Ruger Super Redhawk, best for heavy .44 mag loads?

[rep308]

I like to shoot heavy 44 mag loads and am looking for a double action revolver to use. I've got a S&W 629-5 Hunter that I've been using and am looking for another gun to play with. A quick look around the web leads to the Ruger Super Redhawk.

I don't know much about the Super Redhawk, I own and like the couple of GP100's I own. Are there things like with Smith and Wesson revolvers that seem to get people twisted up like MIM parts or this version is better than that one?

New Ruger Super Redhawks with a 7.5" barrel seem to run about $950 and I'm good with that. What is the combined wisdom of the people of NE Shooters? This will be for range plinking and hopefully a pig hunt once I work out a good load.

 

[DW357]

I had a 7.5" super redhawk and loved it. I also shot tons of warm 44 mag loads with no issues. I had Dave Santurri do a trigger job which made it even more fun/accurate.

The one thing I didn't like about it was the appearance. If Ruger would only make a beefed up looking GP100 in 44 mag, I would buy one in a heartbeat. But I sold the super redhawk to get a Dan Wesson 44. Which reminds me, don't you have DW in 44? Or was it 357? Certainly can't go wrong with DW's when it comes to warm reloads - as you already know. But aside from the looks, you won't be disappointed with a super redhawk.

 

[92G]

As usual I'm w Andrew on this. I owned a super redhawk but couldn't stomach the appearance. ended up getting rid of it. the internal design of the super redhawk is identical to the GP100, just scaled up. to me this is a good thing, as both designs employ separate springs for trigger return and hammer. it's superior (at least to me) than the more traditional redhawk design. the smaller tang grip system of the super redhawk isn't the most attractive, but it does make recoil very pleasant compared to a redhawk or other steel tang designs.

in terms of 44 mag i have settled on the S&W 629 and the newer model 69. if ruger comes out w a 5 shot GP100 in 44 mag (not the ridiculous 44 special) then I would be interested there. i personally don't have any need for nuclear 44 mag loads. if i needed serious horsepower I would just opt for a .460 or .500.

that being said, if you choose to go with a ruger super redhawk i think typical retail prices are too high for that gun. it's not worth $900+. i got mine used for like $650 and sold it for around the same. these guns are built so stupid strong i would look for a used one and put the extra $$ into a nice holster or ammo.

 

[dcmdon]

In short, until Smith and Wesson starts building .44 mags on the X frame revolvers, the Super Redhawk is the toughest DA .44 magnum around.

On a functional level it would make a great choice.

Don

 

[dcmdon]

deleted

 

[92G]

A 6" .44 mag loaded with heavy loads will be lighter and far more shootable than a snub nosed X frame in .460 or .500. It seems to me to be a better choice all around for a bear gun. Unless you were willing to step up and carry a 5 lb (!!!!) 8" barreled X frame.

Ruger Super Redhawk 44 mag 7.5" = 53 oz

S&W 500 S&W Magnum 6.5" barrel w comp = 60.7 oz

they're both bricks.

in contrast, the S&W model 69 is 37 oz and can handle hot 240gr loads no problem. the crazy hot 300gr stuff i'm not inclined to test.

 

[rep308]

Thank you for the inputs here. I have a bunch of revolvers but don't feel comfortable beating the heck out of them. I'm not looking for a carry gun. I have a couple 44 mags and all the reloading stuff. The look of the Super Redhawk if fine by me.

I've shot the SW 500 but in the words of Harry Callahan "A mans got to know his limitations."

I'll start looking, and thanks for the pricing comments.

 

[greencobra]

pig hunting....i guess you'll want a super redhawk to mount a scope. my opinion, a super rh with a scope is a big, clunky handgun besides being ugly as all sin. my money goes with the regular redhawk. both guns are strong as tanks, you really won't be able to kill 'em, but the regular redhawk is maybe the best big bore revolver made today. they make one in 454/.45 colt. that 454 casull is some serious big boy fun.

 

[dcmdon]

Ruger Super Redhawk 44 mag 7.5" = 53 oz

S&W 500 S&W Magnum 6.5" barrel w comp = 60.7 oz

they're both bricks.

in contrast, the S&W model 69 is 37 oz and can handle hot 240gr loads no problem. the crazy hot 300gr stuff i'm not inclined to test.

Thank you for the correction. I did not realize the SRH was so heavy. I'll delete/change my earlier post.

 

[Squire]

I shout the 340gr Buffalo Bore +P+ in my SRH. I don't think they fit in S&W cylinders.

http://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=54

 

[Strawdog]

If it must be double action the Super Redhawk is hard to beat. Personally for ascetics I like the Redhawk better, but then I'd choose the Super Blakhawk over either anyday.

 

[Asaltweapon]

I know you said revolver but...

If you reload experimenting with a T/C Contender in .44 is a hoot. Some of the loads I sent down that barrel really barked and I would have never considered doing that to a revolver.

 

[Rmccar4318]

Ruger Super Redhawk Alaskan in .44. Now that's fun!

 

[ccm75]

I have both a Blackhawk and Redhawk in .44 mag.
Love them both. The BH was made in 1974 and has had 6 rounds through it.
They are both great guns; cant go wrong with a Ruger.

 

[marleythefish]

I have a 9.5" super redhawk that i have shot since the 80's. i'm not concerned about how it looks, in fact its unique look is appealing to me. its strength and accuracy are my focus. by varying my load i can accomplish everything that a rifle can do inside of 200 yards, farther in some cases.I shoot 180 gr loads to 330 gr. i do not load light rounds, Many of my loads would destroy a 629. this revolver in all of those years with thousands of heavy rounds through it has never needed repair of any kind, i do have some minor topstrap flame cutting, i have destroyed a few scopes,(burris has never let me down, dont bother with simmons, bushnell ect)) but it still shoots straight. its the one gun that i would never sell.

 

[dhuze]

I have both a Blackhawk and Redhawk in .44 mag.
Love them both. The BH was made in 1974 and has had 6 rounds through it.
They are both great guns; cant go wrong with a Ruger.

I have a Super Blackhawk and have shot my brothers Super Redhawk. I like the double action better and told him if he sold it I wanted it. He sold it, but not to me, the bastard. Actually he traded it for another firearm with his friend.

 

[whacko]

If it must be double action the Super Redhawk is hard to beat. Personally for ascetics I like the Redhawk better, but then I'd choose the Super Blakhawk over either anyday.

Am I the only one that thinks the super redhawk looks like a redhawk with a chubby?

 

[dcmdon]

Every once in a while Ruger releases a non-super Blackhawk in .44 magnum.

Remember, the frames between the regular and super are the same. Its fully capable of taking "ruger only" .44 magnum loads.

The non-super is lighter because of an aluminum extractor housing and usually a non-steel grip frame. If you are looking for a .44 for more carry than shooting with heavy loads, the non-super in .44 magnum might be another choice.

Or for the same weight, get a longer barrel for better external and terminal ballistic performance.