Super Redhawk or Super Blackhawk: 44, or 454/45

[Coal Dragger]

I can't speak directly to the SBH vs SRH argument since I have only shot either one infrequently as I own neither although my younger brother owns a SBH and a friend of mine owns a SRH. I frankly don't care for either one of them all that much. The SRH is too big, too bulky, and I don't find the grips to be all that comfortable with full powered loads; the gun wants to beat the snot out of the web of my shooting hand. This is a complaint I have with most powerful double actions.

The SBH is also rubbish with full powered loads given the Single Action Army style grip that is too small for my hands, and that rolls excessively under recoil. Also Ruger saw fit to equip the revolver with a sharp corner at the rear of the trigger guard in some sadistic effort to make sure the gun draws blood whether you hit your target or miss.

The suggestion to seek out the Ruger Super Blackhawk Bisley is sound advice given the superior grip frame shape, I have shot a few of them and they work much better. Another great grip frame shape is the Freedom Arms which has a longer handle like a Bisley but the top of the grip is shaped more in the manner of a Single Action Army, either way it works brilliantly at handling heavy recoil.

On the .44 Magnum vs. .454 Casull debate:

I, at one point, owned a Dan Wesson .44 Magnum. It was a steaming pile of poo, and was not pleasant to shoot, not especially accurate, and generally undesirable. So don't buy one of those. I traded it off on a Leupold 2.5-8X36 and have never regretted it. I have a friend who owns a gorgeous S&W M29 Classic .44 Magnum with a 5" bbl, I love that revolver but he refuses to sell it to me. I like the .44 Magnum pretty well, nice versatile caliber with plenty of power.

For many years I did not own any revolvers until Christmas day of 2011, whereupon I was presented with a Freedom Arms M83 in .454 Casull, Premier Grade with a 6" bbl.

Thus I have some experience shooting both rounds, at varying power levels of both. For my use I have developed a preference for the .454 Casull, but I reload and that opens a lot of options for me. At the upper end of the range the .454 Casull has a lot more power, but you pay for it in hard, sharp, heavy recoil.....with a healthy dose of noise and muzzle blast thrown in for good measure. With practice you can acclimate to the recoil and blast, just don't try to overdo your practice sessions. It took me awhile to work up to it, but I am comfortable with full powered loads. I do have a background in competitive pistol shooting, and I have a lot of trigger time to have worked on my basics of trigger control and sight picture. I will also admit a preference for heavier bullets since they push and roll more than lighter faster bullets that are very very snappy in recoil.

I have noticed no issues with brass sticking in the chambers of my .454 even with hot Hornady factory loads and maximum published loads in two manuals. Then again I am using a revolver with a 5 shot cylinder and very tight chamber dimensions. I have heard from sources both on the internet, and from the "gun shop" crowd that the SRH in .454 does sometimes have sticky brass issues. Part of this is of course the different alloy used in the cylinder as mentioned above, and the fact that since it is a double action you are trying to punch all 6 of them out at one time. Were it a single action with an ejector rod it probably wouldn't be an issue if the chambers expanded a smidge under pressure and returned to dimensions allowing individual cases to expand more than desired.

A .454 Casull will get you to 1900-2000fps with a 240gr bullet maxed out. That means a pretty flat trajectory for a big bore revolver, and a lot of energy. At the other end of the spectrum you can fling a 360gr bullet from a .454 Casull at around 1350-1500fps depending on just how much you hate yourself. Double Tap ammo even offers a 400gr bullet at a claimed 1400fps. I'll bet that one is fun. At any rate these are considerably more powerful than a .44 Magnum can offer, there is no replacement for displacement here.

Reloading the .454 is a bit more challenging than the .44 though since the large case means you need large powder charges just to get consistent ignition with most powders. So even your practice loads end up being powerful. Think practice loads that are as powerful as average .44 Magnum loads, for practice. I don't bother with .45LC since I have .454 brass, although I need to try some IMR Trail Boss to fill the cases for consistency on light loads. Factory ammo is also tougher to find locally, but I have the internet and two reloading presses so I don't care.

 

[Manny]

I've had both the .44 mag and the .454 and while the .44 mag is more common, I got rid of them and kept the .454's. I have a pair of Super Redhawks in .454, a 7.5" with a 2x Weaver scope & an Alaskan and like them very much.

I love the versitility of the .454's as I can shoot .45 Colt cowboy loads for fun or .454 loads for hunting. I don't shoot the really hot .454 ammo however as it's really far more than I need for deer and instead use Winchester's 250 gr Super X load which is basically a +p 45 Colt load in a .454 case. At 1300 fps it's about the same power as a .44 mag load, but is far more pleasant to shoot with much less muzzle blast and a softer, less sharp recoil. I do also still have the option of the hot .454 loads, but find no need for them for my uses.

As for sticking issues with .454 ammo in an SRH, as long as you clean the cylinder well you should be just fine, especially if you stay with the lower pressure Super X load. Hot loads might possibly cause an issue if you have a rough finish in the cylinder or a slightly "looser" cylinder that gives the brass a chance to expand. When the hot, high pressure.454 loads were developed for the original Freedom Arms guns, they were possible in part because of the very tight tolerances of the FA cylinder which limited the ability of the brass to expand when fired, plus the very smooth finish which prevented much issue with sticky extraction. The Rugers, though fine guns, aren't built to quite the same level and it is possible that really hot loads might cause some issues. Most common .454 loads you'll find now though aren't loaded as hot as some of those early loads, so you won't likely have an issue.

 

[FROGO207]

I have a Ruger Super Blackhawk SS with a 10 inch barrel that I use for handgun hunting. I can get all 6 in a 4 inch circle at 100 YDS most times with a millet red dot. It has Pachmyer Presentation grips and with the added barrel weight it is an accurate revolver in my hands. I also own a 500 S&W now and will always prefer that 10 inch 44 MAG for hunting. It is as good as having a rifle without the added weight if shooting 100 YDS or less IMHO.

 

[CraigC]

Double Tap ammo even offers a 400gr bullet at a claimed 1400fps. I'll bet that one is fun. At any rate these are considerably more powerful than a .44 Magnum can offer, there is no replacement for displacement here.

Not so sure, the 400gr .454 is equivalent to the 355gr .44 in sectional density, which can be safely loaded to 1250fps at standard pressures. So you're really only gaining a LOT of recoil for a little velocity. Which makes little difference on the receiving end.

At 1300 fps it's about the same power as a .44 mag load, but is far more pleasant to shoot with much less muzzle blast and a softer...

Please, this is the stuff of myths and legends. A 240-250gr bullet at 1300fps is going to feel the same, whether it's a .45Colt, .454Casull or .44Mag.

 

[Coal Dragger]

Craig sectional density is a great thing, but when I am using a bullet that is almost certain to not expand I'll take a little more frontal area if I can get it at the expense of a little sectional density. That is just my own preference though.

I will say that if I didn't reload, there is no way I would buy a .454 Casull over a .44 Magnum.

 

[codefour]

I guess a big concern should bhe cost. I know it sounds funny, but if you are not loaded with a lot of discretionary income, the .44 Mag is almost half the cost to hand load or buy factory ammunition over the .454.

A few months ago, I was in the same dilemna. It came down to a .44 Mag Redhawk or a .454 SRH. I chose the .44 Mag and the Redhawk is IMO a better looking gun too. I am not a single action fan for heavy magnums. I like the double action option even though all my double action revolvers are shot in SA.

.44 Starline cases are half as much when purchased new. You can find cheap, used .44 Mag brass online. Good luck finding used Casull brass. I can shoot a few hundred .44 Mag handloads and not be out that much, especially when shooting a good 240 or 300 grain cast bullet.

My next hand cannon will be a .460 Mag. Just for kicks and giggles. I know the .460 will not kill anything better than the .44 Mag will. But how dead is dead? I like the versatility of the .460. I like hand cannons. The .500 S$W is the next, next cannon.

As to carrying a carbine instead of a these aforementioned magnum revolvers, some just like handguns, especially revolvers. I am a revolver nut myself. It is nice having a large revolver in a good hoslter. Much better than lugging a carbine or rifle around.

 

[JaxJim]

I have both in .44 magnum. I have the SRH scoped with a Leopold handgun scope, and the SBH is only iron sights.

I like the SRH better for hunting due to the faster followup shots and it fits my hand better. I carry it in a bandolier holster when I elect to carry it for hunting.

The above said: I always carry a SW 629 4" on my hip. This handgun has downed more hogs than I can count. Bigger isn't always better...

 

[Huntolive]

Right Back Where I Started...

Thanks for comments: but after reading, I am less decided than before ;-)

I can get a 454 SRH 7.5" used in good condition, which I have fired, along w/ 500 rds of 45LC, plus 20 rds 454 for $800. Which in my mind makes the gun $550 and $250 in ammo. 454 cases do stick a bit in it and load a little hard, but that is after alot of 45LC and no cleaning for quite some time.

I can get 44Mag SBH 7.5" Bisley new w/ no ammo $650.
Or new 44Mag SRH 7.5" for $800.

With any of the above, I would mount a scope.

I do not currently handload. But my ex-Marine neighbor/buddy does, but does not have specialized eq. for 454.

Mostly for Deer, Hogs. Still entertaining advice...

As for CC, does anyone else thinks it makes sense to CC a sp101 357 4"brl with adjustable sights, for all around trail gun, CC, and to take occassional deer w/ open sights? Would the adjustable sights be uncomfortable or pose a legitimate risk of getting snagged when drawing? Is there a good way to holster this that would make this work?

If not, I am liking the LCR 357 for CC. And what could I get for deer/hogs with open sights that is carryable? A 44Mag 4"brl RH/Taurus?

 

[Lost Sheep]

Thanks for comments: but after reading, I am less decided than before ;-)

Happy to be of service.

I do not currently handload. But my ex-Marine neighbor/buddy does, but does not have specialized eq. for 454.

All you need to add to your buddy's loading bench is a $30 to $50 set of dies. He should have everything else already (scale, various small tools, etc).

Have him teach you to reload and watch you do it. It is impolite to ask a handloader to load for you. Just as it is impolite to ask someone else to pack your parachute for you.

As for CC, does anyone else thinks it makes sense to CC a sp101 357 4"brl with adjustable sights, for all around trail gun, CC, and to take occassional deer w/ open sights? Would the adjustable sights be uncomfortable or pose a legitimate risk of getting snagged when drawing? Is there a good way to holster this that would make this work?

If not, I am liking the LCR 357 for CC.

The LCR is very carryable. The SP101 is a lot heavier and thus more shootable (though the recoil absorbtion of the plastic frame does help somewhat. Most CC guns are carried more than they are shot, so let that inform your decision.

And what could I get for deer/hogs with open sights that is carryable? A 44Mag 4"brl RH/Taurus?

I find it quite comfortable and handy while hiking or fishing to carry a 7.5" Super Redhawk in a Bianchi 101 (crossdraw) holster on my strong side. It doesn't get in the way of my pack's belt and is right under my right hand if I need it. I just have to make sure not to pee on the muzzle.

Some people do prefer a short barrel and believe presentation is quicker because of it. You will have to make your own decision on that question, too.

Good luck.

Lost Sheep

 

[skidder]

And what could I get for deer/hogs with open sights that is carryable? A 44Mag 4"brl RH/Taurus?

Maybe the Alaskan or 4" Redhawk, but for hunting I would go with at least a 6" barrel. I say 6" because of the sight radius and you gain some velocity.

 

[CraigC]

Craig sectional density is a great thing, but when I am using a bullet that is almost certain to not expand I'll take a little more frontal area if I can get it at the expense of a little sectional density. That is just my own preference though.

My point is that the 355gr and 400gr are comparable between their respective cartridges and that the only difference is the slight increase in diameter and a little more velocity. I just don't think those add up to "considerably more powerful".

Then there are supposed experts who don't think bullets that heavy are even viable.

Sorry but .45 fans poo-poo on the .44Mag all the time because they think a 240gr at 1400fps is all they're good for. Regurgitating stuff from Linebaugh's nearly 30yr old article. I like to bring a little balance to the argument.

 

[Coal Dragger]

I don't pooh pooh the .44 it is very versatile, probably more so than a .454 given the larger case that demands more powder for consistent results. I like my .454 better, in the platform that I shoot it from. Full house loads in .454 Casull, for me are more comfortable in that Freedom Arms than full house .44 Magnum loads are in my friend's model 29, or his Super Redhawk. That is just me though, and for some reason the grip shape really works for me.

I also appreciate the ability to get another cylinder made in .45ACP, since I shoot a lot of that already and have a Dillon set up to run only .45ACP. For me that makes a single action revolver with a .45 caliber barrel more useful than a .44 but that is just for my use. One size does not fit all here.

 

[98Redline]

I think that that .44/.454 thing has been beat to death at this point. It seems that what we are down to is splitting hairs between the pros and cons of these two calibers.

Buy the gun you like and go with it. I still prefer the Bisley SBHH.44Mag for your situation based on the reasons I stated above, but you need to make your own decision.


Regarding your CCW/woods gun, I can tell you that you will love a 4" SP-101 for woods carry or range work, but will come to despise the longer barrel for CCW. Even in a proper holster that 4" barrel will constantly be in the way. I have a 3" SP-101 that I originally bought for a dual purpose CCW/woods gun. While it serves the woods gun role well it fell out of favor as a CCW, pretty quickly, because of the barrel length.

Most encounters, where a firearm is used, happen slightly farther than arms length. I don't need 4" of barrel to hit a human sized target at that range. You really don't even need sights at that point. To that end I have gone to a smaller package that I will carry 100% of the time as opposed to a larger one that gets left at home in the safe due to comfort or excessive printing.

From the woods gun perspective, I would implore you to reassess your thoughts on using a shorter barrel gun for deer out to 50 yards. I consider myself a pretty good shot (4" 100 yard .44Mag groups) but using a shorter barrel at 50 yards is quite a task. I certainly wouldn't ever consider using my SP-101 on a deer at that distance. The shorter barrel will leave you with less velocity and probably puts you into the marginal zone for power and the shorter sight radius at that distance is just asking for a bad hit.

Use the correct tool for the job. If you are driving screws, use the proper screwdriver, not a butter knife and if you are hunting use your hunting gun, not a CCW piece.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

I went right to the S&W 460 magnum. I have one with a 5" bbl. Best gun I ever bought. It does everything I want it to. You probably won't find one for $800 though.

 

[Huntolive]

New Idea

Thanks All,
In response to 98Redline and Lost Sheep I have a new plan and question:

I will get a Rgr. LCR 357 for CC, unless anyone has a better idea under $500.
And Not get anything w/ a 4"brl.

For a primary hunting pistol, I was always talking about a 7.5" SBHH or SRHH, and scoping either, regardless of caliber.
I was thinking that unless it was the only gun I was carrying, that they would be unreasonbly uncomfortable and cumbersom to carry. I will continue to rifle hunt sometimes, and wanted to at times carry a revolver as well, unscoped, that I could use to shoot deer/hogs/blackbear with iron sights when I got a clean close shot, or for trail self defense. Would the same 7.5" SBHH or SRHH serve that purpose?
According to Lost Sheep it is "comfortable and handy" to carry a 7.5" brl SRH while fishing.
I had thought it would be clumsy to draw such a large gun, and a pain to carry, thus was looking at 4" brl 357 or 44Mag. Some have indicated great success hunting with 4"brl, and it seemed like a far easier carry and draw. Please explain further how toting the 7.5" can be made "comfortable and handy" as I still have a hard time picturing that.
If 7.5" brl can do it all "comfortably" than I am all set, since the scope is easliy removable and re-mountable.
Have you found the scope mounting/unmounting process, and re-acquiring 0 as easy as Ruger claims on their Hunter models?
That would seem to lead me more towards the DA though, esp. for self defense role. If not, why not?

 

[98Redline]

I don't think your optimum 2 gun battery exists. The three uses you mentioned all have significantly different needs that I can't see a 2 gun solution.

As I understand it you have asked for the following 3 things:

1) Big bore, long barrel revolver for handgun hunting (.44mag, .454C)
2) CCW firearm
3) Woods gun that you can "hunt" with

#1 and #2 are easy and I think we have hashed those to death.

#3 would be something with a barrel length between #1 and #2 that is capable of moderate shot distances on medium size game. Scoped guns that meet #1 will be too bulky for just bumming around in the woods or wearing while fishing. CCW guns will probably have too short of a barrel and not be accurate enough at realistic hunting distances to be effective.

I am not a fan of removing and reinstalling scopes on anything. Once it is on, it is on until I decide to change scopes or the gun goes back to being iron sighted. Putting a scope on and taking it off is just asking for trouble.

My recommendation would be to buy either the SRH or SBH and the LCR. Those two will be of the most use to you initially. Use them for awhile and save your pennies. When you have enough, buy yourself a dedicated woods gun.

 

[CraigC]

I think a 4" N-frame or short barreled big bore single action can do well for #2 and #3. `Tis the definition of Perfect Packin' Pistol.

 

[Coal Dragger]

1 & 3 could be handled easily by a 4"-6" bbl revolver in either caliber mounting a good quality micro reflex sight like a Trijicon RMR or a J-Point. A really long barrel really shouldn't be mandatory in my estimation, and if you are using a 6" bbl you are probably getting a good balance of velocity vs portability in a field gun.

I would venture a guess, that I will shortly find out, that a small rugged reflex sight will significantly increase shootability over irons and be more versatile than a magnified optic on a handgun. Then again I am not a real big fan of magnified optics on handguns, since I have never gotten to where I liked using them. So I have bias.

 

[Lost Sheep]

Thanks All,
In response to 98Redline and Lost Sheep I have a new plan and question:

I will get a Rgr. LCR 357 for CC, unless anyone has a better idea under $500.
And Not get anything w/ a 4"brl.

For a primary hunting pistol, I was always talking about a 7.5" SBHH or SRHH, and scoping either, regardless of caliber.
I was thinking that unless it was the only gun I was carrying, that they would be unreasonbly uncomfortable and cumbersom to carry. I will continue to rifle hunt sometimes, and wanted to at times carry a revolver as well, unscoped, that I could use to shoot deer/hogs/blackbear with iron sights when I got a clean close shot, or for trail self defense. Would the same 7.5" SBHH or SRHH serve that purpose?
According to Lost Sheep it is "comfortable and handy" to carry a 7.5" brl SRH while fishing.
I had thought it would be clumsy to draw such a large gun, and a pain to carry, thus was looking at 4" brl 357 or 44Mag. Some have indicated great success hunting with 4"brl, and it seemed like a far easier carry and draw. Please explain further how toting the 7.5" can be made "comfortable and handy" as I still have a hard time picturing that.
If 7.5" brl can do it all "comfortably" than I am all set, since the scope is easliy removable and re-mountable.
Have you found the scope mounting/unmounting process, and re-acquiring 0 as easy as Ruger claims on their Hunter models?
That would seem to lead me more towards the DA though, esp. for self defense role. If not, why not?

At the risk of contradicting myself, I will tell you that I am in the minority of people who find the long barrel comfortable and convenient. Perhaps I should have said, "comfortable and convenient ENOUGH"

Carrying at the two-o'clock position ("appendix carry") in a cross-draw holster designed for the left hip, (with the barrel forward) puts the butt of the gun under my right hand and allows me to pull from the holster with the barrel coming up quickly enough for me and allowing a hip-shot pretty fast. A shorter barrel would be faster, but the REALLY slow part of my draw is not the clearing leather part, but the reaction time.

I have a 5.5" barrel 44 mag redhawk and it is not noticeably faster than the 7.5". I do not imagine the 2.5" Alaskan would be all that much faster for me.

I like the ballistics of the longer barrel enough to find ways to make the longer barrel work comfortably. The point I was trying to make is that it can be done.

Thigh-high or hip waders do not present a problem. Chest-high waders would.

Good luck finding a way to make it work for you.

Lost Sheep

 

[CraigC]

I am in the minority of people who find the long barrel comfortable and convenient. Perhaps I should have said, "comfortable and convenient ENOUGH"

While I usually draw the line at 6" for DA's, I have very little problem carrying a 7½" - 8" single action. Yes, a shorter barrel would be 'more' convenient but IMHO, the 7½" length is a long way from being what I would call cumbersome. Personally, I think most folks just come to be more accustomed to short barreled self defense guns.

 

[Huntolive]

Ok, so could I stop my dilema between the 454SRHH and 44Mag SBHH by getting both and using the 454 as my trail gun, and ocassional deer gun (unscoped) out to about 50 yrds.? I can get the 454 from a friend used for $550. (my only concern w/ cost there is long term ammo) Or is it simply too bulky to be a trail gun/ gun I also carry from time to time when rifle hunting?

And using the 44Mag SBHH (probably Bisley) scoped as my primary deer hunting pistol? That way, I do not have to take the scope on and off, I just take the 454, and leave the scope on the SBH.

Any thoughts on Bisley -vs- standard grip? Can Bisley handles take after market grips such as Hogue for increased comfort?

Then I just add a LCR 357, and have a nice package deal.
Advice?

 

[98Redline]

The hogleg shooters who use the rubber grips do so to help control the pistol during recoil. I never found that need with the bisley

 

[CraigC]

I'm probably about to ruffle some feathers but my intentions are to educate, not to ridicule. I held my tongue on this subject to keep from hurting anybody's feelings but no longer.

I'm sorry but no Bisley (or any other single action for that matter) was ever made more comfortable with rubber grips. IMHO, rubber grips have proliferated because they're cheap and shooters who are familiar with DA's never took the time to get acquainted with proper single action stocks. Then there's the whole "they absorb recoil" myth. Not to mention those who complain that their hands are too big, when all they needed to do is wrap that pinky under. Not at all because they're better at anything but rubbing your hide off. They completely destroy the fine handling qualities of a good single action. Causing the sixgun to stick in your hand and transmitting more recoil forces straight back into the palm. They are an abomination. Ever notice that you never see rubber grips on a big bore custom five-shot gun?






I wear an extra large glove and find all the comfort I need with properly fitting custom grips and a correct grip. My hands aren't dainty, I just do it right.

 

[Kernel]

GunBlast review on the SBH Hunter:

http://gunblast.com/SBHunter.htm

... and the Bisley Hunter:

http://www.gunblast.com/Ruger_Bisley_Hunter.htm

Having both grip frames, I prefer the standard frame for heavy .44 Mag loads (as does the author of the two articles above). I do find the Bisley grip frame "points" more naturally, no doubt explaining why Colt developed the shape for their late 19th century target revolvers.

 

[Greg528iT]

Craig C.. Your top picture is enough to make me want a 44 Mag BH. Reminds me, I should look for the 45Colt in in the smooth cylinder again.