Redhawks

[castmiester]

I recently found a Redhawk 7.5 inch barrel 44 mag, blued in excellent shape $535 with body holster. Even though I'm bifocal, is there better than factory sights I can add on to shoot better ?

I don't think this pistol will move any time soon, but if it does it does..... I have 180 days on the permit.

[cwtebay]

I put a red dot on my father's SBH a while ago, he loves it with his bifocals.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

[castmiester]

I put a red dot on my father's SBH a while ago, he loves it with his bifocals.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

watching a you tube vid, easy easy !! Guy put on a Delta, any good ? What brand do you recommend ?

[cwtebay]

watching a you tube vid, easy easy !! Guy put on a Delta, any good ? What brand do you recommend ?

It is a Holosun. I don't recall the model.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

[castmiester]

It is a Holosun. I don't recall the model.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

Handloaded accuracy ? Factory ammo..... wondering about cylinder, barrel/frame set up. GUess it's a typical Ruger set up and needs work.

[cwtebay]

Handloaded accuracy ? Factory ammo..... wondering about cylinder, barrel/frame set up. GUess it's a typical Ruger set up and needs work.

Apologies - put the Holosun on his Henry. The red dot is a Vortex. His is a stock 357 with a 6" barrel. I've cast and loaded for it for a number of years now. I had to buy a mounting kit for it, but other than me fiddling with it getting it sighted in - and notching his holster - it's been problem free.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

[castmiester]

Apologies - put the Holosun on his Henry. The red dot is a Vortex. His is a stock 357 with a 6" barrel. I've cast and loaded for it for a number of years now. I had to buy a mounting kit for it, but other than me fiddling with it getting it sighted in - and notching his holster - it's been problem free.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

Bit pricy

[cwtebay]

Bit pricy

It was around $400 for the mount and sight. I only have one Dad though!

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

[castmiester]

found them cheaper and Vortex is awesome VIP guarantee !

[contender1]

Earlier Redhawks do have interchangeable front sights, in different colors. Then they also had a "V-notch rear blade,, and a gold bead front" that many enjoy.

Then,, there is the Ronnie Wells/Fermin Garza rear sight insert. They DO make a difference. (RW Gripframes, out of Texas.)

But a red dot is also a good option. Shooters choice.

But as for "guess it's a typical Ruger & needs some work" statement. The blued Redhawks will be one of the older ones. So far,, all the older ones I've shot did not have ANY issues that needed work.

[castmiester]

Earlier Redhawks do have interchangeable front sights, in different colors. Then they also had a "V-notch rear blade,, and a gold bead front" that many enjoy.

Then,, there is the Ronnie Wells/Fermin Garza rear sight insert. They DO make a difference. (RW Gripframes, out of Texas.)

But a red dot is also a good option. Shooters choice.

But as for "guess it's a typical Ruger & needs some work" statement. The blued Redhawks will be one of the older ones. So far,, all the older ones I've shot did not have ANY issues that needed work.

I was just getting ready to start another thread, about throat, groove bullet fit, and barrel thread/frame tension…. So older models don’t have any of those issues? Accuracy of the older ones are a lot better than newer ones?

Do you go along with this ?

The barrels of some Redhawk revolvers had separated at the junction between barrel and frame. The cause of the barrel separation was not known at the time, nor why it had not occurred before, since the Redhawk had been on the market since 1980. Ruger initially addressed the issue by introducing a new receiver design, lengthening the frame 2.5 inches past the cylinder face to the end of the ejector rod. The new design greatly increased barrel support.

Should l be concerned about the one l’m inquiring about? Guess l could ask for the serial number and run it by Ruger.

[Sasquatch-1]

I have a duplicate of what you are looking at. I put a reflex red dot. You will need to get the mount for the Red Hawk.

[Thumbcocker]

I have handled, shot and loaded for 2 different older Redhawks. Both were quite accurate with good loads.

[brokeasajoke]

I have this one on my Taurus 44

This one is for Ruger I think.
https://www.jackweigand.com/Ruger-Re...-No-Drill.html

[Bigslug]

I want to say my 5.5" stainless was a child of the 1990's. I fire-lapped some frame crush out of it shooting the lapping rounds through a couple chamber throats that were a little tighter than the others. Same story on my 1993 SBH.

Sights are going to be a preference issue based on your own optical defects. Red dots deal with a lot of those. My preference for irons has become to black everything out entirely - the gold beads, tritium dots, and fluorescent outlines just blow out in halos and I can't clearly tell where the top edge of the sight is. . . unless I roll up on my bifocals/progressives which ain't exactly "tactical".

[contender1]

Ok, you've asked for my personal opinion.
My first Redhawk,, was a .44 and scary accurate. I still have targets in my files where I shot 6 rounds,, at 50 yds, from a rest, with a scope. the entire hole was one hole, and measured less than an inch outside to outside. More than once,, so it wasn't a fluke. IMR 4227 powder & Hornady 240 JHP's.
Yes,, I do believe the older ones are accurate & do quite well.

Barrel separation with the Redhawks.

I'm the very first person this happened to. I was told this by Ruger,, and they were very puzzled as to WHY it happened. Over time,, there have been a FEW more have this happen. LOTS of time, money, engineers scratching their heads, etc over the cause. They THOUGHT it was a weak point where the frame & barrel met. So, the first thing was they built the Super Redhawk thinking it would fix the problem.
It took over 4 years,, but they finally discovered it wasn't the design, or a weak point. It was due to how a few had been assembled. Apparently, during assy,, one or maybe two of the assemblers would take a rack of barrels,, and apply the necessary lube to all of the rack at one time. Then begin the assy. At that time,, Ruger also did a twice a year shutdown of the plants for maintenance & such. Once in July & once at the end of the year. This two week shutdown was linked to the production schedule of some Redhawks. Apparently,, the lube used,, when allowed to sit exposed to the air for 2 weeks,, changed properties enough to cause a "stress torque" when the barrels were screwed to the frames. Some failed,, and some haven't. But once they discovered that,, and changed lubes, as well as not leaving any out for extended periods,, problem solved.

The serial number won't tell you if it was one of the ones like this. But it was actually very few.

And if you wish,, give me the serial number in a PM,, and I can give you the year it was made. Even the Ruger factory web look up can be mistaken. I use a different guide,, known as the more accurate "Red Eagle News Exchange Reference Guide."

[Larry Gibson]

I recently found a Redhawk 7.5 inch barrel 44 mag, blued in excellent shape $535 with body holster. Even though I'm bifocal, is there better than factory sights I can add on to shoot better ?

I don't think this pistol will move any time soon, but if it does it does..... I have 180 days on the permit.

If you don't mind having two holes D&T'd in the top strap for a Weaver base this is how I mounted a Burris fast fire on my Ruger Bisley. Same can be done on your Redhawk.

[castmiester]

Ok, you've asked for my personal opinion.
My first Redhawk,, was a .44 and scary accurate. I still have targets in my files where I shot 6 rounds,, at 50 yds, from a rest, with a scope. the entire hole was one hole, and measured less than an inch outside to outside. More than once,, so it wasn't a fluke. IMR 4227 powder & Hornady 240 JHP's.
Yes,, I do believe the older ones are accurate & do quite well.

Barrel separation with the Redhawks.

I'm the very first person this happened to. I was told this by Ruger,, and they were very puzzled as to WHY it happened. Over time,, there have been a FEW more have this happen. LOTS of time, money, engineers scratching their heads, etc over the cause. They THOUGHT it was a weak point where the frame & barrel met. So, the first thing was they built the Super Redhawk thinking it would fix the problem.
It took over 4 years,, but they finally discovered it wasn't the design, or a weak point. It was due to how a few had been assembled. Apparently, during assy,, one or maybe two of the assemblers would take a rack of barrels,, and apply the necessary lube to all of the rack at one time. Then begin the assy. At that time,, Ruger also did a twice a year shutdown of the plants for maintenance & such. Once in July & once at the end of the year. This two week shutdown was linked to the production schedule of some Redhawks. Apparently,, the lube used,, when allowed to sit exposed to the air for 2 weeks,, changed properties enough to cause a "stress torque" when the barrels were screwed to the frames. Some failed,, and some haven't. But once they discovered that,, and changed lubes, as well as not leaving any out for extended periods,, problem solved.

The serial number won't tell you if it was one of the ones like this. But it was actually very few.

And if you wish,, give me the serial number in a PM,, and I can give you the year it was made. Even the Ruger factory web look up can be mistaken. I use a different guide,, known as the more accurate "Red Eagle News Exchange Reference Guide."

I remember years ago of a barrel flying off the frame and the guy got a new pistol and a complimentary pistol too. How long ago did they rectify the issue with the lube? At least I can see from your data of serial numbers if it's safe to buy this pistol. The shop who has it said it just came in recently. How long did it take for barrels to separate ? Right away, days, months, years ?

Serial number........ 501-73410. 1987 per Ruger. The 500 series had issues. But what say you ?

[castmiester]

I have this one on my Taurus 44

This one is for Ruger I think.
https://www.jackweigand.com/Ruger-Re...-No-Drill.html

Any work done to the cylinder, fire lapping, etc...?

[20:1]

Scope mounts first, I recommend Wiegand "Wiegatinny" no gunsmithing mounts and mount to the original front & rear sight mounting locations. You don't have to drill any holes, and you can revert back to factory sights whenever/if ever you choose to: https://www.jackweigand.com/Ruger-Re...-No-Drill.html

Here's a shorter version that only mounts in place of the rear sight: https://www.jackweigand.com/Ruger-Re...ini-Mount.html

For an illuminated red dot you might consider an Ultra-Dot, which has been very popular with those who do a lot of handgun hunting. I hear they hold up to the hard kickers really well.

If the RH you're looking at has been in even light to moderate use since 1986, when it was made (not 1973) the barrel most likely would have already been replaced had it been defective. I've only had direct information of perhaps three of the defective guns, but the power of the internet multiplies that sort of information to an infinite level. One person posts one incident, perhaps ten people repeat it elsewhere, that another 10 people repeat it elsewhere, and suddenly it's all over the internet that a thousand people have had this happen. And all this comes from a single report that just keeps getting repeated and remultiplied. I have a very early three-digit S/N Redhawk, and it still has it's original barrel, plus I've owned over a half dozen of them in all calibers over the millenia and I've never had an issue. YMMV. As Contender said, it was only a very few, and it was quite awhile ago. Remember how long ago the SRH was introduced. I also have only heard about this affecting stainless Redhawks, but I haven't heard all of the stories.