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

Guessing my perception of them being all teeth and claws and a tiny target for their large size.

Alaska, being an extension of the North Cascades...heard they're a little bit more "attitudinal", up yonder.

Thanks for the reply.

To each their own but I would rather pay for, carry/use and possibly wear out two 629's than one redhawk.

The Smith is superior in every way except durability. The durability of the Redhawk is something I doubt that 99 percent of their owners would ever put to test. Same can be said of the 629.

I have both. I just feed the 629 a little lighter range of rounds consistently. It can handle heavier loads if necessary. A few grains of less bullet and less powder and I feel flame cutting of the top strap or timing, etc. won't be an issue.

I own both and I love the Redhawks, for heavy loads over any N-frame S&W.

I guess that depends on what you do with your .44s. If punching paper is the extent of your activity, there is no reason to load heavy, but if you hunt, it doesn't take a whole lot to beat up a 29/629.

Heavy kicking loads are more abusive to the hand in a S&W. The Redhawk handles heavy recoil better.

Does Herrett's make grips for the Redhawk?

John-
I put Hogue's on mine. I like them pretty well.

I like the Pachmayer Grippers on mine. They are a nice size.

I'd kinda sorta like to have a .44 revolver for deer hunting. And I'm pretty sure a Smith would easily handle what I do. Would be OK with the redhawk too, if I could easily find grips i like.
It's down sorta low on my list of priorities, but am keeping my eyes open for that "can't pass" deal.

And you are correct. The S&W 44's are excellent hunting revolvers. I killed a half dozen deer with my 4" 29 using 240-250 grain reloads scooting SWC or JHP bullets around 1250 fps. I had good performance with the Sierra 240 JHC but if starting over today, I'd probably use 240 grain XTPs and call it good.

Herret's DO make grips for Redhawks. Am liking the stock grips, so far.

Didn't like the S&W grips for the 629, ordered Troopers with checkering. If you have large hands, ask them to make them a 16th or so longer. Spent a little time to get a seamless fit. Love them!

Took about 8 weeks from time of order though, but well worth it.

I disagree. Are you basing your opinion on personal experience? How many Smith .44 mags have you wore out and what revision were they, early versions or later with the full endurance package?

Well I guess it depends on which redhawk and which 29/629 you are comparing against each other. The Redhawk weighs more and is physically larger. Grip selection makes a big difference with the Smith.

I disagree on the "superior in every way" on more than just durability. It truly is superior in some ways, its not in others.

Smiths will often produce lower velocities than Rugers, and that is not opinion. They also vary in throat diameter to a larger degree, again, not a matter of opinion. I've measured Smiths from .427-.434 in throat diameter depending on vintage in 44 Mag. If using cast bullets, this can be an issue, especially if one owns more than one gun and even more so if they are from different eras of production.
Rugers are generally found at .430-.432 with every one in 44 Special or 44 Mag I've come across have been right around .431- .4315 for 6 guns measured.
Going to barrel diameters and finish, again, depending on era, a Smith will show greater variance and also a total change to the rifling system from the five land Pope to the new 6 groove EDM, which is something to be aware of.

Whitworth mentioned wear; Smith spring systems, especially the cylinder locking/latch mechanisms, all move rearward/horizontal to the hand along the same plane as recoil inertia. Ruger cylinder lockup springs are 90 degrees from the movement of recoil enertia, set upward and to the left. Smiths ejector rods can unthread with earlier vintages, which can be a nuisance.

One only has to look at the trigger return spring pin to note how it peens on the stud in what can be very few heavy bullet, heavy loads. The newer Smiths are less prone to this.


Smiths pack better and are a bit more flexible in DA mode, since they use two springs and the locktime is quicker, but a Ruger can be slicked up just fine with a lighter spring. They also weigh less.
Depending on era, the finish and metalwork is obviously better. Aesthetically, they look nicer.

Grips selection makes a big difference with any heavy recoiling revolver. The Ruger is Less abussive to hand with heavy recoiling loads.

Glad you posted that Hawk. I mentioned in an earlier post that my old 29's hammer stud broke. In retrospect (and checking an old email) it was the trigger stud that broke. Earlier post corrected.

Hawk you've brought up some good stuff, some I don't agree with but I'm leveling and setting up a tenoner and saw today so how about saving my place for later

Regards

I am only defending the full endurance package Smith .44 mags made from 1990 to the present. I agree that the older pre endurance package Smith .44 mags had a lot of problems and early wear with full power loads.