Which one..S&W M629 or Redhawk?
- Thread starter Mike Davies
- Start date
MeekAndMild
New member
What happens when Joe Handloader accidently throws a double charge? I prefer an unnecessarily strong gun.
I dont think the situation you describe could really be blamed on the S&W 29, do you?
Oh no, that is not the point.
What I am saying is that the Redhawk is much stronger than the model 29 Smith and for the purposes that a 44 Mag is used for, that is important (at least to me).
The stronger gun will be around long after the weak has perished.
Additionally, I find the Redhawk to be every bit as accurate as the Smith. I regularly get 5 shot 4" groups of from the shooting bench and a Burris 3X scope with my Redhawk. I can't shoot any better than that.
Oh no, that is not the point.
What I am saying is that the Redhawk is much stronger than the model 29 Smith and for the purposes that a 44 Mag is used for, that is important (at least to me).
The stronger gun will be around long after the weak has perished.
Additionally, I find the Redhawk to be every bit as accurate as the Smith. I regularly get 5 shot 4" groups of from the shooting bench and a Burris 3X scope with my Redhawk. I can't shoot any better than that.
one-shot-one
New member
629
had 629, while rapid firing and loading gun locked up at 18 shots fired and would not function untill it cooled. this was a while back and the problem may have been fixed since but check around and get dates before you buy.
had 629, while rapid firing and loading gun locked up at 18 shots fired and would not function untill it cooled. this was a while back and the problem may have been fixed since but check around and get dates before you buy.
Actually Hamilton Bowen in his book
"The Custom Revolver" says the redhawh was the first gun actually designed for the 44 magnum cartridge and regular use.
The man is a premier custom gunsmith, I beleave he knows whereof he speaks. 29's & 629's remind me a lot of the model 19 smith - shoot them mostly with light to medium loads and save the heavy stuff for serious efforts. Too many heavy loads will damage them. not blow ups but in subtler ways, out of time bulging cylinder knotches, damages or cracked forcing cones etc. also some of the older ones will have lockup troubles with heavy loads(this at least was corrected in current production since the early 90's I think). The Redhawk and SRH are simply stronger, simpler, more reliable designs.
"The Custom Revolver" says the redhawh was the first gun actually designed for the 44 magnum cartridge and regular use.
The man is a premier custom gunsmith, I beleave he knows whereof he speaks. 29's & 629's remind me a lot of the model 19 smith - shoot them mostly with light to medium loads and save the heavy stuff for serious efforts. Too many heavy loads will damage them. not blow ups but in subtler ways, out of time bulging cylinder knotches, damages or cracked forcing cones etc. also some of the older ones will have lockup troubles with heavy loads(this at least was corrected in current production since the early 90's I think). The Redhawk and SRH are simply stronger, simpler, more reliable designs.
lonegunman
New member
How many people have seen S&W 29's and 629's actually blown up, or even damaged, from shooting 44 mag factory loads?
lonegun...do you not consider going out of time damage?..if you do..then ive seen scads of out of time smiths over the years. ive yet to ever encounter an out of time ruger. no one is saying s & w is a bad gun. it is certainly more elegant, graceful and to some, prettier than a redhawk. it just isnt built as hardily. on the subject of triggers, i may have gotten very lucky with the 3 redhawks ive owned, but all 3 had very nice triggers, especially so in double action.
lonegunman
New member
I would consider going out of time a problem, but I have never seen one go out of time.
I dont doubt that 29's have had problems due to a lot of shooting, but I think the problems are talked about much more than they really occur.
I dont doubt that 29's have had problems due to a lot of shooting, but I think the problems are talked about much more than they really occur.
FWIW
When I bought my 44 5.5" Redhawk (stainless, natch) it was laid on the counter with ten other large-frame wheels including 629's, Classics, Raging Bulls, and a few others (Anaconda?, DW?).
My new gun, without question, had the finest DA pull, and this was literally straight from the box.
SA? Don't need it...............
Most important after strength is its longer cylinder.
All that said, both are good, but the (my) Redhawk is better.
When I bought my 44 5.5" Redhawk (stainless, natch) it was laid on the counter with ten other large-frame wheels including 629's, Classics, Raging Bulls, and a few others (Anaconda?, DW?).
My new gun, without question, had the finest DA pull, and this was literally straight from the box.
SA? Don't need it...............
Most important after strength is its longer cylinder.
All that said, both are good, but the (my) Redhawk is better.
629 shooter
New member
I have owned both Ruger and Smith & Wesson 44 mags. In fact I have owned more Rugers (4 Rugers , 2 S&Ws) My biggest mistake was selling my original Super Redhawk. This was an early production model from the late 80's and shot very well. The single action trigger was even decent. But when I first moved to Indiana I did not have access to an outdoor range and sold the SR.
So a few years ago I decide that I would like another Super Redhawk like the one I originally owned since I have been able to locate an outdoor range. In 2000 I finally get the SR with 7.5" barrel like my original. But unlike my first SR the cylinder on my new one started to bind after only a few shots. I look at the cylinder gap in front of a light source and see certain chambers are dragging the forcing cone. Also when I ran a patch down the bore there was a noticeable change in the effort required to push the patch down the bore. Occured about two thirds down the length of the barrel - never felt this in any other gun I owned. Apparently the bore was not uniform in size. Needless to say the gun shot very poorly.
Owned a 10.5 Super Blackhawk that shot well but after every range session a residue would build up right at the point where the barrel met the frame. I sent it back to Ruger and they returned it to me with nice "ding" or nick on the barrel which was not there when I shipped it.
My friend shipped his Super Blackhawk Hunter into Ruger and received his gun back with a nick in the frame. He was extremely upset to say the least.
So my current 629 was bought as a replacement for my 2nd Super Redhawk. No cylinder binding and the bore size seems to be uniform throughout its entire length. It shoots more accurately at 50 yards than my last Super Redhawk (the bad one) did at 25 yards.
Now I will admit that everyone produces garbage every now and then - but I have experienced too much of it from Ruger. I'll stick with my weak under-engineered Smith for now.
So a few years ago I decide that I would like another Super Redhawk like the one I originally owned since I have been able to locate an outdoor range. In 2000 I finally get the SR with 7.5" barrel like my original. But unlike my first SR the cylinder on my new one started to bind after only a few shots. I look at the cylinder gap in front of a light source and see certain chambers are dragging the forcing cone. Also when I ran a patch down the bore there was a noticeable change in the effort required to push the patch down the bore. Occured about two thirds down the length of the barrel - never felt this in any other gun I owned. Apparently the bore was not uniform in size. Needless to say the gun shot very poorly.
Owned a 10.5 Super Blackhawk that shot well but after every range session a residue would build up right at the point where the barrel met the frame. I sent it back to Ruger and they returned it to me with nice "ding" or nick on the barrel which was not there when I shipped it.
My friend shipped his Super Blackhawk Hunter into Ruger and received his gun back with a nick in the frame. He was extremely upset to say the least.
So my current 629 was bought as a replacement for my 2nd Super Redhawk. No cylinder binding and the bore size seems to be uniform throughout its entire length. It shoots more accurately at 50 yards than my last Super Redhawk (the bad one) did at 25 yards.
Now I will admit that everyone produces garbage every now and then - but I have experienced too much of it from Ruger. I'll stick with my weak under-engineered Smith for now.
How big are your hands?
One thing no-one has mentioned is grip size. I have very small hands (only my hands, ladies
) and when I went to buy a .44 I found the Super Redhawk and the Colt Anaconda. The Colt's action felt like it was put together with elmers glue and a bucket of sand so i eliminated that. The SRH has a unique post for the grip frame (also used on their gp100 series) that allows for a small grip diameter while still surrounding the post w/ recoil absorbing rubber. All the other .44's Ive tried, including the redhawk normal, the grips are too fat and long unless I use a grip which exposes the back strap and hurts my hand. I think even those w/ medium size hands would find the grip much better on the SRH as most .44's are large frames.
One thing no-one has mentioned is grip size. I have very small hands (only my hands, ladies
) and when I went to buy a .44 I found the Super Redhawk and the Colt Anaconda. The Colt's action felt like it was put together with elmers glue and a bucket of sand so i eliminated that. The SRH has a unique post for the grip frame (also used on their gp100 series) that allows for a small grip diameter while still surrounding the post w/ recoil absorbing rubber. All the other .44's Ive tried, including the redhawk normal, the grips are too fat and long unless I use a grip which exposes the back strap and hurts my hand. I think even those w/ medium size hands would find the grip much better on the SRH as most .44's are large frames.full power magnum loads means 300gr @ 1,300+.
In my redhawk (7-1/2"), 22 gr. of AA9 and the 240 Hornady XTP is good for a little over 1400 fps.
If one uses hard cast gas checks, you can do better than that, but since I only use it on Whitetail Deer and since I have never failed to achieve complete penetration with this load, that's as far as I go.
If I were going to hunt Bear (black) or even large hogs, it might be different.
In my redhawk (7-1/2"), 22 gr. of AA9 and the 240 Hornady XTP is good for a little over 1400 fps.
If one uses hard cast gas checks, you can do better than that, but since I only use it on Whitetail Deer and since I have never failed to achieve complete penetration with this load, that's as far as I go.
If I were going to hunt Bear (black) or even large hogs, it might be different.
Herb Leventhal
New member
44 magnum
I have owned both Ruger and Smith44 magnums.
I have sold the Ruger revolvers because I do not like the Ruger trigger pull. The Ruger may be a stronger firearm but Smith clearly has a better style and trigger mechanism. I fire 44 magnum Carrol 240 grain lead or Ranier 240 gr Jacket, or Speeer 240 gr jacket on top of Winchester 296 22.8 grains for the past 12 years.
herb
I have owned both Ruger and Smith44 magnums.
I have sold the Ruger revolvers because I do not like the Ruger trigger pull. The Ruger may be a stronger firearm but Smith clearly has a better style and trigger mechanism. I fire 44 magnum Carrol 240 grain lead or Ranier 240 gr Jacket, or Speeer 240 gr jacket on top of Winchester 296 22.8 grains for the past 12 years.
herb
FWIW
I had my Model 29 go out of time using loads straight out of the manual. I sent it to Jack Weigand and it is now better than ever. Since it's return I have never shot anything but moderate .44 Special loads loaded in .44 Special cases so that I don't make that mistake again.
I had my Model 29 go out of time using loads straight out of the manual. I sent it to Jack Weigand and it is now better than ever. Since it's return I have never shot anything but moderate .44 Special loads loaded in .44 Special cases so that I don't make that mistake again.