629 vs redhawk

H

HALLAUSTIN

New member
<<FYI, this thread started in 2013. Starting on page 3 there are some newer posts. JohnKSa>>

I've heard some say that the smith action is much smoother but can't maintain a steady diet of 44 magnum. Is this true? I've heard that the post 1989 smiths had an endurance package added to fix this. Also can the redhawk have trigger work to make it as smooth as a smith?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
One is cast the other is forged. I keep hearing the same thing. I have Rugers but only S&W double actions in 44 mag.
Is the Ruger stronger being bigger and being cast? Is the S&W weaker since its frame is smaller but forged?
I don’t know but I like the N frame better and I shoot them a lot, one over 35 years but not a 44 mag and I haven’t had any problems.
Personally I feel that both guns are very well made guns and will function without problems for the normal life of the shooter.
And I also feel that most of the “Facts” about one being stronger or weaker is another internet myth without any documented facts to back it up.
It would be interesting for someone with a lot of money and lots of time to take this possible myth and put both to the test. Not that it would make any difference in my mind I like S&W DA’s better.
But that Ruger super Blackhawk in my safe is a MONSTER.
 
The S&W, while much older, is a more elegant and refined design. However, it was designed for a lower pressure cartridge, the .44 S&W Special. With advances in metallurgy, it makes a perfectly fine .357 but only a mediocre .44Mag. Where it is really at its limit and no, they cannot survive a constant diet of full pressure loads. Which is fine because they make wonderfully useful and pleasurable guns for using and shooting when loaded somewhat below maximum.

The Redhawk is a massive sixgun and unfortunately for S&W fanboys, the difference between investment casting and forging is not as dramatic as they think. The frames are brutally strong and the cylinders are still cut from barstock. It's not all about the frame and cylinder. The lockwork is thoroughly modern and robust. While not as smooth or as quick to reset as the S&W, it is a very useful design that will also withstand a steady diet of the heaviest loads. We're not talking about 240's@1200fps but 340's@1400fps.

Now ask me which I prefer? Strength is not everything, nor should it be. I prefer the Ruger Bisley for heavy duty loads so all my .44Mag DA's are S&W's. They work just fine with a standard 240-250gr cast bullet at 1100-1200fps.


I also feel that most of the “Facts” about one being stronger or weaker is another internet myth without any documented facts to back it up.
Click to expand...
Nope, it's pretty much fact. The Redhawk/Super Redhawk platform is undeniably stronger. I don't see anybody suggesting running N-frame .45's at 50,000psi.
 
Ruger vs Smith (what about Dan Wesson and Colt?)

I have found S&W to have generally better double action triggers than Rugers. Single action, the difference is not so noticeable, but S&W gets the nod there, too. That is box stock. Polishing the action can do wonders for any gun.

But I prefer Rugers. Here's why:

I owned two S&W revolvers in my past. Model 28 6" Highway Patrolman .357 Magnum and a K-22 Masterpiece 6" 22 rimfire. When I took the sideplate off the .22, I saw all those small parts inside (comparing it to my Dan Wesson, which had about half the number parts as the Smith.) I lubed the inside lightly, put the parts that sprang out back in and never opened it up again. I traded them off shortly thereafter. The Dan Wesson and Ruger, I found out later, in addition to having fewer parts, seem to have more robust parts as well. Ruger parts are even more robust than the Smith or the DW. I like that.

Undeniably, the Smiths are beautiful guns, but Rugers have their own style of beauty. And, "Beauty is as beauty does."

Nobody seems to ask about Colt Anaconda 44 Mag. I have a Colt Trooper (.357 Mag) with a double action trigger smooth as warm butter.

Springs. The Ruger Redhawk and Super Redhawks use coil springs. The Smith uses a single leaf as the mainspring. Coil springs are more durable. The Redhawk's lockwork is unlike any other revolver ever made. It uses a single spring to power the hammer AND the trigger return. This makes it a little harder to tune than a gun with separate springs, but if you like a unique gun, it is one.

On the strength question, in the '70s, S&W made a big deal about the relative merits and strength of forged frames (S&W) vs investment cast frames (Ruger). Yeah, forged may have an edge in strength-to-weight and strength-to-size ratios. But that edge has shrunk and, considering Ruger's frames are one-piece frames without sideplates, the design was always inherently stronger (opinion alert). And Ruger doesn't just make Ruger guns. They make frames for other gunmakers and investment cast parts for many other industries. Bill Ruger was a pioneer in investment casting post-war and Ruger still is a player in the industry.

Anyhow, a little extra weight has its own advantage in a heavy-recoiling gun.

Happy shooting.

Lost Sheep
 
Any late model 629 can handle more 44 mag than the average shooter can. The issues were fixed starting around the 29-5 and 629-3 and later. Get the Smith, you won't be sorry.
 
The Redhawk/Super Redhawk platform is undeniably stronger
Prove it with documented facts not an opinion.
I’m not saying that it’s not but is one good for 20,000 and the other is good for 25,000?
Or one is good for 1000 and the other is good for 100,000 and we are talking about 44 mag’s.
 
Prove it with documented facts not an opinion.
Click to expand...
It's fact, not opinion but I see that some folks refuse to be swayed by facts. I'll obligate YOU to look up articles by John Taffin and Brian Pearce about loading the Redhawk to 50,000psi. Then challenge YOU to find anything of the sort on the S&W. Some see something for what it is, other see what they want to see. Sorry but to admit that the Ruger is stronger is not to admit that it is better. Like I said, I prefer S&W's for DA's.
 
I hate to say it but it has already been proven. There called RUGER ONLY LOADS! its in your reloading manual, it would not be there if it did not need to be ;)

P.S. I love both Ruger & Smith
 
just look at the fact that the redhawk frame can handle the extreme pressure of 454 casull with ease, a round that would surely blow the sw apart. they are the basis of many custom guns going up to .475 linebaugh, .500 linebaugh etc. you dont see smiths being used for that. when sw wanted to chamber the 500 sw mag and 460 they had to build a completely new gun in the xframe. so yea, id say the ruger is hands down stronger, and i have to say mine is pretty smooth as well.
 
You can't shoot the really hot loads in an S&W. You'll see "Ruger Only" formulas in reloading manuals and even straight from certain boutique manufacturers like Buffalo Bore. Usually these won't even allow the S&W cylinder to be closed. If you plan on maxing out the power of the .44 magnum then get either a Ruger or Freedom Arms revolver.
 
It's fact, not opinion but I see that some folks refuse to be swayed by facts. I'll obligate YOU to look up articles by John Taffin and Brian Pearce about loading the Redhawk to 50,000psi. Then challenge YOU to find anything of the sort on the S&W.
Click to expand...
Not to mention Ross Seyfried, recoil lover extraordinaire. It's already been mentioned S&W addressed their weak frames in the past, and I'd opine that along the time of their "Classic Hunter" or so, they were generally strong enough to handle most .44 Mag loads. But to argue the S&W 29 was always equally strong as the Redhawk would be utter foolishness because it's just not true. Even now, I'd still say the Ruger is stronger.
 
Most people will never wear out either.

As others have mentioned the Ruger is rated up to a higher load level if loading above standard specifications is your thing. Frankly when talking the 44 mag I don't get this but I suppose some just need to wring every ounce of power out of a given round. Obviously for 45 colt it makes much more sense as a 45 Redhawk can take a ton more pressure than an old Colt SAA.

As for actions I personally think you need to define a time period, as current production Smith triggers are not peaches. Older smiths came with better quality (non-mim) parts generally better fitted together for a better trigger and can usually be made to be quite nice.

With new guns today I would call the Smith and Ruger about equal out of the box. I have never seen or had luck getting the Ruger quite as smooth in the Redhawk action as a Smith. GP100 or SRH I would say you can get right up there with the Smith guns.

As for robustness of design of the action I think it's a wash, they both have small parts, springs etc that can, and do break, I see no major benefit in the Ruger design or weakness of the Smith. In the guns I have messed with a Smith trigger job consists of changing out a stupid heavy rebound slide spring and some very selective polishing of a few areas and in general it's good to go.

The work I have done on my Ruger guns has taken a lot more time, involved swapping out a stupid heavy trigger return spring and LOTS of polishing and de-burring of the internal frame, trigger return spring tunnel and sometimes getting investment material out of the inside of the gun. Honestly if Ruger spent the time to do this the triggers would feel a lot better when new. I am guessing there is not easy or cheap way to do this so they don't.
 
Older Smith's were certainly weaker. Newer guns have been beefed up to easliy withstand anything most shooters well ever put through them. Certainly anything I will. I respect the Ruger, but for my purposes I prefer the Smith.
 
Most people will never wear out either.
Click to expand...
Most shooters will never wear out any gun of any kind. However, there are enough hardcore big bore shooters that have shot an N-frame loose that it warrants discussion. Pressures aside, the S&W's cylinder is simply not long enough for some bullets seated in the crimp groove. That may or may not matter. IMHO, every aspect should be discussed so the OP can make the most educated decision possible. Let him decide what matters and what doesn't. Same for anyone finding this discussion in a future search.
 
If you want a revolver to shoot production 44mag ammo from the likes of rem, win , fed and hornday then ether will do. If its a hangun that your life may depend on you can load longer heavier hotter loads in the rruger SRH the s&w simply can handle.

Trigger work , of course it can be improved if you feels its needed. But not really needed to many.
 
I got a better question. Who in their right mind would want to shoot a .44mag that developed 50,000psi of pressure? Not this guy.
 
Aren't the S&W cylinders too short for the 300's? I know the older ones were. I don't know about the newer ones. I know one thing, Redhawks are built like a tank and there is no hard decision in my mind.
 
Who in their right mind would want to shoot a .44mag that developed 50,000psi of pressure?
Click to expand...
Same guys that shoot heavy .45Colt (55,000psi in custom five-shots), .454Casull (65,000psi), .480Ruger (48,000psi), .475Linebaugh (50,000psi), .500JRH and .500Linebaugh sixguns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top