Which one..S&W M629 or Redhawk?

M

Mike Davies

New member
Any opinions on this one most welcome!:)
I will be making a choice between a S&W Model 629 with a 6" barrel and a Ruger Redhawk .44mag stainless with a 5 1/2" barrel. Both are in very nice condition; the Ruger is priced at $600 Canadian (US$375) and the Smith is priced at $500 Cdn, which is about US$320.
Which would you choose, and why?
 
Redhawks are stronger actions than Smith&Wesson.

Look at a load book, and you will see that there is a section in there that specifically says for use only in Contender or Ruger Redhawk/SuperRedhawks.
 
Ruger Redhawks are definitely the strongest, NO
question about it. But, I tend to favor the Smith
& Wesson 629-5 "Classic" with a 5" tube. Under
NORMAL load's, the S&W 629 will hold up just
as well.

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member
 
I've never owned either, but I'd like to own both. Anyway, I see Redhawks for sale for about that price all the time. However, that's the cheapest price I've seen for a S&W 629.
 
When people say Ruger Redhawks have "stronger" actions, what they fail to mention is that it is really "unnecessarily stronger".

44 mag is plenty strong for a handgun round as it is. I dont see why having a gun that can shoot especially hot 44 magnums is a benefit. If 44 mag cant handle the problem, you need to go get your rifle.

A 629 is not going to wear out shooting standard 44 mags, at least not in your lifetime.

The Redhawks are not finished as well S&W's. Their triggers are not as good either.
 
Having gone through 3 regular 629's and 2 Ruger Redhawks, and having originally been biased toward the Ruger ... I'd have to agree with Lonegunman on this.

If I could sell my current Redhawk, I'd buy a Smith to replace it, for several reasons.

1. Redhawks are not as durable in some ways. The Redhawk, while able to stand higher pressures, has an action dependent on some pretty cheap castings. Once you break the el-cheapo little 10 cent casting they call a "transfer bar", all the pressure-strength in the world won't make your wheelgun run. I broke a Redhawk and a Blackhawk this same way. I have never had this happen with a Smith and Wesson, but then I never had to dry-fire them as much since they had nicer triggers. Take this FWIW.

2. Smith usually won't leave razor-sharp edges on a gun leaving the factory. Finish is usually superior. I've never got a Smith that has inappropriately rounded or "bulged" flats like on my new Redhawk. It looks like its been in a frame vise.

3. Ruger puts out a high number of lemons these days. I'm on my second Redhawk, the first having been returned due to a locke-up action.

4. Typically better trigger (SA) on Smith, meaning less practice and dry-fire necessary to master and maintain basic marksmanship skills.

5. Accuracy - I would say Ruger here, but after shooting a few of their later .45 Colt offerings, they don't seem to know how to ream a cylinder throat correctly anymore. My .451" bullets have a hard time going through those .449" holes; hence, my .45's won't shoot worth a darn. I could buy the cylinder reamer from Brownells, but I think I'm just gonna sell 'em and get a Smith and be done with it.
YMMV, as this may not carry over to the .44 mag. guns. I personally wouldn't chance it though.

In short, the Rugers of today are not quite the gun they were years ago when they earned their reputation. The new management isn't nearly as attentive to QC, IMHO.
 
Thanks for all the wonderful replies...I do agree (of course) that Smiths are finer finished than the Rugers and have a sweeter trigger. The Ruger Redhawk that I handled had a 5 1/2" barrel...is that a standard barrel length?
There are MANY Model 29's for sale here, all in very nice condition. Most have 8" (or is that 8 1/2"?) barrels, but there are some with 6" barrels, which would suit me better, and they are usually cheaper again than their M629 siblings, and I do prefer a 'blue' revolver over SS.
You've given me some good information to think about.....thanks again!
Mike
 
Actually what you really want is a

SUPER REDHAWK. Different action than the redhawk(same action as the GP100 & SP101) easier to get a good trigger on. scope mounting already on the frame and the gun comes with 1" rings from the factory. Excellent gun recoil in full strength 44 mangum loads easily controlable, unlike the 629 which can be a bear with full loads(note i am talking about std 44 magnum full loads 240 jhp @1300 fps not heavy bullet[300 +] loads, for those the SRH can't be beat). The only complaint I have ids it does'nt come in the 5" barrel length. A trip to the gunsmith will soon correct this minor flaw.
 
Shortening the Super Redhawk

JMLV,

Regarding your comment, "The only complaint I have is it doesn't come in a 5" barrel length. A trip to the gunsmith will soon correct this minor flaw": It's only on very rare occasions that I have read or seen a photo of a Super Redhawk with a modified/shortened barrel. Can you speculate as to the reasons why? Thanks for your opinion.

Mike
 
I have oowned both S&W and Redhawk in 44 magnum. Both have good and bad features.
S&W Features:
[1] Has a beeter trigger than the Redhawk.
[2] Has a pressed barrel, not pinned, and turns with heavy loads.
Ruger Redhawk Features:
[1] Is an extremely big gun.
[2] Is an extemely strong gun...it will take maximum loads that will destroy a S&W.
[3] Has a terrible trigger pull.
 
The Smith Wesson barrel is threaded into the frame - not pressed - just like a Redhawk or most any other revolver that I am familiar with. A friend of mine who owns a first generation Ruger Super Blackhawk Hunter told me that they were originally discontinued because of barrel turning.

The Smith will take any max load - listed in any major reloading manual such as the Hornady I use most often - without blowing up. The fourth edition volume I own simply lists "44 Magnum Remington Magnum Pistol" - does not make any reference to "Ruger Only". There is a separate section for the TC Contender.

I have owned Super Redhawks and Super Blackhawks in the past and probably will again in the future - but even when I owned them I never had the urge to invent my own loads or use loads that exceeded SAAMI specs.
 
transfer bars breaking in rugers with normal dry fire practice?..thats 1 i hadnt heard yet. s & w 629's are as strong as a redhawk? you honestly believe that? if you hunt with a revolver and do so ever in cruddy, wet weather find the need to field strip your piece to rid moisture, or any other contraband, try doing that in your smiths. i too have owned both. a turned bbl in the 1st 100 factory rounds soured me on smiths i guess. have had 3 redhawks and knock on wood, no problems. to each their own..
 
had to add....will a smith take any max load listed and not blow up?...yep. the question is, will a smith take hundreds of those and stay in time? ive handled countless 29's at shows that were no where near in time anymore. ive yet to encounter a ruger revolver that was out of time in the 30 +years ive been shooting them. good fortune to all this huntin season
 
I like the 5" std redhsawk BUT I don't like thec

std redhawk action[personal preference) which is NOTHING like the action in the SRH. so the only way to get what I want a 5" super is to hsave one made. no big deal just a matter of looks and feel. many folks have shortened the SRH SOME EVEN TO SNUBBIE SIZE. check out hamilton bowens book "the custom revolver" for pictures and some details.
 
I'm a S&W fan from way back; my first ever firearm was a 686 revolver bought in the late 80's that I still own. They are great guns.

That said, when I went looking for a .44MAG to supplement my deer hunting I turned to the Super Blackhawk. I know it is a different animal than the Redhawk, but the Ruger revolvers are, IMHO, of a generally more robust design & construction than a S&W.

The S&W will be more streamlined in design, & probably have a better trigger action. The Ruger will be more "chunky" & will probably hold up better to sustained full power loads - although whether or not you ever shoot enough to realize that advantage is a question.

Honestly, if I buy another .44 it would probably be a 29 or 629 - but only because I already have a Ruger! :)
 
I don't think you can go wrong with either, but if you think you'll ever want to trade or sell, go with the S&W. It's always been a mystery to me, but for some reason the resale value of used Rugers is very very low.
 
redhawk V 629?

Let me tell you a true story about a redhawk and a model 29 Smith.

My brother had a Smith 29 and his son had a Redhawk. Well one day Jim was loading ammo for the Smith and he mis-read his powder scale (another story) and the result was that he 'thought' he was putting 10.6 gr. of a fast burning powder behind a 240 gr. cast bullet when in fact he was putting 16 gr of powder behind that bullet.

He and his son went to the range and both loaded their guns with this ammo and started shooting. After 3 shots, Jim found that he could not cock the smith. His son kept shooting all 6 rounds and popped the brass out of the Redhawk (though the extraction 'was' a bit stiff.

Upon examination of the Smith, it was found that the chambers were bulged to the point that it would not clear the bottom of the frame, that's why he couldn't cock it any more. The Redhawk showed no sign of abuse.

It was only after returning to the loading bench and bullets were pulled, that the problem was identified.

I think that this speaks pretty well to the strength of the Redhawk.

I 'like' the Smith. It is certainly a fine gun. BUT for the purpose that a 44 Magnum is usually put to--I'll take a Redhawk every time.
 
I really wouldn't buy either.
I don't trust S&W 629s, and don't like redhawks looks, or trigger.
I would buy a regular redhawk with a shorter barrel in .41, but they don't seem to make them anymore, which leaves me with the smith 657.
Yes, I have a .41 blackhawk, too.
I do have a .44, but it's a bisley-vaquero, with a better grip frame than either a redhawk, or a 627.
My question is are you actually ever gonna shoot it in DA?
 
for the .44 mag, the 29/629 is appropriately sized. I have fired two Redhawks - one a .44 mag with a scope, the other a SRH in .454 Casull. Neither would group as well as my Smith 629.

I have fired about one thousand rounds of full power .44's through this 629, most with max loads of W296. It is still quite accurate, as you can see.

I do intend to buy a .480 SRH later this year. I think that gun is appropriate for the caliber.:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top