Dragline45
New member
Deleted
What's better in .44 magnum, Ruger or S&W?
- Thread starter Viper99
- Start date
22-rimfire
New member
I don't own a 44 mag revolver any more. I settled on 41 mags. My best shooter with irons is a 8 3/8" M57 and it is very accurate. I have no problem with the 8 3/8" barrel as far as shooting and carry it in the field in a bandoleer holster which is comfortable without real bulky clothing. I have never regretted this one. Do not have a 6-6.5" and always wanted an N-frame in this size. But not so important now as I shifted to a different revolver for deer hunting.
If I were buying a hunting 44 today, I would go with about a 6" barrel for easier carry in the field. At the range, it doesn't matter.
If I were buying a hunting 44 today, I would go with about a 6" barrel for easier carry in the field. At the range, it doesn't matter.
Lost Sheep
New member
Look on the inside.
I have owned a couple of Smiths and my friend owns a S&W 500 which he loves. I own one Colt double action revolver and several Rugers (SP101s, Sixes, GP100, Redhawk and Super Redhawk and three Dan Wessons (having stupidly sold my pistol pack a few years ago.)
Of 44 magnums, I have Redhawk 5.5" and 7.5" and Super Redhawk in 7.5" and Dan Wesson 8". My "N" frame Smith (same frame as the Model 29) was chambered for .357 Magnum.
Thanks for asking our advice. Here are my thoughts:
I have found S&W to have generally better double action triggers than Rugers. Single action, the difference is not so noticeable, but S&W gets the nod there, too. That is box stock. Polishing the action can do wonders for any gun.
But I prefer Rugers. Here's why:
I owned two S&W revolvers in my past. Model 28 6" Highway Patrolman .357 Magnum and a K-22 Masterpiece 6" 22 rimfire. When I took the sideplate off the .22, I saw all those small parts inside (comparing it to my Dan Wesson, which had about half the number parts as the Smith.) I lubed the inside lightly, put the parts that sprang out back in and never opened it up again. I traded them off shortly thereafter. The Dan Wesson, in addition to having fewer parts, seemed to have more robust parts as well. Ruger parts are even more robust than the Smith or the DW. I like that.
Undeniably, the Smiths are beautiful guns, but Rugers have their own style of beauty. And, "Beauty is as beauty does." However, My Dan Wessons have lock times that other guns can only dream of.
Nobody seems to ask about Colts, especially their snake series (Diamondback, .38; Python, .357; Anaconda, 44). I have a Colt Trooper (.357 Mag) with a double action trigger smooth as warm butter and better than any of my Smiths or Rugers. None have had any action jobs.
Springs. The Rugers use coil springs. The Smith uses a single leaf as the mainspring. Coil springs are more durable. The Ruger Redhawk's lockwork is unlike any other revolver ever made. It uses a single spring to power the hammer AND the trigger return. This may make it a little harder to tune than a gun with separate springs, but if you like a unique gun, it is one. The Ruger GP100, Super Redhawk and SP101 use coil springs, too, but a different lockwork than the Redhawk. Ruger Sixes (Security Six, Service Six and Speed Six are Ruger's first double action revolvers and are quite strong .
Ruger's Super Redhawk's action is also different, going back o separate springs for trigger return and hammer.
On the strength question, about 25 years ago, S&W made a big deal about the relative merits and strength of forged frames (S&W) vs investment cast frames (Ruger). Yeah, forged has an edge in strength-to-weight and strength-to-size ratios. But that edge has shrunk and, considering Ruger's frames are one-piece frames without sideplates, the design was always inherently stronger (opinion alert). And Ruger doesn't just make Ruger guns. They make frames for other gunmakers and investment cast parts for many other industries. Bill Ruger was a pioneer in investment casting post-war and Ruger still is a player in the industry. Meanwhile, many S&W parts are using MIM Casting technology. Go figure.
Anyhow, a little extra weight has its own advantage in a heavy-recoiling gun.
Happy shooting.
Lost Sheep
p.s. Don't get the Redhawks mixed up with Blackhawks (Regular or Super versions) Blackhawks are single action. Redhawks are double action.)
I have owned a couple of Smiths and my friend owns a S&W 500 which he loves. I own one Colt double action revolver and several Rugers (SP101s, Sixes, GP100, Redhawk and Super Redhawk and three Dan Wessons (having stupidly sold my pistol pack a few years ago.)
Of 44 magnums, I have Redhawk 5.5" and 7.5" and Super Redhawk in 7.5" and Dan Wesson 8". My "N" frame Smith (same frame as the Model 29) was chambered for .357 Magnum.
Thanks for asking our advice. Here are my thoughts:
I have found S&W to have generally better double action triggers than Rugers. Single action, the difference is not so noticeable, but S&W gets the nod there, too. That is box stock. Polishing the action can do wonders for any gun.
But I prefer Rugers. Here's why:
I owned two S&W revolvers in my past. Model 28 6" Highway Patrolman .357 Magnum and a K-22 Masterpiece 6" 22 rimfire. When I took the sideplate off the .22, I saw all those small parts inside (comparing it to my Dan Wesson, which had about half the number parts as the Smith.) I lubed the inside lightly, put the parts that sprang out back in and never opened it up again. I traded them off shortly thereafter. The Dan Wesson, in addition to having fewer parts, seemed to have more robust parts as well. Ruger parts are even more robust than the Smith or the DW. I like that.
Undeniably, the Smiths are beautiful guns, but Rugers have their own style of beauty. And, "Beauty is as beauty does." However, My Dan Wessons have lock times that other guns can only dream of.
Nobody seems to ask about Colts, especially their snake series (Diamondback, .38; Python, .357; Anaconda, 44). I have a Colt Trooper (.357 Mag) with a double action trigger smooth as warm butter and better than any of my Smiths or Rugers. None have had any action jobs.
Springs. The Rugers use coil springs. The Smith uses a single leaf as the mainspring. Coil springs are more durable. The Ruger Redhawk's lockwork is unlike any other revolver ever made. It uses a single spring to power the hammer AND the trigger return. This may make it a little harder to tune than a gun with separate springs, but if you like a unique gun, it is one. The Ruger GP100, Super Redhawk and SP101 use coil springs, too, but a different lockwork than the Redhawk. Ruger Sixes (Security Six, Service Six and Speed Six are Ruger's first double action revolvers and are quite strong .
Ruger's Super Redhawk's action is also different, going back o separate springs for trigger return and hammer.
On the strength question, about 25 years ago, S&W made a big deal about the relative merits and strength of forged frames (S&W) vs investment cast frames (Ruger). Yeah, forged has an edge in strength-to-weight and strength-to-size ratios. But that edge has shrunk and, considering Ruger's frames are one-piece frames without sideplates, the design was always inherently stronger (opinion alert). And Ruger doesn't just make Ruger guns. They make frames for other gunmakers and investment cast parts for many other industries. Bill Ruger was a pioneer in investment casting post-war and Ruger still is a player in the industry. Meanwhile, many S&W parts are using MIM Casting technology. Go figure.
Anyhow, a little extra weight has its own advantage in a heavy-recoiling gun.
Happy shooting.
Lost Sheep
p.s. Don't get the Redhawks mixed up with Blackhawks (Regular or Super versions) Blackhawks are single action. Redhawks are double action.)
Last edited:
I found a 1988 Smith and Wesson 29-4 in a gun store, like new in box for $200 in 1997.
Everyone on the internet and everyone I met told me it would shoot loose.
I have done 24 gr H110 240 gr JHP exclusively [full house loads]
I still have the grips and the box. 18 years later every chamber is still tight, unlike a lot of other used Smiths I own.
Everyone on the internet and everyone I met told me it would shoot loose.
I have done 24 gr H110 240 gr JHP exclusively [full house loads]
I still have the grips and the box. 18 years later every chamber is still tight, unlike a lot of other used Smiths I own.
Attachments
I have a Smith PC Stealth Hunter 7.5"bbl. and it's the smoothest shooting 44mag I've ever shot. I also bought a Ruger Redhawk Hunter 7.5"bbl. and it was very harsh to shoot in terms of recoil. I sent it out and had it Mag-na-ported and put the Hogue Monogrips on it. Now it's much tamer but still not as pleasent to shoot as the SH.
None of them seem to be made for shooting lead bullets. You need a customized gun, seems to me. Please enlighten me otherwise. I have a Smith 629-1 and a 629-8, both stock, and am nervous about shooting either one with lead. The Sauer SAA 44 Magnum is the one that shoots lead like a champ (as long as you are sure the base pin is secured).
I need a glove to hang onto more than a cylinder full. SAA grips were never meant for magnums.
I have Redhawks in 45 Colt just to enable using the heavy loads for the caliber, but the grips are huge, and the trigger reach is extreme, a rather goofy gun design. The Super Redhawk is just too ugly to consider but might be great to shoot. Never tried one. The Alaskan needs more barrel to make sense for me. I would rather carry the short 45 Colt Redhawk with loads comparable to the 44 Mag.
I need a glove to hang onto more than a cylinder full. SAA grips were never meant for magnums.I have Redhawks in 45 Colt just to enable using the heavy loads for the caliber, but the grips are huge, and the trigger reach is extreme, a rather goofy gun design. The Super Redhawk is just too ugly to consider but might be great to shoot. Never tried one. The Alaskan needs more barrel to make sense for me. I would rather carry the short 45 Colt Redhawk with loads comparable to the 44 Mag.
I have owned a bunch of Ruger Super Blackhawks over the years and there is a reason I have a box of parts for them . If you shoot a lot and it makes little difference how hot the load is a Ruger Super Blackhawk will need work . The Red Hawk is more gun then the Blackhawk or the Smith . Over the years Ruger has Cheapened the Ruger Super Blackhawk up in a number of ways .
But I also have broke other good handguns . I sent a Freedom arms in 44 Mag back and three Thompson Contenders plus a Desert Eagle . None of them held up to a lot of shooting .
But I also have broke other good handguns . I sent a Freedom arms in 44 Mag back and three Thompson Contenders plus a Desert Eagle . None of them held up to a lot of shooting .
I prefer the S&W over any Ruger ever made..../ the idea that the Ruger is stronger is nonsense...( its heavier / but that doesn't make it stronger )....and the trigger on the S&W is way better than the Ruger.
I like both the model 29's and 629's in the 8 3/8" barrels...( and I like them in 3", 4" and 6" as well )....the 8 3/8" barreled guns are very easy to shoot.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=90173&d=1371763692
is a S&W model 29-3 8 3/8" Nickel made in 1983 / very nice gun !
I like both the model 29's and 629's in the 8 3/8" barrels...( and I like them in 3", 4" and 6" as well )....the 8 3/8" barreled guns are very easy to shoot.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=90173&d=1371763692
is a S&W model 29-3 8 3/8" Nickel made in 1983 / very nice gun !
Dragline45
New member
Not true at all, Ruger pretty much across the board minus the New Vaqueros and less common flat top Blackhawks can take a steady diet of hot loads that a S&W can't handle. Even though as noted that there aren't "Ruger Only Loads" for the .44 magnum like there are for the .45 Colt, there are .44 loads that are safe for Rugers but not S&W.
Straight from Buffalo Bore's site in reference to their +p+ .44 magnum load
We get hundreds of emails asking if this load can be fired in S&W revolvers or some firearm other than what is in the above list. The answer is NO. The above list is all inclusive. If some shooters continue to irresponsibly use this product, we may have to discontinue it and that would be unfortunate as it is our best selling 44 mag0 load and it gives great performance for those that use it responsibly however, as is always the case, irresponsible use of any product ends up penalizing responsible users.
The fact that they would release a statement like this speaks for itself.
.
Last edited:
FrankenMauser
New member
Nah. That just means that it hasn't blown up as many Rugers as S&Ws, or they just want to hype the product even more.
They used to offer a "Marlin Only" .444 Marlin load with a similar disclaimer that, absolutely, under no circumstances, should it be used in a Winchester or H&R .444 Marlin. After at least a dozen people had their rifles turn into grenades, the load disappeared from their catalog. They blamed weak magazine springs, but weak magazine springs don't make receivers split and barrels turn to shrapnel...
Dragline45
New member
If that load blew up any Rugers at all do you really think they would offer that load and specifically say safe for use in Rugers? With it being their best selling load in that caliber if it was blowing up any guns at all on their list you better believe they would be aware of it and that it would have been pulled from their lineup like they did the .444 marlin round you mentioned. They already said that if people keep irresponsibly using it in the wrong guns they are going to drop it entirely from their line, so they obviously care about liability on their end. The fact that they say it's safe for use in Ruger's and not S&W's means that the S&W's are not strong enough to handle the load.
So you are saying that by them implying the load is too powerful to be used in S&W's they are hyping the product to increase sales? Yeah because nothing increases sales like saying you can't use this load in probably the most commonly bought and used revolvers out there....
So with that said, I trust their word over yours, seeing as they have done a whole lot more testing than you have.
Last edited:
Dragline45
New member
OK but as far as I know flat top Blackhawk's are not as strong as the standard Blackhawk's because they are built on the mid size frames. For example, flat top Blackhawks in .45 Colt can not handle .45 Colt Ruger Only Loads like the standard Blackhawks can, and Ruger as well as Buffalo Bore will confirm this for you.
For all I know this could not apply to the .41 magnum flat top Blackhawks, but I don't see why it wouldn't.
Last edited:
stagpanther
New member
delete
A point for me was that I was able to buy Hogue X grips which fit my N frame, and were useable with my short stubbie fingers.
All of the Ruger double action revolvers have huge, wide grips that require long fingers. The Super Black Hawk, I can shoot that and shoot that well. The square back trigger guard will eat your support hand in recoil. I often wear a glove on the support hand. This is one example where style is stupid.
This 1968 vintage S. Blackhawk, Ruger recessed the cylinders. A nice touch that is not longer in the product line.
All of the Ruger double action revolvers have huge, wide grips that require long fingers. The Super Black Hawk, I can shoot that and shoot that well. The square back trigger guard will eat your support hand in recoil. I often wear a glove on the support hand. This is one example where style is stupid.
This 1968 vintage S. Blackhawk, Ruger recessed the cylinders. A nice touch that is not longer in the product line.
WVMountaineer
New member
Who cares? This gets ridiculous every time this comes up. You get the S&W crowd all riled up when you point out their pistol isn't as strong as another. You get the Ruger crowd all riled up by denying it or, calling the gun ugly, etc....
None of this bickering changes anything. Ruger's are bigger, heavier, and likely stronger by design. Some people like that. Smith's are great guns and a better fit for some people. Truth is, only a few of us will ever fire one enough to see just how much more durable the Ruger's are.
It really boils down to preference and how the gun feels in your hand. Both are good guns. Buy the one that you like best and allow your fellow gun enthusiast the same without beating them over the head with YOUR Choice. God Bless
None of this bickering changes anything. Ruger's are bigger, heavier, and likely stronger by design. Some people like that. Smith's are great guns and a better fit for some people. Truth is, only a few of us will ever fire one enough to see just how much more durable the Ruger's are.
It really boils down to preference and how the gun feels in your hand. Both are good guns. Buy the one that you like best and allow your fellow gun enthusiast the same without beating them over the head with YOUR Choice. God Bless
Last edited: