? for those who have shot both Redhawk and SRH

[MH WASH]

I have always wanted a Redhawk, but when I was ready to replace my SBH I could not find a Redhawk to shoot. A friend had a SRH and I shot it and liked it well enough I bought one. Now I find myself wanting a Redhawk still. So here is the question: Which one do you prefer? No I cant afford both.
 How close is the grip frame of the Security six compared to the Redhawk? Is it close enough I can get an idea of how the RH feels?

  Thanks Matt

[longwalker]

I had the opportunity to shoot both. I choose the SRH 44 magnum 7.5 inch barrel, because of size and weight. I just liked it better.  I justified my decision this way. I was not going to try and carry this for anything but hunting and an occasional bowling pin match.  The extra weight and size of the SRH would help me to recover faster for followup shots. ( more important in bowling pins than hunting) I have not needed more than one on South Dakota Whitetail deer.

I kind of felt the SRH was more of a work gun. If you are going to hunt with a hand gun you better be shooting. There is no substitute for trigger time. I felt the SRH would handle the "practice" better, and for a longer time, before maintainance would be needed. After all is said and done thats my opinion.  

longwalker :-)

[Catfish]

The SRH is bigger and heaver than the RH and it also is set up for scope ring. The SRH has less felt recoil also. I have a SRH in .454 and it really backs up when you shoot it, but I put a scope on it and that seemed to tame it down a bunch. If I would have had to get rid of my SBH to get the SRH there is no way I would have gotten it. I love my single action.

[Old Griz]

:cb2: I too, wanted a Redhawk for years. Finally found a deal on one that I just couldn't pass up. Put the gold bead front sight/V notch rear on it and it was one of the most accurate handguns I have ever fired. However, it hurt to shoot. Had to wear gloves. I have four other 44 mags, but this one was the only one that hurt the web of my thumb to shoot. Put a rubber Hogue on it, but it changed the length of trigger pull, and actually made the gun higher in my hand, and I just didn't like the feel of it. Traded it for a Bisley. Of course, this was just my experience with it. Other folks love it, and you might not have a bit of trouble with it.

Now the Ruger DA grip (SP101, GP100, SRH) is one I really like. Absorbs recoil well, is comfortable to hold and shoot, and just feels darn good.

I'd stick with the SRH until you get to shoot the RH. (Not just hold it, but SHOOT it.)

Good luck![/i]

[southern utah]

I have owned a 44 SBH and now have a SBH in 454 and a stainless 7 1/2 redhawk in 44 .  The SBH grips seem to fit my hand better while the RH looks more like a coventional revolver. The RH is a little lighter but not enough to make a difference. You need to get one of each in your hand to see which fits best. Either will shoot anything you can buy or load with little worry of damage.  BTW I now pack a S&W 629 mountain gun (4" barrel ) as backup for the lighter weight. I only shoot factory ammo and NO hot loads.

[Redhawk1]

I have owned both, but I sold the SBH's I kept my Redhawk. I liked it better than the SBH.  

[Yukon Gold]

I own both - RH in .44 mag, SRH in .454 Casull.
Overall, I like the RH better - I just shoot it better than the SRH.  Its my favorite .44 mag, and I shoot it better than I do with my S&W 29.  
The caliber of the .454 is not reason.  Also have a Freedom Arms .454, and I seem to shoot that one better than the SRH.

By the way, according to Ruger, the Redhawk actually weights more than the Super Red Hawk - for the same barrel length.  Although the SRH is "bigger", the mechanics of the RH makes it tip the scale just over the SRH.  Although, I never put them on a scale to see

[Jim n Iowa]

I don't where you get your info at, that the srh weighs more than the rh. To quote the recent Ruger catalog, the 7.5" rh weighs 54 oz, the 7.5" srh weighs in at 53oz. As a owner of 2  redhawks I find the super ugly. We are comparing 44 mags here.
Jim

[S.B.]

I've a close friend who is pondering this same question and is heavily leaning toward the Super Red Hawk?

[greenjeans]

I think he said the RH weighs more than the SRH.

[Duffy]

It really depends on the size of your hands, if you have large hands or long fingers you will probably like the SRH better. But if your fingers are fat the trigger gard will smack the middle finger knuckle. The RH is a bit thinner and smaller but for me it bites a bit more in the web like a Smith 29. The grip is similar to the old Security six.

[MH WASH]

Well, looks like the thing to do is wait until I can buy the RH.  There is no definite answer, and this way I won't lose one I'll wish I had back. Been there done that.

  Thanks  MAtt

[Don Dick]

Redhawk1, You must quite your evil ways.  Repeat after me"I will not sell any more guns" over & over again untill you get it right.

[Yukon Gold]

I don't where you get your info at, that the srh weighs more than the rh. To quote the recent Ruger catalog, the 7.5" rh weighs 54 oz, the 7.5" srh weighs in at 53oz. Jim

Got it out of Shooting Times - In an article about the new "Alaskan" configuration (however, the last line talks of RH and SRH's in .44 mag) -

http://www.shootingtimes.com/handgun_reviews/rgrRH/index.html

"The Super Redhawk is actually much more closely related—and similar in design—to Ruger’s mid-frame GP100 .357 Magnum revolvers than to the original .44 Magnum Redhawk introduced in 1979, even though it bears the Redhawk name and employs the same crane-lock cylinder latch point system. The most significant mechanical difference between the Super Redhawk and the standard Redhawk is that the Super Redhawk does not employ the much-heralded original Redhawk hammer/trigger “single-spring” double-action operation design. Instead it utilizes a coil two-spring system originally developed for the old .357 Magnum Security-Six line and later adapted to the GP100 series. This is why it is more correct technically to think of the Super Redhawk as a big GP100 and not just as an “evolved” Redhawk. The lighter looking “standard” .44 Magnum Redhawk is actually slightly heavier than a .44 Magnum Super Redhawk because of the internal parts differences."

However, when I checked out the Ruger site, it had the SRH at .5 oz heavier for the same barrel length (7.5") in .44 mag.  So who knows.  Article says one thing, Ruger says another.  I would believe Ruger.  I would agree with you on your comment.

You are also right about the SRH being ugly, that they are - but they certainly gets the job done!