Ok...here goes.

Bought a DA Ruger Redhawk. I've owned a ton of SA Rugers but this is my first Big Bore Double Action Ruger. It is massive compared to my Smith's. Huge, really...

I dissected it. Broke it down and cleaned and gave it a little tuning. It's got some really neat features that add one heck of alot of strength to the gun's platform. Some of that mass is actually pretty much what makes it such a durable package.

So at what point do you say that form follows function? I alway looked at these as ugly guns. But can see how the areas that are strengthened contribute to the bulk of the guns form.

Up in the air on this one. They may be less fluid in design...but there is a element of brutal strength in the guns form that can't be argued with....

Ugly or Not ?

__________________
Non gratum anus rodentum

I bought this one for a shade over 4 Benjamins back at thanksgiving. Just got around to shooting it about a month ago. Great trigger both SA and DA. Full power loads are like a .38 in a model 27, unlike my 629 which draws blood from the web of my hand after half a box. When I bought it the rear sight was broken. Ruger sent me a whole new assembly N/C. I wish all mfr's were as good. Joe

__________________
Wisdom chases me; I'm faster

Great gun...but the lines of the small ejector rod housing, large square top strap and abrupt hammer frame housing make it less than pretty....

__________________
Thirty characters. Exactly...

Sip,

From a aesthetic standpoint, I'd agree. But when you look at it from an engineering standpoint it becomes another matter. Kinda the difference between a Mercede's SUV and a HumVee...

Take the lines of the ejector rod housing...did you realize that this gun uses a similiar lockup of a S&W Triple Lock?

Here's mine....in a 5.5" 44 Mag.

__________________
Non gratum anus rodentum

I had a Ruger Alaskan in .44 mag, which is a 2.5" barrel Super Redhawk. Massive construction, built like a tank, carried like one. Strong, durable, reliable...but not pretty, fer sure.

They are kind of ugly, but I still like mine.

__________________
Miss My Buddy crsides!!

I have two .41 Magnum Redhawks. One is a 7.5 inch stainless job, and the other a 5.5 inch blued gun. I like 'em both.

Compared to a SW nothing is as pretty.
But is it ugly?.....I've seen worse.
And plastic is ugly.

D.G.

My opinion, all Ruger double actions are good performing firearms, that said--- They are ugly as He$$. I would not own one! Give me a Smith & Wesson every time.

My first 44 mag years ago when the first came out was a Redhawk, 7.5" IIRC. Used it for 200 yard rams in IHMSA competition. Loved it for any & all hot loads.

Came across a 4" 629. Tried to practice with them both. Seems the barrel twist was opposite; made getting solid hold more difficult when switching back & forth.

I've never read about this issue anywhere. I know in my 2, I could hold them each in one hand, fire, and they would recoil twisting in opposite directions. Held one way, they roll away from each other; swap hands & they'd roll toward each other.

At the time I considered the RH as being as handsome as a Neanderthal could be; while the 629 4" was like pointing a grapefruit holding onto its handle.

Beauty is a subjective value.

__________________
Dum vivimus Vivamas

Yes they are ugly. "Good trigger" on a Ruger is an oxymoron.

BR

I had a 5.5" .41 mag Redhawk, it not only looked ugly it felt even uglier.

It's a funny thing. The very best triggers on any gun that I own ( and I own a couple ) are on Rugers. They are definitely works in progress from the factory...but tuned ~ they are a thing of beauty. I own all the jigs and smithing needs to set up a S&W trigger. Every one of my S&W's has been tuned by my hand. There are forum members here that own some of my former guns that I have tuned in the past.

Same goes with Rugers. But I will say this, I can get a better trigger pull out of a SA Ruger then any of my S&W's. And I have a few competition Ruger PPC guns based on the smaller caliber Security Six frames that are gonna be pretty hard to beat.

So, just my opinion....but there is a world of improvement that can be made to both S&W's and Rugers if they are to be tuned properly. That said, the finest factory triggers I have ever felt belong to the very early S&W long actions. Some of the later 5 Screws and early 4 Screws aren't to shabby ~ either...

__________________
Non gratum anus rodentum

My blued model with Hogue rubber grips makes full house 44 magnums just as soft as .38 wadcutters. I find it much more comfortable than a single action, I don't like the rolling back in your hand thing very much. I gave it a Millet sight which I think is a real improvement over the Ruger unit, easy to switch back for a purist. The trigger feel is just a little bit odd which I attribute to the one spring design.

Dwight

__________________
Veritas et Humanitas

UGLY, wouldn't own one

__________________
Sure you did

+1 on the "Ugly"

If I had a Redhawk I would shave its butt and teach it to shoot backwards

At least they are prettier than a Glock...

Sir, FWIW, I've always rather liked the looks of the Redhawk. No accounting for taste, I guess.

Hope this helps, and Semper Fi.

Ron H.

__________________
Wishin' don't make it so.

I had an early REdhawk and an early 629. Did not take long to decide that the Redhawk was not needed. Sadly, the 629 was sold to raise cash for something too. The 629 was a much nicer gun, the Redhawk heavy and strong with a clunky action. No comparison!

__________________
Richard Gillespie
FBINA 102

not as pleasing to the eye as a S&W. I havnt found one yet a decent price. but i would buy one to have.

you can certainly shoot some major league atomic loads out of them

Hi,

Seriously, I like all guns and think they all are purposeful in their own niche. Grant Cunningham is truly an artist when it comes to revolversmithing; Here is an example of a Ruger GP100 he did, I can imagine I would like a similar treatment on a "Redhawk" with a 3" barrel would make a very handy big bore hiking gun for a hip holster.




And of course S&W;



Here is his website, the "Library" there has some great revolver related articles in it also;

GrantCunningham.com - Home

__________________
U.S. Army 81-84, USCG 84-01

Not ugly, in my opinion. I especially like the looks of the 5" model. Different strokes for different pokes.

OUT
WEST

I remember when the Redhawk was introduced. I've always thought that they were a good looking gun. I'd like to own one someday. Nice thing about owning a .44 Magnum Ruger...you can actually shoot .44 Magnum ammo in them with no worries at all! Unlike a...well, never mind.

__________________
'Merica!

Why is everyone comparing the Redhawk to a S&W. The original question was "Ugly or not?" Uglies have it. I ain't getting shed of the RH tho'. Joe

__________________
Wisdom chases me; I'm faster

A .357 magnum Redhawk is one of my grail guns.

If I come across one at a decent price, I'll be all over it.

Joe,

By page three....the OP don't count no more...

If I wanted to get the blood pumpin' and then go make popcorn...I'd of started a thread about 300 Grain thumpers in a Model 29 at max loads. By page three of that thread folks would be talkin' about Ruger's and Ruger Only loads....


Steve

__________________
Non gratum anus rodentum

The GP-100 and the Super Redhawk are two of my best shooting revolvers, and I don't think they are ugly at all. They look strong, and that's what they are.


WG840

__________________
Freedom above all else.

I have a 9.5" .454 Super Redhawk. It kicks like a mule with 300gr XTP's going 1650 fps. They are not to bad in my 460 S&W Mag.

__________________
Corripe Cervisiam

Giz,
They are not ugly at all.
They are as pretty, and as effective, and as useful, and as durable as my favorite sledge hammer.
I've had that hammer well over 30 years, and it still has the original wooden handle. I don't loan it.
(I'm not kidding here)

You ever heard that there is a Ruger forum?

__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett

Is that a Shoo-sledge?Is he selling it on the unspoken forum.
I can see sales going through the roof.
Maybe he should make a tupperware tip as well.

D.G.

Ham Bowen of course can make you a 1917-ized redhawk in 50AE lanyard ring included. now that is something nice

I like the Ruger RedHawk

__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

I've owned a bunch of 'em, and I like 'em! They aren't as refined as a Smith, but they aren't as fragile either. This is my current one, and I am not planning on offing it. It is very accurate, gives much higher velocities than my Smith's (including my 8 3/8" 29.) Though big Red has a longer tube than the average Smith, longer doesn't always mean faster and anyone with a good chrono knows that, but this one fires the same rounds from the same box much faster than my long tom 29.

I just ran some rounds through this one (305's at 1400 fps) that would make my Smiths wear out quick (if not outright break), and the cases just popped right out. See the latest issue of Handloader.

The only thing I would change is to have a 5.5" bbl installed on it. I have already put the Wollfe spring kit and Millet front sight on it. It is a lot more accurate than most all of my Smith's too, which does bug me, since I love my Smiths.

They aren't as pretty as a Smith for sure, but they are a far cry from ugly.

Greetings, All,

I have had two Redhawks for many years, both in .41 magnum, one blued, and one stainless, both with 5.5" barrels. They don't carry as well as my Smiths, because they are much heavier, but they shoot like a house afire! Interestingly, the blued one is slightly more accurate, and always has been. But, both are outstanding shooters, have a wonderful double-action pull, and are built like tanks. I also think they look great. Sure, they are not like a Smith, but that's just fine, IMHO. Smiths are lovely, and so are Redhawks, as far as I'm concerned.... just in different ways. Take care, and God Bless!

Every Good Wish,
Doc

Guns 4 Fun,

Where are you getting your 305 grains bullets? Care to share the loading info?

Steve

__________________
Non gratum anus rodentum

The 305's are from Rim Rock Bullets. They are of the LBT style, and are gas checked. I used 22.5 grains of H-110, CCI 350 primers, W-W cases. I got an average of 1395 fps across the screens of my Oehler 35P with that load. The article I got it from shows 23 gr. as a max load with an almost identical bullet from Oregon Trail. These loads are only for the Redhawk- no Super Blackhawks, 29/629's etc. The Redhawk's cylinder walls are a lot thicker than the others, and will safely withstand these loads an maintain a 100% safety margin.

I strongly urge anyone who is interested in anything like this to buy the April Issue of Handloader mentioned above and read Brian Pearce's aricle on +P oads for Big Red.

I have two, a .41 and a .44. They maybe not as elegant as a Smith, but when I'm working up loads guess what gun I try them in first? And the triggers on both are wonderful. I'm sure that somebody had them both worked on, but the point is they can be made very nice. They are also accurate, but I would not want to carry one around all day.

I do think the Super Redhawk is a bit over the top, and I wonder what problem they were trying to fix.

I have had a couple and I kind of like the “Bank Vault” look.
It ain’t a 29 but it is cool, especially with glasses!

__________________
Shoot fast & live long
Warren

The developed the Super to fix the problem they had with the early barrels snapping off the original Redhawk at the frame, which they thought might have something to do with their barrel mounted scope system placing extra strain on the barrel shank, and just as it was going into full production, they discovered the barrel problem had nothing to do with their engineering, but that fact that the thread lube they were using was causing the trouble. Rather than ditching the original design which had been a stellar success for them, they decided to keep both.

There is a very good account of all this in John Taffin's book "Big Bore Handguns" if anyone is interested.

Go to your User CP, and choose to view 40 posts per page.

This thread is all on one page for me, except for the post before this one.
You guys are using up all our clicks.

__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett

I like the Redhawks. Not ugly, just different. Here's my 45 Colt.

There's a blue one in .41 magnum on gunsinternational for $499.00, I sure wish one of you guys would buy it before I break down and get it.

Well Thank you, that sure is interesting. Now all I have to worry about is my barrels flying off.

Swid-

Unless your guns are from the first 6-8 years of production (pre '87), I doubt you'll ever have any trouble. I never did with my first Redhawk that was one of the first run produced, and I fired thousands of full power rounds through it.

Call Ruger with your serial, and they can tell you when your guns were made, and if there is a possibilty of ever having barrel trouble with them (which they will take care of if it happens). I knew a guy on another forum who went through that with a Redhawk that he bought used about two years ago. It took about 2-3 months, but he got it back in like new condition.

The problem they had with the lube was some of the barrels would receive the lube prior to istallation on Friday afternoon, then be left over the weekend due to the workweek ending. The lube would become tacky or congealed, then when the barrels were installed on Monday, and they were torqued into place, the lube was no longer acting as it should and barrels were over tightened, placing undue strain at the barrel frame/junction which caused stress fractures to eventually allow the barrels to be blown off during firing, which is exactly what happened to the guy on the other forum.

I think all Ruger's are ugly.