Need some OBJECTIVE views on S&W 629-3 Classic five inch VS. Ruger STD Redhawk Five inch ( with good action job).

How would those two compare AS GUNS , not collectors items.

I have a 5 inch Redhawk and it was my first .44 mag.

I bought a 4 inch 29 a while back and don't have enough rounds through it but I will not put the high end rounds through it like I would the redhawk... I will use the smith for lighter to standard loads and enjoy it.

I used that 5 inch redhawk for many years and it was a good "one .44 mag gun" choice- from mild to wild loads it shot straight and just fine- still does actually.

I wanted the smith and would get another 5-6.5 inch smith if found "right" but I also don't see my Rugers leavin anytime soon

I have a 629-4 Classic, 5" barrel. Don't have a Redhawk, but have some friends who do, and I own several Ruger single actions. 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. The Redhawk can be improved with action work, but in my opinion it will never be as good as the S&W. The Super Redhawk is a different story.

I wouldn't turn down either one, but if I had to choose it would be the 629.

Both are nice but in my mind the 629-3 & 4 Classic are the best of the stainless S&W 44 mags for those that shoot them. They just don't make them like that anymore.

__________________
Lynnie, Professional Pest

I agree with Joni, also even though the Ruger may be stronger made, any reasonable .44 mag load will last a long time in the smith (especially those with the endurance package) plus ive always shot the Smith's more accuratly and the trigger is much better than any Ruger.

Got my Redhawk 27 or so years ago. My buddy just got a 629-1. In both of our opinions, the Redhawk has a better trigger and smoother action. The 8 3/8" barrel of his S&W vs. the 5 1/2" on my Ruger doesn't allow for equal comparisons. The finish on the 629 is brighter than the matte finish on the Ruger.

The Ruger does feel more solid. The weight also seems to soak up the recoil better. Close range handling with the shorter barrel is also better with the Ruger.

Both guns are great.
It's gotta end up being a personal preference thing in the long run. It really depends on what you want the gun for.
I'd take either.

For me at the time, little voice said buy the Ruger.

__________________
Pete.

My first handgun was my 7.5" Redhawk in 44. I still have it and wouldn't think of parting with it. I also seem to have adopted a couple 44 Bisley's and flat top anniversary model 44, a Freedom Arms 83 and a whole mess of N frames mostly all in 44. My next 44 I hope will be a 29-5 Classic in 5". I prefer the feel of the N frame and it's trigger action.
Either way, there's no wrong or bad choice here.

__________________
Lynnie, Professional Pest

Any firearm is only as good as its trigger.
If I were in your shoes, I'd be going with the S&W. Even if the Ruger now has a better trigger than the S&W because of the action job, you can always have that 629-3 tuned-up to be as good or better than the Ruger.

But that's just me....

I have a number of S&W .44 mags and owned a 9 1/2" Super Redhawk. The Ruger was as accurate as any of my Smith's but not more so. There is no comparison in terms of the perceived "feel" of the action. The DA cannot be compared. The Smith is definitely better. The Ruger's SA pull on my particular gun wasn't bad, just not in the same league with the Smith. The Ruger is probably more durable but I've never had any real major issues with the Smith. I shoot neither reduced loads nor heavy bullet loads so the maintenance on my 29's and 629's was limited to DNCU and endshake issues-all minor repairs. It took thousands of full power rounds to get to the point where maintenance was needed.

All of that said, shooting the Ruger was a different experience compared to the Smith's. Cocking it for SA shooting reminded me of a crew served field piece. Cosmetically, the Ruger was just like most everything else Bill designed-utilitarian in the extreme. To me, the Smith is a little more expensive, a little less robust, lots easier on the eyes, at least equal in accuracy and a lot nicer to shoot.



Bruce

I have the 5 inch AND two 7.5 inch redhawks a blue w/rings and an EARLY stainless. They are old early eighties vintages and are smooth... the SA trigger pulls are decent although not near as crisp as the smith, the DA blows the smith away. If the smith was tuned it would be fine other than the target hammer for double action work.

I may swap that trigger out one day but until then my redhawks are great guns also. the 5 inch stainless and a 7.5 blue gets shot fairly often and go out deer huntin with me. My smith is so clean n purty it might not- I really need to get some wear on her and get over it

The biggest problem with the Redhawk is that the hammer/trigger are both operated off one spring. Some have a good trigger pull and some not so good.

__________________
Lynnie, Professional Pest

I have owned and used extensively both a 7.5" Redhawk and a 4" 629-4. It sounds like you have the trigger question answered to your satisfaction. That's pretty subjective for the individual gun anyway. Both of 'em feel pretty good in the hand to me. I like Ruger's factory wood grips, and have Ahrends on my 629-4.

If your interest is primarily shooting the heaviest possible 44Mag loads more often than anything else, the Ruger has some advantages, particularly if using it as a field gun. It is a bit heavier and can absorb more recoil, plus it is pretty rugged externally as well (and by that I mean cosmetically; I worry more about dinging up S&Ws with their prettier finish and contour lines).

However, the 629-3 will have the performance enhancements so you can shoot heavier SAAMI spec loads in it as well when you need them without much concern, say for hunting or "bears". I imagine most of the time you won't be, and that being the case I'd lean to the S&W for general range and woods carry where you are more often using less than 300gr+ dinosaur stomper 44Mag loads. Which is what I did. For as much as I liked the RH, I had one in 45 Colt too and decided to keep that one since I didn't shoot the RH as much for several years after I got the 629-4, so traded it on something else that caught my eye. And I can load up some serious monster loads in the 45 Colt RH.

__________________
" I said, good DAY! "

I have the same setup as TallPaul--a 5 1/2" Redhawk and a 4" M29.

The Redhawk is a much better double action gun, at least for me. It's heavier and the double action seems smoother and is helped by having a narrower, smooth trigger. The grips are like smooth Magnas and work better than anything else I've tried on that gun, including Hogue and Pachmayers. It has interchangeable front sight inserts, so if you don't like the red ramp, you can put in something else. It is a very strong gun, with a locking crane, like the old Triple Lock Smiths. Stainless finish allows the vinegar/hydrogen peroxide soak method of bore cleaning. With 900 fps loads, it is almost like shooting a .38. Not quite, but almost. The Redhawk is a stronger gun and, if you reload, provides 'slightly' more margin of safety against overloads.

The M29 is, first and foremost, a beautiful gun. It is noticeably lighter than the Redhawk and would be OK in a hip holster. The Redhawk might be too much for me on my belt. Either gun handles my 'hot' 44 load with ease but the recoil is less noticeable in the Redhawk.

I'm lucky that I have both and don't have to choose between them. It would be a tough choice but you really can't go wrong with either one.

The Classic has an easy change front sight and the top strap is factory drilled and tapped for scope mounting. Be fore warned, if you lose the rear sight on a 629-3 there aren't any available so far as I know. They are unique to the 629-3 & 29-5 Classic. (& Magna Classic)

There's probably a larger aftermarket selection of front sights for the S&W.

__________________
Lynnie, Professional Pest

I have a 7-1/2" Redhawk that I got new for my birthday in 1985 and a 4" round butt 629. If you plan to do any high volume shooting with magnum loads, I'd advise getting the Redhawk. I'm a huge S&W fan, but the heavier and stronger Redhawk is much more pleasant to shoot with high power loads. Also, if it's still available, the shallow vee rear sight with the gold dot front (called Express Sights I think) makes a great accessory for the Ruger.

Well, objectively speaking, the S&W is objectively a nicer looking revolver. Objectively speaking.

__________________
Fuego

I had a 5-1/2 inch stainless Redhawk. The SA trigger was great, the DA trigger not so great. Didn't get along with the factory grips and could not locate any aftermarkets that I could live with. The gun was damned accurate though.

Bought a no dash 629 with a 6 inch barrel. Found a grip set-up I like, both the DA and SA trigger pulls are better than the Redhawk was. Does seem to recoil more which can be expected with the lighter weight. Eventually the Redhawk went bye-bye.

__________________
Expect no quarter.

There is no doubt that a Ruger Single Action, or a Ruger Double Action is more rugged than a S&W 44 Mag.... As is the Freedom Arms.

BUT, No revolver compares to the S&W 44 Mag, If you want/need Double Action, IMHO.

Never owned a Redhawk, but did have one of the first Security-Sixes and hated the trigger pull.
I shoot a pair of 50th Anniversary 44 Blackhawks in SASS competition. But the trigger, even in single-action on my 629 Classic (5" barrel) is SO much better and even more accurate in my hands using SWC loads.

I had a 629-3 5" Classic and now have the same gun but in -4. I've shot a Redhawk some -- It was "okay" but I didn't like the trigger and I just didn't think the Redhawk was as "refined" as my Smiths, if that makes sense.

Some of the posters are comparing the recoil of a 4" 629 to that of a much heavier Redhawk which favors the Ruger. However, a 5" Classic (with Hogues, not the terribly uncomfortable round wooden grips my -4 came with) is a different animal than the light 4" when it comes to recoil. Mine is no problem at all with hot 285 grain loads. I carry it on horseback and on foot.

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.

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

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

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.

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


Okie John

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

__________________
Richard Gillespie
FBINA 102

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Wow, go big or go home, huh?

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

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!

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.

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!

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:



Here's the revolver in the holster I modified to carry it in . . .




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.

I like to see S&W's that get used like that.

__________________
Lynnie, Professional Pest

Me too! I try to baby it, but I've got a lot of fond memories in the field with that sweet 29. Hope you are well,

Tom

I have some I baby and when I was hunting I carried my 629-4 Power Port. The others get mostly range use.
I'm doing better thanks, back to walking finally and actually doing shoes on both feet finally. This year hasn't been a very good one for me. (yet) I'm quite pleased with my progress and hope to see even more of it soon. (the sooner the better of course)

__________________
Lynnie, Professional Pest

Kinda a funny choice in sights ifin ya don't want to carry an extra ounce of weight that ya don't have too...

No kidding.

tallpaul, I think you and I might be the only people posting who currently own both. FWIW, I weighed all my guns a while back and that big old 5.5" Redhawk comes in at 47.5 ounces and the 4" M29 weighs 42.5 ounces. Five ounces. I wonder what 1.5" of barrel weighs.

If light weight is paramount, my 5.5" .45 Colt Blackhawk weighs 38 ounces. 4.5 ounces lighter than the M29, with 1.5" more barrel.

Ah . . . but that ol' 1st generation Holosight ain't extra weight! That sucker has allowed me to take and make some shots I could not have made with either iron sights or a scope.

You just keep both eyes open, with no magnification and when a deer goes in that tiny "sweet spot" of clearing in a thick bottom you can take the perfect shot.

Ditto when faced with those unique situations when the ladies auxiliary shows up. Twice I've dropped three straight . . . the first time in a fresh cut clear cut. Two fell with noses touching and the third didn't stick around. I dropped that big doe, running broadsides at a paced off later 65 yards! All three fell and never moved! Ah the memories.

The second time, I dropped three in a bottom as they came down a tight trail.

Yep . . . that Holosight is worth the extra weight! I like the Rugers a lot and have been shooting them since I had an old 3-screw Super Blackhawk . . . but I LOVE that 29-5 with the goofy sight on the top!

T.

You want the strongest .44? Go for the redhawk, but be prepared to put up with alot more weight. Want ease of packing, plenty of power, and quite honestly a better trigger? Go with the smith. I've owned both and prefer the smith.

Tom, no snake gaiters?

I have a 5 inch 629 classic and my dad has a 6 inch classic. both are real sweet shooters. i have shot 300 federal cast cores out of both as well as standard 240 factory stuff. never anything atomic

i have been jonesing for a 4 inch standard or mtn gun barrel for as a long as i can remmebr. very difficult to get in PRK. im tempted to take a 8/38 i can get and have it rebarreled.

my ruger revolvers tend to run blackhawk, not redhawk. so sorry cant help you there.

The Ruger Redhawk was made as a field gun, not a "safe queen" or collectible. Most shooters won't shoot either the S&W or Redhawk enough for durability to matter, nor will the average guy fire nuclear missile grade .44's through it. If you like to handload super hot blue whistler .44's then the Redhawk is the natural choice. If you just buy whatever .44 Gander Mt. has in stock the 29 or 629 will serve just fine.

I have a Model 29 and a Redhawk, and although the S&W has a slight edge on accuracy it's not enough for me to care about.

My 29 is more of a "looker" not a shooter, they don't make 'em like that anymore and I see no need to pound .44 mags through it for fun shooting, when I know my Redhawk will take as much shooting as I want to do with it.

I have a LOT of .38 and .357 revolvers but don't feel the need to "accumulate" .44's, so my 29 will serve as my "looker" and the Redhawk as my shooter.