Hi folks,

I seem to see a whooooole lot of love for Ruger's Blackhawk model of revolver, especially the Super Blackhawk (original large-frame). Having shot the Super Blackhawk, I can understand why. It's a mighty fine single-action wheelgun. To my knowledge, they come in both .44 Magnum and .45 Colt. The strength of the Blackhawk is why there are "Ruger and T/C" sections of the reloading manuals for .45 Colt.

I don't see nearly as much love, though, for either of Ruger's double-action offerings in the same chamberings as I do the single-actions. I'm referring to specifically the Redhawk and the Super Redhawk. The Redhawk is offered in .357M, .44M (the original chambering), and .45 Colt. The strength of the Redhawk is equally formidable. The Super Redhawk takes this already-crazy strength level up yet another notch, being chambered in .454 Casull...as a six-shooter! Yep, it's that strong.

On their merits, you'd think that the Redhawk and Super Redhawk would get more love, particularly from those looking for a good, really strong, big-bore revolver. However, the vast majority of the love that I see goes to the Blackhawk models. Again, the Blackhawk is a fine single-action revolver and is rightly popular, so no criticism against that wheelgun. But why so relatively little popularity for the double-action versions, by comparison?

I like my Redhawk. Yeah, it's heavy. Maybe too heavy. I bought a Weigatinny rail for it months ago, because I already have a pistol scope that I got on a used High Standard .22, and one of the reasons I haven't put it on yet is that I'm not eager to make the thing even bigger and more top heavy. Also, I'm really lazy and always nervous about gun maintenance, in this case the removal and future re-insallation of the rear sight.

I find the single-action trigger of the RH to be acceptable. It's a touch heavy, but I can dry-fire it fairly well. Double-action OTOH I find difficult to dry-fire without the sights dancing horribly.

I have a 4" GP100, and I see WAY less problem with DA dry fire with it. Of course, the sight radius is half of the RH, but even taking that into account, I'm certain that I am getting a cleaner pull with the GP. How much of that is the trigger and how much is the grip (I have the Ruger rosewood panel grips on the GP and an oversize smooth Eagle Grip on the RH) I can't say, but I'm betting the trigger is most of it. So, a Super Redhawk with a trigger mechanism similar to the GP would be better. And the SRH can wear the same grips as the GP, if I'm not mistaken, so that would also remove that variable also.

edit: My RH is the typical 7.5" .43 Magnum version, and the GP is a less common .357 4" half-lug, fixed sight. The GP shoots nicely POA with most 158 grain ammo out to 25 yards.

I had a 45 Redhawk that I had to sell to pay for taxes one year. after replacing the hammer spring, it was a nice shooter. if they weren't unobtainium right now, I'd get another. If you are scoping a revolver, SRH is a good way to go, but it's a very niche revolver. I think Blackhawks largely are synonymous with single actions with adjustable sights.

All of the Super Blackhawks, at least currently, are 44 mag. 45 colt, 357, etc. is the Blackhawk. Personally I think Redhawks look clunky, and I can't imagine needing the calibers they support for anything but hunting. And I don't hunt. And if I did hunt, then a single action would probably be a better choice.

The Alaskan just seems gimmicky to me. I'd rather have a good rifle (and did) if I was that worried about bears.

wooglin wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2024 3:04 pm All of the Super Blackhawks, at least currently, are 44 mag. 45 colt, 357, etc. is the Blackhawk. Personally I think Redhawks look clunky, and I can't imagine needing the calibers they support for anything but hunting. And I don't hunt. And if I did hunt, then a single action would probably be a better choice.

The Alaskan just seems gimmicky to me. I'd rather have a good rifle (and did) if I was that worried about bears.

Oh, come on! They're not *that* ugly. I'll admit they're not as pretty as a Model 29, but the worst thing about the looks of the Redhawk is that the stock grips are a bit small in proportion to the frame and cylinder, compared to a Smith.

Luckily, I have fairly long, skinny fingers, so I can get away with putting larger grips on mine. Sorry I didn't track down my old grips as a comparo, but you can find a photo of a stock Redhawk online in a minute. These are from Eagle, which I finally bought last year. In addition to looking nicer, they make the gun feel a little less overweight since the moment arm fore-and-aft between your fingers and the backstrap is increased. At least, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it. Also, when shooting a lot of full-house loads, with the original grips I found that the trigger guard whacked into the knuckle of my middle finger and became uncomfortable after a number of shots. These should solve that by filling in the gap and displacing the finger downward. I haven't shot enough yet to prove it.

If you were referring to the *Super* Redhawk, then I'd agree with you. That there uncanny frame extension twarnt n'er sumpin' I reckon I could learn to laik th' looks of! However, one must admit that it has a superior provision for scope mounting.

Those grips are also a case of "Putting your money where your mouth is, four decades late edition."

A friend's dad bought a Redhawk when I was just barely full-grown (late high school or early college), and the first time they let me fondle it, I opined that the grips were a little on the small side. Apparently I was in the habit of saying that about ALL their handguns, and my friend teased me a little about how he and his dad had predicted I'd make that comment.

In my defense, I'd grown up since the age of six shooting my dad's pre-Model 19 S&W K22 with target grips on it, which I believe are bigger than the stock Redhawk grips, so that is what I was accustomed to.

My Vaquero uses the same frame. What I don't like about the Hawks is the way the sights look. The Vaquero has smooth lines. While adjustable and groovy, teh Hawks sights ruin the smooth lines of the Classic Vaquero. I am lucky the sights on my Vaquero are right on at 45 feet. I don't need to adjust. I confess I made a load for my Vaquero that is also right on at 45 feet. This is not to disparage the Hawks. It's just a matter of taste. I see nothing wrong with owning all examples of that great and robust frame. So many options. So little money. ;-)

CDFingers

Indeed, a gun store can be very dangerous for a firearms enthusiast. :-)

The factory Redhawk grips are, to me, tiny, far too small for the gun. I suspect they were going for the classic S&W look on the Model 10 with that small grip size. Pachmayr Presentation Grips on a Redhawk make it rather nice, at least in my hands, to shoot. The RH is heavy, as are all Ruger revolvers save for the featherweight LCR. To me, that's a plus because felt recoil is minimized. Shooting .44 Special out of a Redhawk, you can barely feel any recoil. I actually find both the single-action and double-action triggers on the RH's to be rather nice.

But then, I regularly practice dry-firing the Super Redhawk before going to bed. Helps keep the trigger fingers strong.

The SRH, actually, has a longer trigger pull, at least to me, than the RH. That's why I practice with the SRH; it's a good workout, both for holding up the gun and for the trigger fingers. The SRH is big, beefy, and heavy, even more so than the RH. And yes, it does have a fine system for scope-mounting, though I typically use it without the scope, simply because I find it a little easier and I'm kinda old-school that way. :-) The factory SRH grips with the wood panels are pretty comfy in my hands, and a Hogue Monogrip also does well. I wish Pachmayr made a Presentation Grip for the GP100 and SRH, because I find that the Presentation Grip generally is the most comfortable grip for my hands. I absolutely despise the Hogue Monogrip on the Redhawk, but I like it on the Super Redhawk. Go figure.

The S&W N-frame revolvers are svelte and sleek. I find them to be among the most aesthetically beautiful examples of revolver design ever put out. Yes, even over the Colts. S&W just happened to nail it for me with the N-frame.

The comparison I tend to make with Ruger vs. S&W is as follows.

S&W = fine Swiss timepiece
Ruger = Timex, i. e. takes a lickin', keeps on tickin'

Fun stuff

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4fpP9ea5JA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6_nFsB6grc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBYw1CT2JiU

Not going for "peanuts"...

https://timex.com/products/timex-marlin ... -tw2v88700

https://timex.com/products/timex-marlin ... -tw2w19000

I'll let you know after I finally lay hands on one at the range.

wings wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2024 7:24 pm I'll let you know after I finally lay hands on one at the range.

Come visit me in Seattle.

Buck13 wrote: Sun Feb 18, 2024 11:56 am

wings wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2024 7:24 pm I'll let you know after I finally lay hands on one at the range.

Come visit me in Seattle.

Or me in Virginia. You've now got both coasts covered. :-)

The new models look better than the old and the disassembly looks pretty easy. Trigger guard and the trigger mechanisms come out as an assembly. Just looked it up. That’s pretty interesting.

Yep, that's true on the Security-Six, Redhawk, GP100, SP101, and Super Redhawk.

I don't own one, but I have fired a Super Redhawk chambered in .44 Magnum. My only complaint about it is that the grips were a bit small. Otherwise, it was accurate and a joy to shoot.

I’d love to have a redhawk in .45 colt. Pretty much unobtainable unless one is willing to pay near insane prices.

I have a friend who has 2; so I hope to con him out of one eventually.

That being said, In practice a large bore gun like a .45 colt loaded with modern, full powered, handloads isn’t likely to be fired DA from me, very often anyways. But I’d like to have the capability, nonetheless. Until then, I’m happy with my Blackhawk chambered in that caliber.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually, I do fire modern, Ruger-style .45 Colt loads in double-action mode. This is in the Super Redhawk. Turns out it's not that bad in such a massive revolver.

Are RH's and SRH's really at insane prices now? I remember getting the SRH for $600 and the RH for about $400. To be fair, this was over 10 years ago when revolvers had stopped being "cool" due to the semi-autos, especially the .40 S&W's. S&W revolvers typically still commanded something of a premium, but Rugers really didn't. Just had a look at Gunbroken--er, Gunbroker, but those sellers always have been a bit, er, "proud" of the guns they're selling.

Ruger's current production is not focused on Redhawks, so used ones (especially the convertible model) command steep premiums.

You can get Redhawks and SRHs for around $1100-1200 new right now. But only in .44 Magnum. They had a brief run of the .357s recently, but they disappeared about as fast as the last run of the .45 Redhawk in March 2020. Lockdown sucked. The SRHsin .454 lingered on shelves until the insurrection, but haven't seen one since.

I have a lovely 4inch Redhawk in 44 mag. I think the barrels on the SRH look silly, I prefer the regular redhawk frame but with the ooomph of the super

Inquisitor wrote:I have a lovely 4inch Redhawk in 44 mag. I think the barrels on the SRH look silly, I prefer the regular redhawk frame but with the ooomph of the super

Agreed. RedHawks look much better than the SRH to me. SRH looks better than the Taurus “raging Bull” series though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Redhawks do have more of a classic profile to them, no question, though with an "extra beef" feeling to them. I also like the SRH's look, though. It's sort of a post-modern-industrial look, one that for most folks seems to be, "you love it or you hate it."

So it seems that the apparently greater love, generally, for the Blackhawk over either the Redhawk or Super Redhawk stems, at the moment, from a few things.

1.) RH's and SRH's are a bit tougher to get at present, though that wasn't always so. Ten years ago, Redhawks weren't selling so hot at all, hence what I picked up mine for. Still amazed I got that much wheelgun for that price.

2.) Blackhawks have been around for longer (1955, I believe) and later got huge popularity in the Cowboy Action Shooting discipline. The RH and SRH never had that advantage, being double-action. S&W's N-frame, of course, had the Dirty Harry movies. The RH and SRH didn't have that advantage, either, though the RH sold reasonably well in the late 1970's due to ".44 Magnum Fever".

3.) Aesthetics of the revolvers. The Blackhawk looks more "cowboy", i. e. closer to the Colt SAA a lot of us grew up seeing in westerns. The RH is bigger, even beefier, and doesn't quite look as svelte as Dirty Harry's S&W Model 29. The SRH's post-modern-industrial look is unlike any other revolver ever built, thus unusual-looking and, for some, a bit off-putting, though some others like it.

Does that about sum it up, folks? Or am I leaving something out?

I have a Super Black hawk 44mag and a regular in 357. They are laser guns.

I’d be hard pressed to pick between my redhawk and my SBH for smile inducing booms.

They are great revolvers, built like a tank. But for me, I find I never hold onto Rugers. They make great guns, but I always seem to lose interest and sell my Rugers.

CowboyT wrote:The Redhawks do have more of a classic profile to them, no question, though with an "extra beef" feeling to them. I also like the SRH's look, though. It's sort of a post-modern-industrial look, one that for most folks seems to be, "you love it or you hate it."

So it seems that the apparently greater love, generally, for the Blackhawk over either the Redhawk or Super Redhawk stems, at the moment, from a few things.

1.) RH's and SRH's are a bit tougher to get at present, though that wasn't always so. Ten years ago, Redhawks weren't selling so hot at all, hence what I picked up mine for. Still amazed I got that much wheelgun for that price.

2.) Blackhawks have been around for longer (1955, I believe) and later got huge popularity in the Cowboy Action Shooting discipline. The RH and SRH never had that advantage, being double-action. S&W's N-frame, of course, had the Dirty Harry movies. The RH and SRH didn't have that advantage, either, though the RH sold reasonably well in the late 1970's due to ".44 Magnum Fever".

3.) Aesthetics of the revolvers. The Blackhawk looks more "cowboy", i. e. closer to the Colt SAA a lot of us grew up seeing in westerns. The RH is bigger, even beefier, and doesn't quite look as svelte as Dirty Harry's S&W Model 29. The SRH's post-modern-industrial look is unlike any other revolver ever built, thus unusual-looking and, for some, a bit off-putting, though some others like it.

Does that about sum it up, folks? Or am I leaving something out?

I’d also add that the Blackhawks have always seemed to be a tad easier to find & a bit cheaper. The new blackhawks are going for about $7-800 and RedHawks are going for $1200 minimum. I think it’s a scarcity issue.

And I’d agree with [mention]Inquisitor [/mention] that my 2 are laser beams as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk