Question for 44 magnum SHOOTERS

[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:

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.

 

[Joni_Lynn]

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

 

[tom turner]

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

 

[Joni_Lynn]

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)

 

[tallpaul]

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.

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

 

[cp1969]

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.

 

[tom turner]

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.

 

[A10]

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.

 

[ElToro]

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.

 

[stantheman86]

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.

 

[Jimmymac46]

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.

I concur. The 629-4 has all the best features in any configuration or barrel length. One need just fondle a 629-4 as a' Classic', then handle a new, current model, and the differences will be noticable. While I have no problem with new models, there is just something about the pre-lock, firing pin in hammer, case hardened hammer and trigger.....and, well, I guess that is enough.

I was so enamored with them, that I purchased three NIB during the mid-nineties....a 'Backpacker', a 'Classic' 5 inch, and a Mountain Gun. I wish I would have acquired more. Other than a 629-0, I have no other 629's in my collection, only 629-4's. I would like to add a 6 inch, 8 3/8 inch, a 4 inch..........

 

[Jimmymac46]

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.

Agreed. My 629-4, 5 inch 'Classic' is a great shooter. The heavy underlug provides the extra weight where is should be....out front. It easily shoots as soft, or softer than my 29 6 1/2 inch, and probably the same as my 8 3/8inch. It is also extremely accurate, with both modest 9 grain Unique loads or 23.5 of 296. I wish I had a few more. While many here might not like the factory Hogue's, I like everything about them. They fit my hand perfectly, absorb recoil considerably, and are not really that ugly on a stainless 629. I have roughly a dozen 29/629's in nearly every barrel length, and the 5 inch Classic is my favorite shooter. Of course, what is not to like about 5 inch barreled Smith's.....especially 'N' frames?

 

[WPWarhawk]

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.

Your opinion, it sure ain't mine.

 

[tallpaul]

Your opinion, it sure ain't mine.

well the firing/handling portion is a simple mater of physics/weight- trigger characteristics may be subjective but out of the box I would say its true- at least of the era of the early redhawks and smiths of that time. I haven't bought a new redhawk in 25 years - haven't needed too

As I said no real good deal on a Smith is likely gonna go by me- I just don't see em often enough

I do know the smiths I have that have been worked on properly are really nice- as are my redhawks. There is room in my safes for both!

It may be tougher for those with the ability to only own one or those who have to pare down to one but luckily I am not there yet.

 

[ExplorerOne]

S&Ws are nicer finished, etc - we can all agree on that. But if you are going to constantly be using full-house 44 loads, or heavy stuff (like 300 gr or more) there is little competition, the Ruger will hold up much better.
The balance are different, thats a personal preference issue IMHO.
Both are great irons for the right use.

 

[AgentSmith]

I [had] a 5.5" Redhawk, and still have a 629-4 Mountain Gun.

The Redhawk balanced better, and soaked up recoil MUCH better than the MG.

The trigger was terrible. However, my neighbor has a 4" Redhawk with a much better trigger (than my older 5.5") that I was pretty impressed with.

The Mountain gun's trigger is in another league, and as a result I shoot it much more accurately. The MG carries much easier when fishing in the mountains.....YMMV.

 

[CAJUNLAWYER]

I've got a MG and a SuperRedhawk. I like them both. The SR with the 9.5" barrel and scope does impress the ladies though

 

[Shiloh76]

They are both great guns and I think any shooter would be well-served by either. I have a personal preference for my 629-3 Classic 5-incher (and its older big blue brother, my 29-2 with 8 and 3/8 barrel) but it's just that, a personal preference. I'd love to have the Redhawk, too. Every Ruger and S&W revolver I own (total of seven) has been a winner.

 

[.460Fan]

That's REAL nice there Shiloh. Real nice 629.

 

[David Sinko]

Redhawk durability is not all it's cracked up to be. My 4" Redhawk was a carry and competition gun for a couple of years and I put thousands of rounds through it, mostly fast DA and dry fired it tens of thousands of times more. I broke two hammer links and wore out the original transfer bar. The gun developed some serious timing and ignition problems. The Redhawk's transfer bar system can be very quirky. Ruger redesigned the transfer bar somewhere along the way and never told anybody. Newer transfer bars will not function properly in older revolvers. If you rarely shoot the gun DA and put only a few boxes through it SA a year you won't have to worry about this.

On a positive note, my DA trigger was very nice and I came to appreciate the brief "stacking" when shooting fast DA. I could never shoot the S&W revolvers as accurately or quickly and make the hits when using heavy loads. Ruger got the heat treating right with the cylinders and the stop notches NEVER peen, unlike every stainless steel S&W revolver out there that sees heavy use and fast DA firing. I like the balance and pointing characteristics of my 4" Redhawk and never really noticed the extra weight on the hip when carrying it concealed for hours at a time.

One other issue with the Redhawks is that Ruger refuses to work on or fix custom guns. Mine was returned to Hamilton Bowen (arguably the best Ruger revolversmith in the world) and he struggled to diagnose and repair the problems that revolver had. Ruger does not sell certain parts (hammers, triggers, cylinders) to anybody. Anybody who is considering cutting on a Redhawk would have to keep this in mind.

Dave Sinko