What would be your choice for a 4", 45 colt, DA/SA revolver? Price is about the same, the Ruger is about 7 ounces heavier, but the Ruger can take stouter loads.

Appreciate your thoughts.

If you intend to shoot it a lot especially with heavy loads I'd get the Ruger. I have wanted to have one of each and think the 7 ounces would make a difference out in the field where the S&W might be the better choice. I think the S&W lists for about a $ 1,000.00 and the Redhawk is a couple hundred dollars cheaper.

Same vote here, the 7 oz will be appreciated if you shoot a lot of heavy loads.

I love my Smiths, and, I love my Rugers as well. That being said, I had the same choice to make a few weeks ago. I have a 629 Smith 2 1/2" snubbie, and it is a very nice gun, but, they are not appreciative of hot loads. I wanted a 5" barreled 29/629 Smith, but, I wanted a gun that would handle the hot loads all day long without a whimper....and, I was not going to ruin a good Smith in short order by beating it to death with heavy loads. My Ruger Super Blackhawk can handle the top end loads with ease, but, I had my heart set on a double action, and, if I wanted to take the 44 magnum to the limit (beyond the abilities of the Blackhawk) in a handgun, there was only one of those two brands that would do it safely...the Redhawk. I bought a pristine, used, blued 5 1/2" (which was the barrel lenght I preferred), that was made in 1997, and sold new in 2000. It was a one owner gun, and shot very little....It cost me 500.00 out the door! The Redhawk will allow you to take the 45 Colt to the limit of its capabilities, and if you want a handgun that can be used for the largest of game, the Redhawk...or a Super Redhawk would be the way to go. The Smiths are a bit more expensive, and they are truly a "thoroughbred" as far as revolvers go, but the Redhawk is a tough as nails workhorse with a proven record. If you can live with "standard" 45 Colt loadings, then the Smith would be your choice.

Carry it a lot, or shoot it a lot?

I'd surely love to have either......

Carry it a lot, or shoot it a lot?

I'd surely love to have either......

unfortunately, I have less chance to do either as much as I'd like.

I have a SW in 44 mag that can shoot a hole in a quarter from 20 yards. But, I have a hankering to see what the 45 colt can do and I like the 4" barrel.

Tending towards the Ruger as I do not have a Redhawk.

hot loads are not necessarily an accuracy aid.. better to make a good hit with an standard load than several near misses with dynamite rnds..
thats just the conclusion i came to when comparing quick reaction accuracy at the range.. but to each his own.. jmo slim

I think you will be happy with the Redhawk, its my favorite Ruger Revolver, and I own pretty much every style of Ruger revolver. I'm currently looking for one a lot like Flat Top's, a blued 5 1/2" .44 Mag. One of the best looking and strongest DA revolvers on the market.

I have a Smith Mountain Gun in 45 Colt. Have in the past had a Ruger Redhawk. Both are very nice guns. The Smith is fun too shoot and carry. Never felt the need to hot rod loads in it. Have done that in a couple Rugers just to see.

Don

I'd get the Redhawk. I have one in 41 magnum, and it has shot groups as small as 2" at 100 yds with T-Rex killing loads. Their strong as a bankvault and don't cost a fortune.

Definitely the Ruger.

I got my Mountain Gun in 44Mag for Christmas last year, its a very nice gun, but I honestly don;t shoot it a whole lot.

My heavy-duty, shoot-a-lot guns are all Rugers. Redhawks in 357M, (2)44M and SuperRedhawks in 44M and 454Casull (which shoots the 45LCs as well).

The redhawk is the way to go.

The "trouble" that I see with Ruger is that they are a "gun kit" for the last several years. You need to finish it yourself, or send it back to the factory until they finish it (might take a few trips back and forth).

S&W has allways made revolvers that are a "pleasure to hold and admire". Fragile though! Must be kind to them.

Either one "can" be good. Sorta depends on how you treat/use them.

Cheezywan

I have more than a dozen Ruger revolvers and I've never had to send one back, have had to send a S&W back though.

Never had to send any of the 9 Rugers I have/had back either.

Don

I have had work done on many of my guns, Rugers included. However, just because I had my gunsmith do a trigger job, spring kit and F&B on my Kimber 1911 does not mean that it lacks fit, finish or workmanship.

But as it was stated, the S&Ws tend to be a bit less sturdy.

Witness my 357 Ruger Redhawk
http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/2558/red357web3.jpg
check out those cylinder walls

Not just the cylinder walls, but the top strap, barrel, locking lugs, and metal used in the frame, along with the investment casting process.

yeah, that too! :)

All that metal makes those bore holes look like a .22LR!

Matt; Although I have done a lot of shooting, and work on the Ruger SA's, I have never held a Redhawk in my hands until now. This thing is a BRUTE, and the only other revolver that I can remember being this nice (strong) is the Dan Wessons, but, I didnt like the interchangeable barrel idea.....and never owned one. Anyway, now that I have spent some time with the Redhawk, I can understand it when they say "These loads are for Redhawk only!!!"

Its a big gun for sure, although the SRH is even bigger, it is too much for me and I don't like the lines of the SRH, although I would put that aside for the .480 Ruger.

I saw a Super Redhawk that was cut down to a 5 1/2" barrel, and in a strange way that modification seemed to "balance" out the look of the gun....still, in my opinion (like yours" the standard Redhawk is much more eye appealing and traditional in looks. It is also lighter and easier to carry...that is why I made the choice I did.

I got the 4" Redhawk. Dang, it's gorgeous! It's one hunk of metal, for shure.

Will take it out and shoot it this weekend after I load up some ammo for it.

You did good, I'm sure you'll be pleased with it! The 4" barrel balances very well.

what caliber???

good choice!!

The Smiths are definitely prettier when it comes to just looking at, but the Rugers are awfully pretty when the fire is coming out everywhere with the big loads!

Poetry in motion!

Vanguard.45

I've heard that the firing chamber tolerances are tighter on the Smith (.4583) than on the Ruger (upper end of SAAMI specs .4586) for the .45 Colt. In theory this would translate into less case expansion and longer case life for the brass fired in the Smith.
I contacted Ruger last week to get the cylinder chamber dimensions for the Redhawk in .45 Colt but did not get an answer to that question specifically.
1) Does anyone know what the chamber diameters are for the .45 Colt Redhawk?
2) For those who own a .45 Redhawk what has your case life been like?

Actually Ruger's 45 colts are usually on the tight side and need to be opened up if you want to shoot cast bullets.

MATTSBOX99
I was referring to the cylinder chambers and not the throats, which as you say tend to be a bit on the tight side. Unlike the throats the chambers are on the large size for the 45 Colt Redhawks . The Super Redhawk chambers for the 454 Cassul/45 Colt are under .4580 which is much more ideal for supporting .45 Colt brass during combustion. Unfortunately the Super Redhawk is way too large for my purposes.

They are produced within SAAMI specifications, and every gun is a little different due to machining tolerances. I predict this is the answer you would get from Ruger.

I've never heard anyone say that Redhawks run "large" or that case life has been an issue except for those that push the .45 Colt to make it like the .44 Mag.

Measured some once fired brass shot in my new Ruger Redhawk.

Unsized....0.478" diameter at midlength of the case.

My sizing die only knocks them down to 0.471". Don't know how that relates to the actual diameter of the hole they fit into except the cases should be smaller than the hole, shouldn't they?

I'm dubious about your 0.458" dimension. My loading manuals show the outside diameter of a 45 colt case to be up to 0.480". You may be referring to 44 mag chamber dimensions.

FWIW

Leverite,
Thanks for catching my error. Sometimes the "extra" 5 sneaks into my numbers when discussing chamber diameters for the 45 Colt. I meant to say that the Ruger chambers are .486 and the Smith chambers are closer to .483. The Super Redhawk chambers are supposedly very close to your fired brass diameter of .478 for the .454 Casull/45Colt. This is similar to the tight chamber tolerances built into John Linebaugh's custom .45 Colts based on the Ruger Bisley.
By the way congratulations on the new Redhawk! I've heard lots of good things about them!

It makes NO sense that Ruger would use different size chambers just because of the different frames.

Ruger runs at the high end of tolerances in the .45 Colt chambers, at least on my guns. Through the 70s the throats were big (0.456") but I have seen Colt SAA that went up to 0.458".

Then..... in the 80s, the chambers stayed large, but I bought a Bisley Ruger with 0.448" chamber mouths! Everything since then had to be reamed as well.

I don't know what SAAMI has for tolerances, but I sorta doubt there's a 0.010" range. Who knows......

The different chamber sizes between the Redhawk and SUPER Redhawk are probably because the SRH handles the .454 Casull as well as the .45 Colt. According to Speer Manual #14 the new standard pressure for the .454 is 65,00 psi (although they feel that 55,000 psi is more reasonable). Perhaps the tighter tolerances are needed to handle the higher pressure of the .454 in the SUPER RH.
One of my reasons for looking at the Redhawk is to run Ruger only loads as backup to bearspray. I'm looking at 335 grain bullets at about 1000 fps. Can anyone comment on their experience with case life in the .45 Colt Redhawk with similar loads?

I have a 629 Mtn Gun in .44 mag. It had .429” throats and weighs 41.6 oz. with Pachmayr grips. I reamed the chamber throats to .431”. It handles everything a little better now.

My Redhawks are 5 ½”. The .44 weighs 53.5 oz. and the .45 Colt weighs 51.8 oz. The .44 has .432” throats and shoots very well. The .45 had .451” throats and wouldn’t chamber many lead bullets. I reamed it to .4525” like my NMBHs and it does everything well now.

The Mtn Gun is a better carry gun, while the Redhawks are probably better range guns.

I don’t personally believe in firewalling anything. I tend to feel if you feel you need to firewall a gun, what you probably really need is a bigger gun. If I feel I need something bigger than a moderate load in .44 mag or .45 Colt, I will break out one of my .500 S&Ws.

http://i464.photobucket.com/albums/rr10/mauserkid/ODGreenRedhawk005.jpg

Four inch Redhawk that was the seven and one half...

I like it, pack it every day....

Cerakote OD Green, did it my self. Can do yours too...:D

unfortunately, I have less chance to do either as much as I'd like.

I have a SW in 44 mag that can shoot a hole in a quarter from 20 yards. But, I have a hankering to see what the 45 colt can do and I like the 4" barrel.

Tending towards the Ruger as I do not have a Redhawk.

the 45 colt Mg will do the same.

I've owned the S&W MG since it came out in 45colt. Perhaps my finest N frame, it'll shoot like a match pistol all the time.

The heaviest loads it gets are 300grainers to 1000fps....this is where Smith techs told me to stop.

If you do a search of the Mountain gun, there was a quite a lengthy discussion between Coldfingers, myself, and other board members about the MG about a few years back. lots of info there.

I've posted this pic before, but here's what mine can do at 25 yards, offhand.

Scout; Your gun has a very "purposeful" look to it!!! I am going to do something "custom" on my 5 1/2" Redhawk...dont know what yet...just exploring ideas now, but, I DO want it to be different...and unique, and exhibit that "purposeful" look.

Chris; It must be nice to have good eyes and steady nerves....I think that is more "you" than the gun!

the 45 colt Mg will do the same.

I've owned the S&W MG since it came out in 45colt. Perhaps my finest N frame, it'll shoot like a match pistol all the time.

The heaviest loads it gets are 300grainers to 1000fps....this is where Smith techs told me to stop.

If you do a search of the Mountain gun, there was a quite a lengthy discussion between Coldfingers, myself, and other board members about the MG about a few years back. lots of info there.

I've posted this pic before, but here's what mine can do at 25 yards, offhand.

That's a good shooter. I've destroyed some milk jugs with my new Redhawk, but have not shot for accuracy yet. maybe this weekend.

I now have both a mtn. gun and a redhawk in 4inch barrels. As a carry gun in the back country the mtn. gun will work fine. Shoot a 260--- 280 grn. bullet at about 950 to a 1000 FPS. ( in Keith or wide flat nose bullets) The power and penetration of these rounds are IMPRESSIVE !!! You dont need super Hot loads for protection. More important is to practice, practice, and be able to hit what you are shooting at. OH YEAH, did I say to practice a lot !!! Untill i get the 4 in. REDHAWK shooting right, i will carry my mtn. gun. GOOD LUCK !! Greg Bayes, in Ky.