What is the difference between Redhawks and Super Redhawks?

[donut757]

Im am by no means serious about hunting with a handgun gun right now but it is something that would be cool later down the road when i can really get into it and i just want to learn

I think the 44 mag would be the best candidate for the job and was just wondering the major difference between the two models? The redhawk appears to be less abundant than the super but i figured id ask to get the full run down.

Thanks guys

 

[Flash]

The Super Redhawk has more strength in the frame and has a post for the grip like the GP100 and the SP101. I have a Super Redhawk and with a scope, can cluster all my shots in an area the size of a softball........at 100 yards. It's second only to the Contender when it comes to a deer handgun.

 

[Luckyducker]

I have never owned any Ruger wheelguns except Blackhawks and Vaqueros, but since nobody has stepped up I will give you my limited knowlege from handling both of them. The Super has a heavier frame which allows it to be used for heavier cartridges such as the 454Casull and once was made in 480Ruger. They both can handle 44Mag pressures easily, and if that is your choice of caliber the Redhawk will be plenty strong enough for any loads that are within SAAMI specifications. The other difference is their trigger, as the SR has a much better factory trigger than it's smaller brother. I have wanted a SR in 480 for a long time but always seem to spend my firearm resources on other shooting sticks. BTW, you can hunt with the Blackhawks and Super Blackhawks also. I have taken two deer with my 41Mag Blackhawk, and both were one shot kills. A buck that was DRT and a doe that ran about ten yds.

 

[k22fan]

I own both RHs & SRHs. I like the more traditional appearance of a RHs' frame, but find their steel back strap less comfortable for firing magnum loads. For cartridges that recoil I prefer the SRH, because, for me, SRHs have the most comfortable grip of all revolvers for heavier recoil. The persistent myth that SRHs are heavier than RHs is proven false by simply looking at the cataloged weights. SRHs can not be stronger than RHs either because the weakest link in the chain is the cylinder and their .44 magnum cylinders are the same part. The extra strength to handle .480 and .454 cartridges is provided by the special steel used in those cylinders, not by the SRH frame. I believe Ruger only chose to use SRHs for .480 and .454 because those cartridges would be painful to fire in revolvers with expolsed steel back straps. The more comfortable SRH grip will make it easier for a beginner to develop the accuracy needed for deer hunting, and also IMO, .44 magnum is a great choice for that purpose.

 

[Iron Mike Golf]

I have a RH Hunter and my shooting partner (Donaldjr1969) has a SRH with a 7.5 barrel. Both are .44 mag. I don't feel a difference when shooting full nouse loads. I don't notice a whole lot of difference in the triggers.

If you are thinking of mounting an optic, only the Hunter model of the RH has the mounting points for rings built in to the gun. All the SRHs have those.

 

[WESHOOT2]

I suggest the 5.5" 44 Redhawk as the most versatile choice: USPSA competition, concealed wear, hunting, fun.

 

[Donaldjr1969]

I have a RH Hunter and my shooting partner (Donaldjr1969) has a SRH with a 7.5 barrel. Both are .44 mag. I don't feel a difference when shooting full nouse loads. I don't notice a whole lot of difference in the triggers.

And I do not notice any difference in recoil discomfort between our guns either, Jeff.

If you are thinking of mounting an optic, only the Hunter model of the RH has the mounting points for rings built in to the gun. All the SRHs have those.

To further expand upon that for the OP, the RH Hunter has the scope mounting points on the barrel while the SRH has the scope mount on the frame itself. That is possible due to the extended frame of the SRH.

 

[Donaldjr1969]

Also, it appears that the hammer spur on the SRH is somewhat lower than the hammer spur on the RH. I assume that is for better clearance when using a scope.

 

[Chief_10Beers]

And the Guts are different, the SRH has the same design and Break down of a GP100.......................................

 

[donut757]

does the scope being mounted only to the frame vs the barrel/frame make a difference?

and would the scope rings have to be different sizes for the SRH


Thanks for the post so far guys.

 

[Thel]

In selecting which to get I would suggest getting what feels the best to you. Strength is for all practical purposes the same between the RH and SRH as people have put .454 cylinders in RHs without hurting them. The frame extension on the SRH I think was due to early problems with RHs having the barrels come undone which was a problem due to the sealant used on the barrel shank threads as I recall. Anyhow, Ruger found the solution and in the meantime had the SRH in the pipleline so there are now 2 models. The internal design is different with the SRH resembling the GP100/SP101 in design. For tuning purposes it is said the SRH is easier to tune due to the 2 springs for hammer and trigger. Others having had both tuned state they haven't noticed much difference. I never had a SRH so only first hand experience is with the RH's. For me I never found the recoil that bad in a .44 mag or .45 Colt but then I also shoot 629 Mtn. Guns and others might differ. For scope mounting the SRH might offer a better system.

 

[CraigC]

No practical strength difference, if any at all. The biggest differences are that the Super has an updated lockwork design, that uses two springs for the hammer and trigger, while the Redhawk uses only one. The Super has the same grip mounting stud as the GP. This allows a much more comfortable factory rubber grip but unfortunately, complicates the use of aftermarket grips in traditional materials. Third is the scope mounting. As noted, the Redhawk "Hunter" model mounts its scope over the barrel. While the Super mounts on the frame.

I lke the looks of the Redhawk better.

I like the scope mount better on the Super because it balances better, while the Redhawk puts too much weight forward.

I like the factory grip on the Super better. No Hogue's for me.

If Ruger would build a Super Redhawk without the long frame extension, with a standard Redhawk barrel profile of 4" to 6", in a five-shot .480, I would go to the expense of sending it to Herrett's for a set of Roper stocks.

Like this Bowen custom:

 

[Dale53]

I have read this thread with interest. It is obvious that it simply boils down to a matter of opinion.

I have had a Red Hawk since it's introduction. Mine mounts the scope on barrel cuts with Ruger SS rings. It works beautifully and I MUCH prefer the weight forward aspect as it is noticeably easier to hold on target.

The SRH is considerably easier to get a good trigger because of it's design. However, after a good bit of aggravation I have a decent trigger on my Red Hawk (even tho' it is rather heavy). If you try to get a light trigger with the Red Hawk you will get light strikes on the primers. It's a bit of a balancing act since the trigger return spring is the same mainspring used to power the hammer.

I have taken several deer with my Red Hawk with excellent results.

The Red Hawk is a much better looking revolver than the butt ugly Super Red Hawk. However, that sort of thing has never particularly bothered me. I am a performance oriented guy and even tho' I prefer the Red Hawk - there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with the Super Red Hawk.

You "pays your money and makes your choice" and rest assured that you have not made a bad decision regardless of which of the two you picked.

Strength is a non-issue with the .44 magnum versions - both are amply strong for any reasonable load.

Dale53

 

[cphilip]

My Red hawk (.44 mag and 7.5" barrel) has a mounting block that replaced the rear sight. This allows the scope to go way back if you like it. Here it is in a rear most position. I bought it this way with the Leupold scope on it. I am not sure who makes this but the whole set up works quite nicely. Someone else will be familiar with this set up and chime in I bet. Of course it loses the rear sight so makes convertible a bit more difficult to do but I bought it as a hunter set up and keep it as such all the time.

 

[Dale53]

One nice thing about the Red Hawk (as well as the Super) it that you can have the revolver properly sighted with iron sights, then mount a scope, and if bad weather hits (I HAVE been there :shock: ) you can simply remove the scope and still "be in the game".

I had my Model 29 Smith similarly sighted before scope mounts were readily available for revolvers:

Dale53

 

[Iron Mike Golf]

does the scope being mounted only to the frame vs the barrel/frame make a difference?

and would the scope rings have to be different sizes for the SRH


Thanks for the post so far guys.

1. You need different height rings for the SRH. And you need Ruger rings, not Weaver base ones. Weaver uses a slot for anchoring the rig=ng against recoil. Ruger uses a scallop in the gun and a curved bit on the bottom of the ring base that locks in.
2. If you only use rings, the forward mounting on the barrel of the Hunter model can result in the eyepiece of the scope being mounted further forward. Depends on the scope, of course. That could make a difference if you have long arms and your scope is on the lowere end of the eye relief scale among pistol scopes.
3. Check http://www.jackweigand.com. He has bases that let you use standard Weaver style rings. For a RH Hunter, it also lets me move the scope back over the frame. That helps me, as I have 34 inch arms and many scopes give me vignetting with mounting over the barrel.

 

[Knuckles]

That is the BEST gun Ruger NEVER made!!!

[/quote]

 

[Billyk338]

.

The Red Hawk is a much better looking revolver than the butt ugly Super Red Hawk.

Dale53

I'd rather have my butt ugly Super Redhawk than a Redhawk with those butt ugly grips!! :lol: I'm sorry but Pachmayr grips ruin the look of any revolver.

 

[Dale53]

To each his own. I have a "root of the thumb" problem and this is the only way I can shoot a revolver with any recoil. They sure look beautiful to me when that big buck hits the ground after a single shot (or a GOOD score on paper).

This has enabled me to do both...

PERFORMANCE not BLING! :mrgreen:

Dale53

 

[Donaldjr1969]

As a SRH owner, I admit it is not as classy looking as a RH. When I was at a gun show last november and had my choice between a RH Hunter and a SRH, I chose the SRH since it had the Hogues. But then, I do not even notice the difference in designs when I am looking at the revolver from the most important angle...behind the sights.

 

[Naphtali]

In terms of using, there are two significant differences.

1. Redhawks have a full grip frame while SRHs have a smaller, lighter post-type grip frame. This translates to SRHs being significantly muzzle heavy compared with Redhawks. And since Redhawks are available with shorter than 7.5-inch barrels while SRHs require careful gunsmithing to shorten their barrels, off-the-shelf Redhawks can be more comfortable and convenient to carry and use.

2. Redhawks use a coil spring version of a Schmidt-Galland action. This is similar to what is found in Colt Pythons and New Service revolvers. While it has many fewer parts than SRHs and S&Ws, the action requires more skill and experience to "adjust" action for smooth, creep free double action trigger. And few gunsmiths have that skill nowadays.

Hope this helps.

 

[cruzerlou]

Just slightly off topic here ,but I own a 7 1/2 mag na ported SBH and a 6" M29-2 S&W .Of the two guns [both have wood gripsw/ exposed backstraps] shooting my pet handload 300 gr XPT over 22.7 gr's of H 110 the blackhawk is the more comfortable of the two.I don't know if it's the fact that the SBH is mag na ported and the grip shape lets the gun " roll" up in your hand under recoil and the S&W stays put .Both guns will shoot tighter groups than I can hold them to and this is a stout .44 mag load ,but the Ruger is my hunting gun and the S&W is my companion gun when in bear country when hunting with a rifle ,being that it's a D/A revolver and I carried a D/A revolver for years as a duty gun I'm much faster with the S&W.This has no baring when humting,but if I'm ever charged by a wounded and mad bear it just makes sence to me .
Lou