REDHAWK HANDGUNS??

[S.B.]

streak ,what's your bottom line for costs? Please enclude the gun price and all work. They get heavy when at the end of your arm, few guns weigh heavy while in a holster(to me anyhow).
Steve

[streak]

streak ,what's your bottom line for costs? Please enclude the gun price and all work. They get heavy when at the end of your arm, few guns weigh heavy while in a holster(to me anyhow).
Steve

S.B.
The revolver purchased in 1992 at $390.00, I am estimating all other cost done during the same time period ran somewhere around $175-220.

[SHOOTALL]

I didn't know the redhawk was stronger than the SBH in 44mags.   I really don't care for the super redhawk frame either.  Its just way to big and heavy for a CCW gun but perfect for target shooting and hunting with a scope mounted. Back when i was young and stupid we did push some hotter loads thru the SBH in 44mag with the 7 1/2'' barrel and it ate with pride everything we fed it. I guess the quality is there with either revolver.
My new S&W's in 41mag did impress me with the recoil and the preformance close to a 44mag in some cases.  The model 58 with the 4'' barrel handled the federal 41mg 210 JHP very well with way less recoil over the 44mag with a short barrel. I know Elmer Keith liked the 41mag. but that was life before the 44mag.

I was getting well over 1700 fps in a SBH with loads well over the listed ones. I think the 44 came before the 41 mag. the 41 Colt was around in Kieth's day. The 4" RH 45 Colt I have fits in a holster for a S&W mod 29 just fine. 

[temmi]

Dick
 
The Redhawk is a heck of a nice revolver.  ....

+1 on that
 
I am getting one in 45 Colt... some time soon?
 
And
 
It is not my second choice...
 
I don't want any other brand
 
Snake

[gcrank1]

Soon after they were introduced, and before the 5.5" was available, I bought a 7.5" from a back road dealer who, gentleman that he was, did not charge a premium like everybody else. In fact, he went something like a flat $25 over his cost on everything. Oh, for those days again..........
It was a magnificent handgun (I had prev. a Super BH and a S&W 29), but it was a 'horse pistol' to carry. Mine also had a pretty darn good trigger, smooth and crisp, though a tad heavy. It was during this time I decided that I was making and shooting 44Spl loads anyway, and they would do the job on anything I would shoot at, so I didnt need the bank vault strength and weight for magnums. I went to a S&W 'mountain revolver', then quickly to the relatively new 4" S&W 624. That 624 was the 44 I was looking for all along (thanx Skeeter), and it stayed for a good long time, with complete satisfaction, until I downsized.
So, decide what your parameters are then get the best built piece you can afford that meet them. It will save you a bunch of messing about, but whats the fun in being so practical? 

[Buckeye]

John Gallagher Custom Ruger Redhawk .44 Mag - 3.5" Barrel Stainless  ,action job
[/size]
[/size]
[/size]

[/size]Built like a tank.....

[Ahab]

I have the 4" barrel stainless RH in .45 Colt and it's a doozey. The newer ones have a great trigger right out of the box. The lockwork is a lot different in the SRH. I also have the SRH in .454 Casull.

[Hairy Chest]

Well I have a Super Redhawk with the 9.5 " barrel in .44 Mag. Some complain about weight and bulky aspects of the SRH but it really comes into its own in certain hunting enviroments. Mine is scoped and the last two shots I fired cout of it at 100 yds I could cover with my thumb. I carry it in a Uncle Mikes chest holster and it does not seem to be all that heavy. It is great with a good rest setting alongside a powerline or even edge of field, I had SSK Industries a sponsor on this site to do a trigger job and cylinder adjustment on it and while the had it sent it on up tp Mag-Na-Port for a custom brakes! It is one smooth shooting revolver!!

The new Redhawks are so good.  My 4" .45 Colt uses 340 grain LBT's at full power.  I use Bowen front and rear rough country sights and it fits a Model N holster with matching speedloaders.  It is a blast to shoot at cans out to 50 yards.  I like the Pachmayr grip as was pictured earlier as well.  The factory Hogue Bantam grips keep your hand open then you get hit by the open back strap.  Go for the rubber in the back.

[bigoledude]

I sold my blue 5 1/2 inch Redhawk to pay some bills.  Used an article I found online to perform a trigger-job.  My friend actually did the work.  It was easy peasy.  That Ruger shot as well or better than my 629 that I had paid good money for trigger work.  The ruger was brutal, accurate and easy to handle.  My preferred method of carry when hunting our dangerous Russian boars in very very thick cover, was a chest rig.  I loved that gun.  I hate what being broke does to a family.  My sons would have enjoyed that fabulous gun for generations!

[S.B.]

It was easy peasy.  That Ruger shot as well or better than my 629 that I had paid good money for trigger work. 

easy peasy? You actually had work done on a modern S&W 629? You are kidding, right?
Steve

[gcrank1]

I had a 'trigger job' on a 629 done once by a 'pro', for money too along with some other work. Turned out all I could see was done was shortening the strain screw for the mainspring and some snotty slickum on the sliding surfaces. Next one I did myself the same way and it felt as good as the 'pro job'. Yeah, I think I got a pro-job alright.........

[S.B.]

You're the first person I've heard of that thoughjt a stock S&W trigger pull needed fixing. Pretty picky
Steve

[Hairy Chest]

With Ruger if you send it back, they take care of you like a valued customer.  If you send it to Smith you will get an invoice!   

[gcrank1]

S.B., that was back in the '80's, when S&W had some issues , especially with their SS offerings. I have a tendency to want my 'new' guns to feel like my 50yr, or more, old guns that are slick from use.

[S.B.]

With Ruger if you send it back, they take care of you like a valued customer.  If you send it to Smith you will get an invoice!   

Who told you that? This may be a Ruger Redhawk thread but, you've said things far from the truth!
Steve

[ole 5 hole group]

So, just what is your point for a reply like that Steve??  You just running your mouth with a bad choice of words or do you have a bone to pick with Ruger? 

I had a Model 29-2 that had the cylinder rotate backwards upon firing.  (Heavy loads took their toll.)  S&W advised me I could send it to them for repair but I would have to pay shipping plus the cost of the repair.  I didn’t see that as unfair and I even paid a lower shipping rate, as they sent me the shipping label but the shipping cost was on the invoice along with the cost for repair – so that supports this man’s claim that Smith will send you an invoice.  He’s probably got an invoice or two from S&W as well.

I’ve also sent a SW 500 back to S&W for repair and they picked up the shipping both ways and repaired it on their dime – no invoice to pay, so S&W will back up their newer models just like Ruger – only Ruger has backed up some really old revolvers out there for some guys, which says a lot about Ruger – maybe S&W has done the same for some people, I don’t know, but I do know they haven’t done it for me.

[SHOOTALL]

With Ruger if you send it back, they take care of you like a valued customer.  If you send it to Smith you will get an invoice!   

Who told you that? This may be a Ruger Redhawk thread but, you've said things far from the truth!
Steve

I have sent one Ruger back , it was replaced and shipping paid both ways . I have sent two S&W's back both sent back with a bill.

[Darrell Davis]

Yep, to save face I'll not go into the details, but I damaged the barrel on a SBH.  DUMB!!!!!!!  Sent the Hunter in with a check to cover the cost of barrel replacement and back came my SBN Hunter, complete with new barrel , some other parts they replaced for whatever reason, AND MY CHECK!
 
Other then the shipping to return the Hunter to RUGER, zero cost for what was 100% my fault.
 
I told them it was my fault in the cover letter, a blindman could have seen the problem and they still repaired it, no charge.
 
They are probably still laughing over the letter, but they have earned my respect and business!
 
Oh, and by the way I like my RedHawk .44, Sp101 .38/.357(2), Mark II (2), Security Six .38/.357, P345, Old Flat Bolt 77 - .243, Clark custom 77/22, All weather Hawkeye 300win, RUGER #1s - 45/70 and every other RUGER I've had over the years.
 
Crusty Deary Ol'Coot

[S.B.]

 ole 5 hole group, I read post  threads here that have been heavily fueled on Rugers being better than Smiths but, the post about S&W's triggers needing work was a new on on me. Is that what you are refering to? Shoulds to me like you are rehashing the old guns mixed with new(modern) to me? Is that your purpose to change this trhread into one of those? Persopnally, I own and shoot both, as I've I have said this before.
Steve

[SHOOTALL]

Both are good guns there service is a different story. In reality the S&W is a good gun and the Ruger is a good gun that is stronger . The shooter needs to buy what fills his needs the best.

[ole 5 hole group]

ole 5 hole group, I read post  threads here that have been heavily fueled on Rugers being better than Smiths but, the post about S&W's triggers needing work was a new on on me. Is that what you are refering to? Shoulds to me like you are rehashing the old guns mixed with new(modern) to me? Is that your purpose to change this trhread into one of those? Persopnally, I own and shoot both, as I've I have said this before.Steve

Oh I see, one has to be more specific when asking you a question.  My post was in direct response to your post commenting on Hairy Chest's post where you accused him of saying things far from the truth relative to S&W.  Nothing in my post could remotely be construed as referring to S&W triggers needing work - nice try.

He can defend himself but it irks my rear a little when someone insinuates a person is a liar when obviously they are telling it the way it is/was for them.

   
   

[Hairy Chest]

How do the Smith's do with heavy loads?  Do they go to pieces?   

[Darrell Davis]

Morn'in Hairy Chest,
 
I cannot answer your question except with the following.  When the model 29 "classic" first came out, Smith and Wesson's own ads said that the "Classic" was a firearm built for "sustained" firing of magnum .44 loads.
 
Seems to me that the wording of THEIR ad indicates they knew of issues with the origional model 29.  Why else would they use a term, "sustained" indicating the earlier 29s were not up to continued or sustained firing of such loads without some issues cropping up?
 
This was, after all their ad, OK'ed and paid for by S&W.
 
Now, I have not been a S&W fan as I have been a RUGER fan, as I like the "little guy" - RUGER was the little guy back in the 60s - 70s when I began buying their products - who one ups the big boys with a better product.
 
However, other then the period of time back in the Clinton days when S&W sold out to some bad ownership/management and turned out questionable products for a period of time, S&W has turned out a fine products.
 
But for me, Integrity is a really big selling point.  I'll buy the strength and integrity over the beautiful finish and factory tuning even if I must, pay a small amount to bring the function up to first class.  Believe me, I have put out little money over the years doing that and have owned and sold almost as many RUGER handguns as the 7  I presently own. 
 
There can be no question that if fired to distruction, the solid frame RUGERS will trump the S&W with their side plates.  That is just a simple and easy to see fact.  Solid trumps a screwed on side plate and over time must show it's advantage.
 
However, I don't want to be the one shooting either one of them when they let go.  Will not be a pleasent experience!
 
Even owned one S&W, a model 41 target pistol.  Should have kept it.  A thing of beauty and function, but of no better function then the 2 RUGER Mark II   I currently own, and likely not as tough.
 
If I wanted a small frame .357, it would clearly be the SP101, but if you have fired full blown .357 loads in that light handgun, you will know it is  not a fun thing to do. PERIOD!!!  NOT FUN.  But as a carry gun which will see few if any more casual firings of .357 loads, I find great comfort in the fact that it will survive any needed firings of any such loads and still be functioning after the fact.
 
Your question will never find a "real" answer as long as there are S&W and RUGER fans.
 
Either way, you are far ahead then if you bought any of the other brands such as Taurus, Rossi, etc.
 
Crusty Deary Ol'Coot

[SHOOTALL]

How do the Smith's do with heavy loads?  Do they go to pieces?   

Well I had a S&W Custom DX with 5 inch bbl. a very nice gun , I also shot IMHSA at the same time with a 10.5 inch Super Blackhawk. One range sesion I had forgot the loads for the S&W and shot 6 of the loads I used in the Ruger. These loads were listed for Ruger and TC guns only. By the last shot shot the cyl. would not turn. Sent the gun to S&W and they checked it and the cyl. window was streached along with other problems. They worked on it and when it came back it shot but was no where near as smooth or accurate as it was before. S&Ws are not made for loads that are considered safe in a Ruger and we know that so it is no fault of S&W if we choose the wrong tool.  It's crazy for shooters to defend one aginst the other when they are so different. The trigger is one place that gets alot of talk The best trigger I have had on a 44 mag was the one I shot IMHSA with the next best was a 5 inch RH then the S&W DX . That said both Rugers were tuned the S&W was not. If you shoot both enough you notice there is a difference in each even if they release at the same poundage. The set up is different. If you have shot one or the other all your live and try the different one it will feel strange even if both break at 2 lbs.
The same is true with S&W J frames try a enclosed hammer model then a standard exposed hammer model. It's night and day . They are different in construction , the enclosed hammer gun has no transfer bar. You can't expect different set ups to feel the same.

[Darrell Davis]

Well said Shootall,
 
CDOC

[Hairy Chest]

I like my Ruger Redhawk.

Steve

It looks like S.B. sure enjoys his Redhawk.  What caliber?   

[Darrell Davis]

One really tough gun.
 
My normal load is a 310gr WFN cast ahead of 19gr of AA #9 for a velocity of just over 1300fps from the 5.5" barrel
 
CDOC

[S.B.]

.44 magnum.
Steve

[bigoledude]

Easy Peasy was the small amount of work and costs needed to get that Ruger trigger smooth a glass. 
I've owned several S&W handguns over the years.  They are great guns.  I did not mean to imply that all or any S&Ws need trigger work.  This one that I bought "used" needed work.  And, it cost me dearly to have it done.  Why did it need that work?  I don't know if the previous owner messed with it or what but it sure needed work on that trigger.  I didn't know I needed anyone's approval for having work done to one of MY GUNS.
The point I was trying to make was the ease of improving the trigger of the Ruger, not the inferiority of the Smith & Wesson triggers.     
We shot through our .44s almost exclusively some 305 or 310 (can't remember) grain bullets that we poured, back then.  That 629 cylinder was loose-as-a-goose after a steady diet of these fast-n-heavy rounds.  The guys who were shooting the Rugers never did require repairs from the effects of these stout loads.  After getting it fixed, I used my Smith and Wesson for shooting lighter loads.  And then, bought a Ruger.   
We killed many hogs with those .44s.  Never recovered a bullet!

[SHOOTALL]

I paid a gun smith $40.00 to work the trigger on a REDHAWK and it is by far the best trigger I have shot on any brand. At the time the cost of the gun and trigger job was still alot less than a S&W . It is also a very accurate gun.