Bile
.30 Stingray
Posts: 244
|
Post by Bile on Sept 21, 2010 12:09:24 GMT -5
I had a 5.5" 45 Redhawk some time ago. After much research and fondling of Redhawks, I've determined that the 5.5 inch one is the one I want - blue if I can find one. Second in line is the 4.5 incher.
|
|
groo
.327 Meteor
I yet live!!!!
Posts: 855
|
Post by groo on Sept 25, 2010 17:00:30 GMT -5
Groo here I have a 4in that required the combined skill of 2 good smiths to make work and go off when needed.. There is some problem that the factory can't fix having to do with the casting ... just "sometimes" If you have one that fires ok fine if not ship it back for another...
|
|
jwc1
.240 Incinerator
Posts: 2
|
Post by jwc1 on Oct 6, 2010 21:25:42 GMT -5
By way of background, I have a 6 inch blued steel S&W 29, a 1980s vintage 4 inch S&W 629, a 1980s vintage blue steel Redhawk in .44 magnum, and a 4 inch stainless Redhawk .45 Colt. Having both S&Ws and Redhawks at hand, I have carried both and compared them as trail guns. Both of my Redhawks have good double action trigger pulls, different from a S&W but still nice. The 4 inch stainless steel Redhawk was purchased with a 5 ½ inch barrel before the days of factory produced 4 inch Redhawks. A top gunsmith converted it to a 4 incher, installed a new front sight, did an action job, beveled the front of the cylinder, and put a classy frosted finish on the stainless steel. I have about 1200 1995 dollars invested in this gun. It was intended to be my go everywhere and do anything trail gun. It is not. The first point I want to make about the Redhawk is that it is heavy. Mine weighs 48 ¾ ounces with Pachmayer grips installed. I have found no other grips that permit me to shoot the heavy loads that are the reason for having a Redhawk. My S&W 629 weights 42 ¾ ounces with Hogue grips installed. One would not think 6 ounces makes much difference, but I find the difference noticeable. The weight and bulk difference between the Redhawk and the S&W 629 are instantly apparent when I pick up both at the same time. Weight is not a good thing in a trail gun for two reasons. The first is the burden of carrying it. At the end of the day I notice the weight and bulk of the Redhawk, the S&W, not as much. Others may disagree, but that is my experience. The second reason has to do with the gun’s handling characteristics. Heavy and bulky is slow. You might want to read what John Linebaugh has to say about the effect of gun weight on handling characteristics in his article on why he carries a S&W 25 as a trail gun at www.handloads.com/articles/default.asp?id=12. You might also want to read Randy Garrett’s article on the use of revolvers as bear defense at www.garrettcartridges.com/031000.asp. If there is one thing the experts agree on with respect to bear attacks, it is that bears are fast. So are most other predators, else they would not be alive and successful at being predatory. You need good handling characteristics in your defensive firearm. Before you buy a Redhawk you owe it to yourself to do a side-by-side handling comparison with a S&W N-frame. My second point concerns reliability. Everyone agrees that Redhawks are strong. Indeed they are. Then there is the mental leap to the conclusion that because Redhawks are strong, they are reliable. Not so! Reliability and strength are two different considerations. Inside the Redhawk is a part called a Hammer Link, Part Number KHO6900. This part connects the trigger assembly to the mainspring. The gun cannot be fired when this part is broken. Both of my Redhawks are on their second hammer link. In both guns this part broke with no warning with under 1000 double action cycles on the gun. Ruger will cheerfully send you a new part and replacement is not difficult, but still, I would not be comfortable carrying these guns anywhere but to the range to play with as range toys. I have read many Redhawk discussions on various forums and rarely have I seen this reliability problem mentioned, although a google search on Redhawk and Hammer Link will turn up some corroboration for my claims. This lack of discussion puzzles me. Perhaps my experience is a statistical outlier. Nevertheless, it is my personal experience that Redhawks are not reliable. Perhaps Hammer Link breakage only happens if one stresses the part by shooting double action and it does not occur if one shoots mostly single action. I don’t know as I bought my Redhawks to shoot double action. When I want to shoot single action I use one of my Ruger Super Blackhawks and I don’t worry about reliability. In this regard however, in his video about advanced revolver shooting, Jerry Miculek advocates putting the end of the trigger finder at the bottom of the trigger for double action shooting. This is impossible with the Redhawk because of its radically curved trigger. Perhaps Ruger never intended the Redhawk for extensive double-action shooting. I am old enough to remember when the Redhawk first came out, and I recall discussion that it was a hunting gun, and at that time hunting with a revolver was usually done single-action. The idea that the Redhawk is primarily intended for single action use is, of course, merely speculation on my part. You might want to think about why Redhawks are not used in the revolver class for USPSA where good handling characteristics and reliability are highly valued. When I go into the woods, the gun that goes with me is the S&W 629. The Redhawks guard the insulation in my attic under the Christmas Tree ornaments I don’t use anymore. The S&Ws do not have the brute strength of the Redhawks, but they are easier to carry, handle well, and are reliable.
|
|
Bile
.30 Stingray
Posts: 244
|
Post by Bile on Oct 7, 2010 17:39:56 GMT -5
jwc1, thanks for the post. It was interesting and disturbing at the same time.
I just picked up another Redhawk, this one a 7.5 inch 45 Colt. I bought it because of its strength. I want a gun I can shoot with full tilt 45 Colt+P loads without worrying about it rattling loose. Most of my shooting will be single-action, but I like the idea that it can be fired double-action in an emergency.
Your post has caused me to give some thought to what you describe as the gun's weak link. I will need to research this apparent problem. I must admit that this is the first I've heard of that problem, or the notion that the Redhawk was unreliable (once the misfires were taken care of).
It's kind of funny, but I relegate my M29 to light stuff, like range and target shooting, and the Redhawk to rough country hunting. Just the opposite of you. I guess a little ignorance on my part has gone a long way - maybe the wrong way.
The "weak link" issue should be brought up as its own topic so others can weigh in on it. It will likely get lost in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by salmonriver on Oct 14, 2010 7:41:21 GMT -5
Like all modern revolvers ,we would like every aspect to be perfect, straight from the factory. We know such is not the case. But that's where a handgunner begins. The pleasure is in the refining , the tweeking, the search for the sweet spot. If it were otherwise it would only be mechanics, CNC would have solved it all. So enjoy the search. The Redhawk is a wonderful platform to build on. Shape your own personal best from one and it will be a pleasure to you from now on.
|
|
natec
.240 Incinerator
Posts: 13
|
Post by natec on Oct 27, 2010 18:30:35 GMT -5
When I carry a handgun in the woods, a 4" redhawk is what I usually carry.
I load 335gr WFN from Leadheads, with CCI350 Primers and a full charge of WW296. This load chronographs at over 1200 fps from my gun, and will group under 2" @ 30 feet from a standing position if I do my part.
Mine is relatively new, with only about 1000 rounds of ammo through it so far. I have not had any trouble. I'm still using the stock hogue grips.
|
|
razor
.327 Meteor
Posts: 523
|
Post by razor on Dec 3, 2010 12:41:40 GMT -5
Do they still make the 5 1/2" barrel length? I would love to have one.
|
|
|
Post by redhawk44 on Dec 13, 2010 16:02:55 GMT -5
|
|