S&W 629 snub or Ruger Alaskan in 44 mag?

B

Big Dog Dad

New member
I was cleaning and rearranging my ammo storage when I found a lot of 44 mag ammo I forgot I had. (Senility is fun - you get to wrap your own Christmas presents and they still are a surprise!) I sold my Blackhawk and need another toy to use up the ammo. It will be a toy to make lots of noise and muzzle flash but I would never carry it anywhere. I need opinions on both of these revolvers. They seem to be around the same price. I'm leaning towards the S&W mainly because I love S&W revolvers. Any comments would be appreciated.

-=BDD=-
 
I have the Ruger Alaskan and love it. I thought it would have a bad kick but it not bad. I like the way the S&W's look but the Ruger will normally outlast two Smiths.
 
I also would rather go with a nice carbine. After that then I would go with the Ruger, bullet proof and a tank to absorb the recoil.
 
I have the Alaskan and it is a beast. I dont think you can beat the Ruger for not wearing out after a lot of shooting. I believe SW also does not recommend bullets in excess of 240g.
 
I like the way the S&W's look but the Ruger will normally outlast two Smiths
Click to expand...

I don't know where folks come up with this anecdotal crap. Both firearms will outlast your wrist and the Smith comes with a lifetime warranty. Back when the Rugers were considerably cheaper than the Smiths there was a legitimate reason to go that way. Not so much anymore.
 
I really like both manufacturers and will flip from one to the other on various applications. However, in this situation I really like the Alaskan, so my vote is for the Ruger.
 
I've owned both.
Had a 4 inch 629 and the Ruger .454 alaskan.

The 629 felt large being a N frame.
The Alaskan cylinder is larger, but the gun feels more compact overall, much like a pitbull to a german shepherd.

Liked the Alaskan more.
 
My answer is going to be biased as am a huge Ruger fan. In wheel gun pistols I own Smith's, Rossi's, Rugers, and one little German 32 I can't remember the name of currently but, it is a great pistol too. I like my Ruger wheel guns best. No comparison in my mind. So, I'd go with the Alaskan. No questions asked.

But, after reading this thread I too have to comment on the lever rifles for sheer fun in the 44 mag. I bought a Marlin 1894 a couple years ago and can say of all my guns, it is the most fun. Full house loads carry plenty of umph but, a child could shoot them in a lever gun. And, most are extremely accurate. I will never forget the puzzled looks my dad and brother gave me when I pulled it out of the truck the first time we shot it. 2 hours and 400 rounds later, we were all smiles and both of them wanted it and offered me internet prices to get it. It will be one of my last guns that I part with. God Bless
 
My answer is going to be biased as am a huge Ruger fan. In wheel gun pistols I own Smith's, Rossi's, Rugers, and one little German 32 I can't remember the name of currently but, it is a great pistol too. I like my Ruger wheel guns best. No comparison in my mind. So, I'd go with the Alaskan. No questions asked.

But, after reading this thread I too have to comment on the lever rifles for sheer fun in the 44 mag. I bought a Marlin 1894 a couple years ago and can say of all my guns, it is the most fun. Full house loads carry plenty of umph but, a child could shoot them in a lever gun. And, most are extremely accurate. I will never forget the puzzled looks my dad and brother gave me when I pulled it out of the truck the first time we shot it. 2 hours and 400 rounds later, we were all smiles and both of them wanted it and offered me internet prices to get it. It will be one of my last guns that I part with. God Bless
Click to expand...
Most definitely this^^^

thumping 44 mag out of a wheel gun is doable but becomes a test of endurance over an extended session--at least for me. The carbine actually tames it to the point it's enjoyable and fun--there's just something about pushing the 44 mag to it's full potential and seeing how well you can smack a target at 100 or more yds. Oh--and firing a hot handload made with 'lil gun at dawn or dusk is a pyrotechnic wonder not to be missed. : )
 
I don't know where folks come up with this anecdotal crap. Both firearms will outlast your wrist and the Smith comes with a lifetime warranty. Back when the Rugers were considerably cheaper than the Smiths there was a legitimate reason to go that way. Not so much anymore.
Click to expand...

In my younger days I shot 200 round of 44 mag every weekend with some friends. I wore out 2 629's in 4 years before I got a Redhawk. It took 5 years before it showed any sign of wear. S&W will not do anything for a gun after 20,000 rounds , the warranty is against defects.
 
one thing is for certain, you will never wear out a snub .44 with magnums. the reason is your hand simply wont last that long.
 
Personally, I would go Ruger.

I like my Ruger. I like Rugers in general.

I wouldn't, myself, by a big bore snub to shoot. My 4" is already enough of a handful, but just on looks alone, I'd take the Ruger SRH.

It has......presence.
 
Have the snub PC 629 and the Alaskan in 454 and both are fun, the Ruger will last, I find the Smith to be the more finely made gun (great action but those wood grips hurt...). The Hogue grips make a huuuge difference on the Alaskan (to me at least).

If you want a "fun" .44 I'd suggest a (used) Desert Eagle though :D
 
If you want to use normal, run-of-the-mill .44 Magnum ammo (as in Winchester, Federal, Remington, Speer, Hornady, or equivalent handloads) either gun is plenty strong enough and you should choose based on ergonomics, trigger, looks, or whatever other criteria may be important to you. Now, if you want to shoot a steady diet of max handloads or boutique ammo like Buffalo Bore, Double Tap, Grizzly, or Underwood you'd probably be better served by the Ruger. Personally, I own both a 4" 629 and a 5 1/2" Ruger Redhawk and shoot run-of-the-mill .44 Magnum ammo in both because I simply see very little need for the nuclear-level stuff.

Originally posted by Roughedge
In my younger days I shot 200 round of 44 mag every weekend with some friends. I wore out 2 629's in 4 years before I got a Redhawk. It took 5 years before it showed any sign of wear. S&W will not do anything for a gun after 20,000 rounds , the warranty is against defects.
Click to expand...

If you could buy .44 Magnum ammo for $30 per 50 round box (and that's an extremely low price today), 20,000 rounds of ammunition would cost you $12,000. Even handloading is only going to save you so much: if I don't count the cost of cases (since they're reusable), my .44 Magnum handloads still cost me roughly $15 per box of 50 rounds. At that price, 20,000 rounds of ammunition would still cost me $6,000. Considering that in order to shoot that much I'll spend the cost of either gun several times over in ammunition, worrying about whether or not the manufacturer will warranty the gun after such a large amount of shooting seems rather silly.

Also, 200 rounds a week is far, far more than the average person will shoot a .44 Magnum. One 50 round box a month is probably a much more reasonable estimate for most people when one considers making time to go to the range, the cost of ammunition, and the average tolerance for .44 Magnum recoil. At that rate, it would take someone a little over 33 years to shoot 20,000 rounds of ammunition. Even at that rate, they will likely have spent more than the cost of the gun in ammunition in 2-3 years.
 
Not .44 magnum, but a few years ago, I got into .357 magnum. Bought a S&W 66 revolver and a Marlin 1894c. The Marlin gets shot a lot. The revolver... not so much. The S&W is a good gun; the Marlin is just more fun to me and can be used in more ways. So I'm with the people who suggest considering a carbine.
 
Personally, I own both a 4" 629 and a 5 1/2" Ruger Redhawk and shoot run-of-the-mill .44 Magnum ammo in both because I simply see very little need for the nuclear-level stuff.
Click to expand...


There really is not legitimate reason to run "nuclear-level" stuff in a .44mag anyway. At one time when the .44 mag was as big as it got, there were folks that believed there was a reason to load higher than max for certain scenarios. Nowadays, there are so many better options that just stuffing more powder in a .44 mag case. If one wants more than what they can achieve from a .44 mag, they should just buy a bigger gun that can handle the load and the recoil better and more accurately. Especially if they are going to do it on a regular basis. I doubt very much if anyone is going to run 200 rounds a week outta snub-nosed .44 and enjoy it. Again, the shooter will break before the gun, regardless of the make.

S&W will not do anything for a gun after 20,000 rounds , the warranty is against defects.
Click to expand...


Some of the first 629s did have endurance issues. Those were produced well before the year of 1989 when S&W came out with their lifetime warranty, and did leave a bad taste in the mouths of some owners. Those issues were fixed in later models and was one of the reasons S&W came out with their lifetime warranty, to show customers that they would last a lifetime or be fixed......free. The warranty is for the lifetime of the original purchaser and does not run out after 20,000 rounds. As was explained to me by a S&W rep, if one of their revolvers does not last the lifetime of the original owner while shooting SAAMI speced ammo and not otherwise abused, there is a defect and it will be fixed.....period.
 
IMHO the "nuke" 44 mag loads would be useful for large critter/"back country" encounters, but for general plinking and shooting, the factory/mild hand loads are GTG.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top