Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Ruger redhawk 44 vs SW 629/329

Good evening,

I have a question, a friend of mine has both a 629 and a 329 with 4” barrels, he’s been bugging me to trade my redhawk 4”. I’ve never really gotten into S&W revolvers even though my dad is a huge fan. These s&w revolvers have some nice attributes: good triggers, the 329 is nice and light but I fee like my redhawk is better suited for what I do. It’s a woods gun for me. I keep it loaded with buffalo bore or garret carteidge hardcasts as I live and hunt in Alaska.

It seems like the heavier weight of the redhawk is better for shooting these heavy rounds but I’m not sure that makes up for the weight, the 329 would be great to carry around but I’m sure it would suck to shoot hot rounds through, the 629 might be a decent compromise, I’m not sure.

Has anybody here switched from one of these to another or perhaps somebody has both.

What are your thoughts? Remember this isn’t something I take to the range or anything, it’s pretty much strictly a woods gun, it sits in a diamond customs guide rig on the coat rack and I’ll either grab it or grab a Glock 20.

Thanks!!!.

I would prefer one of the Smith's if I was carrying it.
The Ruger if shooting with heavy loads. (Recoil, and last forever durability)

Have you shot your friends S&W's? Do you think your Ruger is heavy?
If you like it, and don't mind the weight, keep it.

Tell your friend, "A Smith is nice if you shoot target loads, they on hold up to real 44 mag. ammo."
I'll bet he won't like that much.

I hate people who transfer their self worth to items.
I like what I like, I think it is good for me.

It is not the best, just because I own it.

Which one depends on a lot of factors...

Grips: One can get a lot of different grips for the S&W...not so much for the Redhawk. If the stock or one one of the aftermarket grips for the Redhawk fits you then it is a moot point.

DA vs. SA shooting... Most of the Smiths and Rugers can be tuned to have very nice smooth DA pulls. In SA it is hands down S&W. I have a fairly new .41 4" RH that is just as smooth as any S&W I have and will bust every primer DA something that many "tuned" S&W will not do.

Recoil: Ruger is a much heavier gun and with the right set of grips I would MUCH rather shoot a 4" RH vs a 4" S&W.

Carry: If you don't mind the extra weight than stay with the Ruger.

Longevity: A steady diet of full loads besides being unpleasant in the S&W will also loosen them much faster than a RH. I know lots of 29s that have had to go to a smith for rebuilding but have never heard of one RH.


Would suggest you put some of your loads in your friend's gun and see what it is like...I think you will stay with the Ruger...

Bob

I've had and used the hell out of a 4" Model 29 and 5 1/2" Redhawk, both in 44 Magnum. I loved pre-lock N frame Smiths but for a using gun, I'll take a Redhawk every time. Especially now that they're available with roughly 4" barrels and in 45 ACP/45 Colt configurations.

Made mine a Super Redhawk, .44 Rem Mag. It will outlast me, my kids and grandkids.

Thanks for all the advice, I did notice the SA trigger pull on the s&w revolvers is better but again it’s not a target/range gun. I don’t really fee like the redhawk is heavy, but I can definitely tell compared to the others. We’re going to go shoot them this next weekend so I have a few days to do more research.

Thanks again and I’m still open for more advice.

Smiths are for collecting, Rugers are for shooting

All joking asside (I own both Rugers and Smiths) if you're going to do a lot of shooting of full power 44 mag ammo, the Ruger is the better choice as it is a much stronger gun and the Smith will loosen up in time. On the flip side, Ruger has a well earned reputation for triggers that need the work of a gunsmith and they are heavier.

I would agree with 458Lott on most points. The Ruger is inherently a bigger stronger frame and better at mIntaining its dimensions if you're going to feed it a lot of full power loads. But as in all things there is always some trade offs. The N frame is fine with moderate to semi-stiff loads with a shooter who actually shoots his gun and I mean thousands of rounds. And it's fine for a hunter wanting a powerful handgun but keeps the shot count down. Push any S&W N frame with lots of heavy stiff 44 mag loads and the gun will stretch and loosen up. I'm talking lots of cylinder end shake the result of frame stretch and other less serious issues.

Though the Ruger will support the heavy loads it's a bigger clunkier gun in many respects. You cannot slick up the DA on a Ruger anyway near the performance level of a S&W. Itcan be cleaned up but there will always be a significant difference between the two a fact that most comp shooters will feel immediately while many hunter types and others may not. However the hunter will not normally DA a hot 44 mag anyway. The lock time on the S&W is always faster than the Ruger - another element that many may not appreciate. I've usually found the S&W a little more accurate over a wide range of factory and handloads especially jacketed. Finally though you can fit up a wide variety of grips for a S&W it still won't change the frame geometry and the fact that these guns are more punishing ( too most hands and forearms) than the bigger Ruger's.

Years ago working in gun shops anybody behind the counter knew all too well that there are more traded in low usage and. really clean Model 29's ( post Dirty Harry ) than any other revolver. One shop I worked at finally refused to take in any more unless they were presentation, nickel or silhouette models.

I beg to differ on Ruger actions not being able to be slicked up. A good pistolsmith can make the action on a Ruger every bit as smooth as a Smith. A friend had two redhawks worked over by Magnaport, and the action is silky smooth. As far as accuracy, if the cylinder throats aren't too tight, again the redhawk should be every it as accurate as a Smith, possibly even better.

I've heard this a hundred times before but I was in the business for close to twenty years and I competed for close to twenty years and for every Ruger competing on the line there will be the rest of the entries. Yes they can be improved but never to the level of a nice Smith.& Wesson. There is only so much a mechanic can do with Ruger's lock-work design and cast parts. Both designs serve a purpose which I tried to point out in my post. The smart buyer/shooter needs to figure out what he needs and accept the trade-offs. Consider what I said about the S&W's and that is that they need to be worked to get the most out of them but that's the case with any comp gun. Nothing is free. BTW I've got an old Ruger Security-Six with North of 50k stiff 357 loads thru it that has worn itself into a very smooth decently accurate revolver. One of these days I'll get into And contour the trigger fit up an over-travel screw and a few other low cost tweaks.

Let me add one more thing in support of your comments 458Lott. Though I have been out of the business for a while I have run across a number of very well done GP100's that though I prefer the S&W DA these guns were smooth and re-barrel accurate.

There is only a 3 oz difference between a 4" Smith and Redhawk. Is a modern S&W still as week as an older model? I'm talking 80 and earlier. I thought the endurance package was suppose to make the S&Ws stronger than before.

The 29/629 is nowhere near as strong as the Redhawk, Smith would have had to redesign the gun and put additional metal in the frame and cylinder. With the endurance package Smith made the locking notches a little bit deeper and some work to the trigger and hammer pivot pins, but it's still ultimately the same amount of steel in the gun. To put it in perspective, the redhawk with a cylinder and barrel change will handle the 454 Casull and 475 and 500 Linebaughs.

Not to say the 29/629's aren't excellent guns, but if your plan is to fire thousands of full patch loads, especially with 300+ gr bullets, it is not the proper platform.

The two 44s mentioned in my above post were both shot extensively with heavy loads of 296 and 300 to 325 grain bullets. The 1980 vintage Model 29 Iwent been back to Smith for one rebuild and was ready for a second one when I sold it. The Red Hawk will still going strong. I cleaned the single action trigger up a lot on that Red Hawk and installed a trigger stop. It was a shootable as my Smith & Wesson and like anything else, required shooting a lot to get used to it. After all that, I have no doubt that a 4-inch Redhawk could take the place of a Smith & Wesson Model 29 in my holster.

Edited to add: Specifically, this one.



http://gunblast.com/Ruger-RH45ACP.htm

Ditto Sarge's experience here, except the 4" Smith is a pre lock mountain gun. Both still live with me, and are used fairly often. If I were to keep just the one, though, it'd be the Ruger. Properly stout 44 loads are much more pleasant to shoot in it, at least for me.

I pretty much agree with most opinions here however it's a big mistake to say the S&W 29 or any N-frame is weak ? These frame designs can withstand much more than most shooters can which is my point in many respects. A lot of people here or on other sites talk like they will wear out a 29 but from my experience it's a rare shooter who can handle full power 44 mag loads for the duration which is why there are so many nice used 29's out there. Much easier with a Blackhawk or good SA and their grip geometry.

S&W has really only made one enhanced frame design that I know of in the recent past. It came from users including Border Patrol and other LEO’s and armorers who forced Springfield to rethink the K-frame 357 marriage. Periodic use of full power ammo was okay but prolonged use in the K's was too much. So they designed and issued the L-frame, a beefed up design that maintained the K-frame grip dimensions that was so popular. This is just my opinion but anytime I here the factory touting stronger frames or guns these days it makes me wonder who's talking --marketing or engineering ?

One thing nobody has touched on is that S&W's designs have always had one inherent weakness when handling high pressure cartridges and that is suspect cylinder/yoke lock-up. Back in the 80's at gunsmith school Ron Power ( one of the deans of S&W gunsmithing ) did a couple of hours on this subject and how fitting a yoke-ball-detent system gave the K, L and N frames a good strong three point lock-up. Ruger's DA designs have always had superior cylinder lock-up. Not being too familiar with S&W’s latest greatest guns I'd be surprised if they haven't integrated this feature in today's catalog.

I would go the 29/629 route as there is really no need to run them above current SAAMI specs at which they will go a long ways. I load my 44 Mag's to 1,100 fps with the 275 gr LFN. If I need more thump it is a diameter and revolver change to a Ruger Blackhawk/Bisley 45 Colt still running mild pressures at 1,100 fps throwing 260 - 300 gr cast slugs. Need more, the diameter grows to .475 (Linebaugh in my case) at the same velocity but throwing 370 gr cast HP to 400 gr WFN's. I will never own a Redhawk.

I own a 629 and am looking for a good deal on a 4" Redhawk. I am leery of shooting heavy loads through the Smith, that's why I'm looking for a Ruger. I love the Smith triggers, but have heard/read too many things about potential problems with heavy (300 gr and such) loads. I can shoot that 69 pretty well with some 240 gr range loads, so no issues there. I want to carry some full house heavy cast bear loads and don't want to worry about issues in the field.

I have never warmed up to Ruger double action revolvers triggers. Nothing necessarily wrong with them, just don't feel as good or normal to me as a S&W.

That being said, if I lived in Alaska, and was packing a revolver all the time, if I didn't mind the extra weight and wanted to shoot heavy loads, I would choose a Redhawk or Super Redhawk Alaskan.

It would be better if you had never shot a S&W though. I just like them that much better, but then I can't pack them in the outback anyways.

You really can't go wrong though. Both are great guns. Seeing you already own one, I would keep it and tell your friend to get his own if he wants one so bad.

When facing the same questions a year or two ago, I took 458Lott's advice and bought the Redhawk. No regrets here.

My reasons are exactly the same as you are sorting out.re: heavy loads Alaska style. Can't recall shooting anything but Buffalo Bore through the Redhawk yet.

I have a couple of 629s and one 329PD. The 329PD is a carry a lot, but shoot only a little with full power loads sort of revolver. It isn't a revolver that you take to the range and shoot 50 or more full power loads, 'cause it is light and the recoil is noticeable. OTOH, it is great when you shoot loads at the high end of the .44 Special world for most of your practice sessions and only shoot full power .44 Magnum loads to confirm your zero and when you're shooting for real.

I bought my 329PD from a guy who fired a few rounds of full power .44 Magnum ammo and decided that it was too much gun for him to handle. I like it, but don't carry it that often because I mostly carry a handgun to shoot snakes with and the Rossi 720 covers that job like a pro.