Ruger Redhawk
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
What does /k/ think of the Ruger Redhawk?
>>30198523
much better looking than the Super Redhawk
>>30198523
Robust, accurate, reliable; simple, kicks like a bastard in .44. It is what it is, which is a strong, no frills wheelgun. I had a .44 Super Redhawk, and hardly ever shot it. It wasn't pleasant, but it could take .44 Mag +P+ flat nose hard cast lead rounds, which would punch through 18" of tree trunk and keep on going.
In .357, it'd be fun, and more manageable, esp with .38 SPL. In .44, it's just a miserable, abusive cunt that's bank breaking to shoot. If you reload, work up half loads for it. Otherwise, don't both with it in .44 unless you need a bear stopper.
The bisley hunter is sex
>>30198523
They work well, and last a long time.
They are good pistols.
>>30200029
*revolvers
>>30198582
>44 half loads
its called 44 special
>>30198582
Maybe you just weren't ready for 44 Magnum yet, alot more people than not aren't able to handle the recoil that well.
All that said, the Redhawk and especially the Super Redhawk, are heavier than its competitor the S&W 629 and I shoot my 629 all the time, no problems with pain etc etc, I also reload my ammo, a 240 grain lead semi wadcutter over 20 grains of Alliant 2400. Not a weak load by any means. Those reloads also only cost me 22 cents a round.
>>30200206
Not that guy but the Redhawk itself makes the felt recoil worse with the grip ergonomics and bore height. S&W revolvers are generally more pleasant to shoot because they were designed with magnum loads in mind, rather than adapting an existing design to a more powerful round.
>>30200264
>S&W revolvers are generally more pleasant to shoot because they were designed with magnum loads in mind, rather than adapting an existing design to a more powerful round.
that's exactly the opposite of what happened.
the .44 and the .357 magnum were adapted from the original .44 special revolver first made in 1908.
Ruger's Blackhawk and Security Six were designed from the ground up for .357 magnum, and the Super Blackhawk and Redhawk for .44 magnum.
>wrist bones mudered my family
I got to fondle one. Surprisingly light. But im not much on revolvers.
>>30200264
>Not that guy but the Redhawk itself makes the felt recoil worse with the grip ergonomics and bore height.
Have I stepped into the twilight zone? We aren't talking G31 vs P226 here.
Wanna talk about how S&W likes to shoehorn calibers into existing guns like the j and k frames?
>>30200264
>the Redhawk itself makes the felt recoil worse
That's because it's a DA magnum revolver designed to retain the aesthetics of SA non-magnum revolvers. The ergos really aren't correct for really hot magnum loads.
>S&W revolvers are generally more pleasant to shoot because they were designed with magnum loads in mind, rather than adapting an existing design to a more powerful round.
Nah. You literally have that backwards. And a GP100 will have significantly lower felt recoil than, say, a Smith 626.
>>30198523
I'm posses Ruger still hasn't made an 8 shot .357 version. Why are they just handing that part of the market to S&W? From what I hear their 8 shot revolvers sell fairly well, and I've even seen people using them as carry guns.
>>30201201
Taurus makes some too
>>30199995
>flattop with ring indents
>>30198560
No doubt there
>>30198523
I WILL MAKE A PREDICTION.
Since newer ruger vaqueros are made that cant handle "RUGER ONLY LOADS" now they'll eventually make new ruger REDHAWKS and Gp100s that can't take the robust loads they were once known for. Then they start having really great triggers in their flag ship guns and then eat shit and die like smith when they take up some new technology like microstamping and die the death smith and wesson did in the early 90s.
>>30203711
But, this just came out. A vaquero built on a super blackhawk frame in .44 magnum.
This lil fucker rules. I OC it everyday.
>>30204782
>A vaquero built on a super blackhawk frame in .44 magnum
I don't see it on their site. is it some kind of dealer exclusive thing?
are the grip frame and ejector rod housing steel or aluminum?
>>30204860
I think its dealer exclusive, I had to order it and have it shipped to me, none of my lgs could order it. Iirc steel.
The Redhawk is a really nice .44 magnum. I've shot one extensively. Even with the stock grips factory .44 mag isn't bad.
The Redhawk was designed to work around the issues folks were encountering with the Smith and Wesson Model 29 back in the 70's. Silhouette shooters were beating model 29s to death.
Downsides? The integrated trigger return spring/mainspring in the classic Redhawk is problematic if you want an advanced DA trigger job. That's about it.
>>30204938
Grip frame is steel, im pretty sure the ejector rod housing is aluminum.
>>30204782
Got to fire a buddy's once. Smooth as fuck
>>30204860
That's the "old" (not Old Model) Vaquero from the 90's. I have two. They're built on the same frame and cylinder size the Super Blackhawk enjoys. The Bisley Vaquero from that era was a great start for a custom revolver.
>>30203711
anon, they phased out the OM vaqueros in 05, I think we'd see this decline by now if your idea held any water.
Besides, the new vaquero aren't underbuilt just for the lulz. the new vaquero actually look and feel something vaguely like an SAA rather then just being a crossdressing blackhawk. vaqueros are for cowboy action guys in the first place, they're showguns not workhorses and authentic look and balance are more important to their intended clientele then the ability to eat boxes of bear loads
>>30204988
These are brand new models. Brand new meaning manufacturing date, not design date.
http://www.gunbroker.com/All/BI.aspx?Keywords=.44+magnum+vaquero
>>30203597
You miss the "hunter" part?
>>30201237
kek
>>30203597
>>30205146
I think he disagrees with your calling such a gun sex.
no offense but I do too.
>>30204782
I am unsure about 44 mag in short barrels. I know they have a ruger alaskan too but still unsure.
>>30205221
saw one of these at a big box store. 22lr/22mag
weird.
>>30205221
>>30205146
I guess some people just hav plebian taste when it comes to SA aesthetics.
>>30204953
>problematic
>>30198582
>He thinks .44 magnum is too much recoil
Maybe you just have bitch hands? .44 Mag is a fucking blast to shoot
>>30200264
That's completely fucking wrong though. Rugers were made super beefy to take super hot loads. There are "Ruger only" labels on some commercial loads for just this reason. Stop trying to pretend you don't have bitch hands
>>30205603
>Redhawk
>SA
Choose one and only one
I had a 7.5" redhawk. Nice gun, heavy as a mofo though. Ended up trading it for a 9mm auto.
>>30198560
>>30203612
Am I the only one who kind of likes the Super's aesthetics?
>>30205541
Unsure about what? The recoil?
>>30206620
Fuck no, i love them.
>>30206620
no you're not the only one with shit taste
>>30205686
The bisley hunter in pics abover are blackhawks you fucking trogg
