Redhawk or Super Redhawk for woods carry—which frame size actually matters?

Question

I'm building out a woods carry option for hiking and small game on public land in the Sierra, and I keep second-guessing the frame choice. I've shot both—the regular Redhawk points better for me, feels more natural in the hand. The Super feels like I'm gripping a fence post.

But here's what I'm stuck on: I understand the capacity difference (six vs eight rounds of .357), and I know the Super's a bit heavier. What I don't have solid data on is whether that extra two rounds actually matters in a real woods scenario, or if I'm overthinking it because the gun feels awkward to me. I'm not carrying it concealed—it'll be in a chest holster under a jacket or a hip holster over canvas.

Does the extra capacity justify fighting with frame ergonomics on long days, or am I better off going with what points naturally and just running the Redhawk?

Marcus Carter · Accepted Answer

Both of you are working from solid ground here. Dave's right that you shoot what you handle well, and Hank's right that open carry changes the math on weight and how the gun settles in the holster.

I'll come at this from the Sierra angle, which matters: if you're in grizzly country or even solid black bear range, the Super Redhawk's your gun. Eight rounds of .357 gives you a better margin if you need follow-up shots, and the extra weight actually helps with muzzle flip in a defensive scenario—that's real. The .357 itself is adequate; the extra capacity is the point.

But if you're mainly dealing with mountain lions and small game, or if you're in lower-elevation hunting zones where bear pressure is light, the Redhawk does the job. Six rounds is genuinely enough. The fact that it points naturally for you is *not* a small thing. That's motor memory, and it matters when you're cold and moving fast through brush.

Here's what I'd actually test: borrow a Super in the chest holster setup you'll actually use—not dry-handling—and work it from a realistic draw position for maybe thirty minutes. See if the presentation smooths out once you're doing it for real instead of just gripping it in the kitchen. If it does, the extra two rounds buy you real peace of mind in bear country. If it still feels wrong, stick with the Redhawk and know you've made the right choice.

What zone are you hunting? That tells you whether the capacity question even matters or if the Redhawk's already the answer.

Hank Miller · Answer

Dave's not wrong about the ergonomics piece—that matters. But I'll push back a little on the "stop overthinking capacity" angle, because the two-round difference actually does mean something in a truck-carry scenario, just not for the reasons most people think.

Six rounds is genuinely adequate for what you're doing. I won't pretend the Super's eight gives you some tactical edge it doesn't. But here's the thing: you're not concealing this. It's going in a chest holster under a jacket or on your hip. The weight penalty—we're talking maybe a pound difference—isn't a deal-breaker on a day hike. And if the Super doesn't fight you on the draw from open carry, the extra two rounds buy you something real: they let you be *lazier* with your shooting and still come out ahead.

Now, if the regular Redhawk points naturally for you and the Super feels like a fence post, that's a legitimate thing. Muscle memory and natural indexing matter. But test the Super from the actual holster setup you'll be using. Sitting in a chest rig, a lot of guns that feel clumsy in the hand actually settle in fine during the presentation. The extra leverage from the barrel helps some shooters find a better sight picture faster.

I'd say this: take a borrowed Super out to the range in the actual chest holster. Run twenty rounds from the draw, cold. If it still feels wrong after that, get the Redhawk. You'll shoot it better, and better is what counts. But don't dismiss it based on dry-handling alone.

Dave Kowalski · Answer

Go with what you can shoot. Six rounds of .357 is plenty for Sierra hiking—you're not running a line shack. The Super's extra two rounds don't matter if you're fighting the ergonomics all day.

What actually matters is cylinder gap and timing. Both guns use the same action family, so if the Redhawk's timing is tight and the gap's clean, you've got a reliable piece. The Super's heavier, sure, but that doesn't fix bad pointer. You already know the regular Redhawk points naturally for you. That's the gun.

Run the Redhawk, keep your technique sharp, and stop overthinking capacity. Two extra rounds won't save you if you can't get the sights where they need to be when it counts.