629-2 vs super Blackhawk, my thoughts

I recently acquired both of these guns and would like to share my thoughts. I first bought the 629 at a gun show, a month later I bought the superblackhawk from Buds. For my hand size, small, the feel of the smith was much better. This may have been from the houge grip on the smith compared to the factory on the ruger. I took them both out to the range with my dad and brother in law. Neither of them know anything about either gun so I knew I would get a very un-biased opinion. None of us cared for the muzzle flip action of the ruger, the long hammer pull also seemed a bit awkward but I hear that's normal for single action. We fired two boxes of 225 grain hornady lever revolution or whatever they are called. In the end we all agreed that the smith felt much better. I just picked up a luge grip for the ruger so I'm gonna see how that changes things for me. My main reason for getting the ruger was hunting in rough country for large game and wanted a pistol that can take a beating....the smith is sooooo sweet though. I'm just too worried about hurting it.

I made the same conclusions as you after having shot both the Super Blackhawk and a 629 Smith. The Blackhawk has a sharp muzzle rise, which one can get used to after some time, but the Smith seems to roll in your hand and is for me, more comfortable to shoot. As to hunting in rough country, I acquired a shoulder holster with a flap that completely protects my Smith and as I have a 629, the stainless is very durable and I have no worries as to causing it any harm by use. If price was not an issue I would take the Smith N frame over the Super for shooting every time. The single action trigger pull, for me, is much nicer and my accuracy is slightly better with the Smith. The new grip may help you with the Ruger, but the trigger may need to be tuned to be as smooth as your Smith.

...I own a 29-3 and two SBHs. I love the fit and finish and incredible trigger especially SA of the 29-3...I like the Colt Dragoon looks of the SBH. While the 29-3 is more refined and probably easier to shoot well...if the end is near and I had to take just one with me...it would be the SBH and as many Garrett 310 grain Hammerheads as I could carry. It would shoot them from here to doomsday and never miss a lick. The rugged build and simple single action would be the more dependable choice IMO. For an easy afternoon of shootin'...the 29-3 is a dream. I'm not sellin' or tradin' any of them...

As so many have determined over the years, it is a good thing indeed to have both!

Best wishes,

Dyson

I've owned several iterations of both over the years including a Dan Wesson .44 mag for variety. For field use the SB is hard to beat because it is compact - or can be with a shortened barrel, and can tolerate some mighty stiff loads without coming apart. The SB also has great pointing characteristics and a fine trigger release. For anyone raised on single actions, a single action revolver can be fired almost as fast as a DA and with greater accuracy. Also, persons trained...or perhaps I should say "raised" with a SA in their hand have well developed manual dexterity when it comes to two-handed, rapid-fire shooting using the off-hand thumb to cock the hammer...a VERY fast technique that makes every shot as accurate as the person can be. There is one major downside to the SA revolver...they are slow to load and reload. Again, for field use where one shot is most often all that is needed, or even against a dangerous animal where time is of the essence. Basically if confronted by a Mt. Lion or Grizzly at close quarters one is only going to have what's in the gun period....whether SB or M29.

The real...and really ONLY advantage the M29 has over the SB is the swing-out cylinder and DA mechanism. I said that as if such is not really a big deal, but unfortunately it is. The original Colt SAA was eclipsed early on by the Schofield for very good reason...the Schofield could be loaded MUCH more quickly - even on horseback. Certainly we form nostalgic attachments to certain guns, but the fact is, humans have always been motivated by the latest technological edge when it comes to weapons..and that is what these items in fact are.

The M29 can be loaded very rapidly, and more rapidly using a speed loader. It can be cleared instantly. It CAN be fired DA which has its time and use, and in the hands of someone who has mastered the DA pull-through deadly accurate at any range where it might be "required."

Even in the field, if jumped by a bear and one ends up sitting in a tree with an empty gun, the M29 can be recharged more rapidly. And of course for those few who still choose to carry a powerful revolver over a "so-so" power semiautomatic, a short-barrel M29 is pretty concealable and will do a very credible job as a defensive option. The SB would do as well for all LIKELY encounters, but this brings us back to the human preference for technological superiority....the DA has it.

As for recoil, SA guns do tend to "roll up" in the hand during firing unless fitted with a high-tac synthetic grip which will make it "kick" more like the M29. The M29 has a grip curvature intended to keep it positioned in the hand which reduces the perception of the gun's muzzle going skyward, but at the same time focuses a great deal of recoil force into the web area of the hand. It all boils down to how one trains, what one prefers, and how one develops the specific "muscle memory" of handling a particular gun.

I've found the M29 Mt. Gun to be highly controllable during rapid DA fire albeit at the "cost" of heavy recoil into the hand...but in a real-life situation that would not even be noticed. At the same time I've taught myself to fire a 4-5/8" barrel Ruger Blackhawk .45 Colt stoked with .44 magnum level loads...VERY fast and with great control...same for 5.5" and 6" "chopped" SB's stoked with heavy loads, but after all the firing is done, the M29 can be recharged more quickly.

I must add a few points though. Because the SB cylinder stays in place there is no opportunity for contaminants to get into the works and bind up the gun. On ALL swing-out cylinder guns the potential exists for shooting debris to get trapped between crane and frame and prevent the gun going fully into lock and thus firing. TRAINING can minimize this potential.

Another point: A SA mechanism is hammer cocked...meaning the cylinder also rotates off the hammer's movement. A DA mechanism is "trigger cocked" meaning the cylinder revolves off the movement of the trigger...and this matters.

Every DA revolver has two points along the trigger stroke where bad things can happen. A short-stroke on the trigger can cause the cylinder to rotate while the hammer remains at rest. A slightly shorter "short-stroke" can cause the trigger and hammer to connect at just the right point to cause the entire mechanism to "jam." If this jam is induced "lightly" as would be done to illustrate, no harm done. If on the other hand this jam were to occur during the kind of adrenalin stoked finger force during a life-and-death situation, the gun could be rendered inoperable. BOTH of these design flaws can be easily and repeatedly demonstrated and what every person who carries a gun for potential combat should bear in mind is that during the "fight or flight" response, fine motor coordination evaporates while gross, "power" motor movements are enhanced. When firing a DA revolver rapidly while in fear of dying, it is indeed possible to "ham-fist" the trigger, causing it to short-stroke at the right point and bind the action.

THIS cannot happen on a single-action, which is probably why so many "old timers" still prefer the SA for "field use." It might be slower to load but it cannot be jammed by any external action of the shooter. Obviously this type of jam would be more likely to occur with a large revolver and longer trigger reach combined with smaller hands.

The way around it for combat use? Train to fire single-action...same, two-handed, support-hand thumb-cocking...this avoids all the mechanical pitfalls of the DA mechanism. One still has the benefit of the rapid reload.

One of the reasons why I use the stock, heavy rebound or trigger return springs on all my defensive revolvers.

My older S&W 60 has a rebound spring so stout it will push your finger forward. My Ruger SP101 also has a very powerful return spring and this reduces the risk of short stroking under stress.

I have quite a few "range toy" revolvers with light return springs that just barely return the trigger, but these are for target use only. There's no way I would ever use a revolver with a light return spring for defense. Some people worry too much about shaving 1 lb. off the DA pull and they clip rebound springs or use lighter Wolff springs........under stress, with adrenaline pumping you won't notice a heavy DA pull. In fact, I have a DAO Ruger GP100 with both an extra power return spring and an extra power mainspring and it has a VERY heavy DA pull, but I wanted max reliability.


I have "short stroked" a Ruger Speed Six that is lightly sprung, at the range and it did not jam the revolver bad enough to make it inoperable but if I were "shooting to live" it would have prevented me from making a quick follow up shot.

I own both a SBH and a 629-1 (also a 29-2). My take on the handling of both guns is: I shoot the Ruger with factory grips, I expect the muzzle roll and the factory grips are much more forgiving than goodyears. The 629 recoils differently and I find goodyears much more forgiving. Back in the day, when I could see better, I could shoot both fairly well.(six shots into a paper plate at 100 yds, off the bench or at 80 yds offhand.) I tend to shoot light for caliber bullets for my hunting (200 HP or 225HP) they are both excellent on speed goats or Mule deer. I like both pistols but it is like comparing a 1950 Dodge PowerWagon with a new Dodge Ram. Both will due the job. The new Ram is nicer looking and more streamlined and will get there faster but for sheer toughness the PowerWagon will take you places the other won't go. I would not like to have to give up either of my Smith 44 mags or the SBH but if I could only have one it would probably be the SBH.

I've had the 29/629 vs Super Blackhawk dilemma for almost 30 years now. As much as I like the looks and feel of the single action revolver, I do not shoot it as well as the S&W. I also put about 2000 rounds through an early Redhawk, shooting IHMSA matches and practice. I shoot the S&W better than the Redhawk too, but the Redhawk was a better choice for that many full power loads on a regular basis.

Back to the 29/629 vs the SBH. I think there are three factors that let me shoot the Smith better.

1 - Trigger, a S&W has a better single action trigger pull than any Ruger I've ever handled.

2 - Consistent grip position. I like the rubber Hogue grips for shooting a Smith (and wood Hogues for looking at). With these grips I get an absolutely consistent hand position that is impossible with a single action like the SBH (I always run stock grips or equivalent on a single action).

3 - Lock time. The SBH has a long, heavy hammer fall. The S&W has a much shorter and faster hammer fall, or lock time.

I have owned a Smith & Wesson 44 Magnum of some kind or another since I was 20 years old. I currently have several. I have owned at least a dozen SBH's over the years, but always get aggravated with the accuracy and sell them. The 629 Mountain Gun is my all time favorite firearm.

I've been shooting both since I was a teenager (30 yrs sounds to long) and have gone through a pile of them but the Smith's have always been a favorite.
WP is spot on with his remarks, I feel that if you can shoot a SA revolver well you can shoot anything well.

Everyone makes great points. Good job.
The only thing in the OP that caught me off guard was his finding that the 629 was more grippable, with small hands no less, than the SBH. I find it just the opposite, and wouldn't dream of putting synthetics on a SA of any make.
My 1972 3-screw Super has the best trigger on any SA I ever handled, but the older guns with the pre-transfer bar could do that.

Now I do love my S&W's but I have found that I am much more accurate with full house .44 Mag's with the Super Blackhawk than with my M-629. I think this is due to better recoil controll and comfort with the Super. With my small hands the N frames really beat up my fireing hand thumb right around the first knuckle. I think that this affects my shooting and may induce a bit of a flinch for me (even with shooting gloves and an array of different stocks). With the super a firm grip that still allows the revolver to roll up a bit is comfortable and pain free. As for durability I must give the nod to the single action for rough duty in the field.

I personally LIKE the recoil profile of the Super Blackhawk, and the ability to use the off-hand to cock the piece for follow-up fire. The SB is a STRONG piece that holds up to rough use under field conditions.

I own quite a few of each, in various flavors. If you find the recoil characteristics and general grip feel better on the Smith, then try a set of Hogues on you SBH. They change the recoil feel, and to many, make for a more consistent grip and better accuracy. They are available in wood, if the look of rubber is a turn off.

Hard to beat that Crisp Smith single action trigger pull....BUT......You can easily improve the trigger on your SBH. Simply remove the grip panels, locate the trigger return spring (located at the top of the grip frame, a coil type spring with dog legs that attaches to studs on each side of the grip frame). Remove one of the spring dog legs from its stud. Leave the other as is.

This will result in a couple pound reduction in trigger pull, with no adverse effect on reliability. It has no effect on how hard the hammer falls, just trigger pull. I have done this on all my Ruger S/A's over the years (about 15 or so), and it works. Well known as the "Ruger poor mans trigger job".

Larry

I was raised on both models and always preferred the Smiths --- for most uses. If I fail to practice with my Single Actions I find I have to re-acquaint myself with that looooog hammer fall.

However, I currently shoot both a 5" Classic (44 Mag) and a 4 5/8" New Model Blackhawk (heavily loaded 44 Special) to nearly the same level of accuracy. In fact, with the Special, I can shoot a touch smaller 25 yard groups. There is little to choose between.

My 44 Mag use is Griz protection, and I surely prefer the Classic's double action for this work. I don't want to have to remove my thumb from the grip when I'm laying on my back, trying to shoot a Bear off me and hang onto a hard-recoiling revolver at the same time. Fast reloads are of little/no importance to me. By the time the revolver has run dry, it'll all be over or I'll have plenty of time to stuff more rounds in either type cylinder.

It IS, however, kinda nice to be able to swing out the cylinder and pop in a shot shell VS sticking one in a SA and counting to four when a big, old Rattler is sharing some space with me.

It's apples to oranges. I don't like apples, but I love a good orange. But I digress. When it comes to DA Smith's & SA Rugers, it's nice have one (or more) of each.

I have a 29, but I started my shooting with SA guns and I find a SuperBlackhawk easier to shoot well and control. I need to start reloading, because I DO like the 29 better if shooting a 240 grain bullet at about 1000 fps.

I have and like both guns for different reasons... neither are going anywhere.

DGNY said:

As so many have determined over the years, it is a good thing indeed to have both!

Best wishes,

Dyson

Click to expand...