Redhawk vs Super Blackhawk

[Thumbcocker]

Is there any significant difference in accuracy between run of the mill examples of these two models. Anything to check or watch for wit the Redhawk?

[jeo22]

I have a Redhawk .44 Mag. for about 29/30 years now and love it. I've put may thousands of rounds threw without a hitch.
It came with Ruger's intrical scope mount on the barrel and rings. I have shot it with a 2X leupold , but prefer the Williams fire sights these days.
It balances a little different from the Super Redhawk , a friend of mine has one and I have shot it ,but like my Redhawk better, but that's just me, nothing wrong with either one.

[dualsport]

I've heard the Redhawk is stronger than the Super Blackhawk but don't know for sure. My old 7.5" SBH is able to hold about 3" at 50 yds. with me holding. I'm a little shaky.

[dubber123]

Barrels made by the same company, I doubt you will find much difference other than the normal sample to sample variances. I find the SBH more comfortable with heavy loads.

[44man]

Only thing I found long ago between the RH and SBH was the RH preferred H110 over 296 but the SBH wanted 296. There was a tad of burn rate difference long ago even though they are the same powders.
I never liked the spring setup in the RH and prefer the SRH or SBH for trigger work.
The RH is super strong.
I shoot hunting loads and my old SBH has well over 76,000 heavy loads through it. I would not worry about either. The standard diet of my SBH is a 330 gr boolit at 1316 fps. Drop in the bucket for a RH.
My choice between the two is going to be the trigger.
Every SRH I shot would do 1/2" at 50 yards with NO trigger work at all. SBH needs some. RH will drive you nuts. Great gun but one spring for both hammer and trigger doesn't buy it for me.

[jonp]

I have owned both. Other than the obvious double vs single action trigger pull I did not notice much difference. For some reason I prefered the super bh but I can't tell you why.

[44man]

Barrels made by the same company, I doubt you will find much difference other than the normal sample to sample variances. I find the SBH more comfortable with heavy loads.

Ruger makes their own barrels and have for a long time. BFR uses Badger barrels. Rest of the gun is cast by Ruger's pine Tree facility.
Ruger had trouble long ago with using other barrels so they make their own. MUCH BETTER.

[Fergie]

I own a 5.5" Redhawk, and owned 10.5" SBH.

While the the SBH had a much longer site radius, the damn thing was too heavy for what I liked. The RH on the other hand is a revolver that I do not mind shooting every time I take it out.

Aside from shooter skill, I saw no difference in accuracy given what the two pistols were.

[Thumbcocker]

The Redhawk I bought was made in 1985. Should be in later this week.

[denul]

I got a 7.5" Redhawk when they first came out, decided the long barrel wasn't for me, had a good friend in gunsmithing school cut her down to 5.5", and they very day I got it back, Ruger announced the 5.5"version! Still have it and like it; it does have a heavier barrel than the factory 5.5, because of the slower taper of the 7.5". I prefer the Redhawk to the SBH, or the Super Redhawk, but I still really like the SRH in 480.

[jeo22]

The Redhawk I bought was made in 1985. Should be in later this week.

Mine was made around that time, I put a spring kit in it from Brownells back then and have never had any problems.
Kit comes with 3 or 4 different springs, same spring operates the hammer and trigger. Switched them around tell I found the one that felt the best and am still shooting it.

[DougGuy]

I have owned the same 7 1/2" .44 Magnum SBH for nigh 25yrs. It was always accurate with j-words and put more Bambi in the freezer than any other single firearm I own.

For shooting cast, you need to check a couple of things and may need to even out the cylinder throats, and size your boolits accordingly but with that little amount of work, a recut 11° forcing cone and a poor man's trigger job, you will have one of the most accurate and consistent single action revolvers made.

[rintinglen]

IME you are slightly more likely to find a good shooting SBH than a RH, but I prefer the feel and double action of the RedHawk. I don't like the Super Redhawk--it's just to heavy, but a scoped gun belonging to a friend of mine is outstandingly accurate

[Hunter]

I have both as well and though I have not been able to tell much difference I too prefer the Super Blackhawk. Even with the adjustable sights and only 2 clicks when cocking the hammer I still feel a little like a cowboy when I shoot it.
I know that is a bit silly but it is the truth.

[dh2]

I've heard the Redhawk is stronger than the Super Blackhawk but don't know for sure. My old 7.5" SBH is able to hold about 3" at 50 yds. with me holding. I'm a little shaky.

my Super Blackhawk is in 454 Cassull I do not see how it could not be stronger

[DougGuy]

Who build your .454 SBH? Pics maybe?

[Cornbread]

Who build your .454 SBH? Pics maybe?

I second these requests. A five shot, 454 on a super blackhawk frame is a personal "have to have" for me eventually.

[MT Gianni]

I had a S&W 624 and a SUper Blackhawk. I Picked up a 5.5" Redhawk for a song and soon sold the other two. The Redhawk outshot the S&W by quite a bit, the BHawk was no longer needed.

[9.3X62AL]

My Redhawk "history" is much like Gianni's. I bought mine (5.5", blued) in 1999, and it soon displaced a S&W 6" and Super Blackhawk 7.5". I do admit to a bit of hankering for a 4" Model 29 of some sort, and for one of the Bisley BHs in 44--but the current Redhawk does everything I need a 44 caliber revolver to do. If a revolver stays with me for 15 years, it does things well and works in a variety of venues.

[historicfirearms]

After a 629, SBH, SRH, and 4" RH, I've settled on a 5.5" RH. Very accurate and solid as a bank vault.