Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Anyone else drooling over the new 4" SS Redhawk in 44 mag?

This is a new catalog item for Ruger this year. It's in the 2007 catalog. I've never owned a .44 but have a 5 1/2" .45 SS RH I really like. I'm told by buyers that it won't be as hard to get as the Alaskan in the .44 + calibers.

I think it will be one sweet carry gun for multiple uses. It comes with soft Pachmayr grips.

Any news on production or distribution ETA' s?

By the way, there isn't a whole lot of new stuff from Ruger on the handgun front - but let me tell you, I handled the new Hawkeyes at a distributor show and they are really nice. Matte silver bolt, matte blue barrel and receiver - soft recoil pad and great trigger. Stock and checkering changes too.

But, this .44 is a gotta have in my book. A mountain gun you can actually shoot the bejesus out of with no worries. And to think I was going to get another GP in a 4" this time...

TM

I can't wait to see one.

I think even with a 4" barrel the Redhawk is still too heavy. I killed a 21.5lb gobbler with a 7 1/2" Redhawk (at 60 yards) in my younger days.

I want to finger print one up myself, but it would be to heavy to carry much I think. John

I was wondering about that myself.

According to Ruger's website, a 7 1/2 Redhawk is 53 oz, 5 1/2" is 49 oz, so extrapolating from there one can figure a 4" should be right around 46 ounces. By comparison a 6" GP100 is 45 ounces, their 2" Super Redhawk is 41 ounces, same as a 4" Smith 629.

So, not a Mountain Gun by any means (39 oz), but certainly not a boat anchor either, and after some 34 years with .44 Magnums I'm not averse to an extra ounce or two in a revolver so chambered.

I'm quite anxious to see this new Redhawk myself. A 4" barrel carries real well and 46 ounces isn't too much in a good holster with a wide belt supporting it.

The SRH Alaskan is just too darn short in the barrel for a .44 Magnum whereas this 4" Redhawk should be a very versatile outdoors sidearm. Here's hoping it sells well enough that they bring it out in .45 Colt as well.

I have a Redhawk 7.5" .41 (Keith) that is accurate, but sort of a club regarding handling qualities for me. The 5.5" handles well for me and is something I much prefer.

The balance (for me) is either there or it isn't. I really don't know what to say about this handgun because of that, but I'd greatly enjoy trying it out!

(I do use a .44 now and then .... ) <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif" alt="" />

I have 5 1/2" Redhawks in both .44 and .45. I would probably get a 4" Redhawk just for fun. Might be a better carry gun.

It really should be a nice item.

I'm looking forward to getting one. I've go the 5-1/2" but I like the 4" barrel like on my 629 better. On another forum I go to a couple of people made their own 4" Redhawks and they are nice. More proportional. One even tried a holster for the 629 and at least in that particular model it fit like a glove. you might check out this report from Jeff Quin over on Gunblast. http://www.gunblast.com/Ruger-Redhawk4.htm

Nice article, thanks. I like the .44 for the shorter barrel and availability of full power factory loads. I have to reload for my 5 1/2 inch .45.

TM

To answer the question . . .

No, not drooling. The SRH is a GREAT gun, no two ways about it. But it is a bit "clubby" for me. Its really a Hunting Handgun for full house loads and long barrels. I don't see it as a "carry gun."

I bought a 629 instead.

BMT

+1

Just last week.....4in. (629-6).

BMT

This is a regular Redhawk not a super (SRH). I never warmed up to the Super and wouldn't have one. The Redhawk on the other hand is one of my favorites. It's still a big honker, but I like it for that.

TM

10-4. BMT

I have a 629 Mountain Gun, and a P&R 4" 629. I *WILL* be picking up a 4 inch Redhawk.

Stoked with Garrett ammo, or equivalent hamdloads, I can't imagine a better hog gun.