Author Topic: Redhawk vs Super Redhawk (Read 1837 times)

teddy12b · « **on:** November 15, 2007, 11:19:22 AM »

If you had to buy a 44mag and wanted to stay with Ruger would you choose a Redhawk or a Super Redhawk? I have a Super Blackhawk that I'm very inconsistant with when it comes to accuracy. I just picked up a nice used GP100 and it fits me to a "T". I take it to the range and it's a great fit. It wasn't till I shot the GP100 that I started wanting to expect more from my Super Blackhawk.

What do you think are the biggest differences between the two? If Hogue made tamer grips for the Redhawk I'd be 100% sold on a 5 1/2" gun, but those grips don't exist yet. On the other hand I have heard a lot of very great reports from Super Redhawks, but I just think they're uglier than heck.

Anyway, I'd like to hear what all the experts have to say.

Luckyducker · « **Reply #1 on:** November 15, 2007, 12:45:53 PM »

I don't own a Redhawk or a SuperRedhawk and I am certainly not an expert, but I do have an opinion. I think the SRH is overbuilt for the 44 and wouldn't consider this revolver in a cartridge smaller than 454 or 480, and also they are too large to handle easily. I think the Redhawk is more suitable for a 44Mag especially for a packing gun. Now, that said, I'd love to have a SRH in a 480 Ruger.......someday......maybe.

teddy12b · « **Reply #2 on:** November 15, 2007, 02:58:21 PM »

you make a great point

Slufoot · « **Reply #3 on:** November 15, 2007, 03:09:03 PM »

I have a SRH in 454 and it's plenty accurate and has a nice trigger.
I would like to have one of the new 4" Redhawks in 44 Magnum but I've heard they have a very funky trigger system. The GP-100 and the SRH share the same type trigger system but the Redhawk is totally different.
I would like to know if it's possible to get a really nice trigger pull, around 3 pounds with very little to no creep from a Redhawk?
Hopefully some of the folks that have these revolvers can shed some light on this.
Thanks for posting this thread teddy12b.

GOOD SHOOTING!
Slufoot

Bullseye · « **Reply #4 on:** November 15, 2007, 03:22:47 PM »

I have had both. I would take the Super Redhawk. I think it balances better, has a better trigger, better grip and at least mine was more accurate. I agree though, it is butt ugly, but it grows on you over time.

With all that said I sold mine and switched to a S&W and like it even better, but that is a personal choice.

Redhawk1 · « **Reply #5 on:** November 17, 2007, 12:17:52 AM »

I think the Redhawk looks better than the Super Redhawk. I have owned both and prefer the Redhawk. If I had to choose between the two in a 44 Mag, I would get the Redhawk. But like Bullseye I perfer a S&W myself.

S.B. · « **Reply #6 on:** November 17, 2007, 04:51:29 PM »

I own a 5&1/2" .44 Redhawk and am beginning to really like this gun. Very accurate and reliable. SRHs look very cumbersome to me? Ugly, in fact.

irold · « **Reply #7 on:** November 18, 2007, 04:30:57 AM »

Had a 9 1/2 barreled SRH , was very accurate as others have stated. Personally I didn't mind it being ugly, it shot well enough to make up for that. I believe it had a trigger job , cause it was a sweet pull , as good or better than my 686. Broke at a little over 3 # according to a RCBS guage. Didn't care for the long barrel though....after using it for a few years decided to get something shorter....went to the 4" Red Hawk. ( my revolvers don't wear optics ) I like it a lot...trigger really sucks though, it breaks at 7 lbs in Single action mode, double action is pretty nice, even smooth...can't really check for accuracy with that trigger. I'm gonna ship it off to Mag-na-pot for a trigger and port job....its a handfull with full power loads. I think a Redhawk looks nicer , especially if scoped , it's mounted forward on the barrel instead of barrel and reciever like the SRH. Best advice is probably find a shop that has both and handle them, see which one fits you best, pretty hard to go wrong with a Ruger....even though their triggers sometimes suck....they're as strong as a tank....OMO...good luck Mike

Darrell Davis · « **Reply #8 on:** November 18, 2007, 06:20:34 AM »

Morn'in shooters,

Just this Ol'Coots opinion, but I would go with a 5.5" Redhawk.

I have had a number of Blackhawks, including a Hunter which shot incredibly well.

However, I think the RH is one tough gun!!!!!!!! and handles my 310gr. LBT slugs better then the BH.

As per the SUPER RH, I don't like the size! as the 5.5" RH is, for the weight, sweet to pack in an off side - butt forward holster.

With the 5.5" barrel, I still get over 1200fps with the 310gr. slug.

That is tough enough for anything walking here in Ol'Ideeeeeeho!

Keep em coming!

drdougrx · « **Reply #9 on:** November 18, 2007, 10:53:28 AM »

Hi Teddy,

I also like the Redhawk over the super, though for woods walking and hunting, I like the SW29. I'm sure mag-na-port can fix the trigger.

Broom Rider · « **Reply #10 on:** November 18, 2007, 11:01:22 AM »

If I wanted the better trigger action I'd buy the Super Redhawk, otherwise it would just be the Redhawk.

Tom W. · « **Reply #11 on:** November 18, 2007, 12:07:05 PM »

I have a 9 1/2 " SRH in .480 and a 7 1/2 " SRH in .44 mag. I like the extra weight. Ugly? Well I'm sure your Momma told you that if you can't say something nice.......

Sure was a pretty day today!

jschance · « **Reply #12 on:** November 19, 2007, 05:57:39 AM »

I've never liked the looks of the Super Redhawk, and I feel that that the Redhawk is a good handling gun. I did a trigger job on mine years ago, and it's light and smooth. My vote goes to the Redhawk.

S.B. · « **Reply #13 on:** November 19, 2007, 07:34:40 AM »

I must be lucky, my Redhawk came to me with a very smooth double action and crisp singel action. Honestly, I think Ruger is spotty when it comes to quality?

dlkiller · « **Reply #14 on:** November 19, 2007, 05:06:44 PM »

Quote from: teddy12b on November 15, 2007, 11:19:22 AM

I just picked up a nice used GP100 and it fits me to a "T". I take it to the range and it's a great fit.

Since you said this, I think you'd be happier with the super redhawk. I have 2, and I've shot the redhawk and gp100. The gp felt just like a smaller SRH, and it should, because they share the same grip! I found the redhawk's grip very uncomfortable, especially with heavy loads.

OLDHandgunner · « **Reply #15 on:** November 20, 2007, 03:23:14 AM »

I really like the way my Redhawk looks & shoots. When Ruger announced that they were coming out with a DA 44 Mag back in the late 70's, I put in my order at a local gun dealer. After almost a 2 year wait it finally arrived on April of 1981 at a price of $ 201 dealer cost. A 7 1/2" SS beauty. My brother-in-law called it "The Silverhawk ". He was just jealous.

I put on Pachmayr large rubber grips, a Clark adj. target rear sight, a trigger over-travel screw and honed the action to my liking. I used a scope for a few years with great success but I usually prefer a revolver with no scope. This is still one of my go to guns when I head for the heavy cover deer hunting.
In all honesty I've never shot a Super Redhawk. I've never really liked the looks of them. They look to bulky to me.

moxgrove · « **Reply #16 on:** November 20, 2007, 06:13:13 AM »

I have a Redhawk 44 and a Super 454. I like them both equally for what they are. I agree the Super is overengineered for 44. Wolff springs and the judicious use of a little crocus cloth and over travel stops on both solved the trigger problems. The Redhawk is still a little better in that regard. I will definitely be picking up a 4inch Redhawk. I also like the scope position on the Redhawk better and where it puts the weight when I use one on it.

warrior1 · « **Reply #17 on:** November 22, 2007, 05:40:47 AM »

super redhawk.

GhosT · « **Reply #18 on:** November 22, 2007, 06:00:30 PM »

SEEN this subject SO many times...

Gonna have to go to JMHO.....
I own a SUPER .44mag-....never got why called ugly..

Well, heard enough, maybe get...just think mine looks fine.
Personally, if choosing a gun on looks, think both fine.

Trigger pull options do come involved if willing to get into yer gun internals.
One spring or two.

jmho, fact is, both two good gun designs...can't really go wrong with either.

BAGTIC · « **Reply #19 on:** November 23, 2007, 06:16:13 AM »

I have both but in .45 Colt. I don't scope handguns. The Redhawk is by far the better handling gun.

banen · « **Reply #20 on:** November 25, 2007, 12:47:17 PM »

I've got a 5.5 Redhawk, I like it. Feels good and not to cumbersome.

EdK · « **Reply #21 on:** November 26, 2007, 01:45:39 AM »

I've never owned a "Super" but have owned the standard Redhawk. I'm writing because you found the GP100 to handle so well - I did too. On the other hand the Redhawk with full power loads was just awful and I tried at least 3-4 grip styles. Not to say you won't like it because everyones hands are different but it is nothing like the GP100 (although the Super Redhawk is). On the other hand I've got to admit I never owned a Super Redhawk because of the aesthetics but they're known to be solid and accurate.

GRIMJIM · « **Reply #22 on:** November 26, 2007, 11:43:14 AM »

Quote from: EdK on November 26, 2007, 01:45:39 AM

On the other hand the Redhawk with full power loads was just awful and I tried at least 3-4 grip styles. Not to say you won't like it because everyones hands are different but it is nothing like the GP100 (although the Super Redhawk is).

That's why I like my srh, I think the extra weight helps with the recoil of full power loads. I did send it in to magnaport to have a bunch of work done to it (action job, cut down the 9 1/2" barrel and thread the end for a magna brake, grind off the safety warning, number the cylinders and recut the forcing cone). It is now by far the sweetest shooting mildest recoil 44 mag I have ever owned. Not that I've owned a million of them or anything. I have pretty big hands and I did make a custom grip for it as the standard grips are too short for my hands, my little finger was hanging half way off the bottom of the stock grip and I made it a little thicker to fill my hand a little more.