I'm in the market for a new big bore revolver. I like the looks and idea of the 4.75" model 69. I'd mostly load up specials for it as it's really only for range use and I just like big bullets. However if I ever needed 44 Magnum I could use it for those as well. The Redhawk I'm considering is the newer one that shoots 45 Colt/Auto. Apples to oranges in a lot of ways, I know. The Redhawk is heavier and larger overall with one extra round. But it shoots two cartridges that I already reload. And the Redhawk can handle Magnum loads if I needed them. I must say, while I can handle felt recoil well, I'm not a fan of blast. Once in awhile is okay, but I even load 357 on the lighter side usually.
Since it's just a range toy I'm not sure size and weight matter much, and neither does the extra round much. I know the 69 gets nothing but love, especially with the 4" barrel, but I don't see a whole lot on the forums about the Redhawk. If S&W made the L frame in 45 Colt, or even the 25 classic in a 4-5 inch barrel I'd choose it over the Ruger I think.
So which would you choose? Difference in quality and dependability? Should I go with what I already load?

Personally. I think it's more a matter of intended use, as in - hunting or not. Doesn't sound like your primary or secondary or even tertiary intentions include that. This is where the SRH shines. It is a very worthy gun. But even then, I personally opt S&W in a 629 with 5 or more inches of tube. That Ruger will shoot the hottest and heaviest though, if that's your thing. And if you're into reloading and pushing it as far as you can in that caliber, for whatever gives you pleasure. But I think from what you're asking that the 69 is the The Answer.

It's kind of an apples to oranges comparison. The Redhawk compares more to a Smith 629. The 69 compares more to a GP100. If you really wouldn't mind the weight of a Redhawk, you might consider a 629 instead of a 69, if you don't ever intend to carry it. Or if you like the idea of a slighly lighter gun, Ruger is making a GP100 in 44 Spl now. I have several Ruger revolvers (but no Redhawk) and I have nothing bad to say about them. The word I'm hearing is that the Redhawk does not get great accuracy with 45 ACP. Since you reload, you could load the 45 Colts to any level you want. Honestly, if you're not a big fan of blast and recoil, and it's a gun for range use, I can't see any point in getting a 69, vs either a Redhawk or a 629. I'd love to have a 45 Colt Redhawk if I reloaded, but I'm betting the Smith would have a better trigger. Any of these guns should last a lifetime.

I have a couple of snubbies in the same weight range as the 69. I reload .44 Magnum without pushing the envelope, and the recoil is substantial, just on the border of pain. However the same revolvers with .44 Special are sweet shooting (and accurate).

The 69 has a 4.25" barrel (not 4.75"), possibly to comply with Canadian regulations. I like the idea of a two-piece barrel for accuracy and ease of adjusting the cylinder gap. I don't find a 4" barrel as useful for concealed carry, and why settle for 5 rounds when I can get 6 rounds in a slightly larger revolver.

The S&W action is great. I haven't heard anything complimentary about the Redhawk action. Rugers are over built, in order to accommodate investment casting rather than expensive forging and machine work.

I've had two Redhawks. Comparing them to smiths, their triggers are garbage. One spring controls SA/DA,whereas on the smith, you have a hammer (sear) and trigger (rebound spring ). Yada yada.

The M69 seems to ME, more of a novelty carry piece. ...
Given those options , a 4" 629 or 625 would do nicely!

I broke a Redhawk too. Cracked force cone trying to wildcat the 44 to Zeus power levels....


Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

While the L and N frame have much better triggers out of the box, I've seen some very smooth actions out of Redhawks after being worked over by a competent gunsmith. Of course if you don't want to spend the additional $200 the Model 69 would be the obvious choice.

BTW, those must have been some loads to crack a Redhawk...

I saw one of the new 44 Spcl. GP100's today. Seemed pretty beefy & then I looked at the barrel extension/forcing cone & was surprised how thin it was. Pretty close to a 696's. That I could see cracking... but a Redhawk's ??

And it had a typical Ruger SA trigger too, poor. I like to say my worse S&W factory trigger is still better than the best factory Ruger trigger.

.


.

Spencerivey101: Sounds like you're a big bore fan, but not much on magnum blast & fury? I really think a S&W 45 ACP revolver might be something that would scratch your itch if you don't already have one?

I have lots of magnums but REALLY like shooting my 325TR & 625PC a lot. I'm not into 45 ACP moon clips at the range. I almost exclusively shot 45 Auto Rims in them.

Big bore fun at it's best. And when you want a little more power those S-L 45AR's can handle 45 Super loads, which aren't quit "magnums" but are a good bump up in power.

The current ones are only available in 4" bbl. but older 625's have 5" bbls., if that matters. And you already load for the 45ACP, right?

.

__________________
Waiting for the break of day

I've owned my .44 Redhawk for 30 years. I owned (past tense)my model 69 for 30 days. My Redhawk trigger is better than 99% of my S&Ws, with nothing more than a spring changeout. Guess I'm just lucky.

Ok guys I love my 629-1 it has served me well either it has gotten smoother or I have gotten use to it over ( wow) 30 years but that Redhawk is a beast you must admit and now with the 45auto/45colt moon clip capable option and you already load 45 I would definantly get me a Redhawk ( popcorn poppers or bear stoppers) you could load either.But I'm still not trading my 629 as I love it and I load 44 mags mostly popcorn poppers I don't live in bear country so no worries there .

If you are thinking of the Redhawk 45/45acp, you may want to check, if you will be happy with the 45acp accuracy, My friend has one, and the 45 acp accuracy is not that good. When you research it, that sound pretty common. Seems to be due to the long jump from length of cylinder to rifling. Everyone has there own idea, on what is accurate. just some thing to consider, if it is worth it to you

So why the 4" barrel? If you don't care for muzzle blast? A 7 1/2" 44 mag Redhawk felt pretty good to me, My 5" (or 5 1/2"???) 357 mag Redhawk was about a short as I'd wanna go. (with that particular revolver)

The only real advantage I see of the Ruger is that it is stronger. The ones I have seen are every bit as accurate as a S&W but the trigger makes it harder to make use of their potential accuracy.

I have a M69 with a 4.25 inch barrel and find the size and balance of the gun ideal for a range gun. It balances well and is not overly heavy. It has enough weight to help keep the gun steady but not so much it feels too heavy. If you were looking for a hunting gun that could handle heavy loads well the Ruger would be a better choice. But for a range gun why buy something needlessly heavy?

Last year I bought a .22 LR GP-100 mostly because I fell for some ads that said it had the same light trigger pull as the centerfire models. I should have known better. It measured a little over 7 pounds SA, twice that DA and was not as crisp as any of my Smiths. I am pretty sure a .44 Ruger would have a better trigger than the .22 but S&W having better triggers than Rugers is not just internet BS. I bought a spring kit for my .22 Ruger but sold it before I bothered putting it in. With a 22 lighter springs = misfires.

I would recommend getting the M69, swapping the grips with a pair of 500 grips from S&W, and shooting it with whatever power level of ammo you prefer. I like ammo rated at 1000 fps with a 240 grain bullet which has enough power to be interesting but is not punishing. I also shoot quite a bit of 44 special level ammo and the occasional cylinder or two of full power magnums. But for a range gun choosing the revolver that feels best to you and adjusting the power of your ammo to give you the shooting experience you want makes more sense than selecting the Ruger because it can better handle heavy loads you are not planning to shoot often if at all.

I couple of things I did not mention in my previous post:

I sent my M69 back because it shot a few inches high with heavy loads even the sights adjusted all the way down. While it was there I them recrown the muzzle. The original crown had a cosmetic defect that did not affect accuracy but I did not like the way it looked. Otherwise the gun was well made and finished. The Ruger had some machining marks and a couple of areas where the metal had not been finished after being cast. But since I sent the S&W back and not the Ruger I would have to give Ruger the edge in quality even though it looked rough in comparison.

When it comes to reliability the S&W has never failed. The Ruger was as reliable as a .22LR can be. I have not shot the M69 for the many thousands of rounds it takes to determine long term durability and at the 50-100 rounds every couple of months rate I shoot it probably never will.

If you reload how much does it adding a new caliber matter? Even though you already load 45 LC if you want to make some heavy loads for a Redhawk you will probably need different powder than you use for for light loads. And if you normally load soft cast bullets you will need some jacketed ones. If you typically experiment to find a load your gun shoots best you will need to do that with either caliber. What shoots best in a 45 LC SA cowboy gun might not be what shoots best in a Redhawk. If you get the .44 you do not have to worry about accidentally dropping some hot Redhawk only 45 LC reloads into a 150 year old Colt Army model. When I reloaded I did not find it hard to keep track of what reloads were for a specific gun but having the hot loads in a different caliber adds an extra layer of safety.

If I may, perhaps a S&W Governor would better suit your desires? I can't comment on the Redhawk. I only own the new 22/45 Lite.

I do own both the M69 and Governor and enjoy both of those immensely.

Since you mentioned reloading, for a range toy, the Governor is fantastic.

Thanks for all the valuble opinions guys. I know it seems contradictory to enjoy short barrels but not enjoy Magnum blast. Since this won't be a carry gun, looks matter. The Redhawk looks better than the 69 to me. I only prefer longer barrel with full underlugs. I don't hunt, and even when walking around here in South Georgia, I've never seen anything that a sammi spec Colt or 44 special wouldn't handle.
I consider the calibers pretty much the same in these guns. 45 ACP is ballistically equal to the acp, and 45 Colt can be loaded to 44 power in a S&W. That makes investing in a new caliber for reloading redundant unless there's a really good reason to go Smith over Ruger. I have handled the Ruger, and the trigger felt good on that particular gun. The accuracy of Auto doesn't bother me much either, as generally I'd be shooting Colt anyway. The auto would really only benefit me when I'm low on supplies for the Colt or shooting with a new or recoil shy shooter.
It sounds like I'm leaning towards the Ruger. But if Smith made a gun that did the same thing, I'd be all over it just because I prefer Smith's.

The 5" Redhawk weighs 13 oz. more than the 4.25" M69.

...For all intents and purposes, a pound. That's a lot of weight to add to a handgun if that weight is not to help soak up recoil from heavy loads. I've found it easy to try on a gun/rig combo in the LGS on Saturday and declare it "carry-able." It's another thing to do it M-F. For steady, heavy load use, maybe the Redhawk. For everything else including carry, the 69, IMHO.

Kaaskop49
Shield #5103

Based on everything you've posted it sounds like the Redhawk is the better gun for you, especially since you reload for those calibers but not .44. Personally I think it's the best looking DA revolver Ruger makes.

The weakness of the redhawk is its force cone. The Achilles heel. I wont post the loads that did it in. That would be negligent. But, if you buy store ammo and shoot conservatively, it may last to your children.
Bullet proof they aren't.

Pics before final cracks.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

Love the looks of this particular Redhawk. I cringe at the thought of shooting it with factory grips. The hump on the backstrap hammers the bone at the base of my thumb mercilessly.

There are very few (if any) after market grips that cover the "hump" that aren't very large and, for me anyway, uncomfortably bulky.

Regarding accuracy of the .45 ACP in the Redhawk ( Error | The High Road ) :

"As noted before, I worked with two of the new Redhawk Convertible samples, and several factory loads in both calibers.

In both samples, ACP accuracy ran from abysmal (13 inches at 25 yards with one load) to passable (2-3 inches with a couple others).
By & large, you may have to try several ACPs to find one the gun will shoot tightly.
Ignition with ACP clips has also been a reported problem.

Heavy (as in HOT!) .45 Colt loads are not fun to shoot with the rounded gripframe.
.45 Colt accuracy was good in both guns.

There's a full write-up in a Kindle eBook through Amazon.com if you have the ability to access it & want much more info.
Denis

Edited to add that you can't use Auto Rims in this gun & you can't use S&W clips.


Last edited: Oct 9, 2016
DPris, Oct 9, 2016
#7"

I know you said you didn't care about .45 ACP accuracy but posted the above for anyone else that might be interested.

I've gotten to the point in my shooting life where lighter/shorter (less than 6") guns get the nod. The Model 69 (with S&W 500 X Frame grips) is my go to handgun for range and field. But that is just personal preference based on my age/anatomy.

You seem to be gravitating towards the Redhawk -- I say go for it. If you don't like it, you can sell and chalk up the loss on sale as a rental feel and move on to something else.


FWIW,

Paul

I have a redhawk that stays in the safe rather than in the hills when I go as it is too heavy. I have a 45 Blackhawk with the acp cylinder. The acp cylinder beats the lc in accuracy. I will not own another 45 lc for fear of intermixing loads.

__________________
Front sight and squeeze

Owning both go with the Redhawk. I own both and no comparison.
Steve

I've owned both and much prefer the 69, but if all depends on what caliber and gun you want.

You are lucky!
The single action trigger on all five of the Redhawks I've owned could best be described as between bad and sucks.
Ruger makes some great guns but getting a decent trigger on many of them requires a trigger job/kit.

Jim

Same here.

Apples and oranges alright. Like a pickup truck and a sports car. They both serve a purpose but that purpose may be different. If a needed a truck/backup woods gun i could throw in with my gear and go I'd get the Redhawk. Load it pretty hot for bear duty. If you just shoot light loads and only need a range gun, no doubt I'd get the Smith. Have both and both serve a purpose. One is a tool, the other an instrument.

__________________
Go West young man..