.44 Mag: Smith or Ruger?

[BoneDigger]

I have been looking for a nice Smith 29 or 629 with a 3" or shorter barrel for a little while (locally) and am not finding anything at a reasonable price. However, the local Gander Mountain has a used, but like new, Ruger Redhawk with a 3" barrel for $499. It's tempting. I realize this is a Smith forum, but would the Ruger be as good a gun as the Smith?

Todd

 

[BoneDigger]

I have been looking for a nice Smith 29 or 629 with a 3" or shorter barrel for a little while (locally) and am not finding anything at a reasonable price. However, the local Gander Mountain has a used, but like new, Ruger Redhawk with a 3" barrel for $499. It's tempting. I realize this is a Smith forum, but would the Ruger be as good a gun as the Smith?

Todd

 

[rundownfid]

I do not think anyone can answer your question but you.
However, if you are going to carry the Smiths would be considerably lighter & smaller although neither is light or small.
The trigger pull on the Smiths is likely to be better out of the box, and easier to get better than the Ruger.
Rugers are very strong, this can be very important if you are shooting a lot, like long range targets or hunting. When you specify a 3" barrel, I suspect you will not be shooting long range steel or hunting a lot of big game?
There are often short barreled 29s and 629 in the classifieds.
Best of luck finding just what you will like.

 

[Joni_Lynn]

I would just guess you found a 3" Super Redhawk, the Redhawk was only made as short as 4". Either way they are good guns although the trigger pull on a S&W will be better and in my examples the S&W are at least slightly more accurate.

 

[GF]

What's the revolver gonna' be used for the most?
If your looking for a concealed carry gun there's probably better choices than either.

The Ruger is heavier than the Smith, I'd think, and a Redhawk is best used as a hunting revolver. I didn't know they even made it in a 3 inch.
The Smith in a short barrel N frame is an expensive gun, as you said, but it's not out of the question as a carry gun. (as other posters will soon chime in.)

I'd think the Smith in a 629, even though will set you back a pretty penny, would be the one you'd be most happy with in the long run.

Just my 2 cents!

 

[BoneDigger]

My goal is to get a descent .44 for backup when hunting, although realistically, I already have a 686 that when loaded with Buffalo Bore 158 grain hardcasts, is hard to beat for my neck of the woods. Who says you need a REAL justification for buying another gun...

It would be carried for hunting but not for actually "hunting" with. In other words, as a backup.

Todd

 

[Guest]

Purchasing another gun only requires a simple "Excuse" not a "Reason" but I personally would go with a 3 or 4 inch Smith over the Ruger Super Redhawk(I sure Joni_Lynn nailed that part) simply because of the weight factor.

I just picked up a Model 625-6 "Mountain Gun" in .45 Colt and found that it weighed in at 36-1/4 ounces empty while my Model 25-5 weighs in at 40 ounces - also empty! Packing 4 extra ounces all day can REALLY make a difference especially if all it is going to be used for is 'Back-up' and not as Primary. If your plan was to use it as a Primary hunting gun and were also planning on using Maximum Loads etc. then I'd go for the Ruger.

 

[M28]

I don't know it's weight relative to the Smith or the Ruger, but I sure like the four inch Anaconda.

Brian~

 

[Nframe357]

It depends on how much shooting you plan on doing with it. The Ruger will stand up to more rounds of heavy magnum loads than the S&W, period. If it's not going to be shot much either would be great. Personally I love Smiths but they've been priced out of my reach for the most part, so I'd probably go the Ruger route.

 

[jag312]

"...would the Ruger be as good a gun as the Smith?" No.

 

[blairgarber]

For hunting back up get the Ruger.

First you already have an S&W so a Ruger gratifies the strange factor. Smiths are more like a Prom Queen, Rugers are strictly biker chicks.

Besides if either revolver failed to fire you could beat the Grizzly to death easier with the Ruger.

/b

 

[blairgarber]

Originally posted by jag312:
"...would the Ruger be as good a gun as the Smith?" No.

That depends on the meaning of the word: gun

/b

 

[Joni_Lynn]

It's a little different but have you considered the S&W 329, the scandium frame, titanium cylinder 44 mag? It's not on the list of pleasant to fire revolvers but has a nice light weight for packing around.

 

[29aholic]

Originally posted by blairgarber:


Rugers are strictly biker chicks.


/b

blair, I know some biker chicks that would kick your butt for this description...they all carry Smiths

 

[Rancher]

Being in Tyler, not all that far from my place, the most likely thing you need backup for is feral hogs. I'd stick with the .41 / .44 / .45 calibers in whatever flavor you like that fits your hand, doesn't hurt when you shoot it, and doesn't weigh so much that you are tempted to leave it at home.

 

[ParadiseRoad]

...I have a 29-3...I want a Redhawk...so my answer is you NEED both...

 

[Snapping Twig]

My personal preference would be the S&W for two reasons - a far better trigger in both DA and SA and overall ergonomics.

I carry a 3" 629 as a back-up weapon when hunting in a cross draw holster. I find it to be transparent - I don't even know it's there, no inconvenience or weight issues.