625 mountain gun or ruger redhawk for 45 colt shooting iron?

B

bullfrog99

New member
i am concerned with accuracy, durability and reliability.
can the 45 colt mountain gun(pre pact with the devil)take a heavy load?
which one makes smaller holes at 25 yards, and which one will last longer thru use and abuse? I understand the weight difference, otherwise i wouldn't even concider the S&W.
 
The 625 CANNOT handle loads that the Redhawk can. Simple reason, S&W puts the cylinder stop bolt cuts over the center of the cylinder (thinnest point), Ruger doesn't. I suspect the 625 will come out of the box with a better trigger, and possibly be more accurate. The Ruger can be worked on to improve it. You may never get the same action smoothness though.
 
Here we go again! I'm going to beat this thing with a stick till it goes away. :) The Smith & Wesson not being able to take the pressure is plain and simple wives tail. The trigger cylinder stop has nothing to do with anything. It is the parts in the double action that is the problem. There are to many small parts that will wear quickly and break under a constant barrage of heavy recoil. In a controlled test done by H.P Whites lab, both a Ruger and a S&W were destroyed at about 80000 CUP (copper units of pressure). The Ruger's are stronger gun in terms of the total package. They can take a beating over 3 lifetimes. But that is not to say that a S&W used sparingly can't shoot big loads.

A quote from Mr 45 Colt himself, John Linebaugh:

In reality the Model 25-5 is about 80% as strong as the Model 29 in the cylinder area. The frames are the same and are designed for a 40,000 psi load level even though we know this is a bit more than they are happy with. It's too bad S&W builta 40,00 psi cylinder and installed it in a 30,000 psi frame, so to speak. (note: since this writing S&W has worked on the problem of the cylinder unlatching and rolling back under recoil after it gets a bit worn) The 25-5 in .45 Colt is safe to 80% of the 40,000 psi of the .44 Magnum Model 29. This allows a load of 32,000 psi in this frame. I have shot hundreds of the 32,000 psi class loads listed at the beginning of this article in several Model 25-5's. Recoil is heavy due to the S&W "hump" on the grip, but I do not see these loads as being dangerous in this fine gun. I do consider 32,000 to be ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM for this gun and prefer to hold my personal loads to 5% under those listed loads for approximately 25,000 psi. I carry a S&W 4" in .45 Colt daily and shoot a 260 gr. Keith at 900 fps for general duty. When I saddle up and go into the hills I pack the same gun with a 310 gr. NEI Keith over 23 gr. H-110. This gives me about 1080 fps and all the punch I need for anything on our mountain. As with any gun and load data, work up carefully. I assume responsibility only for the ammo I myself assemble.

Best regards. John L.


Robert
 
S&W can take stronger loads

I just got a S&W .45lc, and had the same question. I sent Corbon e-mail askign if they recommended their .45lc hunting load for the S&W, since htey have all kinds of disclaimers about only shooting it in those newer guns which are strong enough for it, and they said it would be just fine. I don't know about going stronger that that load, but for the frequesncy with which I will be shooting the strigner loads, I don't see any problem.
 
"used sparingly"

Robert,

I think "used sparingly" is what is most important here when talking about durabilty. It really depends on what the person plans on doing with it. If they plan on only shooting stiff loads out of it then it is a problem with durability. I am a rabid S&W revo fan and consider them the best DA revo out there. When I was looking for a longer barreled .44 mag to shoot heavy 300+ gr. bullets out of I would have liked to buy a longer barreled S&W since I was shooting a 3" Lew Horton 629 at the time. If I wasn't planning on primarily shooting heavy stuff I would have got a 6" or 8 3/8" 629 but since I was I had to go with a Ruger Redhawk.
I agree that there is no problem with shooting heavy loads out of a S&W as long as they are "used sparingly." I have and article from a few years back where a writer put 10,000 rds of full power .44 Mag through a Redhawk without a problem. It is that kind of longevity with the Ruger that I needed for my purposes. When S&W makes a revo that can do that I will replace the Redhawk immediatly.
 
The Mountain Gun has had all of the improvements that S&W came up with during the late 80's to make the silohuette shooters happy; but the plain truth is that a Redhawk's cylinder is larger in diameter that an S&W and is stronger because of it.
The other question that you need to answer is do you really want to handle the recoil that a S&W Mountain Gun is going to have shooting heavy loads? A Redhawk is quite a bit heavier than a Mountain gun, and that weight helps tame the recoil.
 
Robert,

My "old wive's tale" came directly from S&W. Of course that was with early M25's chambered in .45 Colt. And the ONLY guns I've ever seen with the cylinder split at the BACK were both M25's in .45 Colt. The new guns may well take it. But not in my guns.

Of course I've never quite understood the desire to buy something like a .45 Colt and then hot rod the thing over SAAMI max. Not when there are .41 and .44 Mags or .454 Casuls available.

You might also remember that the N frame was developed (originally) for the .44 Special, later added the .357 Mag. With either of those it is just about indestructible. The .44 Mag was, and still is, pushing things in the N frame. The Blackhawk, Redhawk, Anaconda, etc. were all developed with the .44 Mag in mind.
 
Redhawk cylinder is longer, allowing longer bullets. You know, those 335-360g bullets over significant amounts of slow-burning powder, sparked by a magnum primer.

Try a few hundred of those in your 625.......


ps screw SAAMI
 
why I will shoot "hot" loads in my 625 colt

I like the standard colt cartridge. I find it very comfortable to shoot. A 44 mag. is no fun for me. But if I take the 625 colt along hunting, I would like to have a strong enough cartridge for anything that comes along. I think that means something a bit stronger than the standard .45 colt cartridge. Also, its nice to sometimes shoot something that is reasonably stronger, like a higher power .45 colt cartidge. I agree - if I wanted to regularly shoot a .44 mag or .10 mm, I should get one (or a .45 super, .45 win mag. etc) But I don't want those calibers. Rather than have to download to get something comfortable for regular shooting, I'd rather shoot what I enjoy, and have the option of sometimes going with something stronger. I think the 625 colt will do just fine with occasional hunting loads, and I can get all the performance I need out of a cartridge I like.

Canuck1911
 
Heavy 45 colt Single Action please

I belive the reason for the 44 was that the 45 colt cylinders were always oversized (and they still are) which worked the brass excessivly which in turn caused the old wives tale about "weak' 45 colt brass, and that the old 45 guns could not take the pressures of modern loads. Had the 45colt of today been on the scene prior to the 44 it (the 44) would never had been invented. As the colt can equal or exceed the 44 with a lot less pressure and much shorter barrels. Also stating that it should not be loaded heavy because it wasnt done in the past is like limiting the 45-70 in a modern marlin or ruger no 1. It just dont make since to shoot black powder in these guns when they can do so much more.

As to the cylinder notch all the custom five shots that I have seen have the notch cut on the thick part of the cylinder. Have also heard from reeder that the super redhawk 454 has had some problems because of the old wives tale. My buddy has a 45colt redhawk and the cuts are definitly not centered over the thick part of the cylinder. Have a unfluted freewheel five shot converted blackhawk that is centered over the thick area. Really thick cylinder walls, I like the fact of heavy cylider support front and back that a single action gives in additon to the strength of less parts. Will pass on the smiths, thanks.

Linebaugh also states for the most part the cyliders are the parts that give the most when the guns "go".
 
Oberkommando,

While the Redhawk six shot cylinders are definitely not cut between cylinders (a bit difficult mechanically) they are also cut slightly off the exact centerline of the chamber (so are Colt guns). The S&W guns are cut directly over the centerline, thus thinning out the already thinnest point. As pointed out a couple of places, the Ruger cylinders are also longer, allowing the use of heavier bullets than the S&W guns. My earlier statements about strength were based on both observed failures, and statements made by Smith and Wesson engineers. But these were a few years ago with early 25-3 guns (short cylinder). The 25-5 and 625 guns in .45 Colt use a different cylinder (longer) and they may well have changed the metal or heat treatment as well. I haven't seen anything on them from S&W. The two failures I saw were both 25-3 guns. Since my only .45 Colt gun is a 625-5 Classic five inch (1550 made) I don't think I want to use it for experimentation! :)
 
It has been suggested to me that the 625 is perfectly adequate for "warmish" 45 Colt loads; just don't mistakenly fire 'serious' stuff (like my heavies) through one.

May take a few, but will not take many!

Freedom Arms

Ruger Redhawk / SuperRedhawk / Blackhawk....

Dan Wesson

Colt Anaconda

Anything from Bowen / Linebaugh / Reeder....
 
627

I am looking at my blackhawk cylinder (former six shot) and the cut is not exactly over the thinnest part but might as well be on this cylinder its just so close to center. As to the longer bullets the redhawk of my friends can seat long heavy bullets no problem but my factory 45colt blackhawk convertible is nowhere near as long.
My new cylinder from reeder in a lot longer maybe a sixteenth"? I dont know why the makers insist on such short cylinders and oversized bores? Guess they are just stubborn? Once saw a smith in 45 acp 625? that had a grip that felt perfect wish I had bought it years ago that or maybe the 610? in 10mm, not a smith fan because of reloading hot stuff and the durability question but really liked those two. Good luck with your colt loadings. Its a great caliber.
 
Oberkommando,

We are dealing in thousandths of an inch here, but that DOES make a difference. The early Blackhawk cylinders weren't as long as the SuperBlackhawk or Redhawk cylinders, but at that time the M25-3 guns had even shorter cylinders! I would probably be willing to try a FEW hot .45 Colt loads in a new 625 (but not many, and not TOO hot). Since my only 625 is a bit on the rare side I don't choose to try them in IT. I find that standard loads with 255 grain LSWC's are quite effective, but then I'm not planning on using them on any bears, etc. (actually, based on personal experience I'm not planning on using ANY handgun on a bear, thank you very much!)
 
Do to the better trigger, faster and shorter hammer and better overall quality of the bore and forcing cone, the Smith & Wesson is more accurate. And since the Ruger is engineered the way it is, there is no physical way it can become more accurate. The hammer radius is just too long and slow.

Robert
 
Accuracy (both can be excellent) will depend on YOUR SPECIFIC GUN.

Hammer fall does not affect a pistol's accuracy if you shoot it correctly.
 
I've owned the 625 mountian gun and frankly didn't care a lot for it. I sold it in favor of an old blue 25-5 which is a much better gun. The difference in weight is negligable.

As for hot loads in the Smith, go to the Ruger .45 Colt section of your loading manual. What are listed as starting loads for the Ruger should be considered MAXIMUM loads for the Smith. This will put you in the +P power range without causing undue wear or recoil with the Smith.

Once again let me state that I have found little use for "Hot" loads in the .45 Colt. The standard stuff will deal with most anything. For the rest, I have exactly one +P load which pushes a 300 gr lead bullet at approx. 1000fps. And I don't use it much.

JMHO.
 
redhawks are accurate

in fact so much that most people will never be able to shoot to the point that they can out shoot the gun.i have shot 3/4 inch thats three fourths of an inch groups at 50 yards with one before with a 2x scope from seated position.i think the gun can do better but i cant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top