SRH vs. RH

[charliesapbdc]

I have read several posts on various websites wherein people were discussing super redhawks and redhawks.   
To a person they say one of the differences is weight with the Redhawk being lighter than the Super Redhawk, and visually it looks that way.  
However, the ruger website lists the 44 mags. with 7 1/2" barrels at 54 oz. for the redhawk and 53 oz. for the super redhawk. 

I am asking for opinions from owners because I do not trust manufactures published weights.  For instance, Magnum research's published weight for the BFR with a 5 1/2" barrel in .500 JRH is 4.85 lbs or 77.6 ozs. On one occasion I called the factory and the guy said that 4.85 lbs was correct.  I called several weeks later and asked another guy the same question and he said 51 oz. which is 3.2 pounds.

Does anybody know the real figures for the SRH vs. RH?   

[Encore64]

There is very little difference between the the weight of a RH or SRH. My 500 JRH weighs 52 ounces I believe.

[Deleted]

My '82 stainless 44 mag Redhawk with a 7-1/2 in. barrel weighs 3 lbs, 3.7 oz.

[Quick Draw McGraw]

My .44 Mag SRH is 54.81 oz, and my .454 SRH is 54.25 oz. Both have 7.5" barrels.

On a BFR note, my 6.5" barreled .475 Linebaugh is 55.16 oz, and the 5.5" barreled .500 JRH is 51.38 oz.

I weighed them on a scale myself. I hope this is helpful. I sadly do not own a standard RH.

[dmize]

I own both. The trigger on the SRH more than makes up for any weight differences with the RH.

[edk]

The Redhawk may be the looker but the Super seems to be easier to do an action job on and to get to shoot more accurately. Many also find the Super's grip frame less punishing.

[Deleted]

The only grips I've ever found that even remotely fit my hand is the factory "splinter" grip. I spent a fortune on exotic Hogues, only to find out they simply don't work for me. Neither do any of the Pacs, or Uncle Mikes. I can get a decent trigger on a Redhawk, but not a great one.

[CraigC]

People 'think' the SRH is heavier because it looks heavier but looks are deceiving. There is really little to no difference. And in general, they are barely heavier than a comparable Bisley. My 7½" .480 SRH weighs one ounce more than my .44 Bisley of the same length.

[Alaskan454]

I worked over a 7.5" 44 SRH for my Dad (model 5501), his came in at 53.1 oz on my scale. As some have said the SRH is a better gun if you can get over its looks. The last one I shot put up some tiny groups at 100 yards:

[whitworth]

Sorry for the lousy photo, but aside from the grip frame and the frame extension, they are the same revolvers. I much prefer the grip frame of the SRH over the Redhawk as it is infinitely more tunable.

[neb]

The SRH was the gun that got me into handgun hunting. It is a great revolver capable of tremendous power and accuracy. I let mine go because it is so darn big. I found the size with scope to be similar to a TC, which is more flexible and more powerful (for that matter I found the Savage Striker to be a perfect hunting machine that was only marginally more cumbersome than a SRH). My opinion is the SRH feels heavier than the RH because it is not as balanced. The SRH frame extension and grip frame stud make the gun more muzzle heavy in my hands. Whitworth's photo shows the thing that I have a hard time with on a RH. Notice the "hump" at the top of the backstrap? That thing whacks the hell out of the web on my hand. Gary Reeder has a gripframe modification where he takes the hump down to reduce the whacking of your hand. Whitworth is right that the SRH's grip frame stud makes tuning grips to your hand easier. However, if you are into exotic customizing then the RH is a better choice in my opinion. Take a look at Bowen's and Reeder's RH customs and you will see what I mean. With that said, if Ruger decided to make a SRH in 5.5" without the Toklat slab side barrel, I might have another one. A 5.5" SRH would be very flexible where you could scope if for hunting and then carry it unscoped on your belt for regular revolver duties.

[whitworth]

Jun 1, 2017 13:48:31 GMT -5 neb said:

The SRH was the gun that got me into handgun hunting. It is a great revolver capable of tremendous power and accuracy. I let mine go because it is so darn big. I found the size with scope to be similar to a TC, which is more flexible and more powerful (for that matter I found the Savage Striker to be a perfect hunting machine that was only marginally more cumbersome than a SRH). My opinion is the SRH feels heavier than the RH because it is not as balanced. The SRH frame extension and grip frame stud make the gun more muzzle heavy in my hands. Whitworth's photo shows the thing that I have a hard time with on a RH. Notice the "hump" at the top of the backstrap? That thing whacks the hell out of the web on my hand. Gary Reeder has a gripframe modification where he takes the hump down to reduce the whacking of your hand. Whitworth is right that the SRH's grip frame stud makes tuning grips to your hand easier. However, if you are into exotic customizing then the RH is a better choice in my opinion. Take a look at Bowen's and Reeder's RH customs and you will see what I mean. With that said, if Ruger decided to make a SRH in 5.5" without the Toklat slab side barrel, I might have another one. A 5.5" SRH would be very flexible where you could scope if for hunting and then carry it unscoped on your belt for regular revolver duties.

Huntington built this .500 Linebaugh for me on a .454 SRH and it was a great piece. Accurate beyond my expectations and it actually weighed two ounces less than my 6 1/2-inch Model 29!

[wtf]

Now, THAT ^^^...
is a well-taken picture!
Beautiful beast of a revolver!
-Bill