I am sure my hand will give out long before my new to me 29-2 will, so this is academic.

What makes the Ruger Redhawk more rugged? Comparing the 4.2" Redhawk at 47 ounces to the 4" M29 classic at 43.8 ounces.

I figure the .2 inch of extra barrel on the Ruger is .5 ounce so 43.8 Smith v 46.5 Ruger, and my Smith Pachmeyers weigh about 3 oz more than the wooden grips (not sure if it is apples to apples) so now the Ruger is down to 43.5, so they are close in weight. Stainless v carbon steel??

So, what makes the Redhawk a tougher gun? tia

Much heavier frame and they mix in Wheaties during the casting process.

Look at the books. They say TC OR RUGER ONLY LOADS. A factory Ruger trigger sucks next to a Smith.

I've had a Redhawk since they first came out, in blue. It's quite a slab of iron. I believe it also has 3 lock-up points. Sure feels like it.
I mounted a Tasco 1.5 power scope(dot reticle) and have put thousands of rounds through it. Stills feels like a bank vault and is as accurate as day one.The trigger (custom) is a seamless 9lb pull in DA and snaps like glass SA. It spoiled me for big frame 44s ever since. I have some S&W 44s..but my Redhawk is my top dog.

IMHO--WITHOUT TAKING ANY MEASUREMENTS, THE RUGER FRAME JUST LOOKS BEEFIER. THERE MAY BE SOME DIFFERENCE IN METALLURGY, AS WELL.....

I AGREE THAT THE RUGER TRIGGER MECHANISM IS INFERIOR, BUT I DOUBT THAT THIS HAS ANY BEARING ON THE ISSUE......

__________________
'Nam 1968-69.DAV,VFW,NRA Inst.

"Look at the books. They say TC OR RUGER ONLY LOADS. A factory Ruger trigger sucks next to a Smith."

Yes and you can add the Dan Wesson to that list and they may have a better trigger than the 29' to boot.....
No question a Ruger is built like a sledge hammer....accurate also...

Short of destructive testing, the "ruggedness" of these two guns could be defined by the number of rounds before repair is needed. I believe there's a lot of internet inertia favoring the Ruger that is like heresy to challenge. Problems with endshake, cylinder notch peening and timing problems or some combination of these will develop on either gun. If a large enough sample of both guns were tested I wouldn't be at all surprised if there wasn't much difference.

The pros can chime in here.....but my understanding is that Rugers have an investment cast frame, not forged. Therefore, they need to be bigger/beefier in order to be as strong as S&W. It's funny to hear folks say they switched to ruger because of s&w using mim triggers/hammers (a form of casting), when the whole dang gun is cast on a Ruger. Not saying that's bad, it is what it is.

Something can be "bigger/beefier" and not take as big of a pounding before failure. This is engineering, tolerance (not the kind that says I have to support gay marriage), and material related. Stronger materials superior engineering, and tighter tolerances will trump beefy alone.

Well, what is the perceived attribute that makes the Ruger worthy of Ruger Only loads?

Is the Smith metallurgy inferior? Will the frame warp or stretch too much, will the cylinder fail? before the Ruger? thinner forcing cones?

Is the side plate design simply weaker than the Ruger design?

Or is it a matter of the little parts going out of tolerance and needing a rebuilding?

tia

The S&W N frame was designed back in 1906 for the 44 special cartridge, a 15K psi cartridge. Special heat treating allowed it to chamber the 44 Magnum ( a 35K psi cartridge) and over the years S&W has added an endurance package. But, the fact is, it's still a 100+ year old design and has limits.
The Redhawk was a clean sheet design specifically for the 44 Magnum with a lot of margin built in. It's slightly heavier brother, the Super Redhawk is also chambered for the 454 Casull (a 60Kpsi cartridge).

Fact is, the Redhawk is simply a newer stronger design. No sideplate, larger diameter cylinder that locks at the crane/frame junction, larger cylinder bolt, etc.

This doesn't mean the Smith is a dog by any stretch, just an older design with limits.

Jim

That's where the X frame 500 comes in I guess

If you want really heavy duty go with a Ruger Super Blackhawk.

A lot of it is the sideplate access to lockwork vs the no side plate with bottom cutout design, a slightly off set bolt cut on the Ruger.

The forged, cast, MIM stuff cracks me up. With modern methods all are comparable. Forgings were superior at one time. During the same time period hot riveted construction was also superior to that new fangled Arc welding. LOMAO Casting has vastly improved and so has MIM. Forging has its own problems and perils. One of the reasons S&W took forever to get their heat treatment right was because they started with forging and the temps necessary to forge cause grain growth. Large grain bad, small grain good.

^^ This.

The Smith and Wesson was originally designed for the .44 Special. Elmer Keith started hot-rodding the hell out of the Special, and found that the Smiths could actually take it...sort've. Some of them. For awhile.

But there were lots of .44 Special revolvers out there, many of which were nowhere near as well-built as the Smith and Wesson. So Keith saw that there was a need for a new cartridge--the .44 Magnum--to allow designs that were strong enough to take advantage of the fact.

Problem: When he went to Remington, they said that they would make the ammunition, if guns were manufactured for the cartridge. When he went to S&W, they said they'd be happy to start making the guns, if somebody would produce factory .44 Magnum ammo. Neither side was willing to start moving before the other...so Elmer lied to both. Remington designed and produced the ammunition, and Smith started producing the guns.

Somewhere along the way, Bill Ruger of Sturm, Ruger got a hold of a of fired Remington .44 cases recovered from scrap. He knew that Smith was simply taking their .44 Special and chambering it in .44 Magnum, so he decided to produce a variant of the Blackhawk single-action in .44 Mag. A contact inside Remington slipped Bill a bag of loaded ammo. When he tested it, he found that the original Blackhawk single-action wasn't strong enough to handle the .44 Magnum, so he redesigned the gun into the "Flat-top" version specifically to handle the .44 Magnum.

The Smith and Wesson 29/629 isn't a weak design. It is, in fact, absurdly strong.

And to be frank, if you don't exceed the original design specs of the .44 Magnum by too much--a 240-grain bullet at 1200 fps--well, you and your kids will break before the gun does.

If you want to play around much faster than that, or shoot massive 300-grain bullets all the time, get a Ruger. But to be frank, if what you want is a .454 or a .460, buy one of those instead of trying to make the .44 into one.

The Blackhawk, being a single-action, is a bit tougher than the N-framed S&W .44 Magnums.

Super Redhawks aren't really equivalent to the Smith and Wesson N-frame. The SRH is really aimed at things like the .454 Casull, and occupies a space between the S&W N-frame and X-Frame. That said, custom builders have rechambered SRHs into some pretty beastly cartridges.

Plain Redhawks don't have a whole lot to do with the Super Redhawk. In fact, there are very few interchangeable parts between the two. It's still absurdly strong, however, with a triple-lock cylinder and a no-sideplate frame. Some gunsmiths have chambered Redhawks into cartridges as strong as .500 Linebaugh. Unfortunately, the single-spring design that gives it a smooth DA pull, also results in a 7-pound single-action pull--a hell of a long way off from the 29/629's excellent trigger.

I believe the Rugers also have a slightly longer cylinder. This allows Ruger/TC only loads to be seated to a longer OAL. In other words, the nose of the bullet on some Ruger/TC loads would poke out the end of a 29/629 cylinder and lock it up. It's not just about strength, it's about size too.

Good answers to an interesting topic. I have both Smith and Ruger .44 mags and both brands have strong points to recommend them .

__________________
Hue 68 noli me tangere

From an engineering standpoint, Smith has stuffed the 44 mag into an L-frame so it could be said anything beefier is overkill as far as strength goes. But I don't think anybody really enjoys shooting full house 44 from a 34 oz revolver. Humans are the practical limit, not the guns.

No, go with an X Frame S&W.

I just checked several hand loading manuals and found no .44 Magnum loads which excluded use in S&W 29/629 revolvers. I did notice mentions of certain 300 grain bullets loaded beyond SAMII OAL which may cause function problems.

I did find .45 Colt loads which were not for use in older weaker models such as Colt Peacemakers.

If there are .44 Mag loads out there for a 29/629 which you think are too powerful, you should take the gun up a notch to a .454 Casull or bigger.

Before I get slapped again I do own several Rugers. I have a nice 29-2 but I bought a Redhawk for the heavier loads. The extra weight is a + on recoil.

When my son in law loaded and closed the action of his Redhawk for the first time he looked up and said " It's like slamming a bank vault door closed....Solid ! Then he opened and closed it again....yeah...bank vault solid !" . He never said that about my model 58 N frame .
Rugers are over engineered because that's the way Bill Ruger wanted his firearms...tough and solid for years of use.
Gary

4barrel , your decision to use the Ruger for the heavier 300gr loads was wise . I have in the past had 2 ruger 44's , a redhawk and the 50th anniversary Blackhawk . Both fine guns , both went down the road . For my use / needs , a Smith 29 delivers all that I need . I have fired Elmers load of 22.0 grs of 2400 powder using his ( HG 503) 245 gr swc bullet in a 29 smith (4" barrel) . I feel , and this is just my opinion that even in the modern day 29's , it is too much for continual use . The recoil I got used to , but it was " very " stiff . Regards , Paul

If I was wanting to shoot 300 gr + bullet weights I would definitely choose a Ruger -- Blackhawk , Redhawk or even Super Redhawk and I definitely get a longer barrel than 5.5' as Rugers have a little slower twist rate than a Smith , Ruger 1:20" vs Smith 1:18.5" . Probably a 7.5" barrel would be about all that I wanted . Regards , Paul

I have had to send a 29-2 and a Ruger Blackhawk (old model) .41 Mag back for repair. Both had the same issue, hammer push off. Anything can fail.

Which cartridge was that in reference to? Because theonly place I have EVER seen that disclaimer is for .45 Colt data that exceeds SAAMI pressure specs.

Let’s make the term “durable” because as long as either gun is in good working order and fed ammo within SAAMI pressure limits, you’re highly unlikely to experience a catastrophic failure.

If the Redhawk is truly more durable than the Model 29, I’d say it’s because
The Model 29 is based on the New Century frame which was introduced when, 1908?

The Redhawk came along 70 years later and was designed around the .44 magnum cartridge.

The only gun I shoot my 300 grain Barns Original bullets (circa 1985) in is my T/C Super 14. The load came from Barns (Frank did the development!). They were listed as safe for SBH (but on the phone, not really recommended). There is so much 296 packed in there with that huge bullet. I gave 6 to a friend with a SBH, he fired 3 off sand bags at 100 yards and clover leafed them! Used two more to take two white tail deer. When ask if he would like a few more, his reply was, "Not in a million years!"

I have 27 left from the 50 that I assembled in 1985, they sit there daring me to take them out and let them fly, but my back whispers warnings! My 629 2 5/8 with 240 factory (also circa 1985) kicks far worse than I remember the 300's bucking in the Super 14!

Ivan

I don't think it would be possible to blow up a .44 Mag Blackhawk with a cylinder full of 240 grain bullet handloads filled to the top with Bullseye.

Remember rugers are cast. S&W are forged. But rugers are really overbuilt.

__________________
No gold. Only lead. Bobby

Hmmm..****ger only loads.
Well if I was gonna shoot some +p+ loads, I ain’t putting them in my S&W...the Ruger...eehhh, not as fond of anyway.

There are two types of 'strength' to a revolver:
1) 'Blow up' resistance. This is the level of pressure that the cylinder can contain before the whole thing goes Kablewy. Ruger cylinders are thicker, as is the top strap.

2) Long term durability for rounds down range. Rugers have thicker yoke tubes, about twice as much material. This allows the Ruger to shoot many more magnum rounds before the cylinder' battering movement fore and aft produces too much endshake. I've been told by a knowledgable gunsmith that the Rugers will go at least twice as many full house magnums before endshake goes out of spec.

Also, the lockwork of the Ruger is built in such a way as it is much less likely to go out of time. I have seen S&W and Colts out of time, but I've never seen a Ruger out of time.

The whole cast vs forging debate, as far as i'm concerned, is not really relevant. A good Cast frame can be even stronger than a forging (so I'm told).

It’s the quality of the steel they use. I think it’s been said that ruger uses 4140 steel. I took a SBH 44mg and went beyond proof loads. Never blew up.

Well,I hope you are saying this tongue in the cheek because I've seen one.
One of my friend blew up a SuperBlackhawk with a powder that had been sold to him as repackaged.I don't remember the charge he had used or the type of powder it was being sold upon(that dates wayyy back)but my friend was and still is a carefull handloader.Of course,he dumped the rest of the powder left over.
The gun had the top chamber completely blown off exept for the lower part.The 2 next chambers were ripped open.A mighty impressive vision from such a strongly built handgun.Luckily,he didn't get hurt.

I have a stainless SBH 7.5" and a 629-4 8 3/8". The Ruger might be tougher but I shoot the 629 so much better because of the trigger. I have pushed book max loads but not any higher. I truthfully don't think that with my volume of shooting/load levels I could benefit from the Ruger at all. The only plus for Ruger would be a configuration I like that S&W never made (like a 10.5" SBH)

That's just a purty reckless statement right there.........

Some jasper might take you serious.

.

__________________
"IN GOD WE TRUST"

Remind me not to borrow or shoot any of his handloads.

__________________
Dick Burg