Super Blackhawk Hunter or SW 629

I recently acquired a S&W PC 629 Hunter with a muzzle brake and a 7.5" barrel. He outfitted it with an Aimpoint H1. I've been working on shooting it, and I've been consistent at 50 yards. I'm working on moving it to 75 yards at the moment. I do plan to use this for hunting, and I wear a bandolier holster.

The trigger is smooth in single and double action.

As for hearing protection, I use Howard Leight muffs. I have to turn down the volume since I hear pretty much a squirrel farting if I turn up the sensitivity.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
OP, you might want to check the length of the cylinder on the Smith and the Ruger single actions versus the length of the cylinder on the Ruger Redhawk and Super Redhawk. Unless something has changed, the cylinders in the Smiths and the Ruger single actions are a bit shorter than those on the Redhawk and Super Redhawk.

This would matter if you wanted to use some of the heavier bullets available for 44 magnum. I've used some of them, 320gr SSK cast bullet, in my Super Redhawk, 7.5" bbl., 4X Leupold scope. The finished cartridge fit in the Super but protruded form the end of the cylinder on my Model 29. Said bullet and Super Redhawk are very effective on deer at 100 yards.
 
Said bullet and Super Redhawk are very effective on deer at 100 yards.
Click to expand...

I'm sure they are! My experience is that ALL the "normal" bullets are, provided the shooter does their job right.

Its rare for a full house 240gr to not fully penetrate a deer. Personally, I've never seen the point to the uber heavy bullets. Sure, they penetrate great, and I'm sure they have a benefit somewhere, for someone, but not for me.

Got no real interest in dropping a buck, and the two deer behind him with the same shot...:rolleyes:

If I were hunting buffalo (which I don't), my opinion might be different. :)

I wouldn't pass on a S&W or a Ruger model because the cylinder wasn't long enough to take a certain specialty load, no matter how popular it sounds on the Internet.
 
I'd go with the Ruger. Just needs Belt Mountain Base Pin, Trigger job, and Bowen Rough Country Rear Sight. Yes, I own six Rugers and Bob Wright owns more that a dozen.
 
I'd go with the Ruger. Just needs Belt Mountain Base Pin, Trigger job, and Bowen Rough Country Rear Sight.
Click to expand...

What a given gun "needs" depends on the owner. I've had at least one Ruger SA for 33 years, and currently have 10. The only aftermarket parts in any of mine are the grips.

Same for my S&Ws.

Rifles, on the other hand..my mini-14 wears a flash suppressor/ muzzle brake, and a synthetic folding stock. And, of course all my scoped rifles have "aftermarket" parts, the scope mounts and the scopes themselves, so its not the idea of aftermarket parts or "upgrading" I have an issue with.

Its the people saying you NEED xyz parts or work done to a gun that isn't theirs, that they'll never probably even see, let alone shoot that bugs me.

I know, its a common figure of speech, like "I need more coffee.. "
(oh yeah, like I need something to get me more spun up..;))
but sometimes, it just strikes me as over used, and I need to vent...:rolleyes: :D
 
No offense intended to anyone here, so please take the following question/statement as such...

I see alot of people advising to "get the Ruger if you want to run "heavy handloads" etc... I don't see a problem with any S&W N-frame handling full house mag loads ***loads not exceeding published safe maximums***. So why is it that some folks feel the need to drive a cartridge beyond published safe limits?? I mean, if you want more HP in your sidearm, why not step up to a cartridge that is more powerful? When you step up, you are getting a weapon that is designed for that more powerful cartridge and you won't be concerned with "pushing it too hard" and wearing out/damaging your firearm.

I get it, it is arguable that Ruger wheelguns are made very robust, might even say they are intentionally overbuilt. And I know the whole story about how silhouette shooters would wear out S&W m29-2's and earlier "prematurely" shooting heavy for caliber bullets pushed to the max and maybe a bit beyond.. But what is considered premature can be quite ambiguous depending on the way that weapon is being used or even abused. S&W responded to this issue by beefing up the lockwork components on the -3 models. I have a 29-2 and a 629-6 and I can easily see the difference between the two. And further, why would S&W stake their reputation and lifetime warrantee on cranking out firearms that are not likely to serve a long life eating the magnum ammo they are intended and marked for??

All that said, I don't see the need to drive any cartridge harder than known safe published maximums... If I want more HP than either of my 44mags can deliver, I'll grab the 460 and run those 60k psi loads without a worry. I don't see how a 29/629 Smith can be shot loose prematurely using a steady diet of full house loads that are within the limits of published maximums..Maybe I am not as seasoned a handloader as many folks here but I don't really think it's good practice to load over the max in general. So I guess that is why I don't fully understand this very popular reason people recommend a Ruger over a Smith...

Again, I have no ill will against Ruger or the folks that are fond of them. Just my observation on the subject.

I don't mean to hijack this thread, just a thought I have seeing this theme over and over again when the topic of which to choose between Ruger and Smith comes up...
 
Excellent post Ride Red. I agree with you 100% about not pushing a load just because you may be able to get away with it. If you need more power buy a bigger gun. Don't wreck a gun trying to make it into something it is not.

I like the idea of handgun hunting and have done it myself. I have never killed anything with my handgun like a deer. A few squirrels yes. But no deer so far.

I have a Super Blackhawk with a 5.5" barrel. I would never scope a handgun. To me it would be like putting a scope on a traditional muzzleloader. But thats just me.

Either gun the OP chooses should do what he wants to do with a handgun. I would have no preference for either one. Heck, just get both.:D
 
Thanks Ratshooter, I'm glad my comments were received as I intended.

And I agree with you one scoping a revolver. No doubt it can make a handgun more capable of a hunting implement and no judgement on those who use them, they just aren't for me.. not unlike scoping my Winchester 94, which I won't do. ;)

I actually still hunt with a traditional style TC Renegade, side hammer, walnut stock, and octo bbl I bought new at 17 years old in 1995. No scope, not even sure a scope could be mounted on that rifle..

And I am also in the same boat as you with my handgun hunting. I've been going into the woods only carrying my 629 Classic with 6.5" bbl here and there, but haven't yet had the opportunity to get that first deer with it. I'm sure it will happen sooner or later.
 
The OP states that the questioner is a handgun novice so I would assume he would not try a 150 yd. handgun kill regardless of the power of his handgun. I would further assume he is carrying a handgun ONLY in case he is in a situation where it is do or die, therefore I would first say there is no need to even think about carrying over max SAAMI loads because the only thing more velocity gets is a flatter trajectory and a 240 gr. cast projectile at a 1000 fps will go all the way through almost any animal on this continent. He is carrying a rifle and I assume that is going to be his main game getter and therefore that might be able to do a 150 yd kill shot and could use the flattest trajectory available; load the big stuff for the rifle. Then one needs two different loads and doesn't want to get them mixed and come to the situation of the right cartridge in the wrong gun.

My solution would a non 44 Magnum revolver, perhaps the Ruger 44 special flattop (much more comfortable to shoot and available with the Bisley grip) or a 45 Colt in either a Ruger (convertable?) or a S&W 25/625 or just maybe a 454 if one wants to demonstrate his machismo! There is no practical need to only carry one cartridge to fit both arms and some good reasons not to.
 
There is no practical need to only carry one cartridge to fit both arms and some good reasons not to.
Click to expand...

Quite a few people feel there are good practical reasons to carry a rifle/pistol set that shoot the same ammo.

Other than the obvious, a larger and much more powerful round for the rifle, what would you say is a good reason not to??

The OP wants something that will take the ammo his rifle uses. He's made two selections the Super Blackhawk Hunter and the S&W 629 and is asking for input, information and opinions on them.

A .44 Special won't shoot his .44Mag ammo. Nor will a .45. So, not what he's looking for. Personally, except for cases where a specific .44Spl gun fits requirements that no .44Mag gun can match, I don't see any practical point to not getting the magnum chambering. The Magnums shoot Specials too!
 
Discounting cap & ball revolvers, the first 44's I owned and reloaded for were 44 Specials. Shortly thereafter I got my first 44 Magnum and like Uncle Elmer, I never looked back. I like the 45 Colt these days; but it's impossible to argue with the 44 Mag as your rifle/revolver combo cartridge.
 
I think the "old hands" and the shootists out West new EXACTLY what they were doing when they decided to pack a Winchester's lever-action rifle in .44-40 WCF AND a Colt's revolving belt pistol chambered in same.

Having the pistol fire the same rounds as the rifle reduced the amount of reloading gear for the cowboy to carry. And yes, I said RELOADING GEAR. This included simple tools to cast his own bullets and reprime cases and a measure of powder as well.

Having two calibers meant twice the reloading gear for one. Plus it was easier to keep track of and purchase ammunition for, and during a fight only one source of ammo (the cartridge belt or pouch etc.) had to be worried about.

It was damn smart for them pokes to carry but one shell for both pistol and rifle. The shootists and hunters, trappers, injun battlers, explorers and cowboys new the value in this.

Somehow though some ignorant people these days don't want to learn from these "old hands", they don't see the light, and I pray for them.
 
I think having a pistol and rifle in the same caliber back then was just as much as a gimmick then as it is today.
 
Not to get two far into the thread drift, and consider it a gimmick if you want, there are logistic advantages to using the same round from the long gun (for distance) and the handgun, (short range, speed, always have it on you...) PARTICULARLY when you are packing it all on foot, or horseback.

A carbine about doubles the usable range of the handgun with the same ammo. SO if the handgun round is enough, having a carbine along increases your ability.

Not that big a deal today, but it's still a handy combination.

Getting back to the OP, more than anything else, its going to be a matter of how the S&W and the Ruger feel. Some folks have a definite preference, some don't. Both are close in size, and weight, shoot the same ammo, and have adjustable sights. There are models of both that can be easily scoped, if that's your "cuppa tea".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top