Redhawk or Super Redhawk: Which should I get?

Smaug · August 28, 2008, 10:57 PM

I had pretty much decided on a stainless Redhawk, 5.5", 44 Mag.

But then I got to wondering exactly what all the differences are.

Obviously the grip, the scope mounts, and the front part of the frame. But what else?

I would probably be using this for a home defense gun, range gun, and maybe hunting gun some day. Hunting is kind a far-off maybe.

I think the front part of the SRH frame looks hideous, and much prefer the look of the Redhawk with wood grips.

I seem to remember reading somewhere there is a difference in the trigger? That the Redhawk has a better DA trigger? Can anyone confirm that?

But also that it has a longer DA trigger reach? I'd like to be able to shoot it well in DA mode.

How hard is it to mount a scope on a Redhawk? I know it is easy on the Super, but how about the original?

I am a handloader, so I'll be able to get 100% out of this gun.

Thanks.

jhgreasemonkey · August 28, 2008, 11:22 PM

Quote:

I had pretty much decided on a stainless Redhawk, 5.5", 44 Mag.

I went with the 5.5" stainless redhawk. For .44 mag it is the ticket. The super redhawk is nice and well built as well, but I dont see an advantage except for the calibers it is offered in.
The double action trigger is fine and I use mine plenty. The redhawk in .44 mag is hard to beat.

kristop64089 · August 29, 2008, 06:07 AM

The design of the SRH was to incorperate ease of scope mounting. I'm not for sure, but I think it's a PITA on a RH.

That said, I would get the RH. I would love to jave a new one in 45c. I think they are one of the BEST looking DA revolvers available

crowbeaner · August 29, 2008, 08:33 AM

I had a 5.5" Redhawk for a number of years; it was my hunting gun for many outings. I took 2 deer with it. I carried it because it was stainless, not becuse it was the only 44 I had. I just couldn't see packing one of my beloved Smiths day after day in inclement weather. After losing a big buck to bullet failure (JHP) I loaded it with the RCBS 44-240-SWC and WW 296. I had Pachmayrs on it; they were the oversized ones and it felt like I had a 2x4 in my hand. I wish that Pachmayr would make a smaller set of grips similar to the Presentation grips for the Smiths. I also had it set up with the gold bead front and V-notch rear sights. It shot like a rifle with those. Fine guns, and I never did like the massive SRH myself. I like to be able to sit on a downed log and catch my wind without doing some strange and erratic maneuvers to get comfortable.

WESHOOT2 · August 30, 2008, 06:33 AM

My 5.5" stainless steel 44 Magnum-chambered Redhawk has a superb DA trigger pull and feel; it came directly from its box that way.
Its SA trigger pull and feel is poor, but I shoot it DA so it doesn't matter.

The SuperRedhawk will no doubt have a better SA trigger due to its different lockwork.

CraigC · August 30, 2008, 08:10 AM

Ruger still offers a 7½" Redhawk with their proprietary rings but I don't like how they mount the scope over the barrel, rather than the receiver. For a packin' pistol, obviously a 5½" or 4" Redhawk would be better suited. As a dedicated hunting pistol, I would definitely prefer the Super. My only scoped revolver is a .480 Super.

Stainz · August 30, 2008, 08:14 AM

I owned a 7.5" .454/.45 SRH for years - and a 5.5" .45 RH for a few years as well. The SRH has a two-spring, ie, separate hammer and trigger return, lockwork vs the RH's single spring. The SRH's lockwork is like the GP100 - and, in a smaller scale, the SP101, too. It is better - more capable - in both SA & DA. It can be more readily 'tuned'. Additionally, I found slow DA pulls produced less hammer strike strength - and more ftfs - than faster and more dedicated pulls with the RH, while the SRH was seemingly insensitive to pull 'speed' - and never gave 'ftfs'. Both were kept with OEM hammer springs.

Now, if you want to compare & contrast the .44M in RH & SRH, it's most 'fair' in the 7.5" barrel - their common length. The RH weighs an ounce more - and did come with a wood grip with an open backstrap, while the SRH came with an absorptive rubber grip on it's grip stud, providing a higher and better ergonomically designed grip, while padding that metal grip stud. Additionally, that 'stud' permits a wider range of grip choices, too, as they don't have to at least fit the grip frame's outline, as they do in a RH. I would think that the lower grip position required by the RH's dedicated grip frame would lead to more muzzle flip during recoil. I know my .454 SRH, even with 2,100+ ft-lb .454s, was more comfortable to blast away with than an old friend's 6" lacquered wood target-gripped S&W 29 .44M with ~900 ft-lb .44Ms - it was miserable - the low grip position/bare backstrap combined to make the flip and thwack memorable!

Plus goes to the RH in looks - if you like the traditional look. Now, if it's your first-ever DA revolver, as my SRH was to me many years back, you might just like the SRH. The .44M variant is bright SS, like the RH. My .454 SRH was grey - adding to it's 'techno-ugo' mystique. I liked it, but what did I know then? It does allow easy and secure scope mounting. I really liked my SRH with a 2X28mm Weaver H2 atop it - I could get 1.5" five shot groups at 44-50yd, if I used my burnt sandbags for support. That SRH is the one Ruger I miss!

Oh - and the SRH was released with a more stout barrel/frame attachment, explaining that snout and large/unlugged barrel, as early .44M RHs' barrels came unscrewed in use. A design/production feature of the .44M SRH was to put faith back in Ruger's DA .44M market. The barrel attachment problem was fixed in the .44M RH's before the SRH's were released, so they were left 'in the market', and kept a 'traditional' model available. I have looked at - and squeezed away - those new 4" .44M & .45 Colt RHs... I don't know what they did, but they look and feel good! Of course, not better, at least to me, than my S&Ws. YMMV.

Stainz

PS If you can live with a 7.5", get the SRH. If it must be a 4" or 5.5", it'll have to be a RH (Unless you take a hacksaw to a 7.5" SRH>>>). Now, if you can live with a snubby - get the 2.5" SRH 'Alaskan'.

Smaug · September 1, 2008, 05:29 PM

So both the SA and DA trigger pulls are better on the SRH?

I had a 8-3/8" barreled S&W 29. The SA trigger was very good. The DA trigger was very heavy. It also seemed to "break." It was like when I squeezed it, it didn't move. Then, when it did move, it went all the way through its stroke. I could never hit anything with DA on that gun.

On that, it had the factory walnut grips, and they were punishing will full-on magnums. I can't imagine a Redhawk being worse.

The long-barreled Smith, I could only get my wife to shoot it a couple times. It was just too heavy for her. So I'm really looking for something 6" or shorter this time.

That was good information though, thanks a ton!

BusGunner007 · September 1, 2008, 09:10 PM

I don't know from your post what your intended use of the firearm is.

I do know that the 5.5" Redhawk I had pounded my hand with it's exposed grip frame.
I do know that the SRH 7.5" I bought does not...and the grips for the GP-100 are also interchangeable.

The Redhawk is more sleek.
The SRH snubbie is more concealable.

What is your intended use of the gun? do you need to scope it?

Smaug · September 1, 2008, 09:49 PM

Bus, I was intending to replace my Ruger P90 as a home defense gun, and also to use it as a range gun. Also, I'd like to be able to use it for deer hunting, but that is not 100% certain.

I'll mostly be shooting my own reloads; 44 Special charges in 44 Magnum cases. I'll probably shoot 5 rounds of Special for each round of Magnum.

I don't think I will mind the exposed grip frame, but I'm interested in how it feels compared to a Smith 29, since I've had one of those. I haven't had any luck finding a Redhawk for sale locally to try the fit in my hand.

If I get a 7-1/2" barrel in the SRH, it becomes too heavy and long to use as a home defense gun, and thus is harder to justify.

CraigC · September 1, 2008, 10:16 PM

On the N-frame, I like an oversized target grip without fingergrooves (Herrett's or Ahrends Retro) but the Redhawk grip frame is so large, it's more comfortable for me with the factory wood grips. Not that it's what I'd call "comfortable" but with moderate loads it's not bad. If I got a 4" Redhawk the Hogue would have to go. The Super Redhawk is ugly as hell but it's much more comfortable to shoot and the .480 is surprisingly so. Even with 420's@1100fps. But for your purposes, I think you'd be well suited with a 4" or 5½" Redhawk but I'd choose a 629 Mountain Gun over either of them. One resides in my nightstand drawer, tuned by Bob Munden.

minnfinn · September 2, 2008, 07:16 PM

As I understand it the the SRH was modeled as a heavyweight version of GP100 and in addition to the .44 mag offers chambered in heavy loads like .454 Casull and .480 Ruger. No fluted cylinder to handle the larger diameter calibers, heavier loads and intregal scope mount slots on the frame above the cylinder.
SRH also has 2 springs, one for trigger and other for hammer. SRH is designed more strickly as a hunting. RH is a very popular DA revolver for years even after SRH was introduced. It's a fine revolver. Hogue grips on model I have .44 mag 4" fits the hand well and provides a well designed DA for hunter and carry.

Smaug · September 3, 2008, 09:37 PM

Well fellas, I've gone & done it, or at least started the 72 hr. waiting period that is required in good old Illinois.

I shopped my local gun shops by phone. The closest one told me $720 for a new SS, 5.5" Redhawk. Ouch.

They seemed to be going for $550-620 on gunbroker. Getting warmer.

The second store I called (GAT Guns in West Dundee, IL) quoted $660 for the same one new. I went there in person, "just to look." Before going to look at the new one, I perused the used handgun area. Lo and behold, they had 3 used Redhawks in 44 Magnum for sale:

1) A Super, 7.5", with rings - $500
2) A Super, 7.5" without rings - $500
3) A "Redhawk Hunter", 7.5" barrel, stainless, with rings and Leupold M4X EER scope, Pachmayr presentation grips, and original grips for $600.

I tried the trigger on 2 & 3. No comparison, the Redhawk Hunter had the better trigger, both in single & double action. I had never heard of a Redhawk Hunter; this must be a model that was discontinued when the Super Redhawk came out? It has the Ruger rings with dents cut into the top of the barrel, but without that funky extended frame in front of the cylinder.

After a bit of haggling, I could only get them down to $575 and 10% off ammo & accessories on the day I pick it up. But if I recall correctly, the Leupold scope is worth at least $150 on its own. I did the full check according to the sticky post above. The gun is VERY tight, with a clean bore. The cylinder gap is less than 0.003". The clerk nearly pooped himself when I broke out my feeler gauges.

He said he had never seen that before, but that one guy did bring in an electronic scale to weigh a gun.

Naturally, I'll post photos in a new thread when I bring 'er home Sunday or so.

I still have handloads from when I had the S&W 29. Some light magnums and some full magnums with 240 gr. Rainier plated flat points.

Now here's the kicker. <story>I brought my Ruger P90 and Ruger Mk. II 50th Anniversary to possibly trade in, if their offers weren't too insulting. What did they offer? $175 for the P90 and $125 for the Mk. II. Ouch. Not that it matters, but I paid $500 for the P90 in 1998, and I think around $300 for the Mk. II in 2000.

The guy recommended to me that I keep them. I said OK. But there were two kids (mid 20s) behind me ogling a used Ruger P94 (9mm) they had. They were asking $330 for it. The clerk had stepped away and was checking what they might give for the Mk. II. I said to the kids: "Hey, do you like that gun?" (they nodded) I've got one just like it that this guy just gave me an insulting offer on. If you want mine, I'll sell it to you for a good price." I told them $250, and they were soon fighting over which of them would buy it off of me. The first one to talk to me was just handling it and the clerk came back and said: "Hey, you can't sell that in here." I said: "Oh, I wasn't. I'm going to keep it remember?" and I winked at the kid.

So I put it away and put the Redhawk on layaway with my debit card. (they charge 4.5% more if I paid with debit, so I'm going to come back and pay the balance with cash or a check.)

Sure enough, as I was walking out the door, the kids followed me. There were cameras in the lot, so I told them to follow me. We pulled into a gas station, and I sold it to him for $250 cash, and managed to do it according to our state laws. I checked his FOID card, asked him some questions to get a good feeling that he wasn't a gangster or straw buyer. He's from a wealthier suburb. He's happy, I'm happy and I didn't get spanked on my P90, which was my second gun in 1997.</story>

Sorry for the long post. I can't wait to get that Redhawk. I need to do a little research and find out if this is from the period in which Redhawks had the problem with the barrels loosening up.

I'm hoping I can put in for an Illinois handgun deer tag this fall.

The gun's going to still be too heavy for Kate to shoot much, but oh well.

Thanks for all your advice and opinions fellas.

August 28, 2008, 10:57 PM	#1
Smaug Senior Member Join Date: June 4, 2004 Location: SE Wisconsin Posts: 3,210	Redhawk or Super Redhawk: Which should I get? I had pretty much decided on a stainless Redhawk, 5.5", 44 Mag. But then I got to wondering exactly what all the differences are. Obviously the grip, the scope mounts, and the front part of the frame. But what else? I would probably be using this for a home defense gun, range gun, and maybe hunting gun some day. Hunting is kind a far-off maybe. I think the front part of the SRH frame looks hideous, and much prefer the look of the Redhawk with wood grips. I seem to remember reading somewhere there is a difference in the trigger? That the Redhawk has a better DA trigger? Can anyone confirm that? But also that it has a longer DA trigger reach? I'd like to be able to shoot it well in DA mode. How hard is it to mount a scope on a Redhawk? I know it is easy on the Super, but how about the original? I am a handloader, so I'll be able to get 100% out of this gun. Thanks. __________________ -Jeremy "Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength." - Eric Hoffer

August 29, 2008, 08:33 AM	#4
crowbeaner Senior Member Join Date: June 4, 2007 Location: Upstate SC Posts: 1,943	I had a 5.5" Redhawk for a number of years; it was my hunting gun for many outings. I took 2 deer with it. I carried it because it was stainless, not becuse it was the only 44 I had. I just couldn't see packing one of my beloved Smiths day after day in inclement weather. After losing a big buck to bullet failure (JHP) I loaded it with the RCBS 44-240-SWC and WW 296. I had Pachmayrs on it; they were the oversized ones and it felt like I had a 2x4 in my hand. I wish that Pachmayr would make a smaller set of grips similar to the Presentation grips for the Smiths. I also had it set up with the gold bead front and V-notch rear sights. It shot like a rifle with those. Fine guns, and I never did like the massive SRH myself. I like to be able to sit on a downed log and catch my wind without doing some strange and erratic maneuvers to get comfortable. __________________ If you want your children to follow in your footsteps, be careful where you walk. Beware the man that only owns one gun; he probably knows how to use it. I just hope my ship comes in before my dock rots.

August 30, 2008, 06:33 AM	#5
WESHOOT2 Senior Member Join Date: February 20, 1999 Location: home on the range; Vermont (Caspian country) Posts: 14,324	mine My 5.5" stainless steel 44 Magnum-chambered Redhawk has a superb DA trigger pull and feel; it came directly from its box that way. Its SA trigger pull and feel is poor, but I shoot it DA so it doesn't matter. The SuperRedhawk will no doubt have a better SA trigger due to its different lockwork. __________________ . "all my ammo is mostly retired factory ammo"

September 1, 2008, 05:29 PM	#8
Smaug Senior Member Join Date: June 4, 2004 Location: SE Wisconsin Posts: 3,210	So both the SA and DA trigger pulls are better on the SRH? I had a 8-3/8" barreled S&W 29. The SA trigger was very good. The DA trigger was very heavy. It also seemed to "break." It was like when I squeezed it, it didn't move. Then, when it did move, it went all the way through its stroke. I could never hit anything with DA on that gun. On that, it had the factory walnut grips, and they were punishing will full-on magnums. I can't imagine a Redhawk being worse. The long-barreled Smith, I could only get my wife to shoot it a couple times. It was just too heavy for her. So I'm really looking for something 6" or shorter this time. That was good information though, thanks a ton! __________________ -Jeremy "Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength." - Eric Hoffer

September 1, 2008, 09:10 PM	#9
BusGunner007 Senior Member Join Date: December 14, 2001 Location: Upper Left Coast Posts: 2,116	I don't know from your post what your intended use of the firearm is. I do know that the 5.5" Redhawk I had pounded my hand with it's exposed grip frame. I do know that the SRH 7.5" I bought does not...and the grips for the GP-100 are also interchangeable. The Redhawk is more sleek. The SRH snubbie is more concealable. What is your intended use of the gun? do you need to scope it? __________________ "...if you're not havin' fun, you're workin'..."

August 30, 2008, 08:10 AM	#6
CraigC Junior member Join Date: November 28, 2001 Location: West Tennessee Posts: 4,300	Ruger still offers a 7½" Redhawk with their proprietary rings but I don't like how they mount the scope over the barrel, rather than the receiver. For a packin' pistol, obviously a 5½" or 4" Redhawk would be better suited. As a dedicated hunting pistol, I would definitely prefer the Super. My only scoped revolver is a .480 Super.

August 30, 2008, 08:14 AM	#7
Stainz Senior Member Join Date: May 13, 2007 Location: Alabama Posts: 749	I owned a 7.5" .454/.45 SRH for years - and a 5.5" .45 RH for a few years as well. The SRH has a two-spring, ie, separate hammer and trigger return, lockwork vs the RH's single spring. The SRH's lockwork is like the GP100 - and, in a smaller scale, the SP101, too. It is better - more capable - in both SA & DA. It can be more readily 'tuned'. Additionally, I found slow DA pulls produced less hammer strike strength - and more ftfs - than faster and more dedicated pulls with the RH, while the SRH was seemingly insensitive to pull 'speed' - and never gave 'ftfs'. Both were kept with OEM hammer springs. Now, if you want to compare & contrast the .44M in RH & SRH, it's most 'fair' in the 7.5" barrel - their common length. The RH weighs an ounce more - and did come with a wood grip with an open backstrap, while the SRH came with an absorptive rubber grip on it's grip stud, providing a higher and better ergonomically designed grip, while padding that metal grip stud. Additionally, that 'stud' permits a wider range of grip choices, too, as they don't have to at least fit the grip frame's outline, as they do in a RH. I would think that the lower grip position required by the RH's dedicated grip frame would lead to more muzzle flip during recoil. I know my .454 SRH, even with 2,100+ ft-lb .454s, was more comfortable to blast away with than an old friend's 6" lacquered wood target-gripped S&W 29 .44M with ~900 ft-lb .44Ms - it was miserable - the low grip position/bare backstrap combined to make the flip and thwack memorable! Plus goes to the RH in looks - if you like the traditional look. Now, if it's your first-ever DA revolver, as my SRH was to me many years back, you might just like the SRH. The .44M variant is bright SS, like the RH. My .454 SRH was grey - adding to it's 'techno-ugo' mystique. I liked it, but what did I know then? It does allow easy and secure scope mounting. I really liked my SRH with a 2X28mm Weaver H2 atop it - I could get 1.5" five shot groups at 44-50yd, if I used my burnt sandbags for support. That SRH is the one Ruger I miss! Oh - and the SRH was released with a more stout barrel/frame attachment, explaining that snout and large/unlugged barrel, as early .44M RHs' barrels came unscrewed in use. A design/production feature of the .44M SRH was to put faith back in Ruger's DA .44M market. The barrel attachment problem was fixed in the .44M RH's before the SRH's were released, so they were left 'in the market', and kept a 'traditional' model available. I have looked at - and squeezed away - those new 4" .44M & .45 Colt RHs... I don't know what they did, but they look and feel good! Of course, not better, at least to me, than my S&Ws. YMMV. Stainz PS If you can live with a 7.5", get the SRH. If it must be a 4" or 5.5", it'll have to be a RH (Unless you take a hacksaw to a 7.5" SRH>>>). Now, if you can live with a snubby - get the 2.5" SRH 'Alaskan'.

September 1, 2008, 09:49 PM	#10
Smaug Senior Member Join Date: June 4, 2004 Location: SE Wisconsin Posts: 3,210	Bus, I was intending to replace my Ruger P90 as a home defense gun, and also to use it as a range gun. Also, I'd like to be able to use it for deer hunting, but that is not 100% certain. I'll mostly be shooting my own reloads; 44 Special charges in 44 Magnum cases. I'll probably shoot 5 rounds of Special for each round of Magnum. I don't think I will mind the exposed grip frame, but I'm interested in how it feels compared to a Smith 29, since I've had one of those. I haven't had any luck finding a Redhawk for sale locally to try the fit in my hand. If I get a 7-1/2" barrel in the SRH, it becomes too heavy and long to use as a home defense gun, and thus is harder to justify. __________________ -Jeremy "Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength." - Eric Hoffer

September 1, 2008, 10:16 PM	#11
CraigC Junior member Join Date: November 28, 2001 Location: West Tennessee Posts: 4,300	On the N-frame, I like an oversized target grip without fingergrooves (Herrett's or Ahrends Retro) but the Redhawk grip frame is so large, it's more comfortable for me with the factory wood grips. Not that it's what I'd call "comfortable" but with moderate loads it's not bad. If I got a 4" Redhawk the Hogue would have to go. The Super Redhawk is ugly as hell but it's much more comfortable to shoot and the .480 is surprisingly so. Even with 420's@1100fps. But for your purposes, I think you'd be well suited with a 4" or 5½" Redhawk but I'd choose a 629 Mountain Gun over either of them. One resides in my nightstand drawer, tuned by Bob Munden.

September 2, 2008, 07:16 PM	#12
minnfinn Member Join Date: January 17, 2008 Posts: 54	As I understand it the the SRH was modeled as a heavyweight version of GP100 and in addition to the .44 mag offers chambered in heavy loads like .454 Casull and .480 Ruger. No fluted cylinder to handle the larger diameter calibers, heavier loads and intregal scope mount slots on the frame above the cylinder. SRH also has 2 springs, one for trigger and other for hammer. SRH is designed more strickly as a hunting. RH is a very popular DA revolver for years even after SRH was introduced. It's a fine revolver. Hogue grips on model I have .44 mag 4" fits the hand well and provides a well designed DA for hunter and carry.

September 3, 2008, 09:37 PM	#13
Smaug Senior Member Join Date: June 4, 2004 Location: SE Wisconsin Posts: 3,210	Well fellas, I've gone & done it, or at least started the 72 hr. waiting period that is required in good old Illinois. I shopped my local gun shops by phone. The closest one told me $720 for a new SS, 5.5" Redhawk. Ouch. They seemed to be going for $550-620 on gunbroker. Getting warmer. The second store I called (GAT Guns in West Dundee, IL) quoted $660 for the same one new. I went there in person, "just to look." Before going to look at the new one, I perused the used handgun area. Lo and behold, they had 3 used Redhawks in 44 Magnum for sale: 1) A Super, 7.5", with rings - $500 2) A Super, 7.5" without rings - $500 3) A "Redhawk Hunter", 7.5" barrel, stainless, with rings and Leupold M4X EER scope, Pachmayr presentation grips, and original grips for $600. I tried the trigger on 2 & 3. No comparison, the Redhawk Hunter had the better trigger, both in single & double action. I had never heard of a Redhawk Hunter; this must be a model that was discontinued when the Super Redhawk came out? It has the Ruger rings with dents cut into the top of the barrel, but without that funky extended frame in front of the cylinder. After a bit of haggling, I could only get them down to $575 and 10% off ammo & accessories on the day I pick it up. But if I recall correctly, the Leupold scope is worth at least $150 on its own. I did the full check according to the sticky post above. The gun is VERY tight, with a clean bore. The cylinder gap is less than 0.003". The clerk nearly pooped himself when I broke out my feeler gauges. He said he had never seen that before, but that one guy did bring in an electronic scale to weigh a gun. Naturally, I'll post photos in a new thread when I bring 'er home Sunday or so. I still have handloads from when I had the S&W 29. Some light magnums and some full magnums with 240 gr. Rainier plated flat points. Now here's the kicker. <story>I brought my Ruger P90 and Ruger Mk. II 50th Anniversary to possibly trade in, if their offers weren't too insulting. What did they offer? $175 for the P90 and $125 for the Mk. II. Ouch. Not that it matters, but I paid $500 for the P90 in 1998, and I think around $300 for the Mk. II in 2000. The guy recommended to me that I keep them. I said OK. But there were two kids (mid 20s) behind me ogling a used Ruger P94 (9mm) they had. They were asking $330 for it. The clerk had stepped away and was checking what they might give for the Mk. II. I said to the kids: "Hey, do you like that gun?" (they nodded) I've got one just like it that this guy just gave me an insulting offer on. If you want mine, I'll sell it to you for a good price." I told them $250, and they were soon fighting over which of them would buy it off of me. The first one to talk to me was just handling it and the clerk came back and said: "Hey, you can't sell that in here." I said: "Oh, I wasn't. I'm going to keep it remember?" and I winked at the kid. So I put it away and put the Redhawk on layaway with my debit card. (they charge 4.5% more if I paid with debit, so I'm going to come back and pay the balance with cash or a check.) Sure enough, as I was walking out the door, the kids followed me. There were cameras in the lot, so I told them to follow me. We pulled into a gas station, and I sold it to him for $250 cash, and managed to do it according to our state laws. I checked his FOID card, asked him some questions to get a good feeling that he wasn't a gangster or straw buyer. He's from a wealthier suburb. He's happy, I'm happy and I didn't get spanked on my P90, which was my second gun in 1997.</story> Sorry for the long post. I can't wait to get that Redhawk. I need to do a little research and find out if this is from the period in which Redhawks had the problem with the barrels loosening up. I'm hoping I can put in for an Illinois handgun deer tag this fall. The gun's going to still be too heavy for Kate to shoot much, but oh well. Thanks for all your advice and opinions fellas.