.45/.45 Acp Redhawks

[COF]

Talked to the folks from Ruger at the NRA Convention. They had the new 4" .44 at the show so I asked them if they had thought about bringing out the .45 Redhawk again. They told me they are looking at bringing back the .45 and building a .45 ACP model! Now if they'd bring it out with the 5.5" barrel...

[Carmoney]

I'd like to see this done with the cylinder dimensions the same as S&W, so everybody's moonclips would interchange.

[Viggen]

If Ruger was smart enough to pigggyback onto the Smith cylinder dimensions, that would be impressive.

[COF]

Hmmm, I've never checked the dimensions on my RH and compared them to my 625. Guess, I'll have to do that. I know the 629 and the RH use the same speedloader so it should be close, but I'll have to check.

[David Sinko]

If Ruger has any sense they'll make a Redhawk with the standard cylinder length and chamber it for the .45 Winchester Magnum. Starline .45 Win Mag brass snaps into the standard six shot moonclips which would readily drop into the .45 Colt cylinder pattern. All they would need to do is headspace it properly and it would be nice to have chambers that hold and fire individual .45 Win Mag cartridges. The longer Win Mag cartridge is in my opinion the perfect cartridge for the Redhawk. The gun would then fire .460 Rowland, .451 Detonics, .45 Super, .45 ACP and .45 GAP by headspacing on the moonclips. Let's just hope that Ruger doesn't do something really stupid like make one with a shortened cylinder exclusively for the .45 ACP. This would be a huge mistake. The Redhawk is the perfect vehicle for a magnum length rimless cartridge and the underrated .45 Win Mag is the perfect candidate. We already have the perfect gun for the .45 ACP and it's called a 625.

Another Redhawk issue that most people don't consider is parts breakage and long term durability. Yeah, these guns have a lot of steel and can take some really high pressures, but in my experience the innards just don't hold up. I am already on my third hammer link, second firing pin and second transfer bar. Many of the major components (like hands and cylinder stops) are not sold to anybody and can be a real problem for anybody who owns a custom gun. Bill Ruger was very clever and I believe he was well aware of these durability issues, which would explain why he offered Redhawks only in "hunting" type configurations and barrel lengths. Very few Redhawks see any significant DA, competition or even service grade use. Mine is the exception and I'm experiencing problems that few Redhawk owners have ever seen. I really love my Redhawk but there are some manufacturing issues that really need to be addressed.

Dave Sinko

[Carlos]

The longer Win Mag cartridge is in my opinion the perfect cartridge for the Redhawk. The gun would then fire .460 Rowland, .451 Detonics, .45 Super, .45 ACP and .45 GAP by headspacing on the moonclips. Let's just hope that Ruger doesn't do something really stupid like make one with a shortened cylinder exclusively for the .45 ACP. This would be a huge mistake. . . . We already have the perfect gun for the .45 ACP and it's called a 625. . . . Very few Redhawks see any significant DA, competition or even service grade use.

I am not sure that I agree that a dedicated .45 ACP length cylinder would be a "huge mistake." While I understand your argument about versatility, it is a feature that few USPSA or IDPA competition shooters would ever use - at the cost of the extra weight for a longer cylinder - which would be a draw back for the already heavy-for-competition Redhawk.

While the gun you describe may be your versatility "dream gun," I am not sure it would be the ideal competition revolver.

Still, such a versatile revolver might sell better to the general public who don't compete and who would probably value the ability to fire anything from the GAP to the Starline Magnum.

Regards,

C.

[David Sinko]

Carlos, you are absolutely correct. I am well aware that this forum is geared primarily toward competitive shooting. I realize that any Redhawk chambered for any moonclipped cartridge will never be able to approach the 625 in terms of utility or success. It would be worthless for ICORE and nobody who wants to win in USPSA would have a need for it either. It could be interesting for IDPA and I believe it could be a good pin gun. Personally, I am a loud advocate of the bigbore revolver for concealed carry and general utility and I tend to believe that rimless cartridges are more at home in moonclips than in semiautomatic pistol magazines. For years my concealed carry gun was an expensive 4" Redhawk and it was about perfect for me. I stopped carrying this gun (and some of my other best revolvers) when I learned the hard way that when I shoot people my gun will get an all expense paid trip to the State Police where they will disrespect it and do all manner of unspeakable things to it. Depending on the circumstance, I'd be lucky if I even get it back. I am sorry to admit that because of this most of my competitive shooting lately is with autos. To me, my Glock 21 or 35 is just a "thing" and if bad things happen to it then I can simply go out and buy another one which will be just as good. I grow very attached to my fine revolvers and now they are back to seeing mostly field use. So to get back to the subject at hand, if Ruger can make a 4" Redhawk and chamber it for a big moonclipped cartridge (and what about that new Hornady cartridge that is made for the AR-15 platform?) I'd be inclined to buy two of them, worry about the parts issues later and jump right back into competitive revolver shooting again. I still like the Rugers!

Dave Sinko