It seems many gun makers have gotten away from blued finishes. I guess it is to much more labor involved making it prohibitive cost wise compared to using SS or such. Many now are even bead blasting the stainless replacing the labor costs of polishing. A high quality blued gun is awesome but it sure doesn't hold up as well as SS.
What is the difference between the Redhawk and the Super Redhawk? Anyone have pictures of the two for comparison or is the differences not visibly seen?
It is just my idea/thought as we all know beauty is in the eye of the beholder but I think the SH looks like Ruger took a gun with a 3" barrel and stuck another barrel on the end of it. I never have liked that design. Like I said that is just my .02 which doesn't mean squat to anyone else, or at least it shouldn't. I would take the RH over the SH any day. Thanks SG for the pics.
I agree with buster. To me the Super is kind of an odd looking duck but like buster said... beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Although, if you wanted a scope the SRH would be the way to go. That frame looks strong and is cut for Ruger rings. :usa:
It looks like they just extended the barrel on the Alaskan: (or, depending on how you look at it, they chopped the barrel off the SRH to make the Alaskan )
