TALO's 2 1/2" Ruger Redhawk .44 Mag Real Guns write up

I like it just the way it is. I hope they have some Pachmayers Grippers to go with it.

RonS said:

The shorter the barrel the more important having the sights just right is. Take a revolver with a 6" barrel and one with a 2" barrel and move the rear sights 0.01 of an inch and see how much change you get at 25 yards.

Nice looking gun.

Click to expand...

At the distances that this gun was made for, you don't need adjustable sights!!! Even though this is a magnum gun, it is still considered a belly gun. That is one that is normally shot at very close range. Hence, sans fixed sights!!

Now I will admit that many people will like this gun because it is, per se, a snubby and packs nicely. Just because one may be lazy enough to not carry a full size gun on the trail, doesn't mean it should have adjustable sights. As usually Ruger has made something that is not needed on one of their guns.

I wonder who they talked to on this one??

I think I need one and like the sites a lot.

Wayno [quote: f a person never leaves the big city, maybe so.

I've spent a good part of my life up in the mountains, and the gun you're carrying could very well be called on to be actually used. I've shot many short barreled revolvers at ridiculous distances, and their accuracy can be pretty incredible. Adjustable sights are very necessary if you're gonna shoot long distances. This gun could serve well as a survival piece, and the adjustable sights do become necessary.

This revolver is a bit smaller, and it's a .357, but the concept of a short barrel, adjustable sights, and a rounded grip frame is the same. Spanning many years, I carry this revolver in the woods and mountains more than any other.]

I totally agree with Wayno's observation.

Personally, I would have settled on a downsized Redhawk five shot .44 Spcl. with the Novak sight setup.

RCP1936 said:

Adjustable sights on a 2 1/2 gun
Look ugly and unneeded

Click to expand...

RCP1936 said:

Adjustable sights on a 2 1/2 revolver are dumb

Click to expand...

I suppose that you think using punctuation in your messages is "dumb" and "unneeded" too. :roll:


Adjustable sights on a 2.5" revolver are brilliant. I'll never buy a fixed sighted gun again Have a couple fixed sighted guns & they all shoot off POA, one way or another. It's the main reason that I don't have an LCR.

I for one love the adj. sights ,and wouldn't think of owning it without them ......

I want one of those too, although in my case for a bedside/car gun loaded with .44 Specials. In the absence of a .44 Special GP-100, it's the next best thing...and it looks like the perfect complement to my pair of .44 Special Flattops.

Full-power magnum loads are overkill for the sort of "wildlife" I'm likely to encounter, and in his Gunblast review even a beefy guy like Jeff Quinn seemed to find the snubby Redhawk a handful with magnums.

http://gunblast.com/Ruger-RedhawkTALO.htm

For that matter, I found a scoped 6" Redhawk with the magna-style wood stocks and 240-grain Remington .44 Mag loads somewhat unpleasant to shoot.

I would like one in 45 Colt but you better believe Talo knows that and it'll be over a year before that happens. But just like there will be a run on these, there will be another run when the 45 comes out.

Wonder if a Tyler T-Grip would work.....
Hmmm.
Denis

Man, I'd love to have one of those, but it's out of my price range.

Cool looking alright... 8)

But personally, you couldn't run fast enough to give me a .44 mag with a 2.5" barrel!

But that's just me... :wink:

I will own one.

I will own one.

I will too. Of couse I said that about a English 20 bore side by side, a corvette, my own gun range, and a bear hunt on Kodiak.

That looks like someone sprinkled Miracle Gro on a SP-101 and this is what came out. Very nice looking gun.

There is one on the classifieds right now, for those that don't spend time over there. And at what appears to be a very fair price, IMO. It's seriously tempting me.

RCP1936 said:

SHOOTER said:

They should have put
Novaks on that! Or on the round butt only.

Click to expand...

Adjustable sights on a 2 1/2 revolver are dumb

Click to expand...

I gotta agree with Wayno on this one.

It is a fact that revolvers with 2-1/2 and 3" barrels can be shot as accurately as 6" revolvers....at least by me.

I first noticed this when I bought a S&W 696 w/3" bbl and was surprised at how well I could shoot it. I had always considered short barreled revolvers to be "belly guns" and unworthy of serious consideration in terms of accurate shooting, but that is not the case at all. Since, I have purchased a lot of revolvers with 2-1/2 to 4" barrels and find that I can shoot them every bit as accurately as the longer barreled guns.

I do take issue however, with the claim that the 240 gr. bullet in the Federal Fusion load would yield velocities that are only 15 fps lower that the same load in a 7-1/2" barrel. I would think that a difference of 150-200 fps would be a lot more like it. 8)

Boge said:

Personally, I would have settled on a downsized Redhawk five shot .44 Spcl. with the Novak sight setup.

Click to expand...

True....it would be every bit as useful. In the RH, one can load some very powerful loads, and the powders suitable for the .44 Sp. a lot less tendency to set the grass on fire whenever it is shot.

Orrrrrrr, a GP100 built to the same configuration in .44 Sp.

BUT, this gun is so damned cute that it is hard to resist....no? 8)

I have Redhawks in all the calibers that Ruger offered; 357, 41 & 44 Mag, and 45 Colt. All in stainless with 5 1/2" barrels. I don't own any of the 4" versions because I don't care for the front sight set-up on that model. This time Ruger got it right, and this one is on my wish list in any caliber they care to chamber it for.

Tim