Redhawk vs Alaskan?

[Three-Fifty-Seven]

Howdy!

I'm looking for another carry gun . . . I like the Ruger Super Redhawk Alaskan which has the stubby 2.5" barrel . . . But I see that they also make a regular (not Super) Redhawk that has a 4.2" barrel which weighs six oz more . . . is there a difference in strength between the two?

Price is the big thing that I see . . . ! (other than barrel length and grip)

[Mk42gunner]

See if you can find one of each version to handle, (and maybe shoot), before you buy. I had a couple of 5.5" Redhawks in .44 Magnum, they balanced better for me than either the 7.5" barreled Redhawk, or any version of the Super Redhawk available then. (This was twenty years ago).

Balance makes a huge difference in what is comfortable with handguns, as does holster availability.

Robert

[Ed K]

Carry gun? My 5.5 Redhawk weighed more than I wanted to carry. I switched to a S&W mountain gun for almost a 10 oz savings. Still, if you need the power carry what you feel you have to.

There is a strength difference but practically only in that the Super can be chambered for 454 and 480 - the std. Redhawk can take all any hot 44mag has to dish out.

There is a huge difference in the grip between those two. I'd strongly suggest you put one of each in your mitt before deciding - even better if you can shoot them.

[jwp475]

I had a Redhawk rechambered to 454, and never experienced a problem. Andy Cannon I believe was the first to rechamber them to 454. The Redhawk is a very strong revolver

[Three-Fifty-Seven]

I at times carry my 357 mag 6.5" Blackhawk all day, which is heavier then either of these, but it is harder to hide that long barrel . . . I normally carry a SP101 w/3.0625" barrel, I forget it is there . . . Bigger hole is better for me . . . and I bought this group buy Mihec H&G #503 Cramer Style Hollow Point mold, and have nothing to shoot it in . . . :smile:

But that is a good Idea to go find one of each . . .

I also woke up this morning, and remember that I have a friend (yes I do!) that I use to go to church with back east . . . and he just happens to be a engineer for Ruger on their revolver line . . . So I just sent him off an email before getting on here with the same question . . .

I like the Alaskan by looking at the specs . . . especially the short stubby 2.5" barrel! I have read many favorable reviews on it.

[Three-Fifty-Seven]

Shawn,

The Super Redhawk is allot different from the Redhawk. The Super has the new strut and trigger guard assemblies as the SP and GP. The Redhawk is more like your Security. Because the Redhawk has the older design, the trigger can tend to be a little smoother (similar reasons that you prefer your Security). The Super was designed as a hunting gun originally and most (not Alaskan) have scope cuts on the frame, which tend to be a little more accurate than on the barrel, similar to the Redhawk. The materials are all similar and they use many of the same raw components.

Larry

[Whitworth]

I had a Redhawk rechambered to 454, and never experienced a problem. Andy Cannon I believe was the first to rechamber them to 454. The Redhawk is a very strong revolver

Yes indeed -- I am having one built here pretty soon. Going to put a leftover .454 cylinder from a Super Redhawk into a Redhawk.

[anachronism]

Shawn,

The Super Redhawk is allot different from the Redhawk. The Super has the new strut and trigger guard assemblies as the SP and GP. The Redhawk is more like your Security. Because the Redhawk has the older design, the trigger can tend to be a little smoother (similar reasons that you prefer your Security). The Super was designed as a hunting gun originally and most (not Alaskan) have scope cuts on the frame, which tend to be a little more accurate than on the barrel, similar to the Redhawk. The materials are all similar and they use many of the same raw components.

Larry

Nonsense. The Super Redhawk has the more modern action and it is much easier to tune than the std redhawk. Also, the Alaskan will be the lighter of the two because of the abbreviated grip frame. The Std version outweighs the Super by an appreciable amount. I've had similar versions of both styles and am well aquainted with their differences. Now I only buy Supers. I'm after performance, not pretty.

[Three-Fifty-Seven]

Nonsense. The Super Redhawk has the more modern action and it is much easier to tune than the std redhawk. Also, the Alaskan will be the lighter of the two because of the abbreviated grip frame. The Std version outweighs the Super by an appreciable amount. I've had similar versions of both styles and am well aquainted with their differences. Now I only buy Supers. I'm after performance, not pretty.

I think you need to re-read what my friend wrote . . . he did say that the Super was the more modern design . . . also remember that my friend is a Ruger engeneer, and must only give out the "Ruger view" on tuning. The 4.2" barrel Redhawk is 6 oz more than the 2.5" Alaskan . . .

I went to two different gun shops today . . . drove 283 miles! The only places that I could find that each had one gun . . . (Nobody had both guns in stock!) I really like the feel of the Alaskan!:mrgreen: The grip is too short on the Redhawk, and the back strap is exposed, which I don't care for . . . and I like the stubby Alaskan . . .

[Lloyd Smale]

Super is probably a bit stronger and like was stated a bit easier to tune but a regular redhawk is a stout gun itself and someone that knows what there doing can easily bring the trigger down to 3 lbs and lighten and smoothen the da pull without the gun being unreliable. My 4inch redhawk 44 mag can be loaded to near 454 ballistics and the 45 colt redhawks can be loaded to those levels safely too. Ive got a 454 alaskan and its a cool gun but even though im one that likes my barrels short i have to admit that the 4 inch redhawks are much easier to hit with in the field then my alaskan is. The weights are very simular. Both are about to heavy to really be a comfortable all day carry gun in a belt holster. The alaskan makes a good protection gun if you believe in that **** but the 4 inch guns are much better hunting guns. Power wize at least for me its about a toss up. My alaskan will run 350 grain bullets at about 1100 fps maybe 1200 before brass gets so sticky that i wouldnt want to bet a fast reload on it. My 4 inch redawk will push 320s to 1300fps easily. I guess to me the only thing the alaskan has that is a benift is the grip is much more comfortable with heavy loads. the 4 inch gun with wood grips will let you know you just shot a gun!

[Three-Fifty-Seven]

What I took from my friends message was that the older line Redhawk comes from the factory a tad smoother, like the old Security Sixes did . . . no doubt that a good tuner can make either finer!

I really liked the feel of the Alaskan in my hand! My wife had seen pictures on line, and called it "cute", while in the store I handed it to her, and she said "WOW, it's big!"

I'm planning on starting out with the mold I have . . . which will be about 255 - 260 gr with ww . . . gonna try to keep them in the 1000-1100 fps range, should be plenty for the two legged critter I hope I NEVER have to shoot!

There are a couple on gun broker, and the one at the first shop I went to . . . Sportsman's warehouse was the second place, and they only have four in any of their stores, all in AK, and their policy is to not ship them from up there . . . maybe I'm just being cheap, trying to save a $100 - $150, but that local gun is $950.19 OTD!

Soon I should own one! Now I need to find some brass . . . :D

[Bear4570]

Just picked up a Like new used 4" Redhawk in .45 colt @ $500. It shots my Kieth load of 18.5/2400 great but even loves the Lee 310 GC bullet over 23 gr of H110 better.

I have no desire to shot anything bigger or badder than that load in this gun.

Can't wait till deer season this year. It will probably replace my 5.5" .44 Redhawk.