What's better in .44 magnum, Ruger or S&W?

S&W if you shoot nothing but factory loaded ammo but if you like bullets heavier than 240gr or a round hotter than 1500 fps then Ruger all they way.
S&W are fine guns but can't and will not stand up to the punishment a Ruger will.
Some people complain the Ruger trigger is rough but drop a little powdered graphite in the trigger works with a drop of gun oil and all that roughness goes away and no it does not get all over your hands unless you use to much graphite.
The graphite packs into any rough machining and after about 500 to 1000 rounds the graphite is embedded in the wear areas of the metal and you seldom have to add any more.
Old school, cheap mans trigger job.
Smiths are lighter and a bit more comfortable to shoot I have to give them that. But when I shoot 44 mag I want a heavy robust gun to help tame the recoil.
 
Originally posted by madmo44mag:

S&W if you shoot nothing but factory loaded ammo but if you like bullets heavier than 240gr or a round hotter than 1500 fps then Ruger all they way.
Click to expand...


My .44 S&Ws have seen little or no factory ammo since I acquired them. All have several thousands rounds of hunting type loads run thru them without a hitch, many of them 270 and 300 grainers. The PC M629 pictured is in the neighborhood of the 5000 round mark. Even if there had been or will be, the lifetime factory warranty will get them back to new. Unless one only has a .44 and they are going into territory where they have a good chance of being attacked by dangerous game, there really is no need or any advantage for anything over SAAMI max loads. This idea that one needs to shoot over SAAMI max loads for the .44 mag to be an effective round is fantasy. Need something more than what a .44 can give you, get a bigger caliber. Even with the bulk and weight of the Rugers, recoil from such loads are brutal and most times, accuracy itself suffers. Now if I was looking for a good, heavy and inexpensive boat anchor, then yes, Ruger all the way.:rolleyes:


My first .44 mag was a Ruger Blackhawk back in the early 70s. Big difference is the BH is a single action and the 29 a DA gun. Grip angle is different also, and many, like me have a preference. Folks give reasons for their preference, but again, it comes down to what you like, and what works for one don't work for everybody. Proponents of the SA grip angle says it's better cause it allows the gun to "roll back" in your hand under recoil. My Blackhawk beat up my up hand/wrists so bad I traded it of for a SxS grouse gun and never looked back. Found the Smith's DA grip angle fit me better and does not beat me up. Again, MY preference.
 
I don't know if Rugers are more rugged or not, they are thicker, probably to add strength because they are cast instead of forged. Cheaper isn't always better, bigger isn't always stronger.
Click to expand...

The Rugers are hand's down stronger, there is a reason that they have what's called "Ruger Only Loads" and that's because they are only safe to use in Ruger revolvers. They will shoot a S&W loose in no time or possibly destroy the gun where the Ruger will keep ticking.
 
In design and construction, the Rugers are stronger and more durable.

If you're going for longterm with stout loads, Ruger all the way.

The Model 29 family has undergone tweaks here & there, and they're better than they used to be in terms of longevity, but those WERE all tweaks to a design intended originally for much lower pressures over a hundred years ago.

Modern heat treating & minor dimensional modifications can only go so far.
The Ruger was designed from the ground up for high-pressured loads, and it simply handles them better over the long run.

Most .44 Maggers probably won't shoot a Smith enough for it to be an issue.


This is a perpetual argument over which is "better", and the answer depends on your definition of "better" and your intended use.

I carry a Smith 629 for large critters I might accidentally provoke in the wilds.
With standard 270 Gold Dots, it does the job & I don't shoot it much.
For large critters with naturally nasty temperaments, it's the Ruger Redhawk with heavy Garrett lead that won't even fit in the Smith.

The Smith is lighter, a minor advantage even on motorized expeditions.

I feel comfortable with both, in their intended roles, for my uses.
If I had to choose between, I would not hesitate to jettison the Smith, and it's a NICE Smith Mountain Revolver with Spegal grips. :)
Denis
 
The S&W is a decent revolver.
The Ruger is a decent revolver.

They were designed with different visions. ...Different purposes, uses, and lifespans in mind. (Which has been discussed above, and THOROUGHLY hashed out in other threads.)


I buy Rugers.
(And my SBH is the red-headed 7.5". ;))

...Though, due to an unfortunate turn of events, there's also a S&W Model 29 currently living in my safe. I own it, but haven't fired it (since I bought it - but I have in the past). ...And don't really plan to fire it. I prefer the Ruger.
It's a nice revolver, and having the option for double-action is nice. But when I'm looking at the safe, wondering which revolver(s) to grab for a range trip or hunting trip, it's pretty much always Ruger that comes out.



One thing that I will say about my Ruger, that I doubt I could ever say about a S&W....
My Super Blackhawk was worn out (1993 production). The original owner shot it a bit. I shot it a lot. It spent some time with my brother, who also shot it a lot. It rarely saw moderate loads. It was either super-wimpy "cowboy" loads, or over-the-top "are you serious?"-loads.

In 2011, I sent it back to Ruger to get some quotes for repair work. They didn't bother giving me the quotes. They just replaced the barrel, cylinder, sights, hammer, springs... and everything else except for my frames and grip panels. Then they completely refinished it, test fired it, sighted it in, and sent it back to me with the final verification target.

Ruger took my beaten, battered revolver and completely rebuilt it ... for FREE.
 
I've had several of both over the years,

I stuck with the 6 1/2 inch Model 29 as it was the best shooter.

Though I wish I'd kept my flat top, pre super Blackhawk Ruger 44.
 
I have, and like, the Redhawk Hunter even though it is terribly nose heavy when scoped. That said, were I to buy another .44 Mag, I would hunt down a Dan Wesson multi-barrel kit. A friend has many years of heavy loads down the silhouette range with the longer barrel, carries the 4"(?) setup when fishing. The gun is still tight and accurate.
 
For the Idaho mountains north of where Franken lives, there was never a contest.
Redhawk up there on ATV runs.

Went up one old logging trail once northeast of Boise.
Came back down about 20 minutes later, fresh bear poop (jinglebells & all) in the middle of the trail that was not there on the way up.

Same trip, news reports of a bear mauling in a range farther east.

For that kinda stuff, and for me, the Redhawk's best. :)
Denis
 
Have always loved the N Frame Smiths until I shot my 6" 29 for the first time. The cylinder release sliced my thumb knuckle and the recoil torque was punishing. My 27s and 57s, as well as, my 8" 29 were enjoyable to shoot. When I tried my first Ruger SBH, I was immediately impressed at the comfort with full power loads. I was a born again Blackhawk fan; however, I still own a 28 and a 57.

I agree that the N Frames are lovely, but a Blackhawk with a trigger job and a larger base pin will shoot just as well. As I've gotten older, I prefer performance to pretty.
 
Ruger vs S&W. 44 mg

I currently have 4 / 44mgs. Ruger SBH 7.5", m29 4", m29 8 3/8", m629 8 3/8.
The SBH and m29 8 3/8" I've had since the 60s. I had a SBH cut off to extractor
tube. The Ruger SAs are strong, I shoot 240jhps/ 22.5 gr 2400 out of it. The
S&W 29s I shoot lead at mild velocities. The Smith is made like a watch, more
of a target pistol. I wouldn't want to feed it steady diet of full house loads. I
don't like Red Hawk series. That being said I wish my guns were all 6", I bought
them when I was young and dumb. I have killed Deer with both pistols. The
629 I just recently got in a deal. I will bee sending it down the road, I hate
stainless guns/ rubber grips. The 4" is 29-2, unfired, to short to hunt with in
Ohio. Short barrel 44s are loud!!
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    185.4 KB · Views: 25
I own and shoot both. Love them both as well. I personally see no reason to exceed published max loads. And most of my shooting now a days consists of mid to moderate range handloads. Though I do run through max level loads every time I hit the range just because I enjoy it lol. Can't go wrong with either in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
I have had both and have both.

I have a 29 4" that I do not shoot, but my grandson wants it.

I like the long barreled Rugers. Been shooting them since the early 70s.

I have shot both the S&W and the Rugers loose.

I put some thread treatment on the Rugers, but left the Smiths alone as I do not shoot any of them now days.

I choose the Rugers (SBH and the Redhawks) hands down. With the long barrels. I hunt with them and like it. No shorties in the field for me.
 
Ruger

I love my Ruger Super Redhawk. It has a long barrel. About 8 inches. It has a great trigger. I can't imagine a Smith being better. Not saying it isn't. Just saying I don't think you could get any better than the Ruger trigger on my gun. I've killed deer with it. I shoot it a lot with full house loads. Off a bench, I can pop a water bottle all day long at 90-100 yards. It is that accurate. It is a beautiful gun and fits my hand very well.

Wearing the Smith name, I'm sure the model 29 is a good one. It's your choice. However, if you desire an accurate, sturdy gun that you can pass on to the grandkids, I know you can't beat that in the Ruger. Choose wisely.

And, there is NOTHING ugly about a Ruger Pistol. :)

God Bless
 
Well, you can see my choice.

14126600567_ef78e869bb_c.jpg


This is the 8 3/8 Model 29-2. I'd get a 6"

Much more practical to carry, shoot, etc, etc...

All the arguments back and forth always the same, same people, get what you like.
 
Last edited:
Quote by Dragline45
Depends, if you want to shoot a steady diet of hot loads than Ruger hands down, although the S&W will come with a better factory trigger. Personally I won't buy any new S&W revolvers until they get rid of the frame mounted lock, for me its a matter of principle.
Click to expand...

What Dragline45 said.

Jim
 
a Ruger Blackhauck and a model 29-3.
Click to expand...

These are quite different guns. Single action vs. double action. Forget the caliber for a moment, which style gun is better for YOU???

The SA is lighter, with the same barrel length.

(unless Ruger had done something new lately, their "8" is 7.5", and the S&W is 8 3/8")

Is it an actual Blackhawk in .44Mag or a Super Blackhawk? There is a difference.

I never worry about the S&W "wearing out, or shooting loose", its an over-hyped issue. If you do actually wear one loose, S&W can fix it.

In some ways, S&W vs. Ruger DA guns are like 1/2ton vs 3/4ton trucks. Run a 1/2 ton within capacity it lasts. Run heavier, it doesn't, and you should get a 3/4 ton.

And, FYI, forget any crap about "Ruger only" loads in the .44 Magnum. There aren't any. The "ruger only" loads are .45 Colt, and come from the time when Ruger only made ONE .45 Colt model. Today, even Ruger makes a .45 Colt that is not made to take the "Ruger only" loads.

Yes, there are specialty loads with uber heavy long bullets in .44 that will not fit in the S&W cylinder. IF you do want to use these, then don't get the S&W. But they are not "Ruger only" loads.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top