Ruger Forum

erogers · November 25th, 2010, 11:54 AM

Hi folks...Happy Thanksgiving! I've been trying to search for info on this, but have been unsuccessful, so I'm hoping you guys can help me out. I bought a 4" Redhawk back in December 2008, and haven't really stayed current on Ruger's offerings. But now, I noticed that they are only offered in 4.2", not 4". I know it's because of the Canadian laws, but now I'm curious. When did Ruger officially change to offering only 4.2" models? Is there a serial number where 4" production ended and 4.2" began? Sorry if I appear naive on this topic...I guess I am. Any information on this would be appreciated. Thanks.

stantheman86 · November 25th, 2010, 02:41 PM

I thought all the GP100's and 4" Redhawks were always, in fact, 4.2".........I'll have to measure my older and newer 4" GP's to see if they are 4.2", I even have a Canadian re-import GP.

A dealer near me has 4" Redhawks and he advertises them as 4.2".

erogers · November 25th, 2010, 09:45 PM

I just went and measured my Redhawk's barrel, and unless I'm doing something wrong, it measures exactly four inches. I'm just trying to find out as much information on this as possible. I certainly don't recall the 4" Redhawk being advertised as 4.2" when it was first introduced.

Yellow Rock Ranch · November 26th, 2010, 06:39 AM

erogers

Are you measuring from end of barrel to end of barrel or end of barrel to back of frame?

erogers · November 26th, 2010, 07:19 AM

Good point. I might have measured from the back of the frame, come to think of it. I'll go measure it again and give an update. Thanks.

stantheman86 · November 26th, 2010, 07:34 AM

That .2" might give you an extra 4 fps. of velocity

erogers · November 26th, 2010, 07:46 AM

I just measured it again, from the barrel end to barrel end (from the part that sticks through the frame to the muzzle). It was exactly 4.0 inches, no more and no less. I guess I measured it correctly the first time. So, I guess the "4 inch" Redhawk wasn't always 4.2". The question now is, when did it change, and why don't they still offer the 4" to U.S. consumers? .2 inches isn't a big deal, I guess, but the principle behind it rubs me the wrong way.

Yellow Rock Ranch · November 26th, 2010, 07:49 AM

stantheman86

Every little bit helps..I am pretty sure the 4" is standard at 4.2.. Over time Ruger has gone for barrel lengths advertised in fractions to decimal places, more truth in advertising I guess.

Yellow Rock Ranch · November 26th, 2010, 07:51 AM

erogers

Interesting! If you go to the Ruger page they list the short barrel Redhawk at 4.2"..

erogers · November 26th, 2010, 09:33 AM

I wonder if they always listed it at 4.2"? I doubt it, because I am pretty sure I remember seeing it listed at 4" back when it was first introduced. Does anyone have an old Ruger catalog from 2008 that might list the 4" Redhawk? I'd be interested to hear how it's listed. Come to think of it, I might have an older catalog somewhere. I'll look for it when I get the chance. Ultimately, this isn't a big deal, but when I get interested in something like this, I just can't let it go until I find the answer. I guess I'm a bit obsessive about my guns. I'm sure most of you understand!

Yellow Rock Ranch · November 26th, 2010, 09:41 AM

erogers

I bet you could call Ruger and they would be glad to answer your question..

erogers · November 26th, 2010, 09:57 AM

Yeah, I suppose, but then I wouldn't get to meet and know you guys! Maybe I'll send Ruger Customer Service an e-mail to see if they'll give me an answer.

erogers · November 26th, 2010, 10:04 AM

I just tried to call Ruger's NH customer service department, and received a message that they are closed "due to unforeseen circumstances." If it was due to an extra holiday, I would have thought they would have used some other phrase instead of "unforeseen circumstances." I hope everything is okay.

flat top · November 26th, 2010, 10:12 AM

I was shortchanged on my 4" stainless Redhawk.....from the start of the forcing cone to the end of the barrel (the entire barrel lenght) measures 3.970, so, I guess this is a 3"+ model!!! Rugers demensions are all over the place. I have two Redhawks and the chamber demensions are worlds apart. Such is the state of "mass manufacturing".

erogers · November 26th, 2010, 10:33 AM

Well Flat Top, I guess that settles the fact that Ruger actually produced Redhawks shorter than 4.2". I didn't use a vernier caliper, so mine could have been slightly under 4" as well, although it looked spot on at 4" on my tape measure. Now, I'm just curious to see when they stopped 4" production and switched over to 4.2".