629 vs redhawk

[James K]

Gee, it seems a lot of folks buy those cheap, shoddy, weak, S&W's. I guess they just don't KNOW all that you KNOW. Maybe they should go to Taurus.

In spite of all the you KNOW about how Rugers are super strong, they can be and have been blown up, mostly by people who believed that business about how they couldn't be.

Jim

 

[newfrontier45]

Good God Jim. Nobody called them "cheap, shoddy and weak". Maybe you should try reading the whole thread? I've said multiple times that I GREATLY prefer S&W's for double actions. The fact that Redhawks and Super Redhawks are stronger does not make them better. I've said that too. The Redhawk I 'had' is long gone and I don't miss it. Traded for a .38-44HD which was then traded for a tuned 629. Why? Because I like S&W's better, which is probably why I own a passel of them.

Any gun can be blown up, nobody said they couldn't, I don't know how that's relevant.

Oh and Freedom Arms guns have cast frames yet withstand a lifetime at 65,000psi. So I reckon those castings are good for something.

 

[skidder]

The Ruger is stronger, no doubt, but they are also heavier and bulkier. The laws of physics tend to play into general mass and oversized parts. Not to mention the weight of the Redhawk reducing the battering affect of recoil.

Your gonna get less flexing on an eight foot deck floor made with 2X6s than you are 2X4s. Now imagine a 300 pound man jump-roping on that 2X4 Deck.

There are reasons for "Ruger Only" loads.

 

[silvermane_1]

IMHO go with Ruger Redhawk, cuz there is no such thing as "S&W Only Loads".

 

[buck460XVR]

Odds are one can find a Redhawk on the shelves nowadays much easier than finding a 629. There's a reason for that. But, both manufacturers make fine guns. One has a cast frame, one is forged. One has a lifetime warranty, one comes with no warranty written or implied. Both cost about the same. If one truly needs more velocity and power than what SAAMI specs for .44mag, they need to buy a more poweful caliber.

 

[Slamfire]

Over the years I have read enough posts to convince me that Smith and Wesson N frame revolvers in 44 Magnum, including the improved versions, will shoot out of time if you use enough extremely heavy loads and heavy bullets.

Rugers are very heavy duty and hold up better. The Redhawks are tanks.

If you want the highest pressure, heaviest bullets, and most recoil, you are better off getting a 500 S&W, any maker, and shooting until it is out of your system.

From the used 500 S&W's I saw at the gunstore, that might take only 50 rounds.

 

[newfrontier45]

If you want the highest pressure, heaviest bullets, and most recoil, you are better off getting a 500 S&W, any maker, and shooting until it is out of your system.

If one truly needs more velocity and power than what SAAMI specs for .44mag, they need to buy a more poweful caliber.

I never understood this logic. Some folks have a need/desire for +300gr bullets in the .44Mag or .45Colt and the Redhawk is a good platform for that. For you can launch a 340gr LBT at 1400fps and not have to worry about wearing out your sixgun. Those bullets are too long to even fit the N-frame cylinder. The Redhawk is no lightweight like a nice 4" N-frame but it is still a good beltgun. Unlike the X-frame monstrosities.

 

[dayman]

Has anyone been making the argument that the Redhawk isn't stronger than the 629? My impression is that the counter point is that for the overwhelming majority of shooters the extra strength isn't needed.
Most people don't feed their gun a steady diet of the heaviest Mag loads. If you're going to, it would probably be a good idea to get the Redhawk.
For the typical shooter (.44spl for some range time, and magnums for woods duty/hunting) however, there's going to be no appreciable difference in how long either of them lasts.

My buddy's PowerWagon is undeniably far stronger than my Tacoma, but for the purposes of driving to work, hauling the odd load of lumber, and occasionally taking the boat down to the lake, my Tacoma functions exactly the same, and should age just as gracefully.

 

[newfrontier45]

Has anyone been making the argument that the Redhawk isn't stronger than the 629?

Uh, yeah, plenty. Read the thread. Starting with the very first reply.

Most people don't feed their gun a steady diet of the heaviest Mag loads......For the typical shooter (.44spl for some range time, and magnums for woods duty/hunting) however, there's going to be no appreciable difference in how long either of them lasts.

I don't make those assumptions. I provide information. It's up to the individual to decide what does or does not fit their criteria. I'm not trying to tell anyone what to do. All I'm trying to do is provide enough information for an informed decision. For some reason, some folks seem to have a problem with this.

My buddy's PowerWagon is undeniably far stronger than my Tacoma, but for the purposes of driving to work, hauling the odd load of lumber, and occasionally taking the boat down to the lake, my Tacoma functions exactly the same, and should age just as gracefully.

And what about for those who actually need more truck than a Tacoma? While it might not matter to you, some folks need to haul 10-15,000lbs. I have to haul hay and cattle a couple times a year. Can't do that with a Tacoma. That's not a slight against your truck. Different trucks for different purposes. I wish I could get Tacoma gas mileage for every other purpose. Guns are no different. Some folks have a need for heavyweight bullets. Be it for hunting, critter defense or just for fun. Others do a lot of shooting with standard loads and would like for their guns to last. I know of one guy that's worn out two 329's. As with most things, match the tool to the task at hand.

I don't know why this is such an issue.

 

[Sweet Shooter]

@newfrontier45
I don't know why this is such an issue.

Really? Respect, but... 12 of the 44 replies were made by you.
I've never understood the power craving thing.
For my money 158gr .357 @ 1400fps is flatter and the hole isn't really that much smaller.
-SS-

 

[Buzzcook]

Pick the gun that fits your hand better, that points more naturally, that's the gun to choose.

There is no game in Florida that plain old garden variety .44mag will not kill.

 

[dayman]

And what about for those who actually need more truck than a Tacoma? While it might not matter to you, some folks need to haul 10-15,000lbs. I have to haul hay and cattle a couple times a year. Can't do that with a Tacoma. That's not a slight against your truck. Different trucks for different purposes.

That's kind of the point I was trying to make.
With a few exceptions, it seems like the people who are arguing for the merits of the 629, aren't saying it's stronger - or even as strong - as the redhawk. They're saying that it's more than strong enough for most people.
It's not like the S&W is going to shoot it's self apart under normal use. Can it handle a diet of heavy magnums as long as a redhawk? No. But, it can handle more than most people are likely to ever put through it. For most peoples purposes, there's not going to be a difference.
It's not a case of a strong gun and a weak gun. It's a case of a strong gun, and an even stronger gun.

Some people need big trucks, and some people need overbuilt guns. Most people don't.

All that being said, my revolvers - including those on my wish list - are all Rugers.

I just wish they made a Redhawk with a full under-lug like the sp101/gp100. The Redhawk/SRH are the only 2 lines that I find less attractive than Smiths, and solely because of the barrel design.. But I digress.

 

[newfrontier45]

I've never understood the power craving thing.
For my money 158gr .357 @ 1400fps is flatter and the hole isn't really that much smaller.

The .357 is barely adequate for deer. I guess it's more than enough if all you ever poke holes in is paper. There are critters that need a lot more killing than the .357 can deliver. For those critters, you need bigger, heavier bullets. For others, it's more a matter of want than need. Some of us actually take our big bore shooting seriously.

...but... 12 of the 44 replies were made by you.

Somebody has to combat the misinformation that started with the very FIRST response. Now I see we're having to do it all over again.

With a few exceptions, it seems like the people who are arguing for the merits of the 629, aren't saying it's stronger - or even as strong - as the redhawk.

I guess you missed the posts by Ozzieman and JamesK stating that the guns were the same strength???

It's not like the S&W is going to shoot it's self apart under normal use.

That depends on your definition of "normal" use. I crank out .44Mag on a Dillon 650 so my definition of "normal" probably differs from many. I don't consider little more than a passing interest and a couple boxes of ammo a year "normal".

For most peoples purposes, there's not going to be a difference.

Probably so but I'll let the individuals make that judgement. My only purpose is to help ensure that the decision is made with all the information (and as little misinformation) possible. I'd hate to see someone make the wrong decision because they were fed wrong information and there has been plenty here. What's sad is that among veteran big bore shooters, all this information is very common knowledge.


And one more time, if you read the thread, you'll see that my preference for DA's runs to older S&W's. I have no use or desire for a Ruger DA. Nor do I need everything the big Rugers can offer. I much prefer to run my N-frames at 1000-1200fps with standard weight cast bullets and save the heavy stuff for my single action Bisleys.

 

[Super Sneaky Steve]

The .357 is barely adequate for deer.

In my little carbine I clocked my 125XTP handloads at 2,227fps or 1376ft/lbs.

I'd like to see a deer survive that hit.

In my 6" GP100 with a slightly reduced load I got 1647fps or 750ft/lbs.

I love big bore revolvers too, but to say the .357 is barely adequate is ridiculous.

 

[Winchester_73]

I have a neutral question. I feel the need to preface with that statement, given this thread.

The S&W 29s, made since 1956 (they were not model marked until about 1959), have been known to shoot loose, perhaps get out of time, among probably some other issues. My uncle (an avid shooter, handgun hunter and competitor) told me he saw a 29 with top strap cutting problems, which S&W replaced for the guy. I assume the loads in that gun were really pushing it, but I don't know for sure, and the guy that did that has since passed away.

My question is this: for all of the evidence that the 29s and for that matter, 629s are weaker, has there been as much evaluation of 629s that were made POST the endurance package? I mean the 629 debuted around 1980 IIRC, and that was before the endurance package. I guess what I'm saying is that there are many generations and variations of model 29s and 629s. Were all of them given equal consideration? I think its a well known fact that a majority of 29s, and perhaps even 629s would be PRE endurance package. Or is it a simple matter of even the endurance package 629s do not hold up either? I don't know either way, I'm just asking. All I can say is that the same Uncle mentioned above has a 629 Classic DX which has had zero problems. I also don't think he pushes the gun to the top limit, so then really, its probably irrelevant to the exact point of this thread: which gun could handle a steady diet of high pressure 44 mags the longest?

If you were Buffalo bore, or some other high power pistol ctg manufacturer, it would be much easier to say for liability sake "No S&W 29 or 629" rather than give serial number ranges for certain generations which would be safe, and those which would not. Many people would probably get confused, and make mistakes, which is why for liability purposes, blanket statements are often used, whether true or not.

 

[newfrontier45]

The endurance package only addressed weaknesses in the lockwork. Which made them better but IMHO, it came along too late. The pivotal factor that makes the Redhawk so much stronger is that its cylinder is not only much larger in diameter but the bolt cuts are between the chambers. Any cylinder that ever fails will fail at the bolt cut 99% of the time. Ruger's design alleviates this weakness. It's a much less elegant design but more robust for certain. Like I said, you won't see any 50,000psi loads for S&W's.

I'd like to see a deer survive that hit.

How many deer have you shot with that load? Impressive numbers, if you worship energy. Not so good if you need a little better gauge. That's a self defense bullet pushed way past its rated velocity. I would imagine it would make a very nasty, very shallow wound. The .357 is considered by any authority on the subject as the absolute minimum for deer and then, only with proper loads. A 125gr would not be considered a proper deer load but would be great for varmints.

 

[Buzzcook]

Just a little reality check.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5537747&postcount=21

The OP wants this gun for:

1. Mostly shooting paper.

2. As a back up for bow hunting.

3. In Florida.

Now what about those conditions shouts out Ruger only loads?

 

[buckhorn_cortez]

The OP wants this gun for:

1. Mostly shooting paper.

2. As a back up for bow hunting.

3. In Florida.

Now what about those conditions shouts out Ruger only loads?

Nothing - but, the OP asked "629 or Redhawk" - and people responded with their opinions. I fail to see a problem with that.

In .44 I have several Rugers and Smiths. The ones I shoot the most are a Model 629 manufactured in 1981 and a Super Redhawk Alaskan manufactured in 2012.

I will not put heavy loads in the 629, as my experience with two Model 29's shooting a lot of heavy loads resulted in them being sent back to Smith for work as they did get out of time and loosen up.

Commercial ammunition is fine in the Smiths. The load I settled on 30 years ago for the M29's I had was 19.5 grains of H110 with a 240 grain lead Keith style bullet.

However, that does not compare to the 340 grain Buffalo Bore that I carry occasionally in the Super Redhawk. I would never think about putting that into the 629 as the gun just will not hold up to that level of pressure and recoil.

They're two different tools and need to be used to best effect given their design, features, advantages, and limitations. You either recognize there are real differences between the guns and choose the tool required - or, you don't.

The problem I've run into lately with the new S&W revolvers is that the triggers cannot be tuned like you could with the old guns (pre MIM trigger parts) - and that takes away one of the real advantages of the Smiths.

For the OP's stated uses - either revolver will work.

 

[kahrguy]

newfrontier45

How many deer or large hogs have you killed with a 357mag.

I have only killed a few deer with a 357mag but much closer to 200 hogs over 20 years with one. Its much more about the bullet and load than the cartridge as far it being to take game with. Back in the days of my 357 hunting some of the bullets we have today were not around and with the neutered 357mag factory ammo we have today it truly is a handloaders cartridge. Info is way easier to find with the internet sites too. None back then.

I tried some hotter factory supervel and a few years later corbon 158gr loads when a young'n. I will say I was not pleased with some results while hunting and had to learn the old slow way, trial and error. I found a speer speer 170gr sp was a fine deer and hog hammer along with a 180gr hard cast for hogs. I did load these 170 and 180gr for a while at a hotter 1450fps + and they worked very well but also found for hogs that follow up shots if the first missed the mark it was not possible do to the recoil recovery. Slowed the 170gr and 180gr loads for hogs down to 1200fps and I could still get pass thru shoulder shots or broke both shoulders to head to tail pass thru shots on smaller 150to 200 lb hogs.

Not sure how much more bullet is needed. A badly placed shot with a 44 or 454 or, or, is not any better. I kept my yardage to what I concedered bow hunting ranges as a walk and stalk hunter. Say 40 yards and way less. Oh , some of those hogs were as big as 350lb+ range gutted. Not your average razor back, part bacon hog being longer of body and some color other than black . Not many deer are bigger or tougher. So, so much for not enough cartridge. I did find out I always liked the heavier bullets in a 357.


I moved from florida to nc and now hunt in other states more often and finally started to hunt with a 44mag and currently use a speer 240gr bonded hp or nosler hp for deer . Travels from a 8" DW barrel at 1508fps average with 18.7gr of 2400. Still easy on the shooter and mild on the cases. Should be a couple thousand short of max psi too. Sure not a typical slow poke lower pressured factory fodder load. Same goes for much of the factory 357 ammo today. You need to handload or buy boutique ammo to push the saami limits today.

Problems with certain s&w handguns is not new. From the model 19 with 357loads to the various upgraded model 29's just to get it to a some what stronger model that can atleast hold up to the factory fodder out there to day.

 

[Sweet Shooter]

357 too?

So I just want to check. Are we now saying the heavy, say... Buffalo Bore .357 loads are not advised in the Smith revolvers? What about the newer ones? I have a brand new 7 shot 686-6+ that I was hoping to put some stout rounds into as a bow hunting backup this year.

-SS-