Yep, that’s what I think about Redhawks. In my view, for the money, they are the best production DA revolver there is. After using a pair for over 15 years now and having tried most everything else in .44 Mag, that is my conclusion. This is not a condemnation of the other fine magnums we all know. On the contrary, the S&Ws and DWs are very nice, finely machined shooting instruments in their own rights, but I believe that if we put sentimentality aside, the Rugers have an undeniable edge when it comes to being all-around better guns. I know, this will ruffle some good folks but I’m discussing the merits of unmodified D.A. revolvers. Just out-of-the-box, heavy duty double-actions, not single-action revolvers or expensive custom jobs. Lets look at the facts, good stuff first:

Strength & Ruggedness:

These guns look overbuilt and they are. They were engineered from the ground up to take unlimited firing of full power .44 Magnum ammo. They are definitely built to last; every part is massive for its purpose. Numbers? Here it is: the barrel is .91 inch wide at the frame and tapers to .75 " at the muzzle, the top strap is .725 inch wide and .272 inch thick. The cylinder, at 1.78 inch diameter, is bigger and with thicker chamber walls than most custom 5-shot, high-pressure .45 or .454 conversion cylinders. The bolt locking notches are offset from the center of the chambers leaving more metal at the point of highest pressure.

The cylinder uses a 2-point lockup system: in front, the crane locks up in a mortise in the front of the frame. At the rear, a 1/16^th inch stud fits in the frame. A stronger lockup system simply does not exist in other DA revolvers except maybe for Dan Wesson and Taurus. The Custom Shop S&W .44s now come with a ball detent in the crane; this is definitely an improvement but it is still nowhere near as strong as the Redhawk’s arrangement.

The currently popular Colt .45 +P loads (various models of 300 gr cast slugs at +1250fps) were developed mostly in Blackhawk and El Dorado revolvers having a cylinder strength of about 85% that of a .44 Magnum Super Blackhawk with its 1.73 inch cylinder diameter. We said earlier that the Redhawk’s cylinder is bigger, at 1.78 inch. So, given that these .45 Colt loads produce less than 32,000 psi, and that the .44 Mag is rated at 43,500 psi by SAAMI, and that the Redhawk .45 Colt models use the same steel as the .44s, the cylinder certainly has the strength to allow unlimited use of any loads at the 32K level with total safety.

With double wall solid-frame construction, this gun will not stretch or ever shoot itself loose. The cylinder gap is usually right at .003 or .004 on most samples I looked at. The timing is correct: in slow DA firing the cylinder locks in well before the hammer falls and the rotational play is very minimal. You can double-action fire a Redhawk with full power ammo all you want; you will go broke before it wears out. To all the above features add the hardest rust-resistant stainless steel on earth and you will agree that as an all-around outdoorsman gun, the Redhawks are unbeatable.

Accuracy

Redhawks are pretty accurate out of the box but some barrel lapping and good handloads will bring the best out of this gun. Both mine will shoot under 2 inches at 35 yards with several loads and my old eyes. I’m sure that there are dozens of other loads that shoot just as well or better; I just haven’t had the inclination to find them all once I worked up a couple of good recipes. I once watched my 19 year-old son, with his perfect 20/10 vision, shoot three 2-litre soda bottles in a row, off of a target frame at the 100 yard line at the range. The load? A very common Winchester 240JHP / 25gr of W296 / Fed. 155 Mag primers. This was done using my old 71/2 inch Redhawk. Now, if that is not an accurate revolver I don’t know what is.

Other .44s will certainly shoot as good as this, perhaps better, but will they last as long with full power ammo? I’d have to see it to believe it.

Replaceable front sight combos:

Ruger sells a kit of various color plastic front sights if you want to replace the regular red insert one. I do not care for them at all. I have had a couple of those sights shear off completely from recoil. Fortunately it happened at the range where mishaps do not cost you your life.

Their best front sight replacement option is a very nifty combo: brass bead front and V blade with a white vertical bar for the rear. Cost? Less than $15. The V blade is not the greatest for long distance shooting on a revolver but for fast work inside 10 yards, it is unbeatable. I truly believe that a 5 ½ inch Redhawk with that setup and 6 rounds of LBT 320gr WFN is the ultimate self-defense combo against any grizzly. Many will scuff at this statement as just being gun magazine b/s, but if you roam the Rocky Mountain wilderness long enough you will see the light. In true self-defense-by-surprise situations your finger coordination goes away and it is much easier to just pull the trigger than to thumb cock anything while coping with heavy recoil.

Many other guns have replaceable front sights but none offer a factory combo V blade for the rear….another plus for the big Ruger.

Grips and Recoil Management

The standard Redhawk needs a firm grip with heavy loads, but it is far more comfortable to shoot than any single-action revolver. At least for us guys with big paws. I find the grip shape and size a tad small but they seem fine as is for most men. Human hands come in an infinite variety of sizes and thanks to our great capitalist economy there are tons of after-market handles available for those who need a variation. Single-action grips look great but are usually too short and skinny…the Super Blackhawk has long been noted for being a knuckle rapper with just regular power loads, with 320 gr loads it is not pleasant at all. Which is why the Bisley grip frames have become so popular both for normal pressure loads and for the hard-kicking 5-shot .45 /.454 / .475 conversions. S&W’s Goncalo Alves stocks were always beautiful to look at but oddly shaped for most people and, unless sanded down, the sharp checkering was hard on your skin with full power loads.

The Super Redhawk is even better: the extra weight up front combined with neoprene grips helps absorb recoil even better. With regular ammo (240s @ 1300 f/s) it is a real pussycat, no worse than shooting a M27 .357 Mag. With good hunting loads (300s @ 1350 f/s) the Super R. is still fun to shoot; less so with the standard steel grip model. Even the mighty .454 Super R. does not kick all that bad compared to a Casull, and when you’re done shooting there are no pesky frame screws to tighten up….

Workmanship:

The outside finish is OK but it is always rough inside the cylinder window

There is a "readme file" on the barrel

The grips are usually not fitted quite right

Most samples need 350 rounds to smooth out the trigger and 100 rounds of fire-lapping to erase the constriction in the barrel where it screws in the frame.

Ruger could do a lot better in all the above but then the price of the guns would match S&W and Dan Wessons…

Weight:

Yes, the Redhawks are rather heavy but that is the price to pay for a controllable DA magnum revolver. I’ve carried mine enough that I do not really notice the weight anymore.

Trigger pull:

I admit it, compared with an older M29 or Dan Wesson, it’s usually plain awful on a brand new gun. Kinda long and a little creepy…you have 2 choices: smooth it out by shooting a lot or pay someone to smooth it out for you. I opted shooting mine a lot and never felt I had to spend money on a trigger job. A sear and trigger with large engagement surfaces is a blessing in disguise: the shot will go off when you decide you want it to, not by surprise. This makes for a safer gun.

I decided against including a table of loads because (1) .44 ammo has been covered from every angle already and there are tons of recipes in the current loading manuals, (2) accuracy depends a lot on the shooter, so showing my loads and my groups proves nothing at all: you could shoot much better than me or far worse….who cares?

I can think of 4 things. I believe the market would respond well to:

A 4 inch model in .44 Mag. and .45 Colt with a titanium unfluted cylinder for lighter weight and cool looks.

Higher quality barrels with smoother bores.

Chambers that are a bit tighter, especially in .45 Colt. I have seen some with chambers that gauged up to .489 when they should really be .482 or less.

Re-introduce the .357 Magnum in the standard Redhawk but with a titanium cylinder. That would reduce the weight a bit and make for a wonderful gun for those nice 180gr loads that really bring out the potential of our little magnum.

That pretty much covers it for this great revolver. I do not know what surprises Mr. Ruger may have in store for us but I have a feeling that the Redhawks, in whatever variation, will remain in production for a long time to come.

Guy Boivin