# Range report on Super Redhawk in 10mm



## HogHunter (Mar 13, 2018)

I have had the Super Redhawk in 10mm for several months. The handgun has several things going for it. It weights in at 54 ounces unloaded. The weight socks up recoil and it is easy on the hands when shooting. It is a very good handgun for carrying to a deer stand and then returning that night. However, the weight makes it a bad gun to carry in a hip hostler. It will pull your pants down within a 100 yards and you will continually be pulling your pants up every few minutes. The moon clips are really a moot point. The only time the moon clips are needed is when shooting 40 S&W cartridges. When shooting 10mm cartridges, the brass sticks out far enough to pull them out with your fingers. The brass is easier and quicker to remove than brass from a Blackhawk 357. A person with arthritic hands or an injured hand that wants a step up from 357 magnum will like this handgun. 

I can not recommend the handgun for a general purpose carry in the field handgun because of the weight unless you carry it with some kind of shoulder strap hostler. However, it should be a great deer stand gun.


----------



## HogHunter (Mar 13, 2018)

A lot of people are pushing 10mm, but I would like to clarify a few things.

I am going to compare three handguns: 44 mag S&W 629 Classic 6.5 inch barrel, 10mm Super Redhawk 6.5 inch barrel, and 357 S&W 686 Plus 6.0 inch barrel. The barrel length is not important since my figures will come from the ballistic charts found in the Shooters Bible. I just put the barrel length in so you would know which handgun I was talking about when I quote gun weights from the Smith and Wesson website or Ruger website. 

The 44 mag S&W 629 Classic 6.5 inch barrel gun weights in at 48.4 oz. According to the ballistic chart, Hornady's 240 grain bullet has muzzle velocity of 1350 ft/sec and 971 lbs of energy at the muzzle. According to the recoil calculator found on Beartooth Bullets website, recoil is 14 lbs.

The 10mm Super Redhawk 6.5 inch barrel gun weights in at 54 oz. According to the ballistic chart, Hornady's 180 grain bullet has muzzle velocity of 1180 ft/sec and 556 lbs of energy at the muzzle. According to the recoil calculator found on Beartooth Bullets website, recoil is 5 lbs. Add a Leopold 2.5 power scope and scope rings, weight increases to 66 oz and recoil drops to 4 lbs.


The 357 S&W 686 Plus 6.0 inch barrel gun weights in at 44.5 oz. According to the ballistic chart, Hornady's 158 grain bullet has muzzle velocity of 1250 ft/sec and 548 lbs of energy at the muzzle. According to the recoil calculator found on Beartooth Bullets website, recoil is 6 lbs. 

The 44 mag is the clear winner as far as bullet diameter, bullet weight, and energy. So despite the You Tube claims that 10mm is the new 44 mag, it is just not true. 

It is interesting to note how similar the 357 mag and 10mm are on paper. Where the 10mm comes out ahead of the 357 mag is bullet weight and bullet diameter which in theory should give better penetration and better wound channel. Maybe I will get a chance to test the theory this fall on deer.


----------



## TheReaper (Nov 14, 2008)

In a revolver, I'll take the .41 Mag over the 10MM all day long.


----------



## HogHunter (Mar 13, 2018)

They say confession is good for the soul, so here goes. I just got tired of pulling my pants up every 50 yards. There was a gun show last weekend. I took the Super Redhawk 10mm and a couple of rifles that I no longer use for hunting. I sold the two rifles and the 10mm Super Redhawk and used the money to purchase a Kimber 10mm long slide and a Smith and Wesson 29-3 44 mag. 

I am happy with the Kimber, but it does not like hard cast bullets. It jams 1 out of 5 with cast bullets. It does shoot Hornady 180 grain XTP cartridges well. The S&W 44 mag shoots good groups with everything that I have tried, including cast bullets. I now have what I want, a lighter weight carry gun for the woods (Kimber 10mm) and a stand gun (S&W 44 mag). I was trying to get both in one handgun (Super Redhawk 10mm), but it just did not work out. Some of you may ask why I did not keep the 10mm Super Redhawk for the stand gun. I do not have a good answer other than, I was just aggravated with the handgun. I know, makes no sense, but I knew that I would never be happy with that handgun.

I guess this ends my range report on the 10mm Super Redhawk.


----------



## Craigh (Jul 29, 2016)

I think you made a wise decision. Personally, I've really never understood the idea of using rimless cartridges designed for auto-loaders in a revolver. I just can't for the life of me understand any attraction. I do understand the military contracting years ago for some revolvers in 45 ACP when they couldn't get enough 1911s, but not any other situation. I really don't know of a rimless round having some aspect which can't be covered by an existing rimmed round. The idea of having to used moon clips as a fake rim or having to pluck the rounds out with one's fingers makes little sense to me. 

Ok, I see one possibility, but it's a reach. I suppose if you owned a huge abundance of 9mm and wanted a single action 357/38 revolver and didn't mind the slight loss in accuracy with the 9mm traveling down a slightly larger diameter barrel, you might consider a Super Blackhawk 357 Magnum with an extra convertible 9mm cylinder. Again, it's a reach. I shot one of these extensively years ago and can tell you it's one of the two handguns I can claim I shot better than the gun. It just wasn't accurate in my hands. When you fit the 38/357 cylinder back in, it was very accurate. The other was a Colt 22/22mag single action I owned and hated because it just wasn't accurate shooting anything other than 22 magnum. Same reason.


----------



## berettatoter (Sep 1, 2011)

HogHunter said:


> They say confession is good for the soul, so here goes. I just got tired of pulling my pants up every 50 yards. There was a gun show last weekend. I took the Super Redhawk 10mm and a couple of rifles that I no longer use for hunting. I sold the two rifles and the 10mm Super Redhawk and used the money to purchase a Kimber 10mm long slide and a Smith and Wesson 29-3 44 mag.
> 
> I am happy with the Kimber, but it does not like hard cast bullets. It jams 1 out of 5 with cast bullets. It does shoot Hornady 180 grain XTP cartridges well. The S&W 44 mag shoots good groups with everything that I have tried, including cast bullets. I now have what I want, a lighter weight carry gun for the woods (Kimber 10mm) and a stand gun (S&W 44 mag). I was trying to get both in one handgun (Super Redhawk 10mm), but it just did not work out. Some of you may ask why I did not keep the 10mm Super Redhawk for the stand gun. I do not have a good answer other than, I was just aggravated with the handgun. I know, makes no sense, but I knew that I would never be happy with that handgun.
> 
> I guess this ends my range report on the 10mm Super Redhawk.


It only matters, if it makes sense to you. :smt1099


----------



## J. R. Weems (Mar 13, 2011)

Have not as yet seen this gun?? Barrel length?? in spite of the above, I am a fan of the 10 and have several. I understand a new single action is out and a convertible to 40S&W as well??


----------



## win231 (Aug 5, 2015)

Craigh said:


> I think you made a wise decision. Personally, I've really never understood the idea of using rimless cartridges designed for auto-loaders in a revolver. I just can't for the life of me understand any attraction. I do understand the military contracting years ago for some revolvers in 45 ACP when they couldn't get enough 1911s, but not any other situation. I really don't know of a rimless round having some aspect which can't be covered by an existing rimmed round. The idea of having to used moon clips as a fake rim or having to pluck the rounds out with one's fingers makes little sense to me.
> 
> Ok, I see one possibility, but it's a reach. I suppose if you owned a huge abundance of 9mm and wanted a single action 357/38 revolver and didn't mind the slight loss in accuracy with the 9mm traveling down a slightly larger diameter barrel, you might consider a Super Blackhawk 357 Magnum with an extra convertible 9mm cylinder. Again, it's a reach. I shot one of these extensively years ago and can tell you it's one of the two handguns I can claim I shot better than the gun. It just wasn't accurate in my hands. When you fit the 38/357 cylinder back in, it was very accurate. The other was a Colt 22/22mag single action I owned and hated because it just wasn't accurate shooting anything other than 22 magnum. Same reason.


One of my house guns is a S&W 625 (Model of 1989). It's all Jerry Miculek's fault that I bought it after watching him shoot his. It's very accurate, especially with 45 AR which doesn't require moon clips. And it's really fast to reload with moon clips.


----------

