629 vs redhawk

I'll mostly be shooting paper and it will be my back up for bow hunting. I've recently moved to FL and from what I see, my biggest concerns are snakes and hogs. So I won't need anything over factory ammo. But on the other hand I would like to shoot a lot of paper.
 
513011.jpg

https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=54
This new load is designed ONLY for certain firearms. They are as follows; Ruger Red Hawk, Ruger Super Red Hawk, Ruger Super Blackhawk or Vaquero, Freedom Arms Model 83, Taurus Raging Bull, Colt Anaconda and Dan Wesson Revolvers. Suitable rifles include T/C Encore, "modified" Marlin 1894 (see next paragraph), Winchester 1894, any rifle with a falling block action and the Handi Rifle. We get hundreds of emails asking if this load can be fired in S&W revolvers or some firearm other than what is in the above list. The answer is NO. The above list is all inclusive. If some shooters continue to irresponsibly use this product, we may have to discontinue it and that would be unfortunate as it is our best selling 44 mag. load and it gives great performance for those that use it responsibly however, as is always the case, irresponsible use of any product ends up penalizing responsible users. It would also be wise to read our “Technical Article” on “Dangerous Pure Lead Cowboy Bullets”, before using this (ITEM 4D) product.
Click to expand...
 
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.

Chill out guys, (newfrontier45)if you really read what I said you should be able to see that I wasn’t arguing the Ruger is stronger, I am saying that I would like to see a test to see just how much stronger the Ruger is. And again it’s a fact that forged is stronger than cast but that again doesn’t mean that the Ruger isn’t stronger. But with normal 44 loads how much longer is the life span of a Ruger?
And I remember reading about someone back several decades ago loading up 44 specials to magnum loads and shooting 10’s of thousands out of a S&W 24
And Ruger loads were original meant for single action Ruger’s and I have never seen one of the test guns used for those loads anything other than a super Blackhawk or a Contender and again that means nothing against the Redhawk.
How many 50,000 psi loads will a Ruger take, 10 or 10,000 and how many people load there Ruger to that kind of pressure. Again I will ask, how many rounds of standard factory 44 magnums will ether gun take before there is a problem?
Most people will never wear out either.
That is another fact.
So if I have angered the Ruger fans (And I am one also) I am sorry,,, not really.:D
 
Last edited:
OZZIEMAN...

There is not much evidence to show that a S&W 29 (new or old) will ever hold up to a Redhawk in terms of longevity or brute strengh. I have seen many S&W N-frames with end-shake problems. I have seen model 27s having end-shake problem with hot 357 loads, let alone a 29/629 at 44 Mag levels.. I have not heard of Redhawks having end-shake problems.

The S&W 29 is a great gun. It has a great trigger and action.! Butter smooth without a doubt. With a bit of work, the Redhawk can be almost as smooth but not quite S&W 29/629 smooth.

It depends on what you, the purchaser, wants.

I use 44 mags for hunting and dangerous game protection. In regards to both, I want strength and reliabilty. Yes the S&W 29/629 can provide both, but not as reliably or for as long as a Redhawk.

If I were a rich person, I would love to do a practical test. Test both and see which one develops looseness or grenades first. If I could afford to do such test, I would still put my money on the Ruger. Do you want a beauty queen, or an old John Deere Tractor? I say old John Deere because they were what Ruger still is.
 
I avoid the whole issue and shoot 41 mags. When I want something bigger or more powerful, I shoot 475 Linebaugh/480 Ruger.

I believe the Ruger is stronger and that is what I would get if you want to push the limits consistantly with the 44 mag. One does not have to go much further in terms of research and look at the "Ruger only" loadings.
 
I wasn’t arguing the Ruger is stronger
Click to expand...
Really???
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...


Bottom line is that the Ruger is a lot stronger, can handle higher pressures AND last a longer lifespan. Plenty of folk have shot 29's loose but I've never heard of a Redhawk getting shot loose.


I have never seen one of the test guns used for those loads anything other than a super Blackhawk or a Contender and again that means nothing against the Redhawk.
Click to expand...
The Redhawk is stronger than both, unless you think you're smarter than Hamilton Bowen.

Has your bubble popped yet? Why does your enjoyment of S&W's require them to be as tough as a Redhawk? I had a Redhawk when I was 16 and traded it for, wait for it......a S&W N-frame .38-44HD. Which I then traded for a 629MG. To say that I'm happier with my 629 than I was with the Redhawk would be an understatement.
 
hall,austin If all you want is a fun/target and back up gun with hunting save some weight and buy a GP100. Seriously. I have killed close to 200 hogs over 20 years with a 357 loaded with 180gr hard cast and 170gr speer sp.s , a few deer too with an old dan Wesson 15-2 with a 8" barrel and red dot. Hogs up to 350lb never new the differenrce between a 357 breaking both shoulders and a 44.
 
newfrontier45 I will repeat this one more time, I agree that the Ruger is stronger. My question was how much longer is the life span of a Ruger over an S&W shooting normal loads and not your 50K loads. I would like to see some documented testing and that’s all I meant not a simple “It’s bigger so it has to be stronger.”
For the AVERAG shooter the line that every S&W goes out of time after a small number of factory mags is a fable I have one to prove it and its over 2000.
How many people actually put 50K loads through their Ruger on a daily basis.
Has my bubble popped, no and nothing you say will change my feeling that the Ruger is stronger but also the S&W will give a life time of shooting for a “normal” shooter.
The Redhawk is stronger than both, You think that a Redhawk is stronger than a contender?
Wrong there my friend.:)
 
“It’s bigger so it has to be stronger.”
Click to expand...
It's an insult to characterize the information you're receiving as that simplistic. For it is not. It's stronger because it's stronger. Because it's been proven to be stronger. And you can can the condescension as if you've been saying the same thing all along, because you have not.


You think that a Redhawk is stronger than a contender? Wrong there my friend.
Click to expand...
No, you're wrong again. It's very simple. The Contender cannot handle the backthrust. Period. Known limitation, over a looooong period of time. End of story. Which is why they never chambered the .454 in the Contender but had to have the Encore platform to handle that cartridge.


How many people actually put 50K loads through their Ruger on a daily basis.
Click to expand...
That is irrelevant.


...the S&W will give a life time of shooting for a “normal” shooter.
Click to expand...
That depends on your definition of "normal". The "normal" shooters you're thinking of will probably do not handload and rarely shoot anything but factory .44Spl's through them. The "normal" shooters I know of do not have a mere passing interest in this stuff but shoot tens of thousands of rounds a year through their big bores. Lots of people have shot their N-frame .44's loose. Especially when silhouette shooting was at its peak. Some in as little as 5000rds. There's a reason why S&W came up with their endurance package. I've never heard of a single person shooting a Ruger DA loose. I don't like them as well as S&W's but have no trouble admitting that they do have their advantages. What's your hangup?
 
I've owned my S&W 629 for over 15 years and it was bought secondhand slightly used......I've fired 1000's of rounds through it ( mostly handloads ) and never 44 special loads because I have a model 624 for that. I do not load it real hot....mostly 240 grain to 300 grain cast bullets probably not exceeding 1200 fps ! I simply don't see a need for more power because these loads easily down deer that I've gotten with my revolver ! I feel very comfortable with the revolver stoked with 300 grain loads around where black bear roam near our cabin if need be. I'm just guilty of liking S&W revolvers...however , I really enjoyed shooting my Ruger #1 in 45-70 caliber today ! :)
 
Well I wouldn't be pushing the limits of the round. I find shelf ammo to be plenty. And as far as .357 being enough for hogs, well yeah... It is, but I want an excuse to buy a .44, and this will be my last gun for a while, so I want it to last.
 
Well why not get a 454 ruger and then when plink loads are wanted or just a hot 45 load you have that option. No need really to ask there . Buy what you want , not what we think is best. Personally there ain't a s&w revolver I would own today. I'm a Dan Wesson revolver guy. HA

A search could have turned up a dozen treads on what 44 revolver is best.
 
I've owned both the 629 and the Redhawk. The two revolvers are like night and day, apples and oranges, etc...

If I were looking to shoot 44 specials or medium 44 mags. I would probably choose the Smith. It's lighter and more refined. However, this was not my purpose.

I started with a Redhawk and because of a recommendation from a friend, I traded it for a 629. This was fine until I tried to insert my hunting and hiking loads into the Smith. Nope.... Not a chance.... The cylinder was too short! Fortunately, my LGS still had my Redhawk and were kind enough to trade me back.

"Purpose" gets my vote for which is better.
 
HALL,AUSTIN...I have S&W and Ruger revolvers....The purpose of your revolver makes a big difference....I'm not interested in a handgun that I can't carry on my hip easily....I'm not interested in a long barreled revolver or one with a scope....I also prefer less weight....I've had a 4 in. barreled 629 for 15 yrs. It is my daily companion....I have always shot 44 mag factory ammo..not 44 spl's....I also am not interested in Buffalo Bore ammo in a revolver....I do shoot it in a 45-70 Marlin tho....I have a 4 5/8 Ruger Bisley that I like too....
The Redhawk was too big/heavy for my tastes....The Smith suited me better....
 
Where would a Super Redhawk stand on this list? Mine had a bit over 13,000 rounds through it when I got it from my uncle a few years back. All 290 grn. hard casts at 1370 fps. Only load he uses. Still one of the tightest revolvers I own.
 
Does anyone think that Ruger and S&W don't spend big bucks buying and wringing out each other's guns? And does anyone think that if there was a significant difference in strength or durability the company with the better gun wouldn't let everyone know about it? Every metallurgist I have talked with says that for a given thickness of steel, forged steel is stronger than cast, or to put it another way, to get the same strength from cast as forged, the cast part has to be around half again as thick. So Ruger's size and "brute strength" does not give twice the strength of an S&W, it gives about the same strength, but with more weight and bulk (and less cost).

As for cylinders, S&W and Ruger both use the same steel alloy in the same bar stock bought from the same supplier.

And please don't buy into the myth that you can't blow up a Ruger no matter what powder you use or how much. That kind of belief leads to learning the hard way.

Jim
 
"Versus" in the title should be changed to "and". There is no need to own one or the other; buy both. At least that is my plan!
 
Does anyone think that Ruger and S&W don't spend big bucks buying and wringing out each other's guns? And does anyone think that if there was a significant difference in strength or durability the company with the better gun wouldn't let everyone know about it? Every metallurgist I have talked with says that for a given thickness of steel, forged steel is stronger than cast, or to put it another way, to get the same strength from cast as forged, the cast part has to be around half again as thick. So Ruger's size and "brute strength" does not give twice the strength of an S&W, it gives about the same strength, but with more weight and bulk (and less cost).
Click to expand...
Sorry Jim but we know these things to be true. To say otherwise is a lot of wishful thinking.

If you don't think Ruger has taken advantage of this in their marketing, you must not have been paying attention over the last 30yrs. However, they will never admit publicly that their guns can handle loads exceeding SAAMI pressure standards.

There is not a huge difference in strength between forgings and investment castings. We KNOW that a S&W will exhibit frame stretching with a lot of heavy loads. We KNOW that a Redhawk will not. We KNOW that a S&W will shoot itself loose with a steady diet of heavy loads. We KNOW that a Redhawk will not. We KNOW that the N-frame is at its limit with the .44Mag and even then should not be fed a steady diet of heavy loads or the above will happen. Please show me one Redhawk that has been shot loose. We KNOW that the Redhawk in .44Mag or .45Colt will withstand a steady diet of loads in the 50,000psi range. We KNOW that not only is the Ruger's cylinder is much larger in diameter but the bolt cuts are between the chambers and that the cylinder is what must contain the pressure. We KNOW that when a cylinder blows, it's usually at the bolt notch. This is perhaps the most important difference. We KNOW that the Ruger's barrel shank is larger and thus the forcing cone, another point of wear. We KNOW that the Ruger does not have a sideplate but a once-piece frame. We also KNOW that nobody is building custom N-frames in .454Casull, .475Linebaugh, .500JRH or .500Linebaugh. I wonder what that means? We KNOW that every single cotton-pickin' authority on the subject agrees that the Redhawk and Super Redhawk are much stronger than the S&W N-frame.

You have to ignore a lot of obvious and well known facts to believe that a S&W N-frame is just as strong as a Redhawk. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top