dig4gold

Talk me out of the Redhawk. I like the looks better than the SA, but it is about $300.00 more!!!(?)
I'll be using it mostly for plinking, home & self defense, and will use it hunting. Will conceal carry both hunting and around town. I will be using it to shoot birds (Grouse)with the CCI Shotshell, plinking with "cowboy rounds" or lighter, big game with +P ammo by Buffalo Bore or Cor Bon, and .45 ACP with moon clips (occasionally).
So why spend the extra $300.00?! $420.00 vs. $720.00?
Both will do all the aforementioned things . . . so it comes down to SA vs. DA (and aesthetics)

Big Uncle

The Blackhawk feels completely different than the Redhawk to me. You are asking too much out of one revolver if you thinking concealed carry with either of these guns.

I use a 4 5/8" .45 Blackhawk as a trail companion. To me the .45 Redhawk is neither "fish nor fowl".

dig4gold

I should have explained . . . "concealed" is mostly going to be when I am hunting and the gun is in a shoulder holster under my coat. Around town is much less likely. I'm leaning towards the Redhawk because it is the 4.2" version, stainless, Hogue grip, nice looking gun! And being DA I can easily use a speed loader if I want.

But is it really worth the extra $300.00 given my parameters?

stalkingbear

I have versions of both and they are completely different critters. For self/home protection the Redhawk is clearly superior since it's swing out double action. For hunting the Blackhawk should cover any situation except perhaps bear defense. Since you're going to use it for home/self defense the Redhawk will give you the better platform because you have double action. If you decide to get the Redhawk, you still have the option of double/single action. Note: the unique spring setup and lockwork of the Redhawk lends itself to very smooth light double action-especially if you replace the spring with a Wolff spring kit. The mainspring doubles as a trigger return spring. The Super Redhawk has completely different setup. By the way, I keep a .41 mag Redhawk with a surefire light and 3 speedloaders beside my bed.

Pawildman

........ I know you asked about the Blackhawk vs. Redhawk, but for the uses you describe, have you looked at the Vaquero? I understand there is a sight issue. I've had one in stainless with the 4 5/8" bbl. for quite awhile, and really enjoy it as just a "fun gun". I tend to like the SA Rugers. I also own Blackhawks in .41 Mag and a Super Blackhawk in .44 Mag. Just a thought...

Big Uncle

The Redhawk feels like it weighs a ton to me, but it is one heck of a rugged revolver. If you have to have a DA for defense issues, then the Redhawk is the only choice for you from the two that you listed. For a hunting/outdoors gun I don't think the Redhawk is worth either the extra weight or cost.

My preference for DAs is S&W, although I do sometimes carry a SP101 (a great little gun).

dig4gold

From what I read, the Vaquero (new) has too light a frame for the +P loads I will use.

ADVWannabee

I am no expert but I would not use a SA revolver for self defense at home, on the street or in the woods. Too slow to shoot. Now I would love an old style SA revolver for hunting some day. Just something classic about them.

dig4gold

I think I've come up with a sollution. I'm gonna get the Redhawk, spend the extra, and never look back knowing I'd done the right thing. Then in a couple/three months, (and some penny pinching) go out and get a longer barelled Blackhawk!! Then I'll get back with y'all with my conclusion.

fritz1

I have both, you cant go wrong with either, get the one that feels best to you. I have two Super RedHawks, both stainless 44 mags. one has the 7.5" barrel the other the 10.5" barrel and a 2X Leupold scope, I also have a Super BlackHawk in 44 Mag, stainless with a 7.5" barrel, A very nice gun, Its the one I carry for back up when going in behind my hounds when bear hunting. The Blackhawk does weigh less and is more comfortable carrying, thats why I use mine as a back up gun.