Question for 44 magnum SHOOTERS

[44wheelman]

My Super Redhawk felt clumsy & bulky, but I would not hesitate to load 44mag +P through it. I won't exceed Saami spec on any of my S&W's.

Chambers on my Ruger were .432-.433. It was of mediocre accuracy (2- 2.5" @25yds); therefor, it was traded off. I've also had one S&W that wouldn't shoot under 4" at 25 yds, and have others that shoot 2" @ 50yds.

Individual performance varies for both mfg's.

 

[WHO CARES]

I've long been a Smith 44 fan and own and shoot several. A while back three other guys here at work found a great deal on the 4" Redhawks and all bought one. I ordered and installed Wolff springs in all three as the triggers were very unfriendly. I took the opportunity to shoot one of the three quite a bit. While it shot very nicely I could not get over the heavy uncomfortable feel in the hand.

So far this year I have found and purchased two M29's from the early 90's for my collection. A 5" Classic and a 6.5" Classic DX - even though they were more expensive I chose these over the Ruger. They don't need the new springs and such as they are great right out of the box! I can't say that one or the other is automatically the more accurate but I'll put my money into 29's or 629's.

I have to agree with Joni - Smith 44's from the early 90's are about as good as they get for standard production.

Ward

 

[Chuck Jones]

You will never break a Redhawk, they're bigger, heavier and way more durable. The S&W is more elegant and refined, but way more fragile. I've never seen a Ruger with a stretched or cracked frame, cracked forcing cone, sprung yoke, bent extractor rod, busted cylinder stop, nothing. And if you need a hammer or a club the Readhawk can do that too.

/c

 

[buckeyeshooter1]

I would take the smith & wesson every time. I do not like the grip frame on the redhawk, its too heavy and the barrel lengths are too short (5 inch) or too long! I like the 6 inch barrel on the 29.

 

[okie john]

If standard 44 Magnum ballistics make you happy, get a Smith. If you need more, get a Ruger in 45 Colt.


Okie John

 

[TiroFijo]

I have a 629-4 Classic 6.5", and it is extremely accurate and has great DA and SA.

I like the Redhawk, it can take very hot loads and that is its "strong point". But for making small steel targets dance and fly at 25 and 50 m with normal loads (and I actually prefer modest loads of 240-260 gr bullets at 1050-1100 fps for DA shooting) nothing compares to the smith.

 

[Wayne M]

If anyone's done an objective test of the comparative strength of the two guns pitted against each other I haven't heard it. I'd give the Ruger an edge before the endurance package but since then Ruger gets the nod because it looks big and clunky and heavy duty. Compared to a super Redhawk the Redhawk is elegant but compared to the S&W the Redhawk is a brick. Both are great guns. Pick the one you like to handle and look at the best.

 

[sonny]

In my opinion, the S&W is a much more finely finished and tuned revolver, much more "refined", and the ergonomics and balance for me are near perfect. The Redhawk, though, is going to be stronger if you are planning to put extremely heavy loads through it on a regular basis.

Triggers out of the box, the S&W is going to be much better.

This is all true. The Redhawk could be carried in Alaska with 350 grain hardcast and do a good job against bad creatures in times of emergency. I wouldn't ask the Smith to do that.
I have both Redhawks and Smith .44's.
For just a fine revolver, I'll take the Smith. For absolute power, the RH.
Sonnytoo

 

[MMA10mm]

Since you are talking an endurance-package S&W629, I'd go with it.

Just to show you my objectivity: For a SHOOTER, IF the choice was between a pre-endurance Smith and the Ruger, I'd go with the Ruger.

 

[Nightowl]

I had a Redhawk when it first came out. There was no comparison between the triggers. The Smith was much better, and much quieter. The Redhawk was strong, bulky, and heavy, but I do not overload any gun, so the Smith is strong enough. I also have a 629-3 5" that I bouth used from the early 90s. It is a great gun, You might wear it out, but if you do you will be broke from buying ammo and components. If you have one located, you better grab it quick!

 

[lazy]

I got a 29-2, 6 1/2 barrel this past spring at a deal of a price. It is to nice to shoot.

I am considering trading it for a 29-per-lock with a 4 inch barrel, no finish. I need one that I can drag through the mud and not give a darn about.

 

[Inspector-Callahan]

Both have their strong suits....

I own many S&W's but only have fired OP's redhawks. My non-technical impression was the Ruger had an aweful trigger and I wondered why anyone would own one compared to a smooth S&W. It did feel like it was built like a tank though.

I would refer you to an excellent article in the April 2010 issue of Handloader magazine where Brian Pierce writes an excellent article on handloading +P 44 mags. In this test, he uses the Ruger redhawk as the test platform and details why this gun can take loads other guns (S&W,etc) cannot. He lists sereral clever aspects of the Ruger design that give it an upper hand in the durability department. Some are:

1) Offset Cyl stop notches in relation to chamber's
2) Offset ejector rod to the frame axis increasing frame strength in the barrel receiver area. More steel supports the barrel shank.
3)Outside chamber walls measure .115 inch
4)Cyl lock at front of crane and rear of cyl.
5)lockwork that drops down out of the frame leaving it free of sideplates adding rigidity.
6)Outside Cyl dimension at a large 1.7805

To sum it up, the Ruger has a definite durability advantage, but I think the Smith will have a superior trigger and more refinement. Comparative accuracy is probably harder to distinguish, although I'd put my money on S&W. It all boils down to what you want out of your gun. With normal loads, I think either gun will outlast you.

IC

 

[WPWarhawk]

Sports car versus 3/4 ton pickup

The Redhawk versus the 629 is like comparing a sports car to a 3/4 ton pickup.

I have owned several Redhawks over the years, including the first one to come to Wichita, KS (I worked in the gunshop that sold it). The Redhawk cannot be beat for durability and ability to handle heavy loads.

The Smith & Wesson does everything else better. On average the Smith will be more accurate, but maybe not on a gun to gun basis. I owned a 7 1/2 inch blued Redhawk that was superbly accurate. I would rate all of my S&W .44s as very accurate to extremely accurate.

The Smith will have a better trigger, period. The design of the Ruger uses one spring for the mainspring and trigger return spring. This makes it very difficult to get a good trigger on a Redhawk. The Smith will have a world class trigger out of the box, which makes it MUCH easier to shoot the Smith accurately.

I also have owned many Smith & Wesson .44 mags, and currently have several including Classics with 5 and 6 1/2 inch barrels. Both are pre-lock with hammer mounted firing pins. The 5 incher is a nice compromise between the easy packing 4 inch gun, and the easier to shoot well longer barrelled guns. The 6 1/2 inch barrel is as long as I go on a handgun, as it's the longest barrel I can pack easily.

The Smith also has a near endless variety of aftermarket grips available. For shooting I can't improve on the rubber Hogues on an N frame. The Redhawk has a large grip frame, the stock wood grips are too small for me, but everything else I ever tried on a Redhawk was too big.

The Redhawk has a neat feature, interchangeable front sight blades. But in reality, for me anyway, the red ramp/white outline sights are perfect for field use.

Handguns are to be carried in a holster, for me that makes the Redhawk too much of a good thing, too big and too heavy. The only way I would carry one afield is if I was strictly handgun hunting. The Smith makes a better packing gun, and I would carry the 6 1/2 inch Classic as a hunting gun, and a Mountain Gun or a 329PD as a backup or "just in case" gun.

 

[tallpaul]

The Smith & Wesson does everything else better.

The Smith will have a better trigger, period.

These two items are total BS

Both need trigger jobs unless they have had them. The DA pulls on the redhawks tend to be smoother than the smith out of the box on the ones I have had although the edge does go to the smith for the SA

as far as the "everything else" clause- well not really- the same beefiness that gives strength and your likely argument of harder to carry etc also leads to easier to handle with any given load compared to a similar non comped smith.

I believe it is more of a chevy vs ford issue for most. I own more smith revolvers than rugers and enjoy the smiths but I also enjoy my rugers for what they are.

I do love the smiths over all for looks and do not think you can go wrong getting a Smith revolver of any flavor if its in decent shape and of a suitable chambering/setup for your needs

The real beauty of .44 mags are the versatility of the round and the plethora of choices we have in guns that chamber them.

And they are like potato chips for most of us

 

[redhawk444]

Buy the 5-1/2" Redhawk and don't look back.

Let me tell you a true story: My older brother had a model 29 and his son had a Redhawk. One day, Jim (my brother) was loading ammunition and his powder scale was new to him and was one of those Lee scales with the funny beam on it. I think, if I remember right, there was 10 grains on the right side and the other side was graduated in 10 grain increments.

Jim got confused and when he thought he was loading 10.6 grains of..I think it was WW231, he was actually loading 16 grains behind a 240 gr. cast bullet.

At the range, he and Leroy (Jim's son) loaded their guns and began to fire at targets. Jims cylinder refused to rotate after 2 shots and when he looked at it, it was because the cylinder was bulged and would not clear the bottom of the frame.

Leroy (his son) shot all six and the emptys were not even sticky in his cylinder.

Jim had to send his gun to S&W for a new cylinder and to have the frame checked out, which I guess was OK because they only charged him for the new cylinder and fitting charges.

The Smith is a really NICE gun, but it is not the gun that the Redhawk is....in terms of strength.

 

[Idempotent]

My first handgun was my 7.5" Redhawk in 44.

Wow, go big or go home, huh?

 

[Gary7]

The Smith is a really NICE gun, but it is not the gun that the Redhawk is....in terms of strength.

Yes, the Redhawk is the perfect 44 for those who can't accurately measure powder charges.

 

[vico512]

Now THAT'S funny! After just getting back into it with a 629, after being out of the S&W family for over 30 yrs, I'm already looking for another one. I think I've contracted some disease!

......

And they are like potato chips for most of us

 

[redhawk444]

Yes, the Redhawk is the perfect 44 for those who can't accurately measure powder charges.

In this case, it was would have been good to have that extra margin of safety, but I think the real reason to go for the stronger gun is that it will, all other factors being equal, be more accurate and it will be a lot longer in shooting loose.

The extra weight doesn't hurt anything either.

 

[tom turner]

I've owned both Ruger and S&W .44 Magnum handguns . . . but for a WOODS gun that's used by someone who actually gets the gun out into the woods (rather than out of the safe every once in a while to oogle over it) . . . GO WITH THE SMITH.

I'm 59 and I've mainly handgun hunted for the past decade or so. Frankly, I don't want to carry one extra ounce of weight up and down deer stands (or terrain) that I don't have to.

Why carry an over-built "boat anchor" when a sweet, sleek and accurate Smith will do the job?

From shooting pin matches . . . to silhouette . . . to shooting milk jugs for fun at 200 yards (34" bullet drop), my 6" barreled Model 29-5 has been one awesome revolver.

Oh yeah . . . I hunt with 300 grain, Federal Premium Castcore Hunting ammunition . . . and my M29 feels as tight as when it was new in early 1990. (I'm also a VERY CAREFUL reloader too)

Here's a buck from last season taken with my much loved 29-5:

LOTS of fine memories in the field with this awesome revolver!!!

PS: Joni, my M29-5's sights are safely put up, including the rare rear sight and the original 4-position S&W adjustable "silhouette" front sight., for I can't think of a better sight on this revolver for the woods than a Holosight!!! Beats a scope all day long in the woods around here!