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

I think the desire to save weight ignores the fact at some point you actually need to shoot the gun and it needs to have enough power to do the job in less than a text book perfect scenario. And if a 240 gr 44 load is up to the task, why not a 180 gr .357?

Then again it will always be open to argument because it's unlikely any of us will have a DLP shooting and be able to assess if we had enough gun, or if we practiced enough with it to be proficient. And that's a good thing.

The OP already has a holster, so it’s not an issue for him, but holster options should be a consideration. I went with a 4” Ruger about 10 years ago and there were a lot more holster options for the Smiths.

The old Smiths don't have the "endurance package".
Trigger pivot break proly gonna happen if you shoot 300 grainers max'd.
So shot 240's or lighter, and if it shouldn't break.
Even if it does, Smith will fix it.
Did my 629-1 4"

Think all Classics got the endurance package.
Get a 5 1/2" one of those, pre lawyer lock and have fun.

I shot a 329 PD with 255 gr medium hots (wood grips too).
It wasn't bad, did whip a bunch though.
Backpacking............I'd think that to be the ticket.

I have owned and shot both guns but in hunting guise. One 8 3/8" S&W and 9 1/2" SRH. I would always go with Ruger. But if I could find a 325 in 45 LC It would snatch it up for carry, not for hunting. Something that must be admitted the lightweight Smith would be good for weight and bad for hot loads. But shooting in anger or hunting you probably won't feel the shot.