Redhawk vs Super Redhawk for woods carry — does the extra cylinder matter?

Dave's not wrong about the cylinder timing — that's real. But I'd push back on one thing: the handiness argument matters more than he's letting on.

I'll grant you the Super's extra round and smoother recoil impulse. On paper, six is better than five. But the standard Redhawk points and handles faster. It's slighter, the grip frame sits different in your hand when you're wearing layers, and you're not wrestling a heavier gun up from a chest holster when you're moving through timber. That half-second of draw and acquisition adds up when you're working in real conditions — not standing at a bench.

The reload argument is solid too. Moon clips help in a controlled setting, but field reloads under stress? You're dumping and feeding either way. The standard frame lets you do that with less fumble.

I'd lean .44 over .357 — same reasoning Dave gave. But honestly, if you're sitting for a few hours and hiking in prepared, a lever gun in .357 or .44-40 gets you better velocity, easier reloads, and less weight on your shoulder. I know that's not what you asked, but the handiness factor pushes me that direction every time.

If it has to be a revolver, the standard Redhawk does the job. You're not gaining enough from the Super to justify the carry penalty in brush country.

Five or six doesn't matter in the field. What matters is cylinder timing and swap-out speed.

I've run both. The standard Redhawk's timing is tighter — the cylinder locks up with less play at the gap. The Super's extra mass smooths out recoil, sure, but you're trading that for a slightly looser lockup over time and a heavier gun you're carrying six hours for maybe thirty seconds of actual shooting.

If you're in the backcountry and you need a reload, you're doing it by hand anyway. Moon clips make the Super faster in theory, but in woods conditions — mud, cold hands, moving fast — you're dumping empties and feeding fresh rounds one at a time either way. The standard frame handles that just fine.

.44 carries the same in both frames. .357 is pointless in a Magnum-spec wheelgun — use a Security-Six if you want .357 and lighter carry.

Stick with the standard Redhawk in .44. Lighter, tighter lockup, and that fifth round sits in your hand anyway when you need it.

Both of you are laying out the real trade-offs, and I think the handiness argument is what tips it for me in actual field carry.

I've run a standard Redhawk in .44 for probably eight seasons now — pack gun, never daily. Dave's right about the cylinder timing; that lockup matters over years. But Hank's nailing something that doesn't always get attention: once you're layered up in November or early December and you're drawing from a chest holster while moving, that extra half-pound and the slightly longer sight radius work against you in ways that don't show up on paper.

The five-round capacity issue is real only if you're thinking about it wrong. If you're in a situation where you've fired five rounds and need a sixth *immediately*, you've got bigger problems than reload speed. And if you have time to reload, you have time to do it cleanly with either gun.

Where I'd push back slightly on Hank: I haven't noticed a real difference in .357 vs .44 carry weight in either frame — both live in the truck most of the year anyway. But the ballistics in .44 at distance do matter if you're working public land where shots might stretch out.

I'd take the standard Redhawk in .44. Lighter, handles faster from a pack, and the cylinder will outlast the Super. That said — if you're sitting for hours and not moving much, does the Super's recoil smoothness actually matter to you? That's the one thing I'm less clear on in your scenario.