User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/3/2014 2:26:54 PM EDT
[#1]
If you want to crank up the loads, the Redhawk. If you just want a range toy, the Smith. Neither will be easy to find.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2014 3:01:43 PM EDT
[#2]
FPNI
The S&W has the classic looks and fine lines, but the Ruger is a real working gun. You may want to look at the Colt New Service if you want a real old school shooting iron, too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2014 3:43:38 PM EDT
[#3]
How is the trigger in the Redhawk? Ok, good, excellent?
I don't mind shooting magnum level loads once in a while but not on a constant basis. Can the Smith not handle them at all or just not handle them on a constant basis? Thanks for the advice guys1 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2014 3:59:02 PM EDT
[#4]
The Ruger is a bigger, heavier gun. But it can handle more powerful loads.
The Smith is lighter, more refined, probably more accurate. But can't handle the heavy loads. You can bump up the loads to "midrange" loads, 250 grains at 1000 fps, but that's about it. If you plan to carry it, at all, get the the Smith. http://www.customsixguns.com/writings/dissolving_the_myth.htm http://www.handloads.com/articles/?id=12 http://www.sixguns.com/range/45redhawk.htm http://www.sixguns.com/range/SmitAndWessons45ColtClassic.htm |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2014 10:03:37 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How is the trigger in the Redhawk? Ok, good, excellent? I don't mind shooting magnum level loads once in a while but not on a constant basis. Can the Smith not handle them at all or just not handle them on a constant basis? Thanks for the advice guys1
While Smith's are generally excellent in a lot of ways ---- that particular model has reports of being spotty regarding accuracy due to bore diameter or twist rate or something - i researched them quite a bit when one came up for sale in my area MAybe its been long resolved, -- but i stick with single actions for 45 Colt shooting (Blackhawks and freedom arms) a gun not to rule out if you can find one is the Colt Anaconda --- looks and aesthetics like a Smith, but the reliability and ruggedness like a Ruger-- it will cost more than either, but sometimes you can catch them for 12-1300 or so |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2014 10:42:55 PM EDT
[#6]
I have a 45 Redhawk, the trigger is not the same as the Smith but it is passable. The 4" Redhawk is heavy and built like a tank.
I also have N frame Smiths, they may be the finest big bore DA revolvers. That said if the Classic has a round but I would pass on it. The round but has no place on a hard recoiling N frame. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2014 11:40:19 PM EDT
[#7]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2014 6:02:46 AM EDT
[#8]
The older Rugers in .45 LC are wonderful guns. Can't speak for the newer ones.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2014 6:34:44 AM EDT
[#9]
I have a Redhawk in .45 Colt and a 25-2 in .45 ACP. As has been stated previously, the Redhawk is a tank. The 25 less so. If you want to hot rod the .45, the Redhawk is the way to go. If you want a range toy, either would work fine. The 25 will have a better trigger out of the box, but the Redhawk is amenable to smoothing and can be very good. The Redhawk will probably have a better double action trigger and the 25 will probably have a better single action trigger. What may be a more significant issue is the chamber throat diameter.
My old 25-2 has a throat diameter of .456”. In .45 ACP, with the tiny case, it doesn’t seem to matter much. The accuracy of the 25-2 is the same as my 625s with .452” throats. They are all very good. The early 25-5 in .45 Colt often had the large chamber throat. They have a reputation for tending to have inconsistent accuracy. The cylinders were changed to .452” and the problem went away. If you have a .45 Colt cylinder that is large, you can get S&W to replace it and you will be good to go. My .45 Colt Redhawk was very accurate but the throats were about .451”. I had to stuff bullets into the chamber. I have the .4525” Manson reamer and reamed it. Now it is easy to chamber rounds and still shoots very well. An inside mic or plug gages work wonders for exploring revolvers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2014 7:14:27 AM EDT
[#10]
Ruger folks tend to fixate on the fact that the rugers are generally "stronger" then the S&W guns. I am not going to argue that but I don't feel the need
to use my revolvers as hammers or load them with anything more than reasonable handloads I prefer the better balance and better triggers of the S&W offerings. If I were to feel the need for something more than a factory 44mag load or a 45 Colt handload at about the same power level as the 44 I would go for something like the 500 or the 460 in the X frame. For me revolver shooting is all about the trigger and I believe the Smiths have better barrels also. I realize the Rugers are still pretty good guns and lots of folks like them , I just think the S&W stuff is just that much better that I shoot and enjoy them more . |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2014 12:56:41 PM EDT
[#11]
I don't have either gun in .45, but have both their cousins, the 44 magnum.
The Ruger Redhawk I have was built recently, and is a well put together gun. I had a chance to purchase a 4" Redhawk in 45 first, but passed and went with the 44 since I already reload for that cartridge. The Redhawk is a tank. I hated the grips, and hated the trigger. Both were easy to fix with some money. A set of OEM wood grips and a Wolff spring kit made the gun into a decent shooter for me. The trigger isn't as good as a Smith, but after changing the spring, and some dry fire practice, its better. I actually like the DA pull on the Ruger over the Smith. Another issue about the 4" Redhawk is the lack of holsters on the market. They are out there, but expect to pay and wait for a quality leather field rig. Smith's are classic revolvers. Better triggers out of the box, better balanced, more holsters out there to use. Hard to list any "cons" other than it can't take hot "Ruger only" .45 reloads. I think it comes down to you and your intended purpose. If you reload and want the "Ruger" only loads, you only have one option. If you don't, or want to keep the 45 Long Colt loaded to "normal" pressures, get the one you can find at a decent price. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2014 2:14:07 PM EDT
[#12]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2014 2:38:31 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
there is a lot of "ruger is thicker and stronger" hype. S&W addressed this in there famous ad many years ago with the 686 vs gp100 Ruger is thicker because it's investment cast, S&W is Forged steel <a href="http://smg.photobucket.com/user/derek45/media/Smith%20revolvers/ad_686vsgp100_zps91f79448.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/derek45/Smith%20revolvers/ad_686vsgp100_zps91f79448.jpg</a> Ruger makes a nice revolver, but S&W makes a beautiful revolver Read the ad.......in this case it's true that thicker does mean stronger. You can shoot very hot loads out of the Ruger .45 that you can't with the Smith. Don't get me wrong, I love my Smiths, but there's room for both guns. Just decide what you want out of it. With the reasoning above S&W should have discontinued the N frame .357s when they chambered a K frame for the same caliber. And of course never should have introduced the L. ETA- I've own/ed a Heavy Duty, Mod 28, 581, 681. no hate for Smiths |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2014 3:34:14 PM EDT
[#14]
Yeah, . . . .
It just depends on what the OP wants. I used to run 45SUPER handloads thru my 5" 625 45ACP revolver I'd push a 230gr JHP to about 1150fps with no trouble. Worked well for deer hunting at close range. If you really want to hot-rod, I'd think about 44 magnum, or 454 Casull I have a lot more fun shooting S&W, I just prefer the smoothness and ergonomics better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2014 4:00:37 PM EDT
[#15]
Double action 45 Colt? Any reason for this choice of cartridge? IMHO 45 Colt is for single action.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2014 10:27:39 PM EDT
[#16]
I own Rugers and I own S&W's. Get the Smith&Wesson.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2014 12:15:04 AM EDT
[#17]
If you want to magnumize the 45 Colt the Ruger makes sense.
The S&W will handle any modern standard pressure load, and that's not so bad. https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_list&c=7 45 Caliber Smiths are cool. They're all hole from the front. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2014 10:56:11 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't have either gun in .45, but have both their cousins, the 44 magnum. The Ruger Redhawk I have was built recently, and is a well put together gun. I had a chance to purchase a 4" Redhawk in 45 first, but passed and went with the 44 since I already reload for that cartridge. The Redhawk is a tank. I hated the grips, and hated the trigger. Both were easy to fix with some money. A set of OEM wood grips and a Wolff spring kit made the gun into a decent shooter for me. The trigger isn't as good as a Smith, but after changing the spring, and some dry fire practice, its better. I actually like the DA pull on the Ruger over the Smith. Another issue about the 4" Redhawk is the lack of holsters on the market. They are out there, but expect to pay and wait for a quality leather field rig. Smith's are classic revolvers. Better triggers out of the box, better balanced, more holsters out there to use. Hard to list any "cons" other than it can't take hot "Ruger only" .45 reloads. I think it comes down to you and your intended purpose. If you reload and want the "Ruger" only loads, you only have one option. If you don't, or want to keep the 45 Long Colt loaded to "normal" pressures, get the one you can find at a decent price. I bought the Simply Rugged Sourdough pancake holster for the Ruger 4" 45, it also fits my 4" N frame S&W. This is the most comfortable holster that I own and highly recommend it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 9:29:42 AM EDT
[#19]
The Ruger can handles any of the hot loads for the 45 Colt. The S&W would be limited to 1000 fps with a 250 gr bullet.
I would try holding both of them before you buy. IMHO, a 250 gr 45 cal bullet at 1000 fps will do 99% of what you might want to do with a handgun. And the S&W handles better. The Ruger is just fine too if you dont mind the extra size and weight. It is the way to go if you want a very powerful handgun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 11:09:35 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you want to magnumize the 45 Colt the Ruger makes sense. The S&W will handle any modern standard pressure load, and that's not so bad. https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_list&c=7 45 Caliber Smiths are cool. They're all hole from the front. http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u40/Ricky_a_photos/IMG_4603_zpsc9d14425.jpg Do you shoot that thang? If you do how the hell do you get the front of the cylinder that clean. The front of my 625 cylinder has never been that shiny. Its like perma-blacked from shooting it. All of my Stainless S&W are black on the front of the cylinder. 
My 627 and 625 revolvers after a weekend of competition. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 11:29:33 AM EDT
[#21]
If you shoot it (a lot) then the Smith. If you actually intend to carry it in cat-wolf-bear country I'd take the Ruger and ignorant heavy-powerful loads that would break the Smith (300 hard lead semi-wadcutters going faster than 1,000 fps).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 3:26:27 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you shoot that thang? If you do how the hell do you get the front of the cylinder that clean. The front of my 625 cylinder has never been that shiny. Its like perma-blacked from shooting it. All of my Stainless S&W are black on the front of the cylinder. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/31815523/dirtyrevolvers.jpg My 627 and 625 revolvers after a weekend of competition. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If you want to magnumize the 45 Colt the Ruger makes sense. The S&W will handle any modern standard pressure load, and that's not so bad. https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_list&c=7 45 Caliber Smiths are cool. They're all hole from the front. http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u40/Ricky_a_photos/IMG_4603_zpsc9d14425.jpg Do you shoot that thang? If you do how the hell do you get the front of the cylinder that clean. The front of my 625 cylinder has never been that shiny. Its like perma-blacked from shooting it. All of my Stainless S&W are black on the front of the cylinder. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/31815523/dirtyrevolvers.jpg My 627 and 625 revolvers after a weekend of competition. Where did you get the cylinder releases? I like 'em. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 3:45:14 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you shoot that thang? If you do how the hell do you get the front of the cylinder that clean. The front of my 625 cylinder has never been that shiny. Its like perma-blacked from shooting it. All of my Stainless S&W are black on the front of the cylinder. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/31815523/dirtyrevolvers.jpg My 627 and 625 revolvers after a weekend of competition. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If you want to magnumize the 45 Colt the Ruger makes sense. The S&W will handle any modern standard pressure load, and that's not so bad. https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_list&c=7 45 Caliber Smiths are cool. They're all hole from the front. http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u40/Ricky_a_photos/IMG_4603_zpsc9d14425.jpg Do you shoot that thang? If you do how the hell do you get the front of the cylinder that clean. The front of my 625 cylinder has never been that shiny. Its like perma-blacked from shooting it. All of my Stainless S&W are black on the front of the cylinder. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/31815523/dirtyrevolvers.jpg My 627 and 625 revolvers after a weekend of competition. The .45 up there looks nickel , or a high polish stainless -- vs standard stainless on your guns --- the shiny stuff is tons easier to keep clean I like those tricked out cylinder latches too
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2014 8:54:23 PM EDT
[#24]
Flitz will remove the cylinder front stains. I would'nt bother unless you are trying to sell the revolver. It will just crud up again. I just use a brush and solvent normally.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 7:38:45 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Where did you get the cylinder releases? I like 'em. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Where did you get the cylinder releases? I like 'em. Quoted:
The .45 up there looks nickel , or a high polish stainless -- vs standard stainless on your guns --- the shiny stuff is tons easier to keep clean I like those tricked out cylinder latches too
They are California Competition Cylinder Releases. http://www.demooner.com/product.asp?numRecordPosition=4&P_ID=89&strPageHistory=cat&strKeywords=&SearchFor=&PT_ID=28 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2014 6:08:45 PM EDT
[#26]
Double action 45 Colt? Any reason for this choice of cartridge? IMHO 45 Colt is for single action. I've had a couple of the single action 45's but never a double action one, simple as that. My health is not good so I don't hunt or camp or hike anymore. When I have good days I still go target shoot some and that is all it is for. I don't mind magnum loads sometimes but regular loads would be the primary rounds shot through it. Warhawk, thanks for those links they were very informative. I must say the Smith does appeal to me. The 686 I had back in 87 was the best trigger I had ever shot up to that time and still better, in my memories anyway, than some of the stuff I shoot today. it is one of 4 firearms that I regret selling. I guess the main problem now is finding one of each to fondle.
And thanks again for the replies guys! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2014 5:11:46 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistorySnip Do you shoot that thang? If you do how the hell do you get the front of the cylinder that clean. The front of my 625 cylinder has never been that shiny. Its like perma-blacked from shooting it. All of my Stainless S&W are black on the front of the cylinder. Snip You mean like these? 
Every couple years I use Mothers billet polish on the cylinder fronts. It does a great job of putting depth in a glossy stainless finish also. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2014 11:15:53 PM EDT
[#28]
If you are not going to shoot hundreds upon hundreds of heavy duty loads, ie .45 Colt Magnum loads through the gun, then I would opt for the beautiful Smith. If a butt load of dinosaur loads are in your plans, just get the Redhawk and be done with it.
Btw, I have a 4" Redhawk and its a tank. If I was ever going to be dropped in the backcountry for an extended period of time, my beautiful Smith and Wesson .44 mags would stay in the safe, and the hell for stout Redhawk would be the sidearm of choice. That's coming from a hardcore model 29 fan... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/5/2014 2:04:28 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you are not going to shoot hundreds upon hundreds of heavy duty loads, ie .45 Colt Magnum loads through the gun, then I would opt for the beautiful Smith. If a butt load of dinosaur loads are in your plans, just get the Redhawk and be done with it. Btw, I have a 4" Redhawk and its a tank. If I was ever going to be dropped in the backcountry for an extended period of time, my beautiful Smith and Wesson .44 mags would stay in the safe, and the hell for stout Redhawk would be the sidearm of choice. That's coming from a hardcore model 29 fan... Not me  . My 629 Mountain Gun is the one they'll pry out of my "cold dead hand".
Smith & Wesson all the way for me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2014 3:10:31 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you shoot that thang? If you do how the hell do you get the front of the cylinder that clean. The front of my 625 cylinder has never been that shiny. Its like perma-blacked from shooting it. All of my Stainless S&W are black on the front of the cylinder. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/31815523/dirtyrevolvers.jpg My 627 and 625 revolvers after a weekend of competition. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If you want to magnumize the 45 Colt the Ruger makes sense. The S&W will handle any modern standard pressure load, and that's not so bad. https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_list&c=7 45 Caliber Smiths are cool. They're all hole from the front. http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u40/Ricky_a_photos/IMG_4603_zpsc9d14425.jpg Do you shoot that thang? If you do how the hell do you get the front of the cylinder that clean. The front of my 625 cylinder has never been that shiny. Its like perma-blacked from shooting it. All of my Stainless S&W are black on the front of the cylinder. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/31815523/dirtyrevolvers.jpg My 627 and 625 revolvers after a weekend of competition. Yes. Fairly often. That picture was taken before I fired a single shot through it. It is a nickel finish, which makes fouling easy to wipe off but finger smudges are nearly impossible to fully wipe away 
This is it after 150 rounds. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/12/2014 12:38:08 AM EDT
[#31]
If you want to shoot it with 250 or 300+grn loads. Redhawk.
Locks like a bank vault and built like one too! |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/12/2014 10:28:10 PM EDT
[#32]
The fact that the only redeeming quality of the Redhawk is "it'll handle hotter loads" should tell you something. Who really needs them? Besides the Redhawk is almost 1/2 lb. heavier than the 25-5.
For several years I owned and carried an '80's vintage 25-5 and found it to be a wonder revolver. I never loaded it super-heavy but did run a 255 gr. commercial SWC right at 1000 fps. The article referenced earlier by John Linebaugh lists some pretty amazing loads that he's used in his 25-5 and I can't imagine anyone needing anything heavier. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2014 1:38:22 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The fact that the only redeeming quality of the Redhawk is "it'll handle hotter loads" should tell you something. Who really needs them? Besides the Redhawk is almost 1/2 lb. heavier than the 25-5. For several years I owned and carried an '80's vintage 25-5 and found it to be a wonder revolver. I never loaded it super-heavy but did run a 255 gr. commercial SWC right at 1000 fps. The article referenced earlier by John Linebaugh lists some pretty amazing loads that he's used in his 25-5 and I can't imagine anyone needing anything heavier. As far as "need," I'm fair certain that you can do anything you need to with a 255-275 grain LSWC at 1000 fps. However, if you just want to go harder, you're going to need more than the S&W. Most of my .44 Magnum loads are a 265 grain LSWC at 1050 fps, but sometimes, I like to turn that up to about 1400 fps, mostly for the improved long-range trajectory. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2014 8:37:37 PM EDT
[#34]
I understand that, but personally I've never seen the sense in buying a big, bulky revolver so one can occasionally fire heavy loads. I bought a NM Blackhawk .44 Special which can easily be loaded to .44 Magnum levels offered by the Big 3 ammo companies. I've on a few occasions loaded a 260 gr. SWC to a tad over 1200 fps, so I've been there, done that, and found no need for such loads, even when firing at my 200 yd. gong.
That's why it makes infinitely more sense, again to me personally, to buy a light, but stout revolver since I am satisfied with loads in the 1000 - 1050 fps range. Same goes for my NM Vaquero 45 Colt. It's handle a 285 gr. SWC up to around 1100 fps and which is way more than most of us need. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2014 9:05:08 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I understand that, but personally I've never seen the sense in buying a big, bulky revolver so one can occasionally fire heavy loads. I bought a NM Blackhawk .44 Special which can easily be loaded to .44 Magnum levels offered by the Big 3 ammo companies. I've on a few occasions loaded a 260 gr. SWC to a tad over 1200 fps, so I've been there, done that, and found no need for such loads, even when firing at my 200 yd. gong. That's why it makes infinitely more sense, again to me personally, to buy a light, but stout revolver since I am satisfied with loads in the 1000 - 1050 fps range. Same goes for my NM Vaquero 45 Colt. It's handle a 285 gr. SWC up to around 1100 fps and which is way more than most of us need. That sums it up pretty well. I had a 629 and sold it as 99% of my shooting didn't require magnum loads or the weight of that full lugged barrel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2014 5:34:32 PM EDT
[#36]
Some very nice pics in this thread
I had a Smith 25-5 8 3/8" a few years back and foolishly swapped it off, all things being equal I would buy another Smith but I wouldn't hesitate on a reasonably priced Redhawk either.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2014 8:05:43 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
I'm in the mood for a double action 45 long colt revolver. I've had a few revolvers thru the years but not many, 4" Security Six, 4" 686, Blackhawk, Uberti Model 3 replica. Who here has any experience with the two in the title. What are the pros and cons with each model. I have very little experience with revolvers, and no experience with either of these. I did a couple of searches but nothing popped. Any insight and advice is appreciated. I don't own a S&W big bore. I do own a nice 686-3, the trigger is fantastic. I expect the trigger for a S&W big bore would be just as nice. Every day I go outside, between April and mid December, I carry my .45 Colt 5.5" Redhawk in a shoulder holster. It is loaded with maximum pressure +p 335gr hardcast flatnose handloads. This is the type of load needed for personal safety where I live. These loads are very unpleasant to shoot and I would expect them to be detrimental to the condition of a S&W revolver. IMO, bear defense is the main reason to own the Redhawk over the S&W. If you don't need to hotrod the .45, I feel the S&W would be a much more fun to shoot range gun. Some of the bad news about the Redhawk. 1. The trigger pull is very heavy. I have not measured it, but in DA it might be 9+ pounds. The Redhawk does not use separate springs for the trigger and the hammer. You cannot lighten the Redhawk trigger pull without reducing the hammer power and jeopardizing reliability. Fine for the range, not so good for the bush. I dry fire my Redhawk almost every day to keep the muscles in condition. 2. I had to ream the cylinder throats of my Redhawk because some of the throats were too tight to accept 0.452" cast lead bullets, they would not chamber. This is a common Redhawk problem. 3. My Redhawk had a barrel constriction where the barrel threaded into the frame. This caused severe leading when shooting hard cast bullets. I had to fire lap the barrel to remove the constriction. This is a common problem with the Ruger .45 Colt revolvers. 4. Good luck trying to find a Redhawk in .45 Colt. I don't know if Ruger has made a run of .45's since they started manufacturing the Redhawk again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2014 8:41:47 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't own a S&W big bore. I do own a nice 686-3, the trigger is fantastic. I expect the trigger for a S&W big bore would be just as nice. Every day I go outside, between April and mid December, I carry my .45 Colt 5.5" Redhawk in a shoulder holster. It is loaded with maximum pressure +p 335gr hardcast flatnose handloads. This is the type of load needed for personal safety where I live. These loads are very unpleasant to shoot and I would expect them to be detrimental to the condition of a S&W revolver. IMO, bear defense is the main reason to own the Redhawk over the S&W. If you don't need to hotrod the .45, I feel the S&W would be a much more fun to shoot range gun. Some of the bad news about the Redhawk. 1. The trigger pull is very heavy. I have not measured it, but in DA it might be 9+ pounds. The Redhawk does not use separate springs for the trigger and the hammer. You cannot lighten the Redhawk trigger pull without reducing the hammer power and jeopardizing reliability. Fine for the range, not so good for the bush. I dry fire my Redhawk almost every day to keep the muscles in condition. 2. I had to ream the cylinder throats of my Redhawk because some of the throats were too tight to accept 0.452" cast lead bullets, they would not chamber. This is a common Redhawk problem. 3. My Redhawk had a barrel constriction where the barrel threaded into the frame. This caused severe leading when shooting hard cast bullets. I had to fire lap the barrel to remove the constriction. This is a common problem with the Ruger .45 Colt revolvers. 4. Good luck trying to find a Redhawk in .45 Colt. I don't know if Ruger has made a run of .45's since they started manufacturing the Redhawk again. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm in the mood for a double action 45 long colt revolver. I've had a few revolvers thru the years but not many, 4" Security Six, 4" 686, Blackhawk, Uberti Model 3 replica. Who here has any experience with the two in the title. What are the pros and cons with each model. I have very little experience with revolvers, and no experience with either of these. I did a couple of searches but nothing popped. Any insight and advice is appreciated. I don't own a S&W big bore. I do own a nice 686-3, the trigger is fantastic. I expect the trigger for a S&W big bore would be just as nice. Every day I go outside, between April and mid December, I carry my .45 Colt 5.5" Redhawk in a shoulder holster. It is loaded with maximum pressure +p 335gr hardcast flatnose handloads. This is the type of load needed for personal safety where I live. These loads are very unpleasant to shoot and I would expect them to be detrimental to the condition of a S&W revolver. IMO, bear defense is the main reason to own the Redhawk over the S&W. If you don't need to hotrod the .45, I feel the S&W would be a much more fun to shoot range gun. Some of the bad news about the Redhawk. 1. The trigger pull is very heavy. I have not measured it, but in DA it might be 9+ pounds. The Redhawk does not use separate springs for the trigger and the hammer. You cannot lighten the Redhawk trigger pull without reducing the hammer power and jeopardizing reliability. Fine for the range, not so good for the bush. I dry fire my Redhawk almost every day to keep the muscles in condition. 2. I had to ream the cylinder throats of my Redhawk because some of the throats were too tight to accept 0.452" cast lead bullets, they would not chamber. This is a common Redhawk problem. 3. My Redhawk had a barrel constriction where the barrel threaded into the frame. This caused severe leading when shooting hard cast bullets. I had to fire lap the barrel to remove the constriction. This is a common problem with the Ruger .45 Colt revolvers. 4. Good luck trying to find a Redhawk in .45 Colt. I don't know if Ruger has made a run of .45's since they started manufacturing the Redhawk again. Find yourself a good gunsmith and have them do a true, full trigger job; it'll make a world of difference. My custom Redhawk 44 has a trigger that'll make a S&W custom shop gun cry and that's double or single action. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/17/2014 5:36:45 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not me . My 629 Mountain Gun is the one they'll pry out of my "cold dead hand".
Smith & Wesson all the way for me. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If you are not going to shoot hundreds upon hundreds of heavy duty loads, ie .45 Colt Magnum loads through the gun, then I would opt for the beautiful Smith. If a butt load of dinosaur loads are in your plans, just get the Redhawk and be done with it. Btw, I have a 4" Redhawk and its a tank. If I was ever going to be dropped in the backcountry for an extended period of time, my beautiful Smith and Wesson .44 mags would stay in the safe, and the hell for stout Redhawk would be the sidearm of choice. That's coming from a hardcore model 29 fan... Not me . My 629 Mountain Gun is the one they'll pry out of my "cold dead hand".
Smith & Wesson all the way for me. Warhawk, It's actually hard for me to put my beloved .44 N Frames second place to anything... It just seems... wrong.. That said, I am very, very impressed with the Redhawk. In fact, for a "do it all" revolver, for guys who are truly going to run them hard over the course of their lifetime (probably less than 1% of big bore owners), the big Red is my top pick. Of course since guy's that are into shooting big bore handguns that much are pretty much never ever one gun owners, it's not an "either-or" proposition. It's more like chocolate AND vanilla! |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/17/2014 5:48:30 PM EDT
[#40]
In regards to triggers. My 4" Redhawk has a trigger That will not a match a single one of my s&w N Frames. That being said, it is one hundred percent just fine as a field trigger on a practical carry revolver.
Sometime we get wrapped up in the minutiae and spend more time yapping about extremely minor crap instead of getting out and enjoying the gear in the field. I'd rather spend 100 days in the mountains and desert with an average trigger than 1000 on the couch with a perfect one. :) Case in point... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/17/2014 5:58:02 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In regards to triggers. My 4" Redhawk has a trigger That will not a match a single one of my s&w N Frames. That being said, it is one hundred percent just fine as a field trigger on a practical carry revolver. Sometime we get wrapped up in the minutiae and spend more time yapping about extremely minor crap instead of getting out and enjoying the gear in the field. I'd rather spend 100 days in the mountains and desert with an average trigger than 1000 on the couch with a perfect one. :) Case in point... http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b109/IV_Troop/017.jpg An excellent thought, my friend. Threadjack: Just got my new Kuracs for my Model 17. This thing's gonna kill a squirrel this year, even if I have to go to the zoo and smoke one.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/17/2014 9:13:51 PM EDT
[#42]
You can't go wrong with either of them.
http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm69/Arisinwind/PC190154-1800x600_zpsaf625203.jpg My 45 Redhawk converted to 454. A testament to it's strength. http:////i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm69/Arisinwind/PA100038_zps0f1761a2.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 12:27:52 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
there is a lot of "ruger is thicker and stronger" hype. S&W addressed this in there famous ad many years ago with the 686 vs gp100 Ruger is thicker because it's investment cast, S&W is Forged steel <a href="http://smg.photobucket.com/user/derek45/media/Smith%20revolvers/ad_686vsgp100_zps91f79448.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/derek45/Smith%20revolvers/ad_686vsgp100_zps91f79448.jpg</a> Ruger makes a nice revolver, but S&W makes a beautiful revolver Man! That's right out of the Gruber workbook! You never hear of Redhawk frames being stretched over time with full power loads ;) Look it up yourself. Google is your friend. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 2:24:44 AM EDT
[#44]
I just picked up my first 44 magnum, a Ruger RedHawk Kodiak Backpacker. The trigger reach always kept me from owning N-Frames. I just couldn't get the sweet spot of my trigger finger in the right place for good, consistent DA work. The trigger reach on my RedHawk seems about equal to that of my Glock 19. The trigger pull from the factory is sub 10lbs.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 4:12:57 PM EDT
[#45]
Well guys thanks for the replys. The choice is made!
This morning I stopped at my LGS on a whim and they had a S&W 25. That is a very nice revolver, well balanced, great trigger. I didn't have the stupid ass pistol purchase permits with me so I couldn't bring it home but I put in on layaway until I have time to get back there next week. I am so excited. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 9:43:13 PM EDT
[#46]
 pics !
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2014 12:50:44 AM EDT
[#47]
If I'm feeling good enough I'll go back Monday or Tuesday to get it and get some pics. I am so excited.
Hopefully I'll be feeling good enough to go back out. My pain levels spiked in the grocery store so I had to call it quits for the day and take another set of painkillers.
I checked my reloading supplies and I have 200 255 grain LRN and 300 230 grain HP's and 100 new casings and 20 once fired casings so hopefully I will be rolling my own this coming weekend. If I haven't said it yet I'm so excited! 
And to all you guys who offered up advice and links Thanks again! 
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
