Harry1
Bearcat
?? I have a gp 100 4inch 357....also a 2and one half inch 686+ 357....and I also shoot the g23 and the g22 (40 cal)... Would I have trouble with the recoil ov the 44 red hawk??? I am not a spring chicken. but....
44 ruger red hawk 4inch Yes/No??
- Thread starter Harry1
- Start date
Help Support Ruger Forum:
Register to hide this ad
Harry1":1ixr0e0d said:
I have a 4-inch .44Mag Redhawk. It is one of my lighter-shooting guns, even with good loads. I shot about 1200 fps, 240gr loads and I thought it was light recoil It is also one my most accurate guns. Those rubber Hogue grips will really help, much better than the wood grips, but you can always wear Uncle Mike's shooting gloves. I do that occasionally. I also shoot my .500 Linebaugh with 450gr loads and those aren't bad if I stay @ 1100 fps or so.
I am "well-above" retirement age. I shoot my neighbor's .460 too and that's not bad @ 1350 fps. A heavy gun; recoil is not bad at all.
The Redhawk is 47 ounces and with weight like that, the recoil is negligible; no worse than your Glocks. I have owned both of those models.
Now, if I want heavy recoil, I just shoot some of my .357's through my snub J-mag model 640-1, or my 325PD .45 ACP. I use recoil gloves when I remember.
IMHO
Harry do you just want one or do you think you may "need" one? I have one and really like it. I shoot some fairly stout 325 gr HC through it. With standard WWB 240's it's not bad at all. I prefer the Pachmayer Decelerator grips on it. It's handy to carry and strong enough to handle what ever load you put in it. Sounds like you shoot enough that you could handle it. See if you can find someone that has one already and give it a try.
Harry1":2g06wtb9 said:
Absolutely not. The recoil of a 'true' full house 357 is generally more violent than that of a 44 mag. I think you'll find that the 44 mag recoil is more of a push, than the violent crack of the 357.
44 mags are really no big deal.
Now 454's are a whole nuther story LOL.
Get that 44 and don't think any more about it.
REV
I have a 2 1/2" 686 S&W in 357 mag, I also have a 4" Redhawk in 44 mag. I too went from 357 mag to 44 mag and was not sure what to expect as I'd never fired any 44 mag before my Redhawk.
If we are talking 240 gr 44 mag at about 1200 fps you will be fine. Heavier or faster loads recoil quite a bit more and you need to build up to them or not depending on whether you think you need that much power. The recoil is different to 357 mag in the 686. The 686 has much more noticeable muzzle blast, but with 158 gr Double Taps at 1300 fps recoils less than the Redhawk 44 mag. It's not enough to be an issue, but I noticed at the range the other day, when firing both that the recoil from 44 mag was more tiring after firing a lot of rounds than 357.
I don't think I can really describe the difference, but I can say if you get on fine with your 686 S&W then a 4" Redhawk 44 mag is going to be well within your capabilities and is nothing you need to fear, you aren't going to get hurt. It is however a step up from 357 mag and will require familiarization and practice to shoot as accurately.
If you want 44 mag or think you need it as I did for Black Bear protection, then go for it, you'll love the gun. I don't know your definition of spring chicken, I was 48 when I got mine.
If we are talking 240 gr 44 mag at about 1200 fps you will be fine. Heavier or faster loads recoil quite a bit more and you need to build up to them or not depending on whether you think you need that much power. The recoil is different to 357 mag in the 686. The 686 has much more noticeable muzzle blast, but with 158 gr Double Taps at 1300 fps recoils less than the Redhawk 44 mag. It's not enough to be an issue, but I noticed at the range the other day, when firing both that the recoil from 44 mag was more tiring after firing a lot of rounds than 357.
I don't think I can really describe the difference, but I can say if you get on fine with your 686 S&W then a 4" Redhawk 44 mag is going to be well within your capabilities and is nothing you need to fear, you aren't going to get hurt. It is however a step up from 357 mag and will require familiarization and practice to shoot as accurately.
If you want 44 mag or think you need it as I did for Black Bear protection, then go for it, you'll love the gun. I don't know your definition of spring chicken, I was 48 when I got mine.
piratedude
Single-Sixer
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2008
- Messages
- 105
Sometimes .44 mag can be a little snappy when you are shooting it single handed, but its really not bad. Of course you can hold it with 2 hands if it makes you more comfortable. In which its cases the recoil is a non issue.
Three44s
Single-Sixer
Will you have trouble?
Yup ....... unless you handload.
Grips and personal taste plus handloading and you'll cheerish that Redhawk.
A short barreled gun is no great shakes with recoil. For many the longer tubes cause more pain.
Three 44s
Yup ....... unless you handload.
Grips and personal taste plus handloading and you'll cheerish that Redhawk.
A short barreled gun is no great shakes with recoil. For many the longer tubes cause more pain.
Three 44s
Hobie
Single-Sixer
Recoil? No problem? Redhawk? Best ask yourself why. I think it is a bit large and you can load it on up but one might want to use that power.
74 and 3 fourths... I guess that makes an OLD rooster...not a spring chicken. The info is good.. I don't need it, I just would like it. Ammo is out of sight, but 45 long colt is more. The grips on the 686+ are super...so the same grips on the red hawk 4inch will be the same. Gentalmen thank you. (no trouble spelling latin, german or greek, but english..????)
Hobie
Single-Sixer
It is noticeably larger than my 629. While the feel is entirely different, I think it seems bigger to me than even the Ruger Super Blackhawk 4-5/8" .44 Mag.Redhawk4":2fhjt0nu said:
Redhawks will fit in N frame holsters so the difference is not that much nor is the bit of extra weight if you want the extra strength.
My Redhawk is not really that much bigger than my L frame Smith 686. So while it is "bigger" than Smith & Wessons offering, I don't think the differences are enough to preclude it as a choice purely based on size.
My out of the box Redhawk also has a better double action trigger pull than standard S&W.
So either is a great choice, just depends which works best for you.
My Redhawk is not really that much bigger than my L frame Smith 686. So while it is "bigger" than Smith & Wessons offering, I don't think the differences are enough to preclude it as a choice purely based on size.
My out of the box Redhawk also has a better double action trigger pull than standard S&W.
So either is a great choice, just depends which works best for you.
Rainman
Blackhawk
I have a 4" 44 Redhawk that has been Mag-Na- Ported. I shot the same full house load through it and a 5.5" New Model Super Blackhawk recently. I have the original factory wood grips on both and the difference was amazing. The Redhawk was a pussycat compared to the painful SBH. I absolutely love the Redhawk and have since traded the SBH.
Consider having it ported if you are concerned with the recoil.
Dan
Consider having it ported if you are concerned with the recoil.
Dan
nugentjeep45
Bearcat
I don't know who this lady is, but I ran across this clip on youtube while I was searching for the Ruger Redhawk. She may have been shooting light loads but she obvioulsly loves her Redhawk!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3Nn4S_I ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3Nn4S_I ... re=related
GoFullAuto
Bearcat
Hobie":2dez5gc3 said:
You be the judge... at least frame - wise :wink:
I remember when I picked up an M-29 4 incher, after so many years getting used to the RH. Well, the Smith felt like a .357, both in size and weight :shock: :shock:
The line of sight felt much lower and closer to the hand too.
Ok, the 5,5-in barrel on my RH sure added weigth and rotational momentum, but really, I felt that M29 as a "compact - carry" handgun :shock: . My personal feeling, though. Consider I have small hands, so maybe I'm more sensitive to a lighter handgun.
Honestly, in terms of predictable recoil and "safety margin feeling", I would not have felt comfortable stoking 101% full house magnum loads in the M29. Tough I know it's just my guts, no reason behind that :wink:
By
GfA
My point was that the size difference is not enough to influence your choice if other factors point you towards a 4" Redhawk.
My experience is that with a decent holster, I use Simply Rugged, there is no problem carrying a 4" Redhawk, I can even carry concealed if I choose to. Posts are always made implying that the Redhawk is so big and heavy, compared to a S&W that it is not feasable to carry a Redhawk. With the right holster I don't think you could tell the difference.
Showing pictures of it compared to a SA is not really proving anything relavent to my statement - "Is the Redhawk 4" really significantly larger than any other DA 44 mag?. Although looking at the pictures, again I don't think the Redhawks extra size would make much difference to carrying it, if someone wants to go the DA route.
Everyone can buy what they want and works for them, I just don't think we should be misinforming people about the 4" Redhawk as a carry gun for protection in the back country. I carried mine for many hours on Sunday while out in my Jeep in the Mountains, was still carrying it at home and then carried it, as it was already on my belt, while attending to some matters within city limits for which I would normally have carried another handgun. It was not uncomfortable and I haven't had to go to the ER room as a result :wink: .
I bought the Redhawk because I wanted a DA revolver and I also wanted the inherent strength, for reliability and longevity, and to be able to fire/carry some really hot and heavy loads should the need arise. S&W do not produce an equivalent revolver IMO. A few ounces and fractions of an inch, for me, do not outweigh the real benefits.
Why is the Redhawk the unloved bastard child of the Ruger family? whenever a discussion starts it seems everyone is advised to look elsewhere.
My experience is that with a decent holster, I use Simply Rugged, there is no problem carrying a 4" Redhawk, I can even carry concealed if I choose to. Posts are always made implying that the Redhawk is so big and heavy, compared to a S&W that it is not feasable to carry a Redhawk. With the right holster I don't think you could tell the difference.
Showing pictures of it compared to a SA is not really proving anything relavent to my statement - "Is the Redhawk 4" really significantly larger than any other DA 44 mag?. Although looking at the pictures, again I don't think the Redhawks extra size would make much difference to carrying it, if someone wants to go the DA route.
Everyone can buy what they want and works for them, I just don't think we should be misinforming people about the 4" Redhawk as a carry gun for protection in the back country. I carried mine for many hours on Sunday while out in my Jeep in the Mountains, was still carrying it at home and then carried it, as it was already on my belt, while attending to some matters within city limits for which I would normally have carried another handgun. It was not uncomfortable and I haven't had to go to the ER room as a result :wink: .
I bought the Redhawk because I wanted a DA revolver and I also wanted the inherent strength, for reliability and longevity, and to be able to fire/carry some really hot and heavy loads should the need arise. S&W do not produce an equivalent revolver IMO. A few ounces and fractions of an inch, for me, do not outweigh the real benefits.
Why is the Redhawk the unloved bastard child of the Ruger family? whenever a discussion starts it seems everyone is advised to look elsewhere.
Yosemite Sam
Hunter
I would ask: What are you going to use it for? And, do you or are you going to handload?
The .44 Redhawk is a big, heavy gun, and the .44 magnum is a big, heavy caliber. We can kid ourselves all day and be the manly men saying, "That recoil is nothing; You should try a .XYZ!", but the fact of the matter is the big magnum kicks like a mule compared to a .38 or even a .357.
Take a look at my avatar: That's me shooting a 4" Taurus .44 mag with a 185gr slug on top of 31gr of H110. This is pretty close to the commercial UMC 185gr load that you can buy at Wal-Mart. As you can see, it is a handful of fire and brimstone. The WWB 240gr load kicks a lot more, and can hurt your hand. This is before you get into the Buffalo Bore 300gr+ hunting rounds. Remember that even with the Hogue grips, the Redhawk grip has an exposed backstrap which will lovingly kiss your palm with the full force of recoil.
I've been mostly shooting .44 Specials and light .45 Colts recently. I lit off my .44 Redhawk with full-house commercial loads last time and was shocked at the difference. It had been a while since I'd shot those rounds. Also, most of my magnum shooting has been done recently with a SBH Bisley Hunter, which smooths things out some.
If you primarily shoot at paper there's really no reason to pay $35/50 for ammo, as you will with the magnum.
If you reload, all of the above goes out the window, because you can adjust the loads to suit your shooting.
And if you really, really want one, then nothing can (or should!) change your mind.
You can always get a shooting glove to lessen any pain.
-- Sam
The .44 Redhawk is a big, heavy gun, and the .44 magnum is a big, heavy caliber. We can kid ourselves all day and be the manly men saying, "That recoil is nothing; You should try a .XYZ!", but the fact of the matter is the big magnum kicks like a mule compared to a .38 or even a .357.
Take a look at my avatar: That's me shooting a 4" Taurus .44 mag with a 185gr slug on top of 31gr of H110. This is pretty close to the commercial UMC 185gr load that you can buy at Wal-Mart. As you can see, it is a handful of fire and brimstone. The WWB 240gr load kicks a lot more, and can hurt your hand. This is before you get into the Buffalo Bore 300gr+ hunting rounds. Remember that even with the Hogue grips, the Redhawk grip has an exposed backstrap which will lovingly kiss your palm with the full force of recoil.
I've been mostly shooting .44 Specials and light .45 Colts recently. I lit off my .44 Redhawk with full-house commercial loads last time and was shocked at the difference. It had been a while since I'd shot those rounds. Also, most of my magnum shooting has been done recently with a SBH Bisley Hunter, which smooths things out some.
If you primarily shoot at paper there's really no reason to pay $35/50 for ammo, as you will with the magnum.
If you reload, all of the above goes out the window, because you can adjust the loads to suit your shooting.
And if you really, really want one, then nothing can (or should!) change your mind.
You can always get a shooting glove to lessen any pain.-- Sam
Similar threads
