one of us
| A lot epends on what one wants them for. Barrel lenght ect.
They are both fine guns.
I would keep both take the scope of the Regular redhawk for a carry gun and use the super as a hunting gun. |
| | |
One of Us
| Purely aesthetics, in my mind... I don't like the way the frame extends on the SRH, but from what I have read they are incredibly accurate. I have all eight of the original stainless Redhawks (four calibers in both barrel lengths), and don't own a single SRH. But I have often been the "oddball"... |
| | |
one of us
| I love them both. Keep both of them. |
| | |
One of Us
| I guess I will keep both. I was looking for some insite that maybe one was much better than the other. Thanks. |
| | | Posts: 562 | Location: Michigan, US | Registered: 10 April 2007 | 
IP
|
|
One of Us
| I have shot both quite a bit and prefer the Redhawk. |
| | |
One of Us
| quote: Originally posted by p dog shooter:
A lot epends on what one wants them for. Barrel lenght ect.
They are both fine guns.
I would keep both take the scope of the Regular redhawk for a carry gun and use the super as a hunting gun.
Same here !!
Phil Shoemaker : "I went to a .30-06 on a fine old Mauser action. That worked successfully for a few years until a wounded, vindictive brown bear taught me that precise bullet placement is not always possible in thick alders, at spitting distances and when time is measured in split seconds. Lucky to come out of that lesson alive, I decided to look for a more suitable rifle."
|
| | | Posts: 1934 | Location: Eastern Central Alaska | Registered: 15 July 2014 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| quote: Same here !!
One can tell it is getting to be cold in AK.  Bringing life to a 5 year old thread. My answer is the same as it was 5 years ago. |
| | |
one of us
| Are either made in SS Bisley ? |
| | |
