which is better. s&w 629 .44 mag or ruger super redhawk .44 mag
- Thread starter T_PRO_Z
- Start date
This question has been asked many, many times. Bias will play heavily on the answers. That said, I've owned several examples of both. I like them both.
Smiths have proven to be a little more accurate and with better single action triggers (I hate the heavy single action trigger on my Redhawks) but when I wanted to shoot hot handloads I grabbed the Redhawk.
I'm not saying the Smith won't stand up but the fact is the S&W "N" frame dates from 1906 with numerous updates to handle the 44 where as the Redhawk was a clean sheet design from 1980 designed specifically for the 44 Magnum.
Jim
Smiths have proven to be a little more accurate and with better single action triggers (I hate the heavy single action trigger on my Redhawks) but when I wanted to shoot hot handloads I grabbed the Redhawk.
I'm not saying the Smith won't stand up but the fact is the S&W "N" frame dates from 1906 with numerous updates to handle the 44 where as the Redhawk was a clean sheet design from 1980 designed specifically for the 44 Magnum.
Jim
Neither is better. Which one fits your hand best? Rugers tend to fit normal sized hands better than Smiths. Ok, short hands not 'normal'. snicker. Go try 'em both on for size then buy the one that speaks to you.
"...hate the heavy single action trigger on my Redhawks..." All new firearms require a trigger job regardless of the brand. Easier to do on some brands than others. Smiths require one special tool, that Rugers do not.
"...hate the heavy single action trigger on my Redhawks..." All new firearms require a trigger job regardless of the brand. Easier to do on some brands than others. Smiths require one special tool, that Rugers do not.
Not completely true. My Freedom Arms came with a 4lb pull and several of my 1911's have 3.5 to 4.5 lb pulls from the factory. While I cannot comment on the newer S&W's I can state that Rugers (both old and new) do need help with the triggers.
Well, with the exception of my 1960 Ruger MK I. It has a pretty nice trigger...
Jim
It depends on what you want to do with a 44.
If you're going to hunt with it, I'd go with the Redhawk or Super Redhawk. Otherwise, go for the '29.
I have both a SRH, 7.5", and a Model 29, 6". The cylinder on the SRH is longer than the one on the '29, and that allows me to load 300+ grain cast bullets for hunting. The finished cartridges will fit in the SRH, but they are too long for the '29.
As I understand it, both the Redhawk and Super Redhawk have the longer cylinders. I bought my SRH around 20 years ago, give or take a little, and had a Leupold 4X scope installed on it. It's good for accurate shots at 100 yards if I do my part. I believe the Rugers are sold with scope rings included.
My SRH is as tough as as an oak stump. I've put a good bit of Randy Garret's ammo through it as well as some of my own fairly warm loads. It's still tight and shoots well.
My '29 is a thing of beauty. Nice trigger, good sights.
If you're going to hunt with it, I'd go with the Redhawk or Super Redhawk. Otherwise, go for the '29.
I have both a SRH, 7.5", and a Model 29, 6". The cylinder on the SRH is longer than the one on the '29, and that allows me to load 300+ grain cast bullets for hunting. The finished cartridges will fit in the SRH, but they are too long for the '29.
As I understand it, both the Redhawk and Super Redhawk have the longer cylinders. I bought my SRH around 20 years ago, give or take a little, and had a Leupold 4X scope installed on it. It's good for accurate shots at 100 yards if I do my part. I believe the Rugers are sold with scope rings included.
My SRH is as tough as as an oak stump. I've put a good bit of Randy Garret's ammo through it as well as some of my own fairly warm loads. It's still tight and shoots well.
My '29 is a thing of beauty. Nice trigger, good sights.
Yep, both absolutely excel in different areas. I don't think any S&W .44 Magnum ever built could take the same volume of shooting and outright physical abuse that a Redhawk can take. And if you somehow managed to wreck or wear out either one... a Redhawk is cheaper to replace and you might also be looking at some physical damage to your hands from the volume of pounding it would take to kill either revolver.
Me, I am a die-hard S&W revolver guy all the way, but for .44 Mag, I selected a Redhawk because it's massive and the weight helps with recoil.
A S&W is likely to have a smoother DA trigger stroke, unless it is brand-new production these days (new S&W has a DA that I cannot understand). S&W will also have a better SA trigger break.
The S&W will likely be a more attractive and better finished product and it won't have a horrendous manifesto stamped on the barrel like a Ruger.
Both companies have fantastic reputation for service if something goes wrong. Unfortunately -- I truly believe that BOTH companies are actively shipping an inferior product right now than either company was shipping 5-10-25 years ago.
For EXACTLY that reason, I would 100% be shopping for a clean used one rather than a new one from either gunmaker.
Me, I am a die-hard S&W revolver guy all the way, but for .44 Mag, I selected a Redhawk because it's massive and the weight helps with recoil.
A S&W is likely to have a smoother DA trigger stroke, unless it is brand-new production these days (new S&W has a DA that I cannot understand). S&W will also have a better SA trigger break.
The S&W will likely be a more attractive and better finished product and it won't have a horrendous manifesto stamped on the barrel like a Ruger.
Both companies have fantastic reputation for service if something goes wrong. Unfortunately -- I truly believe that BOTH companies are actively shipping an inferior product right now than either company was shipping 5-10-25 years ago.
For EXACTLY that reason, I would 100% be shopping for a clean used one rather than a new one from either gunmaker.
FrankenMauser
New member
As mentioned, they're both 'better' in different ways.
One thing to keep an eye on, and possibly read up on...
The S&W 29s/629s have gone through several modifications over the years, and some versions are considered to be better than others.
A 29-2 or 29-4, for example, is generally considered to be better-built and likely to have a longer lifespan than a 29-3 that came between them. (Though the reality of reduced longevity is a hotly debated topic.)
The same goes for the 629s. A 629 up through 629-2 is generally considered to be more prone to wear/failure (but more 'collectible'
) than the 629-3 to 629-5.
Personally...
If I wanted a better factory DA pull, I'd lean more toward S&W.
If I wanted more weight to help with recoil, I'd lean toward Ruger.
All else being equal, most Ruger revolvers fit my hands better than the competing S&W product, so Ruger starts with an edge, anyway.
I currently own only one S&W, a 29-3 (the 'weak' M29
); and I have never owned more than two S&Ws at the same time. Generally, they just don't work for me.
I own many Rugers and like every one of them.
One thing to keep an eye on, and possibly read up on...
The S&W 29s/629s have gone through several modifications over the years, and some versions are considered to be better than others.
A 29-2 or 29-4, for example, is generally considered to be better-built and likely to have a longer lifespan than a 29-3 that came between them. (Though the reality of reduced longevity is a hotly debated topic.)
The same goes for the 629s. A 629 up through 629-2 is generally considered to be more prone to wear/failure (but more 'collectible'
) than the 629-3 to 629-5. Personally...
If I wanted a better factory DA pull, I'd lean more toward S&W.
If I wanted more weight to help with recoil, I'd lean toward Ruger.
All else being equal, most Ruger revolvers fit my hands better than the competing S&W product, so Ruger starts with an edge, anyway.
I currently own only one S&W, a 29-3 (the 'weak' M29
); and I have never owned more than two S&Ws at the same time. Generally, they just don't work for me.I own many Rugers and like every one of them.
The 629 is a hellofa gun, powerful, controlable with the new S&W grips, and sturdy enough for a lifetime of service. Mine will do sub 2" gps on demand and is a joy to use.
The Redhawk is perhaps the ugliest revolver ever foisted on the shooting public, with the possible exception of the Webley's. Hell for strong, it pays for that strength with a barrel/receiver joining that approaches Frankenstein.
JMHO, YMMV, Rod
The Redhawk is perhaps the ugliest revolver ever foisted on the shooting public, with the possible exception of the Webley's. Hell for strong, it pays for that strength with a barrel/receiver joining that approaches Frankenstein.
JMHO, YMMV, Rod
^The Super Redhawk maybe. A regular Redhawk looks like a Security Six or a GP-100 upsized. It looks pretty normal, really. One might argue that any Taurus Judge or S&W Governor is far uglier. Some have even made the ugly case for a Model 28, with an abruptly short cylinder that looks odd-sized and the dull, spartan finish.
Me? J-frames. J-frames and any/all snubbies, small Colt revolvers and egads, the tupperware carry revolvers. If you want UGLY, leave the Redhawk alone and take those instead.
Me? J-frames. J-frames and any/all snubbies, small Colt revolvers and egads, the tupperware carry revolvers. If you want UGLY, leave the Redhawk alone and take those instead.
Deaf Smith
New member
I've owned them all and I still prefer...
But then I don't use super hot .44 Magnum loads all the time.
And yes the S&W DA and SA triggers are pretty good to begin with, better than the Ruger variety.. and with a bit of stoning and honing... fantastic DA pulls, with no springs weakened and very light SA pulls.
But if you intend on lots of roaring .44 mag loads, I'd get the Ruger.
Deaf
But then I don't use super hot .44 Magnum loads all the time.
And yes the S&W DA and SA triggers are pretty good to begin with, better than the Ruger variety.. and with a bit of stoning and honing... fantastic DA pulls, with no springs weakened and very light SA pulls.
But if you intend on lots of roaring .44 mag loads, I'd get the Ruger.
Deaf
Hands down, I prefer the s&w model 29's or 629's over any ruger.
Key difference is the quality and feel of trigger in DA and SA. ....S&W is much smoother as it breaks and as it resets.....
( I own 29's and 629's in 3", 4", 6" & 8 3/8"....barrels )...../ I put 2 boxes thru the 629 Trail Boss a 3" ...on sunday....)....
Key difference is the quality and feel of trigger in DA and SA. ....S&W is much smoother as it breaks and as it resets.....
( I own 29's and 629's in 3", 4", 6" & 8 3/8"....barrels )...../ I put 2 boxes thru the 629 Trail Boss a 3" ...on sunday....)....
rrob692326
Inactive
The Smith if you only shoot light to medium loads because I had to have mine sent to the factory twice because of it loosening up. The red hawk (same basically as super red hawk) I have eats 350 grain cast and an occasional 405 grain cast I normally use in the 444 marlin. But may I offer a third alternative which is the Dan Wesson 744. It eats everything I load with ease, and is super accurate to boot. You also have the versatility of different length barrels. Good luck
All of my S&W .44 Mag revolvers...have a steady diet of 240 gr max loads...and none of them have ever loosened up ...???
I don't shoot 3 boxes a week thru them ...but each of my .44 Mag revovlers gets at least 10 boxes a year thru them ...and a few of them get 4 boxes a month thru them ...( like the 629 in a 3" )...because I like shooting it ....
...and all of my S&W .44 mag revolvers were mfg'd...between 1980 and the late 1990's ...so 25 - 35 yrs old...
I don't shoot 3 boxes a week thru them ...but each of my .44 Mag revovlers gets at least 10 boxes a year thru them ...and a few of them get 4 boxes a month thru them ...( like the 629 in a 3" )...because I like shooting it ....
...and all of my S&W .44 mag revolvers were mfg'd...between 1980 and the late 1990's ...so 25 - 35 yrs old...
bamaranger
New member
both "fine guns"
I've never owned a Redhawk, but have owned a M29 and currently a 629 Mtn. I have several other Rugers and think highly of them, and have a general high regard for the company, its history and products. Both the S&W and the Ruger .44's fall into the category of fine guns. Premium firearms, that are capable of shooting better than most of us are able, and durable enough to stand up to a lifetime of normal use.
Reliability? Equal marks.
Durability? A slight nod to the Ruger, only because I hear accounts of M29's that are shot A LOT being returned for factory tuneups. I don't run enough full power ammo through my 629 for that to matter.
Accuracy? Another wash. Both will typically out shoot their owners
One issue not listed in the OP is looks/portability. Many give the 'Smith family high marks for their appearance. In equal barrel lengths, I suspect the Ruger will always be a bit heavier. I also suspect the 'Smith's have sleeker lines and are a bit slimmer in all dimensions.
I've never owned a Redhawk, but have owned a M29 and currently a 629 Mtn. I have several other Rugers and think highly of them, and have a general high regard for the company, its history and products. Both the S&W and the Ruger .44's fall into the category of fine guns. Premium firearms, that are capable of shooting better than most of us are able, and durable enough to stand up to a lifetime of normal use.
Reliability? Equal marks.
Durability? A slight nod to the Ruger, only because I hear accounts of M29's that are shot A LOT being returned for factory tuneups. I don't run enough full power ammo through my 629 for that to matter.
Accuracy? Another wash. Both will typically out shoot their owners
One issue not listed in the OP is looks/portability. Many give the 'Smith family high marks for their appearance. In equal barrel lengths, I suspect the Ruger will always be a bit heavier. I also suspect the 'Smith's have sleeker lines and are a bit slimmer in all dimensions.
FrankenMauser
New member
Some of today's posts reminded me...
I have worn out a Ruger Super Blackhawk (with the help of family and the previous owner**).
And I had a 'low-mileage' S&W 642 that shot loose to the point of being out of time on two chambers in less than once box of ammo.
S&W probably would have fixed the 642, but I didn't like it anyway. I sold it with full disclosure about the timing and the disabled internal lock.
Ruger fully rebuilt and refinished the Super Blackhawk on my 20 year-old frames, including a new cylinder, new barrel, new base pin, new hammer, new sights, new springs, etc. ... pretty much everything but the grips and frames. ...With no questions asked. And all it cost me was the $20 shipping fee to have my FFL send it to the repair center.
**The SBH was well loved when I bought the revolver used, about 5 years old. And while I did 6 years in the military, my instructions for my family were: Use my guns. Please take care of them, clean them, and don't abuse them; but don't be afraid to take them out and use them - even if it means shooting my ammo and using my reloading components to put more ammo together.
A firearm that gets used and maintained usually stays in better condition than a firearm that sits... It worked out well for my firearms, but did result in a fair amount of wear and tear on the SBH. And it got shot quite a bit after I came home, as well.
I have worn out a Ruger Super Blackhawk (with the help of family and the previous owner**).
And I had a 'low-mileage' S&W 642 that shot loose to the point of being out of time on two chambers in less than once box of ammo.
S&W probably would have fixed the 642, but I didn't like it anyway. I sold it with full disclosure about the timing and the disabled internal lock.
Ruger fully rebuilt and refinished the Super Blackhawk on my 20 year-old frames, including a new cylinder, new barrel, new base pin, new hammer, new sights, new springs, etc. ... pretty much everything but the grips and frames. ...With no questions asked. And all it cost me was the $20 shipping fee to have my FFL send it to the repair center.
**The SBH was well loved when I bought the revolver used, about 5 years old. And while I did 6 years in the military, my instructions for my family were: Use my guns. Please take care of them, clean them, and don't abuse them; but don't be afraid to take them out and use them - even if it means shooting my ammo and using my reloading components to put more ammo together.
A firearm that gets used and maintained usually stays in better condition than a firearm that sits... It worked out well for my firearms, but did result in a fair amount of wear and tear on the SBH. And it got shot quite a bit after I came home, as well.
I absolutely LOVE my 629! Feel both, and see which one you like best. They're both excellent guns but personally I like S&W revolvers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOWhSM9LWfg