Concealing a Ruger Redhawk

[wmg1299]

Originally Posted by DPris

The Red snub is significantly bigger, bulkier & heavier than the GP snub.
The Red WILL add up during the day.
And one extra round would not balance that out, for me.
We're trying to answer your original post.

There IS quite a difference between the two in size & weight.
Your choice, but I don't think we can phrase it any more clearly, and we're talking about CARRYING that weight for sustained periods, not just doing a few lifts, so your dumbbell analogy doesn't apply.
And the Redhawk is considerably heavier than a coin, so that one doesn't fly either.
Denis

Fair enough. I will phrase my question in a firearm specific form using other firearms in my collection. At different times I have carried both the Glock 26, and the larger Glock 19. Despite the difference in size and weight, the 19 did was not significantly more difficult to conceal because it did not require any change of wardrobe or carry position and the weight difference was not noticeable. I purchased a Glock 42 several years ago, which I can pocket carry with certain pants. I own a Glock 17, but it is a home defense gun that I have never attempted to conceal.

I can conceal the 7-round GP100 fairly easily. Would switching from the GP100 to the Redhawk be more like switching from a Glock 26 to a Glock 19, or more like switching from a Glock 42 to a Glock 17?

[TruthTellers]

Originally Posted by wmg1299

Fair enough. I will phrase my question in a firearm specific form using other firearms in my collection. At different times I have carried both the Glock 26, and the larger Glock 19. Despite the difference in size and weight, the 19 did was not significantly more difficult to conceal because it did not require any change of wardrobe or carry position and the weight difference was not noticeable. I purchased a Glock 42 several years ago, which I can pocket carry with certain pants. I own a Glock 17, but it is a home defense gun that I have never attempted to conceal.

I can conceal the 7-round GP100 fairly easily. Would switching from the GP100 to the Redhawk be more like switching from a Glock 26 to a Glock 19, or more like switching from a Glock 42 to a Glock 17?

The width of the G19 and G26 is the same, the only difference is length (which doesn't affect concealment) and height, which does affect concealment, but not necessarily comfort.

Those Glocks are polymer framed and thus are going to be light, the GP100 and Redhawk are all steel.

No, it would not be liking switching from a G26 to a G19. It'd be more like switching from a Glock 19 to a .45 Hi Point.

[Real Gun]

I think the issue becomes carrying a Redhawk at all, let alone concealed and at any barrel length. Smith N-frame pretty much the same. In terms of only the weight, for me it would cross the line by a lot for what would require me to wear belt suspenders. My Redhawk is massive compared to my Match Champion, but both are over the line for burden that would have me hitching up my pants every two minutes. What would work with my Redhawk is the Alaska shoulder/chest carry rig that fits over outerwear, essentially a bear gun.

I gather that you do not care to be dissuaded. Holding out for having guns in your hand to compare kind of makes this thread meaningless.

[DPris]

Agree.

If you want the gun, get the gun.

My 4-inch Reds fit a couple of 4-inch Smith N-Frame holsters I have here.
Tight fit & obviously bigger than an N, but can still use some of the same leather.

I personally have never had any problem whatever in carrying a 3-inch GP .357 concealed, and I've toted the 4-inch Reds in the wilds.
I have never carried the Redhawk platform concealed, because it's just too heavy for all-day regular concealed carry, and even though I do have adaptable leather that would allow it, there's no practical reason to do it.

Same deal with the .44 Mag Kodiak snub Red.
I COULD wear it concealed, size-wise, but I have a chest rig for that one.
A comparable .357 Mag Red snub would offer only one more round than a 7-shot GP .357 snub, and the addition of one more round is just a no-balance trade over the smaller & lighter GP.

Without somebody taking detailed photos & precise measurements of both Red & GP for you, not much more can be said.

You want the gun, get it.
Then you'll find out for yourself.
Denis

[Jbotto]

To the OP: I read your first post and quickly started commenting before reading the rest of the replies. I’m a fairly skinny guy with a bit more height than you. I have carried my 5.5” Redhawks, on occasion, concealed even out of convenience of just not taking it off. Anyways, even with the longer barrel it is doable. The butt pokes out of my shirt when I bend over or reach for something, but just standing with even a longer T-shirt will hide this gun. Get a good pancake style holster and it will hold it tight to you and offer good support as well.









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[flashhole]

My good fortune to find this thread. I'm considering the Red in 44 Mag with a 2.75" barrel as a carry gun. I'm 5'9", 200 pounds and used to carry a GP-100 with a 4" barrel. Hated it. IMO the barrel was too long for comfortable carry and too short for target shooting.

The short barrel appeals to me and I'm looking at both the Ruger Redhawk and S&W model 69 so am interested in all the comments. I would not get the Redhawk in 357, like others I think there are better options for that cartridge.

OP - thanks for starting the thread.

[DPris]

Still heavy & bulky, but if you don't mind those.....
Denis

[Real Gun]

I think an Alaskan at any load level of 45 Colt would be another possibility. The innards are improved over the regular Redhawk. That gun would actually be 454 Casull, so you can shoot mild to wild in it according to your limitations.