Ruger Super Redhawk - 44 Mag or 454?

[Racer X]

I am considering buying a SRH to hunt deer and hogs and also target shoot. I handload and whichever caliber I choose, the majority of my shooting would be mid-range level loads with plain-base cast bullets of 250 - 300 grains at 1000 - 1200 FPS.

Accuracy is my most important criteria, particularly at the reduced loading cited above. Other than a trigger job, I don't want to spend any money on custom work.

Does anyone have first-hand accuracy experience with both calibers in a SRH? If I get the 454, I would never load it much beyond "Ruger-Only" 45 Colt-level loads. I like the idea of a bigger hole with a 454. However, I wonder if I could still get great accuracy (1-1/2" at 50 yards) with reduced loaded 454 ammo? Or would a 44 mag be more accurate at those levels? Everything equal, I would prefer a 454.

Thanks.

[Thebear_78]

Neither one will be more or less accurate.  I have a 454 SRH and have found it to be extremely accurate.  I carry mine primarily as a  backup, or bear defence weapon and found the 7.5" barrel to be a tad long.  I cut my barrel down to 5" and am very pleased with how handy it is now.  Accuracy is just as good  and performace is still plenty.  I have mainly shot cast loads out of my SRH.  A Cast performance 360gr WFNGC @ 1250fps.  I have also shot quite a bit of 300g LFNGC @ 1150fps for a target load.    For your uses I don't think it will really matter that much between the 44 or 45, both will perform well on deer/hogs. 

[Lloyd Smale]

accuracy in both. well heres my opinion and it isnt going to help you decide. I dont own either as personly i think there ugly but my buddy has both and ive shot both of his and would be embarassed to tell you the size of the groups i shot at a 100 yards with them as you probably call me a lier. Ill put it this way, it would take swampman with one of his 700 remingtons to do any better. Its a toss up between them as the most accurate revolver ive ever shot.

[Darrell H]

I am considering buying a SRH to hunt deer and hogs and also target shoot.

Given this criteria, I would suggest the .44 Mag.  Its hard to beat a 44 mag for deer and hogs IMHO. 

[keith44]

Well, back when I was making that very decision I chose the .44 Mag.  Now it's been nearly 10 years and I have no regrets.  The old .44 is powerful enough for anything on the North American continent, if you use a properly constructed bullet and put it where it's supposed to go.  Yes other calibers are bigger, faster, etc.  The other consideration in my decision with .44 being the light load the gun is somewhat overbuilt for .44 mag and full power loads will not cause as much wear as in other brands where the .44 mag is the upper level caliber offered as a chambering.

[temmi]

I would get the 454… you have more options.


45 Colt (not the best option), 454 (factory), Full house 454 hand loaded ammo, Hand loaded 454 at 45 Colt +P levels…

All will hunt.

Or just find a 480R and be done with it
 

[streak]

I have the SRH in rhe 9.5" configuration ,scoped, and Magnaported,with SSK trigger and action job along with a cylinder gap adjustment.
This is a very accurate revolver, the very last two Rem. factory rounds I shot at 100 yards were close enough to cover both with the tip of your thumb.This is in the .44 Mag caliber.

[Blackhawker]

I have a .454 SRH.  Here is my thought now that I own the .454:  The .44 should be able to do everything you're looking to do and the .454, in full house loads will be overkill.  If you're looking to shoot Ruger only 45 colt equivalents in your 454 loads, my advice is to get a Ruger Blackhawk in 45 Colt and save yourself a lot of money on the revolver and the ammo.  (Besides, you're more than likely going to shoot in single action mode when hunting anyway.)

I can tell you this:  If you buy a .454, you're ultimately going to want to load it to full or even medium 454 loadings.  The cost to do so is VERY expensive as compared to just shooting hot 45 Colt loads.  Why?  Well, you have to buy heavy jacketed bullets which are going for about $28.99 per 100 currently, and the brass is much more expensive and not as readily available as 45 Colt brass.  Cast bullets are the way to go either way but you're going to have to get gas checked bullets for the .454 if you start breaking 1400 fps etc.  As much fun as it is, it's probably a waste of money if you're only going to deer hunt and target shoot.  Now, if you were hunting dinosaurs or Rhino's or something, then the .454 would be worth ever penny. 

In my assessment, the .454 is a fun but costly round to shoot.  Sometimes I wish I never bought mine, to be honest.  To me, it's an expensive toy, rather than a tool.

[Lloyd Smale]

or you could cast your own and load your own and then 454s would cost only pennys more per shot.

[Blackhawker]

Racer X, with reference to my comment on saving a ton of money by buying the 45 Colt Blackhawk instead of the SRH; when hunting, you're more than likely going to use the SRH in single action mode anyway.  I've rapid fired my SRH with Casull ammo in it and while it's fun, you'll do it once or twice and that's about it.  After that, you'll be shooting for accuracy rather than for kicks.  The few times you fire it in double action mode really isn't worth the extra three or four hundred you'll spend on the revolver and ammo.
....just my thought.

[S.B.]

Whatever you choose make it something packable(to quote Linebaugh). I find myself buying handguns with shorter barrels and less weight in my old age. Not calling you old but, I am old. Have you seen the .45 Redhawks converted to .454 Casull? The SRHs never appealed to me because of their looks and size but, this gun looks good for your purpose? More expense but you save on both size and weight.
http://www.rugerforum.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=105441&highlight=redhawk+454
Steve

[SHOOTALL]

Having had both I would opt for a 44 S&W mag. or 45 Colt. Of those two I like both but the nod would go to the 45 Colt. . Why ? weight of the gun to tote all day. and the 45 is alot of gun at Ruger acceptable loadings. If I did not hand load then it would be the 44 S&W mag. due to more factory loads aval. at highter power levels. I guess the redhawk is more handy than the super redhawk IMHO.

[GRIMJIM]

I hunt with a srh in 44 mag. Excellent gun and very accurate. I have a 454 but its a raging bull and I just target shoot with it occassionally.

I'm sure it will do better than this but I've shot deer out to 65 yards with no problem whatsoever. I try to keep my handgun shots under 75 yards as that is my personal limit.

I had a bunch of work done to mine. It was really fine before but I guess I just wnated to customize it a little.

As has been said it is a little heavy. Also front heavy if like mine with the 9" barrel. But the weight also makes the recoil really manageable.

I went with the .44 mostly because of the readily available ammo.  If I need more I can just go to a local sporting goods store and pick up a box.

A lot of people say if you reload get the .45 colt but if you run out of ammo you're stuck with lower level factory stuff.

There's a lot of info here but in the end you'll have to weigh the pros and cons yourself. Let us know how it works out.

[Racer X]

I have a couple of Blackhawk 45 Colts, one is a custom with a linebored cylinder that delivers some pretty disappointing accuracy. I too think SRHs are ugly. However, at this point, I want something that is going to be accurate right out of the box and I can't afford a FA Model 83.

454 brass is twice as expensive as 44 Mag brass. However, over the life of the gun, brass cost would not be the most expensive component because I intend to only shoot mid-range to 'Ruger-Only' 45 Colt loads. At those pressures, I should get alot of loadings out of that initial investment of 454 brass. I could also use regular jacketed bullets, versus the XTP Mags and other more expensive, thick jacketed 454 bullets.

All else equal, I would rather get a 454. However, my main concern with the 454 versus a 44 is being able to get great accuracy with plain-base cast with those mid-range loads in the 1100 - 1200 FPS range, which would make up 90% of my shooting. I have seen some milder 454 load data. However, to achieve those reduced velocities, you have to use some pretty fast powders (Universal, HS-6, Unique), that will have an abrupt pressure curve that will slap that plain-base bullet pretty hard.

Does anyone have any success stories getting accuracy and minimal leading with reduced 454 loadings using plain-base bullets in a SRH? If not, it is gas checked bullets and large doses of slow powders that will be the real cost drivers of owning a 454.

[Blackhawker]

Racer X;
I have fired my hotter loaded 45 Colts from my Super Redhawk and get decent accuracy.  With iron sights I typically shoot 2" at 25 yards (occasionally under that) with 5 shot strings.  The load I'm using is a 255g SWC or 250g RNFP over a fairly heavy load of 2400.  I've also used HS-6 and Unique with similar accuracy.  Although I've never actually chronographed my loads, according to literature written by John Linebaugh and Paco Kelly, these loads are running roughly at 1200 fps from a 7.5" barrel. 
Here is my thought for you:  If you buy the 454 and are looking to shoot 45 Colt (T/C-Blackhawk) loads, then just buy the gun and put handloaded 45 Colt ammo in it. 

I've been tinkering with my 454 loads and trying to get the same POI with the near full house loads from the 454 as the POI of my 45 Colt ammo.  It's a little tough to do but I'm getting there.  Unfortunately, the bullets that work the best are the Hornady 240g XTP Mags and they cost near a fortune to shoot.  I could buy gas checked 325 grain bullets at near the same cost as my 255gr 45 Colt bullets but they shoot about five inches high and two inches to the left.  The idea here is that I can switch ammo without having to worry about adjusting the sights for each caliber. 
I hope what I just added made sense. 
If you're already loading 45 Colts to the Ruger-T/C level, then just buy the 454 (if you really want one) and shoot your 45 Colt ammo through it.  I don't see the sense in loading down on the 454's.
I hope that helped a little.

[painted horse]

You say you already have two Blackhawk 45 colts.  If they won't shoot at least a 2in group or better at 25yards theres something amiss there.  Undersized cylinders would be my first guess, rough or constrictions in the bore maybe.  Check cyl. dia., ream if necessary to .4525, bore should mic at .451 (typical Ruger 45 colt) consider firelapping the bore. Buying another gun may not be the answer, just get the one's you've got shooting the way you want.  There's very little the .454 will do that you can't do with a Ruger .45 colt.  Of course if it's an ego thing just to say you have a 454 then thats different.  Personally if I NEEDED something bigger that 45 colt,  I think I'd go with the 6 1/2in BFR in .475/.480,  everything I've read about them says they are well built and very accurate (especially the .475) (and it's bigger than a 454 ) buts thats just me. The SRH looks to me like it was built by a plumber.  No insult meant to any plumbers on site.  

[Racer X]

Blackhawker and All:

Thanks for the replies. I'm in no rush to buy a SRH, but if I get one, I may end up going with a 44. The plus side of a 44 is that I shouldn't need to spend much time on load development. If I need heavy loads, a SRH 44 will handle Garrett-level +P loads.

[Blackhawker]

You say you already have two Blackhawk 45 colts.  If they won't shoot at least a 2in group or better at 25yards theres something amiss there.  ...........
Buying another gun may not be the answer, just get the one's you've got shooting the way you want....... 
There's very little the .454 will do that you can't do with a Ruger .45 colt.........
The SRH looks to me like it was built by a plumber.

I couldn't agree more with all of what painted horse said above.
You definitely should be able to shoot 2" to 2.5" groups with your Blackhawks at 25 yards with somewhat of ease.  If not, there is something wrong.  It might or might not be your revolvers, it could be your bullet choice, bullet hardness or something you're doing with the loads too.  As painted horse said; buying another gun might not be the problem solver here.  You're already 2 for 2 with poor accuracy, as you have reported.  Will buying a third gun resolve this?  Probably not.
On the point of the 454 being able to do more than the 45 Colt; it'll do more if you hunt moose, grizzly, dinosaurs and the like.  You can probably kill just about anything in North America with a stout load in 45 Colt, I would guess.
Considering the comment about the SRH looking like something a plumber built, should you go with the .44, at least you can get one in stainless steel.  Those look more like a cleaned up plumber job.   

Good luck with whatever you do.  Personally, now that I am the owner of a 454 SRH and a few Blackhawks in 45 Colt; had I been able to make the choice of buying the SRH knowing what I know now, I would have saved myself nearly a grand and not bought it and all of the loading stuff that went with it.  But that's just me.  By the way, the reason I have posted so many comments here is mostly due to this last statement.  If I could, I'd spare you and others the "see-saw" good-bad feelings and regrets I have about buying my SRH. Don't get me wrong here; I'm not saying in any way that the SRH is junk because it's not.  In fact, I think it's very nice and a quality piece.   If I didn't own any Blackhawks in 45 Colt, then having the SRH would be a great decision, hands down.

[Redhawk1]

or you could cast your own and load your own and then 454s would cost only pennys more per shot.

Well said Lloyd.. I use hard cast in all my hunting handgun..

[Blackhawker]

Racer X (and the rest of you guys):
I took my SRH to the range this past weekend to test more loads.  As I said before, I'm looking for a load that will come to the same POI as my Ruger-T/C only 45 Colt loads which are 255g SWC's over a stout load of 2400.  Here is what I got:

My first shots were with the 45 Colt ammo.  The first two from a clean and cold gun placed about an inch from center at 25 yards and were about an inch apart.  The third, fourth and fifth shots all made one ragged, oblong hole about 3/4" left of center.  The hole was about 3/4 of an inch in length and barely over 1/2 inch in width.  I was impressed to say the least.

...by the way, I did no sight adjusting on this trip.  I only wanted to compare group size and to measure distance from center.  I can adjust the sights later as necessary.  Also, the revolver was fired from one of those cheapy, plastic Calwell pistol rests.  I think I paid $9.99 for mine, on sale.  I did not fire these from some expensive Ransom rest or the like. 

The next loads tested were 454's using the 240g XTP's over 28.5g to 30g of 2400 and also 36.5g of H-110.  All five-shot strings were 1.5 to 2.0 inches and all were roughly 1 inch low and 1 inch left.  Many of the groups fired had two or three bullets passing through the same hole.  Basically, it appears that these loads will match the POI with my 45 Colt loads and all prove to be fairly darn accurate.  According to literature values I have read, these loads should be moving out anywhere from 1,650 to maybe 1,800 fps, maybe more...    The Hornady manual conflicts with the Lyman manual, however and the Freedom Arms data falls somewhere between.

I also re-tested the 325g FPGC bullets from Western Bullet Co.  These were seated over 21.5g of 2400.  My guess is the velocity is around 1200 to 1300 fps.  (does that seem right to you 454 shooters?)  The group landed about 1/2 " left of center and 4" high from center with a five shot group of 1.5 inches. 
These 325 grain bullets are much cheaper than the 240grain XTP's and I suppose I could live with adjusting the sight "X" number of clicks when I shoot the 45 Colts vs. the 454's. 

So when considering the above info, Racer-X, I think I have a bit of a change in heart for my 454 SRH.  I believe it just may shoot ever-so-slightly better than my Blackhawk.  Of course, my Blackhawk is nearly 20 yrs old and has easily over 10,000 rounds fired though it.  I have to say, as I drove home from the range on Saturday, I had a rather good feeling for my SRH and am now very glad I bought it.  It's a big, ugly, mean, yet accurate machine!  I now change my vote to strongly recommending that if you do consider buying a SRH, buy the 454! 
I would still consider working on your Blackhawks too, however.  Try some new loads etc.  They should shoot better than what you've been getting from them.

[Racer X]

Blackhawker, I'm glad to hear you found some other than top-end 454 loads that shoot accurately. It is essentially your's and Lloyd's experience getting good groups out of a stock SRH that is making me consider getting one. It may be awhile before I can afford to buy one. When I do, I will post the results of my load testing.

[Blackhawker]

I found my SRH on GunBroker.  There are a lot of nearly new and hardly used large caliber handguns out there at bargin prices.  This is because so many people buy one thinking it's a "macho" thing to do only to realize that they're not so macho and it's a bit more than they can handle. 
I paid $500 for mine, in the box with papers etc.  I would bet that it may have only had one or two boxes of 20rnds fired through it at best. 
I recall seeing a 480 SRH for $550 on GunBroker.  The owner was selling it with a half box of ammo and the 12 empty cartidges which he had fired from it.  Those were the only 12 rounds he ever fired from the revolver and it was up for sale.  Can you imagine that???

[GRIMJIM]

That's a good deal. I paid $417 for mine new but that was more years ago than I'm willing to admit.

[countryrebel]

I have hunted with both calibers and would take the 44mag over the 454 any day. Cheaper to shoot and more accurate for me.

[Swede454]

I had a Ruger SRH .44mag it spit lead it had a terrible trigger a friend of mine wanted it so I sold it to him. I thought it was going to be one tough gun if I had the money and a smith that knew how to work on them it may have been a fine pistol. A person should not have to work on a new pistol to make it function properly. I shot mostly Cast Lead boolits and a few XTPs the Cast Lead boolits would coat the front of the cylinder and after a cylinder full you couldn't rotate the cylinder anymore. I did not have this problem with the jacketed bullets but they still spit a lot.
 
My friend bought a SHR years ago he had to sell due to financial problems. It shot great and didn’t lead with the same cast boolits.
 
I have had several different .44mag revolvers including a Smith & Wesson 29 & 629 they are a lighter pistol but not as strong.
 
I currently pack a DW SS .44mag it is heavy but strong and I can adjust the cylinder gap so I don’t have it hanging up.
 
I also have a Taurus Raging Bull in .454 it loves jacketed bullets but not Cast Boolits. It cost me over 500.00 dollars new but I love it. It is big and very loud with factory .454 loads.
 
If you can find a SRH in .454 that has enough cylinder gap and a decent trigger I would say buy it. As said before you can load hot 45colt or download the .454.
 
This is only my opinion.
 

[Blackhawker]

What do you mean, "spit lead"?  Are you saying chunks of lead were coming out the sides?  If so, are you sure it was lead and not unburned powder?  If it was lead, did you check the timing of the revolver?

I agree, no new revolver should require smith work but sometimes there are "lemons" out there.  I bought a lemon a few years ago in a 1911 and the manufacturer/distributor replaced it with a nice new one that has worked flawlessly ever since.

[painted horse]

I bought a new 4in. Redhawk in 45 colt a while back and had the same problem. Also couldn't get it to shoot for crap. The cyl didn't match up to the bore so sent it back to Ruger (they paid the way) took about 3 weeks to get it back. New cyl, new barrel, and new trigger mech. It's now working just fine. (after reaming the cyl's and firelapping the bore) It's a tuff little sucker and shoots better than I can.

[nomosendero]

Blackhawker and All:

Thanks for the replies. I'm in no rush to buy a SRH, but if I get one, I may end up going with a 44. The plus side of a 44 is that I shouldn't need to spend much time on load development. If I need heavy loads, a SRH 44 will handle Garrett-level +P loads.

Good choice for the stated uses.

[bubbinator]

All my experience is with 44s (Ruger SBH 7.5"/S&W M29 6.5" Not to mention rifles from Ruger/Winchester). IMHO-the Ruger Red Hawk is a bulky gun in any caliber. Sure in Ruger 480 it may be better, but under that-no. I have hunted/shot/reloaded/plinked with Ruger SBHs so long they gave me a new one under the early 70s recall. Anything in such a caliber and application will suffer from a short barrel. I would opt for a longer barrel, in any caliber, based on your use, and the heaviest bullets that expand. The difference in .430 and .45 when your moment of !!!! will not make an iota of difference when you have to pull the trigger. Been there-done it-have the tee shirt-Feral dog attack! Winchester M94 44 Mag, Mossberg M500 13 Rd Riot Gun/M16 A2 w/ 2 mags!  We where hunting feral dog packs on a USAF base in Al when 2! packs attacked us from different directions! After the smoke cleared we had killed 23 feral dogs, found a den with 8 puppies, which we saved and some were kept and raised, and solved a major runway problem.  The M94 Winchester was very decisive in putting down the dogs.

[Fire Fox]

I woud go with the 44 mag for what you are doing. It will have far less recoil and make less noise. The 44 mag is very accurate at low loads and hot loads. I have used one for over 35 years with great results on just about anything I wanted to dispatch. I have two 454 casuls and they are not nearly as accurate with 45 colt loads because of the twist in the barrels. However, I have had great results with the 44 mag with everything from light target wad cutters for target and small game to hot 310 grain bullets for large game. Hope this helps.