bougth a new ruger today

[Lloyd Smale]

just put in an order for one of the new 44 redhawk 4 inch guns.

[No_1]

Looks like you need to update your order for .44 cal gaschecks on the gb website : http://groupbuys.dnsalias.com/login.asp

Ooops, was that a shameless plug?

Robert

[mtngunr]

Ah maht jes hev to git me one'oh dem.....

[Lloyd Smale]

They should be a sweet lead thrower and it will go good with the 480 redhawk dustins linebaugh is building me.
Ah maht jes hev to git me one'oh dem.....

[mtngunr]

I had a 7.5" stainless gun, well-liked enough I had Mernickle make me a shoulder rig for it, but in the end, it was too much a boat anchor.....maybe the compact boat anchor will please me.....what's bad is that I call it a boat anchor pull your pants down special, but what I like about the gun is its overengineered massiveness.....

[9.3X62AL]

If ever a hunting revolver needed a set of sling swivels, it would be the Redhawk. Mine is a 5.5"/blue, and it's a CHUNK.

[45r]

I have a 45 redhawk and I love it.Very accurate and built like a tank.Best revolver for the money I ever bought.After getting a trigger job and overtravel screw put in it and a little firelapping it is everything I want in a double action 45 colt.It is a little heavy but that is good when shooting full power loads in a 45 colt.I bet you will like a 44 mag very much also with the shorter barrel.I'll be great for belt carry and not loosen up for a long time if ever.I bet Ruger will sell a lot of them.Too bad they don't make more 45 colts redhawks.The 45 colt will do anything the 44 mag will do with less pressure and surpass it with 300 grain and heavier bullets and kick a little softer IMO.The 44 redhawk does have the advantage of using 44 special and probably shoot keith swc bullets well with hardly any kick.If they put fiber optic front sight with express rear v-notch I on some of them I'd be very tempted to get one myself.

[Cayoot]

I've been thinking hard on this one myself Lloyd. I'll be looking forward to you expert opinion and evaluation. I've been wanting one for my springtime jaunts in the woods, when the bears are feeling frisky and grumpy. (Acutally, that's just an excuse...I just want it.) I don't have a .44 and I'm caught between this and a 4 inch S&W 629.

Bary

[mtngunr]

Having several .45 Colts laying about, bear medicine wouldn't be a good excuse.....the several thousand .429 and .430 SWC's I have cluttering my shelves ought to be, though, as since Big Red left, I've been without a .44.....

[9.3X62AL]

Performance and recoil-absorption are NOT a complaint I could ever make about the Redhawk, not at all. I chose it over another S&W 29-series specifically because of its strength and ability to soak up recoil energy. Physics offers no free lunch, and its laws offer no plea bargains either.

I no longer shoot Special calibers in Magnum revolvers. Life is too short to clean crud out of the chambers, and I have both 38 and 44 Special revolvers to accomodate the calibers. To me, the S&W 41 and 44 Magnum revolvers remain comfortable to shoot all day to about 1200 FPS with their "standard" bullet weights of 210 and 240 grains respectively. Elmer Keith knew whereof he spoke. If you plan to run lots of rounds well past those intensities, the Redhawk might be a better option. I bought mine ~12 years ago, and I was still in ThunderGun/LightUpHillsideAtDusk mode to some extent at that time. I have run 240 grain JSP's and Lyman #429244 WELL PAST 1400 FPS, and the Ruger soaks them up like clockwork. I shoot a few of these each time the Redhawk goes out, and the emptied cases get refilled with something a little less intense nowadays. #429421 at 950-1000 FPS feels about like a 158 grain +P load in a K-38 when fired in a Redhawk. That Ruger REALLY tames the 44 Magnum.

[mtngunr]

Now, I am the exact opposite, Al.....I shot Big Red exclusively with .44Spl brass and loads....cleaning is only a chore if you try to use the Mangle'em brass....if I were to get one, it'd be mainly a special Special platform for mild-to-medium loads of 800-1000fps.......I don't think I own any magnum brass, except for that picked up in error at the range......

[9.3X62AL]

OH--"Big Red" was the SIDEARM, not a "significant other". I was in "Waksupi mindset", equating "Big Red" to Ric's "Woolly Mammoth". Sorry for the misunderstanding. Yer right, the long brass does complicate things in the long-chambered cylinder formerly fired with shorter brass.

[Lloyd Smale]

I guess Bary id put it this way. Id never in a million years sell my 629 to buy a redhawk. They are both completely differnt guns to me. I can see no use in running light loads in a redhawk 44. There heavy stout guns made to perform. If i was going to run 250s at a 1000 it would be in a smith. This new 4 inch gun will probably see a steady diet of 300s. In all reality i needed it like a hole in the head. Ive got 5 other 44 mags allready that cover all of my bases. But i just got the hankering to play with a 4 inch one. So much that a even have dustin linebaugh building me another 4 inch redhawk in 480. That one will be a bullet lobber though. Ive allready got 475s to push so that redhawk will see 400s at 1000 for the most part.
I've been thinking hard on this one myself Lloyd. I'll be looking forward to you expert opinion and evaluation. I've been wanting one for my springtime jaunts in the woods, when the bears are feeling frisky and grumpy. (Acutally, that's just an excuse...I just want it.) I don't have a .44 and I'm caught between this and a 4 inch S&W 629.

Bary

[mtngunr]

Nope, Al, my ex DID clean out the house when she left, but she KNEW not to touch the guns, as she knew that was the one thing I wouldn't tolerate.....
Lloyd, if'n I get one, it'll be because I know I'll be able to shoot .44 Specials through it for my entire lifetime and it probably never have to be repaired....I just can't say that about late-1800 designed S&W's, revised internals or not, it's still a revised 1890 design, somewhat Rube Goldbergish of lockwork complexity.....while the Ruger was designed in modern times from the ground up to endure and be as simple as possible......nothing has the class or shear shootability of a good Smith, but if you want a gun to last and last, some other designs might be the ticket.....

[wills]

OH--"Big Red" was the SIDEARM, not a "significant other". I was in "Waksupi mindset", equating "Big Red" to Ric's "Woolly Mammoth". ...

Do your retirement benefits cover treatment for that?

[9.3X62AL]

I'm trying to recall what the doc said......."W/M isn't treated, it's managed". Yeah, that was it. Marie has said something very similar about me, many times.

[Bass Ackward]

Funny how we look at the same thing from different vantage points.

The trend today in everything is lighter / shoter / smaller. Hell I missed a shot at a yote last weekend because I had my 329pd on. I just watched him move through thinkin I wish I had a gun. Forgot I had it.

I guess I am old fashioned. I .... like .... heavier guns as long as you can get your hands around them. Guns that lay out. I can't see long sight radiuses anymore, so I need to go with a heavy frame and a shorter tube. For off hand work a heavier gun can't be beat, handgun or rifle. Much easier to hold steady / aim / shoot than a light gun.

That's why I want a 4". Then I will probably sell my 7 1/2.

[Lloyd Smale]

I agree with you totaly. Nothing points better to me for shooting off hand then a heavy single or double action with a 3 or 4 inch barrel. Lots of guys like the longer sight radius but ive allways shot short guns more then long ones and thats probably why i do better with a short barrel. I guess what i look at with the weight is that a gun is packed alot more then its shot in the brush and a tad lighter gun hangs on the belt better. To me anyway a 44 has no real recoil so the weight advantage in that dept doesnt matter. Both of my 500 linebaughs wear 4 inch barrels not because im a glutten for punishment but because i shoot them better and i can pack one all day and hardly know its on my hip. Ive definetly got my opions on what a hunting handgun should be and the first requirement to me of a good hunting handgun is that it has to be able to be packed in a belt holster. No slings or bandelaro hosters for me. I guess the appeal of the 4 inch redhawk is three fold for me. First and foremost its chambered in the best dammed revolver round ever made. the 44 mag and second its stout enough to take the biggest 44 loads a guy can create and third its still compact enough (but barely) to be carried all day in a belt holster.

[9.3X62AL]

400 grains at 1000 FPS.......almost a 45-70 in a holster. Wheelguns have come a LONG way in my lifetime.

[Lloyd Smale]

Al the 4 inch 500s will push a 450 to 1300 fps easily and combine that with the fact that bullet technology has come a long ways since the old buffalo hunters shot the big bores and you have to realize that the handguns today are EVERYTHING that the guns the hunters used to wipe out the bison population years ago and if a guy wants to step up to an even bigger gun like a smith 500 or linebaugh max it leaves them in the dust. I allways laugh when i watch the old cowboy movies when the cowboys hide hehind a rolled over wagon or on the other side of a wall shooting out the window. If a guy would have known about hard cast bullets back then they sure would have changed there tactics! I wouldnt want to stand on the other side of my house with someone shooting a 500 or 475 at me!!

[Bass Ackward]

Early scuttle butt says that these new ones are built a little .... better. The claim is that the trigger pull in both single and double action has improved dramatically without the loss of spring force. This was the biggest complaint about Redhawks and why everyone wanted to combine the best features of both it and the Super.

So we are faced with a dilemma here. Either pay the premium of a newly launched revolver and get a better built gun or wait until the production hammer falls to get these out the door in quantity and the go back to normal operation.

Decisions, decisions.

[Lloyd Smale]

buds gunshop has them in stock for i think $530 and i got mine dealer cost for 515 so i dont think your ever going to see them get much cheaper then that.
Early scuttle butt says that these new ones are built a little .... better. The claim is that the trigger pull in both single and double action has improved dramatically without the loss of spring force. This was the biggest complaint about Redhawks and why everyone wanted to combine the best features of both it and the Super.

So we are faced with a dilemma here. Either pay the premium of a newly launched revolver and get a better built gun or wait until the production hammer falls to get these out the door in quantity and the go back to normal operation.

Decisions, decisions.

[45r]

don't believe you can't get a good trigger on a redhawk.it is harder but can be done and mine is very good.i took it for a walk through my woods today and shot a woodchuck with it and the so called bad trigger didn't help the woodchuck.i shoot mine alot and don't worry about it wearing out.i can lean against a tree sitting and shoot 3 inch groups at 50 yards easily.the 44 mag is a great gun in a smith and redhawk but to me the 45 colt is the best in a redhawk.bigger hole and less pressure.9.0 grains power pistol and 270 saa is only a 20,000 psi load and very accurate.take a 300 grain gc and push it with enough h-110 or lil gun to reach 32,000 psi and it will out perform a 44 mag at 40,000 psi with 300 grain and heavier bullets and kick softer. the 45 redhawk can come close to 454 casull performance.a four inch 44 mag redhawk will make a great carry gun but the 45 colt was and still is the best revolver caliber.i don't know why people want 475 and bigger when a 45 can shoot through bears,moose,elk,buffalo etc.guess we need another gun in a caliber we don't already have.don't mean to insult anybody,just my 2 cents worth.

[Lloyd Smale]

I guess the same argument can be made to as why bother with the .45 when the .44 will do the same. I have both .475s and .500s and have taken game with both and will allways have one. Ive got 41s 44s and 45s but if I had to get rid of them all and keep just one it would probably be the .44 mag. But what fun would that be!
don't believe you can't get a good trigger on a redhawk.it is harder but can be done and mine is very good.i took it for a walk through my woods today and shot a woodchuck with it and the so called bad trigger didn't help the woodchuck.i shoot mine alot and don't worry about it wearing out.i can lean against a tree sitting and shoot 3 inch groups at 50 yards easily.the 44 mag is a great gun in a smith and redhawk but to me the 45 colt is the best in a redhawk.bigger hole and less pressure.9.0 grains power pistol and 270 saa is only a 20,000 psi load and very accurate.take a 300 grain gc and push it with enough h-110 or lil gun to reach 32,000 psi and it will out perform a 44 mag at 40,000 psi with 300 grain and heavier bullets and kick softer. the 45 redhawk can come close to 454 casull performance.a four inch 44 mag redhawk will make a great carry gun but the 45 colt was and still is the best revolver caliber.i don't know why people want 475 and bigger when a 45 can shoot through bears,moose,elk,buffalo etc.guess we need another gun in a caliber we don't already have.don't mean to insult anybody,just my 2 cents worth.

[Ricochet]

I guess the same argument can be made to as why bother with the .45 when the .44 will do the same. I have both .475s and .500s and have taken game with both and will allways have one. Ive got 41s 44s and 45s but if I had to get rid of them all and keep just one it would probably be the .44 mag. But what fun would that be!Perfectly fun. I stopped with the .44. :-D

[45r]

I stopped with the 454 casull and don't need any more fun than that.the 44 mag is a great caliber and a fine fit in a smith.got two,gave one to my son and put lots of deer meat in the freezer with em over the years.if I had to pick just one it would be a 454 casull in the model 83.it can shoot about as flat as a 30-30 and hit about as hard as 45-70 and can be down loaded to shoot as soft as a 44 special.it will shoot small groups and last a long,long time.it can shoot 45 colt also with another cylinder and be even more versatile or scrub away with chore boy to remove lead before shooting 454 casull ammo, if another cylinder isn't wanted.I'm glad we don't have to make a choice like that.i would be real sad to have to part with my other revolvers.they have become addictive the more i shoot em and get better at hunting with em.drawing a bead on a target or critter with a good revolver is always fun for me.like seeing big holes em too.if you get used to a 454 casull then everything else doesn't kick hard anymore.makes the 44 mag seem like a ***** cat.I like the 45 and 44.its just the 45 has more power in guns that can handle it when you shoot 300 grain and heavier bullets.the 45 colt can handle 360 grainers easy and the 44 would also but not be as powerfull.thats an area where the 45 is better IMO.saying a 44 will do the same as 45 is like saying a41 will do the same as 44.great caliber also but not as powerfull.

[Lloyd Smale]

I dont think the statements here say that the 45 isnt more powerful then the 44 or the 475 isnt more powerful then a 45 but that there isnt an animal alive hit by a 300 grain bullet out of either and hit right that isnt going in the freezer.

[mtngunr]

I dont think the statements here say that the 45 isnt more powerful then the 44 or the 475 isnt more powerful then a 45 but that there isnt an animal alive hit by a 300 grain bullet out of either and hit right that isnt going in the freezer.

My .45's do anything I want, even out of the SAA-sized gun, as I generally don't exceed 1000fps out of any of them, finding a 250-280gr bullet at such a velocity completely adequate for anything where I live.....most my loads are closer to 900fps and are more than enough for the larger game here'bouts, the larger game being deer and wild hog......we have black bear, panther, bobcat, 'yotes, feral dog, and occasional two-legged varmints, and I feel the SAA-safe .45 Colt loads plenty effective for any of them, should need arise........but, the .44/.45 debate is fairly moot, both offering much the same performance and only a slightly different way of getting there in strong modern guns......the .45 will do the same as a .44 in a strong gun like a Ruger Blackhawk, and do it at less pressure with a larger diameter bullet of true .45cal vs. .43cal......the .44 will do the same as a .45, and do it with less powder, while offering increased penetration with equal weight bullets due to smaller frontal area.....so, the "debate" centers around picking either bigger-hole/lower-pressure/more-powder, or big-hole/increased-penetration/less-powder........it all depends on what's important to the shooter and what platform they are launching bullets from............the debate is double-moot to me because I'm not looking for maximum anything......I actually look for minimum..........that's where a SAA-sized gun in .45 Colt shines......you just can't design a smaller/lighter gun that throws that fat a piece of lead at that velocity, while still being comfortable and controllable for most shooters.......the same SAA-sized gun in .44 Special is another critter entirely, being heavier and actually more powerful by virtue of thicker cylinder walls allowing higher velocity of equal weight yet smaller diameter bullets, but at the cost of increased recoil, and it is in that sized platform (SAA/N-frame) ONLY where the .44/.45 debate has any merit due to real differences in terminal ballistics.................if I'd started off with a .44 Special SAA, I'd probably still be a .44 fan.......but I started off with a .45 Colt......still doesn't stop me from wanting another good .44 Special launcher, though...........

[Ricochet]

Nope, I didn't say the .44 Magnum was more powerful than any .45, or would "do anything you can do with any .45." I just said I'm perfectly happy with the .44 Magnum and stopped there. :-D

[Lloyd Smale]

nothing wrong with that. Ive come full circle in my life. I started with 44 mags and went to 45 colts and still own and shoot a pile of them. I went to the real big bores and still own and shoot alot of them. But imo when it comes to push and shove and someone pinned me down id say the 44 mag is my favorite round. It basicaly does what the 45 colt will with sane loads and ive never had one in a factory gun that needed any work to make it accurate and that i cant say about the .45 rugers ive had. Dont get me wrong ive had a couple good ones but more have been out of spec then right. Easy fixes for the most part but if i had to walk into a gunshop and point to a gun and say that one will shoot it would probably be a .44. The big bores are fun but the .44 will do 90 percent of what they will and do it with very little recoil. Funny thing is i look in my safe and i have customs in about every caliber but 44 mag other then a couple i did work on myself. Allways thought it was because i liked the 45 better but come to realize that most of my 44s are workhorses and there the guns i usually grab when i do most of my hunting and want to do some serious long range shooting and i guess I just never saw a need to make one real pretty as pretty is as pretty does!
Nope, I didn't say the .44 Magnum was more powerful than any .45, or would "do anything you can do with any .45." I just said I'm perfectly happy with the .44 Magnum and stopped there. :-D

[Dale53]

I started with the .44's and remain a fan. I've killed several deer with both my Model29 S&W 8 3/8" with scope and Ruger Red Hawk 7.5" with scope. The Smith has a better trigger but the Ruger, being stainless, goes with me when the weather is bad. BOTH are fine revolvers and after many thousands of shots are still as tight as when I got them.

Both shoot really well and I have no complaints. The Ruger required quite a bit of work (taking it apart and putting it back together, again) before I got the trigger like I want it. It is now plenty good enough for "serious" work as well as target use. The Ruger appears to be a lot stouter, but, seriously, how strong do you need? Strong enough, is just that, strong enough. The S&W's that I have seen get loose and rattly have just been stressed too far. Everything has a limit. If you work at it , you can blow up the Ruger or wear it out. My criteria for the .44 magnum is a 240 gr at 1300-1400 fps. 1200 will shoot through a deer end for end and what more do I need. All of my deer have been killed within 100 yards (one at about ten yards). It shoots flat enough and certainly has power enough for what I want to do.

If I need more power, I can use the Lee C430-310-RF GC. I can get 1300 fps out of the Ruger. I have only killed one deer with this bullet and it did a "bang up"[smilie=1: job but frankly, the Keith 240-250 does all I need doing on a deer.

Again, enough power is really enough power...

Dale53

[Navahojoe]

I call it the "Best of Both Worlds. :-D I own and enjoy shooting one of each. A .44 Mag Super RedHawk, 7 1/2 Barrel and a 45 Colt, Black Hawk, 5 1/2 inch barrel. Wouldn"t want to lose either one.
regards,
NavahoJoe

:castmine: so I can :Fire: