Redhawk or model 29 shooter input?

Redhawk all the way.
Even S&W advises against heavy loads in the 29.
The Redhawk is, by far, the heavier, beefier, stouter, stronger in every way firearm. The 29 is another, smaller caliber lighweight model adapted to the .44 mag.
Absolute no brainer. Go Ruger.
 
I've had both and I prefer the S&W myself. My first .44 Magnum was a 5 1/2" Redhawk that had a very nice trigger job done on it (it was almost S&W smooth). While I never really had trouble out of the gun, I did find it to be awfully big for what I wanted to use it for. At first, I bought into the whole Ruger strength thing but I soon found that the heavy loads that shouldn't be shot in a S&W did nothing for me but kick harder and use more powder. As time went on, I found that all I was shooting from my Redhawk were "normal" .44 Magnum loads that would be perfectly suitable for a S&W as well. Finally it dawned on me that all the famous Ruger strength was giving me was a bigger, heavier gun to lug around and I sold it to finance a 4" 629. I'm quite happy with my S&W and it is more that strong enough to handle a 250gr SWC over 20gr of 2400 which is the most powerful handgun loading I can ever see myself needing anyway.
 
Redhawk all the way.
Even S&W advises against heavy loads in the 29.
Click to expand...

That was years ago. Early S&W's were known to have problems with a steady diet of very heavy loads. They upgraded their guns several years back. I think the Ruger will hold up to loads that are "off the charts" so to speak. But modern Smiths will hold up to any factory load or any handload in the loading manuals.
 
With 44 Special plinking loads mostly in mind, I would go with a 29/629. I really like S&W revolvers. Good selection of Grips, Holsters, etc. A little smaller than the Ruger, and I am sure lighter.

As was said many times above. If you plan on very many Full House 44 Magnums I would go with the Ruger. The John Deere of Revolvers is a good comparison. There is a reason you see so many Old John Deere tractors still in everyday use. They over built them. I have a John Deere 1520 with a factory original front end loader from I believe around 1974 as my current tractor. My John Deer before that was an MT from around 1951. It is still in use as a Hay Rake Tractor.

I have owned several 29/629's over the years. I have also owned 2 each 44 Super RedHawks. I have no doubt that the Ruger will handle a steady diet of heavy 44 Magnum loads better than the S&W.

For Bear Country again the Ruger would get my vote. A S&W will not handle my 310 grain Hammer Head bullets. The cylinder is too short.

The Rugers never whack my second knuckle like a S&W does with heavy loads either.

Just My 2 Cents

Bob
 
I like older no-lock S&W's. If one comes along and it is a great deal, I tend to buy it. And the N frames are sweet. However... I have to agree that my beloved 29-2's will tire you out with heavier loads. I'm not talking about 300+ grain loads either. Each shot will just wear on your shooting hand a bit more than the one before. Six is no problem. Twelve will be forcing me to bear down and concentrate. More than that in one uninterrupted session stops being much fun. And starts threatening to cause me to flinch.

And my favorite 29/629 has that problem in even great amounts since it is lighter. If I'm going to carry a 629 out into the field... it's going to be a Mountain Gun. An older one without the cursed ILS. There's your perfect .44 Special DA field gun.

The Redhawk is a great design but it does pull your belt down a bit. My personal favorite is the SS 5.5" version in .41 Magnum. I put Nill grips on mine and now it is a pretty thing as well. Really, really great revolver that just goes through the years continuing to look like new.

Gregg
 
That broken Ruger shown above looks pretty much like someone shot a squib which left a bullet in the barrel, then pulled the trigger again...

He's lucky nothing worse happened! :o

Dan
 
I have fired both, the S & W 629 looks better, but the Redhawk is heavier and has easier recoil which allows me to shot better and more accurate.
 
Dan, the broken Ruger above is a well documented failure admitted by Ruger. The problem was with the lubricant used on the barrel threads.
What you will seldom find is a Redhawk with a blown cylinder and top strap.
 
I own a late model 4" 629 and a 4.2" Redhawk, both in 44 Mag. I like them both. I actually find the trigger in my Redhawk to be very nice, as good as on the 629 from the factory (though they have a different feel to them in terms of 'stacking'). On the older Smiths the triggers may be far superior, but as for the newer guns - I don't see it. And I don't know how the triggers might have been on older Redhawks; I just know I was surprised when I first tried my gun.
As I said, I like them both. If I'm in country where the biggest critter around is a black bear, I'll carry the 629. If in country where there are griz, I carry the Redhawk. The Redhawk can take hotter loads than the 629. Just look up any handloading manual and you'll see loads that are only appropriate in guns of a class which include the Redhawk. The price you pay for this is more bulk and weight. But when comparing the (roughly) 4" barrel guns, its not too bad of a penalty.
Carrying them in a good holster and with a good belt makes a world of difference in how they feel on the hip at the end of the day.
 
I have no use for the +p rounds that require a redhawk. I like the 629 more so that's what I have. If I had the desire to push the 44 to its limits I would get a redhawk or a 454. I think they are both fine revolvers and you could not go wrong either way.
 
Why does anyone even want to shoot these hot loads in the 44 Magnum? What are you trying to prove? It doesn't make it a better hunting cartridge. This fairytale "special bear" load is nonsense and unrealistic.. This is just a clever marketing gimmick by a few niche ammunitions manufacturers to find a special place in the industry to sell their products.
 
Why does anyone even want to shoot these hot loads in the 44 Magnum? What are you trying to prove? It doesn't make it a better hunting cartridge. This fairytale "special bear" load is nonsense and unrealistic.. This is just a clever marketing gimmick by a few niche ammunitions manufacturers to find a special place in the industry to sell their products.
Click to expand...

I increasingly find myself asking the same question. While I'm sure that the 300+gr Nuclear loads do penetrate more, a good, old fashioned Kieth bullet at 1200fps or better will produce penetration measured in feet rather than inches. I suppose maybe a Ruger might allow you to load very heavy bullets to high enough velocity that they produce more reliable expansion with a JHP or JSP, but nearly all the "Ruger only" .44 Magnum loads I see use non-expanding bullets.
 
I've owned and shot both of them and realistically it comes down to preference. I like the Ruger better for me. I've shot nuclear loads in it but realized that they are unneeded. Perfectly fine loads can be shot in either gun that will do more than you really need for bears or anything else. I like the Ruger's better because it has a longer cylinder and is built like a tank.
 
Ask this question in a forum with guys from Alaska, many parts of Montana, etc and you'll likely get different answers.

On the other hand, guys from the mid west can't imagine why a heavy loaded 44would be needed . . . and it their backyard, it isn't.
 
Ask this question in a forum with guys from Alaska, many parts of Montana, etc and you'll likely get different answers.

On the other hand, guys from the mid west can't imagine why a heavy loaded 44would be needed . . . and it their backyard, it isn't.
Click to expand...

Of the .44 Magnum loadings tested in the Linebaugh Penetration tests, a 250gr Kieth bullet at 1200fps penetrated 27" of wetpack while a 300gr LBT at 1520fps and a 340gr LFN at 1320fps penetrated 30" and 32" respectively. For reference, a 30-06 220gr Remington Cor-Lokt at 2315fps penetrated 17.5" and a .375 H&H Magnum 290gr Mt. Baldy FNGC at 2107fps penetrated 24". So, even considering big, mean, and or toothy things in Alaska and Montana, I'm having a hard time thinking of when the penetration of a 250gr Kieth type bullet at 1200fps or better wouldn't be enough.

http://handloads.com/misc/linebaugh.penetration.test.asp
 
Why does anyone even want to shoot these hot loads in the 44 Magnum?
Click to expand...

I used to live in a state that did not allow rifles for deer. They did allow handguns. My favorite handgun was my Leupold scoped Redhawk in 44 magnum. That's why I shot hot loads. Not to prove anything, but to make sure it would do the job.
 
The 629 has a better trigger, a bit lighter, and a prettier face. But, for hunting with loads suitable for Elk or Moose, you will need the Ruger products to handle the heavy loads. The Buffalo Bore 340 gr (+P+) exits at about 1475 fps. Close to .454 Casull. 475-500 fps less than a std. 45-70 round.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top