Ruger Red Hawk .44 vs S&W m 29

Early Model 29s had issues with repeated doses of the full power of the .44 magnum round and it took several revisions to get it right. As I recall this occurred around the 29-5 and the 629-3. My 629-4 Classic DX (below) is simply an awesomely accurate and fun to shoot revolver and I would recommend it to anyone who loves to shoot fine revolvers in a heartbeat.

Here are some articles you may find interesting in your quest:

http://www.sixguns.com/BookOfThe44/bot44c21.htm
http://www.sixguns.com/range/SmithWesson44Mag.htm

DSC01857.jpg
 
S&W had a problem with the cylinder stop jumping under heavy recoil; a serious problem to be sure, but the S&W haters claimed that Model 29's were blowing up all over the place. Buffalobore warns against a specific condition when soft lead bullets have filled the barrel with lead deposits raising pressures, makes references to guns blowing up, then specifically says not to use their top load in S&W's. They imply (but do NOT say) that S&W's will blow up with their load.

To be honest, I have never owned any .44 Magnum, but I have known folks who loaded S&W Model 29's to equal or exceed Buffalobore specs with no problems.

I think the old stories about S&W's blowing up and Rugers that can't be blown up with anything both need to be consigned to the gun myth trash can. Last I heard, S&W and Ruger buy their cylinder and barrel steel from the same source, and use the same alloy. And they both buy and test their rivals' guns all the time. If one company had bragging points, they would make them.

Jim
 
The Ruger is a bigger heavier gun,designed well after the model 29, and avoiding some of problems the .44 mag can cause.

The 29s have great sights and great triggers, The Rugers are good, but not quite as good in this as the S&W.

The heavier weight and larger (longer) cylinder let the Ruger handle the heavier loads better, including some obscenely heavy bullets too long to fit in the S&W cylinder.

Either one will do well with standard magnum loads, if you want to go to the outer limits, the Ruger will do a bit better than the S&W. More than anyting else, the fit and feel in your hand is the most important thing.
 
Ruger Redhawk 44 vs S&W Mod 29

I have owned both of thses & i found that the Ruger will eat the fullhouse loads & not even break a sweat & in all honesty i can't say that about the S&W 29 i owned at near max the cylinder started opening up . Ruger is a much better bult & can take the good fullhouse loads for hunting . I am not BADMOUTHING S&W IN NO WAY it just what happened with the 2 i owned
 
Last edited:
The real "problem" with the S&W model 29 is that over time, people's expectations of how many, and what level of .44 Magnum loads a gun should handle have changed.

Far too many people today think that 240/250gr bullets are not enough. They also seem to think that a revolver shooting monster magnum loads should be good for at least tens of thousands of rounds without any service.

THERE IS NO GUN THAT CANNOT BE OVERLOADED. Yes, newer designs are better at handling the really heavy stuff (and I mean heavy by today's standards). That is because they were designed to be able to do just that. EVERY gun should only be judged on how well it does what it was designed to do.

The model 29 has been with us since the later 1950s. It was (and is) a masterpiece of design and execution of the technology of the era. And it has been improved a bit since. But no amount of improvement can change the basic limits of the design. For the majority of shooters, it is more than plenty for their needs.

But, with our ever increasing demands and the change of attitudes about what a revolver should deliver (some of which are rather unrealistic), guns designed well after the model 29 are deemed "better".

I have a model 29-2. And a Ruger SuperBlackhawk. Also a Desert Eagle, and a Contender in .44Mag. Each one does something a bit better than the others. They aren't all equal in all things. The main reason I don't have a Ruger DA .44Mag is that I don't need one. For what I do, it offers me no advantage over the other .44s I have.

Take what it is you are going to do with the gun. Add in what you want to be able to do with it. stir well, and toss out the totally unrealistic. Then look at both the S&W and the Ruger. Which one actually best suits? Either will do well for most things, each has some advantage over the other, for some things. How much is useful to you, and how much of what do you want?

Shoot a lot, carry a little, leads you in one direction. Carry a lot, and shoot a little, leads in another. General or extreme use? lots of other things to consider as well. Choose wisely, or just buy both!:D
 
Post#23

44 AMP

The 29s have great sights and great triggers, The Rugers are good, but not quite as good in this as the S&W.
Click to expand...

If that's the case, those S&W are absolutely magic. I'd put my Ruger Redhawk against just about any gun out there including my two S&W Performance Center .357s at three time the cost each.
 
I've owned a number of each. The Redhawk is a good gun, but I find the 629 more refined with a better trigger.
 
I own and love both, so there's you solution! If durability is important, also consider the Colt Anaconda. It is reputed to be at least as tough as the Ruger.


061.jpg



DSC07261.jpg



DSC07257.jpg
 
Smith & Wesson Model 29

First handgun I ever shot was the Model 29 .44 magnum, quite a start. It has a smooth trigger pull on the single action, and a pretty nice double action. The 6 inch barrel on the one I shot was perfect. I love the Model 29, it is a great gun and I highly recommend it. Doesn't kick too bad when you get the hang of it. Plus it is the Dirty Harry gun! How could you pass that up!? :D
 
Other than the caliber being the same, the S&W 29/629 and the Ruger Redhawk are two different guns. IMHO, the S&W, especially a 4" bbl. 29 in blue, is one of the best looking guns ever built and the 6" version is Dirty Harry's. What more can you ask for in a handgun. With reasonable use of standard 44 mag loads and the enjoyment of 44 specials (Dirty Harry's favorite load), this gun will last a life time or two, and look good doing it.

The Redhawk on the other hand is the M1 Tank of handguns. I'm sure you could destroy it with atomic loads, but I suspect you would give up before the gun will. With the 4" bbl., the Redhawk is reasonable to carry. With standard magnum loads the gun for me is easier to handle than the S&W, with 44 specials the Redhawk acts like a .38 special. The 5.5" gun is not quite as handy and trim as the 6" S&W, but both the 4" and the 5.5" guns give a feeling of quality and something substantial that gives confidence. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but for me the Redhawk comes in second to the S&W, but only in looks.

If I were picking a gun for limited magnum use and for great esthetics and a smooth trigger, I would always go for the S&W. If I am picking a gun with the durability to handle a diet of magnums and last, I would pick the 4" Redhawk. Only you know how the gun will be used, but most who own .44 mags get the most enjoyment from them with loads well below full magnum. Enjoy whatever you choose. Personally I couldn't live with just one, so I have both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top