurements of the space in between your Leupold scope rings on your Super Redhawks?

That’ll be the deciding factor...
 
9C674A34-9EF4-433D-9AAF-8EF33AB776DA.jpeg

If I went with traditional glass, it’d be the one on the left...

92A6895F-1E7E-4F68-A5FF-F3E635C59527.jpeg

Thankyew Burris!

Leupold only has two pistol scopes listed...

The FX-II in 4x28, and the VX-3 in 2.5-8x32...

...but none in 2x, and none in SS / Nickel!

They do have some non - pistol low - magnification scopes available, however with insufficient eye relief. Probably geared towards “Scout Rifles.”

Looking at some online vendors, I found only one Bushnell - the rest were of the BSA / Sun Optics variety...

I wonder if all these newer, tiny red dots killed off all the variety.
 
Last edited:
The Glockodile said:
View attachment 1066845



@CraigC

If you have some time - could you humor me and take some measurements of the space in between your Leupold scope rings on your Super Redhawks?

That’ll be the deciding factor...
Click to expand...
Sorry it took so long. The space between the rings is 1 7/8". So you may need the extension rings if the Aimpoint is a true 2".

Leupold recently discontinued their 2x pistol scope. Burris has also been culling the herd. Not sure why. I've been buying used Leupold, Burris and Redfield pistol scopes on Ebay as of late.
 
Looking at a bunch of Super Redhawks online - it appears as though Ruger took more time with fit and finish with the older models - for instance, parts of the recoil shield facing the cylinder, and often the cylinder faces themselves, appear to have been left unpolished.

EDIT: I take it back - the level of polish seems hit and miss.
 
Last edited:
04BD4A76-25BD-4CD1-B8E3-B5943AC48B79.jpeg 21C578C9-B37A-4FE5-B931-2AFE945C5811.jpeg

Ruger Super Redhawk, probably late 80s to late 90s.

44253267-CB46-4F5C-B23E-7FE359B7519B.jpeg 74CF2875-85F8-48A9-B5E5-714745309A28.jpeg

Smith & Wesson 629, no lock, probably same era - my pistol - though the pictures don’t do it justice, the level of polish just seems better...
 
On further reading - it appears one has to be a little more careful than usual in seating the scope rings - they'll deform the frame (and the scope!) at the slightest excuse?

I imagine it has something to do with how solids behave more like liquids whenever really high impulses are involved :rofl:
 
Been there, done that. One of the negatives of the higher mass of a variable. I learned this and other lessons with a Burris 2-7x on my .480. You really want the turret snugged up against the front ring. Inertia wants to move the gun and leave the scope behind, so the scope moves forward under recoil. This is exponentially worse the bigger (heavier) the scope gets. Like the guy says in his post, "but 'tis better to have and want not than to want and have not" I try to tell people not to do that but few will listen. It's unwanted bulk, unnecessary mass and unusable magnification.
 
Exploring some other scope / mounting options at the moment, since the revolver itself probably won't come until the end of this week...

Took a look at Jack Weigand's rails.



WEIGATINNY1.png

Those are probably a pair of steel roll pins jutting out of the underside of the rail.

WEIGATINNY2.png

Round pins, going into rectangular holes.

I assume some amount of anchoring or load - bearing is shared by the four washers / screws on the side.

353B8610-7638-4E27-B5AC-E176E865E885.png

https://www.rugerforum.net/threads/weig-no-drill-vs-heavy-recoil.113168/

What I'm also wondering about is whether or not these (somewhat flexible) round pegs would mess up the rather rectangular slots on the frame under full recoil - or, whether they momentarily flex. The washers / screws main function is primarily limiting side - to - side movement, not so much front - to - back...

I'm beginning to understand why the scope mount is being identified by many online as the main shortcoming in this revolver's design.
 
Last edited:
I don't care for the Weigand rail because it still uses the Ruger mount system and adds mass/height for virtually no gain. The better version replaces the rear sight and that negates the greatest utility of the SRH.

IMHO, most of the issue is Ruger's rings. They work fine on rifles but big bore revolvers put a lot more stress on the mounting system. The Ruger rings do not clamp with enough force to keep the scope from moving. The mounting system itself is very robust. As I said, I have had zero problems with the Leupold rings.
 
CraigC said:
I don't care for the Weigand rail because it still uses the Ruger mount system and adds mass/height for virtually no gain. The better version replaces the rear sight and that negates the greatest utility of the SRH.

IMHO, most of the issue is Ruger's rings. They work fine on rifles but big bore revolvers put a lot more stress on the mounting system. The Ruger rings do not clamp with enough force to keep the scope from moving. The mounting system itself is very robust. As I said, I have had zero problems with the Leupold rings.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to find some options around the limited space between the Leupold rings, as well as their combinations of heights / extensions / finishes, for the red dot I like.

I may just end up running the revolver as it is, if all else fails...

EDIT: Well, gee. Looks like the pistol I got does NOT have the easily - replaceable front sights of old...
 
The Glockodile said:
I'm trying to find some options around the limited space between the Leupold rings, as well as their combinations of heights / extensions / finishes, for the red dot I like.

I may just end up running the revolver as it is, if all else fails...

EDIT: Well, gee. Looks like the pistol I got does NOT have the easily - replaceable front sights of old...
Click to expand...
No, the new ones have a one piece front sight base/blade. Bowen has a replacement base that uses S&W DX style front blades. Which is what my .44 has.
 
CraigC said:
No, the new ones have a one piece front sight base/blade. Bowen has a replacement base that uses S&W DX style front blades. Which is what my .44 has.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that bit of information!
 
Last edited:
CraigC said:
As I said, I have had zero problems with the Leupold rings.
Click to expand...

How about this - what Leupold 1” Scope Ring height would I need for a Burris 2x?

I figure I would need at least Medium to let the rear “bell” clear the rear sight, even when pushing the scope all the way to the rear.

Very limited choices for Leupold Scope Rings online - Brownells is basically out, and MidwayUSA has limited combos. Might have to check eBay...
 
Last edited:
I guess I should re - summarize...

Are the following combinations recommended / compatible?

Iron Sights Only

1. Ruger Redhawk DX - Type Front Sight Base

https://parts.bowenclassicarms.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=60

2. Meprolight Super Redhawk / GP 100 Tritium Sights, Front and Rear

https://www.brownells.com/handgun-p...u-dot-tritium-night-sight-sets-prod70586.aspx

3. HiViz LitePipe, Front

https://www.hivizsights.com/product/litewave-h3-tritium-litepipe-sw-dx-interchangeable-front-sight/

Fixed - Power, Low Magnification Scopes

1. Leupold M77 Medium Height Rings (Low too low, High too high?)

2. Burris Pistol Scope 2x20mm

Red Dots

Still researching!

1. Aimpoint 9000SC - probably requires Super High Extended Leupold M77 Rings to clear the midsection (whatever that part with the zeroing adjustments and battery is called). No pictures of this scope on the Super Redhawk without the Weigand Rail.

___11417_9000SC_30MM_Profile_Left_RF_w_Aimpoint.png

2. Leupold Freedom RDS - probably can fit with Leupold High 34mm rings (...try to find THOSE rings!...). Only found a picture of this one on what I think was a BFR. Not sure why Leupold stripped this sight of its Gold Ring.

_________leupold-freedom-rds-1x34-34mm-1-moa-red-dot-no-mount-176204-(2)-9070-p.jpg

____________500-JRH-group.jpg

https://singleactions.proboards.com/thread/31289/liking-leupold-freedom-rdss-revolvers

3. Ultradots - might be the only ones that are an easy fit given the limitations of the revolver.
 
Last edited:
Can anybody here source me a pair of Leupold M77 Scope Rings in 34mm to try out on the Freedom RDS?

I think "High" is the only size they have.
 
Last edited:
CraigC said:
I think medium would be best for the Burris 2x. It would ensure the eyepiece clears the rear sight.
Click to expand...

Already bought a Burris 2x scope and the Leupold 1" Medium Height Rings, and am flirting with the idea of the Ultradot 25mm Gen 2 (2 MOA), but just can't seem to like how it looks; at least these two share the same rings.

What I'm really interested in at the moment is trying out the Leupold Freedom RDS - it has a nice big 34mm tube. Don't know if it's as rugged as the Ultradots - some reviews online haven't been flattering.

Just found out from the vendor that the Super Redhawk is shipping out today - meaning it'll be coming next week - they sat on it all week despite everything having been good to go on Monday :thumbdown:
 
Last edited:
Playing around with the Burris 2x20mm Handgun Scope...

...I can see why it’s tough.

Light, solid, minimal moving parts.

That being said...

...does this thing allow you to adjust focus on the reticle?
 
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
446
Brian Williams
Brian Williams
P
  • Locked
Ruger super redhawk
Replies
7
Views
821
Marshall
M
M
Ruger Redhawk VS Super Redhawk...what say you?
2
Replies
43
Views
1K
d2wing
d2wing
Back
Top