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

They had problems because of the loads, both factory and handloads, and the popularity of handgun silhouette. Couple that with a basic design platform from the turn of the century and it isn't hard to figure out that issues arose over time.

Factory loads and the pressure limits changed for the .357 and .44 magnums as well as handloading manual data and folks aren't usually running 300plus grain bullets loaded to the gills in a season of silhouette matches like they used to. Endurance Package or not, the gun was not designed around the 44 Magnum, just altered (and it works great if one keeps that in mind). The Endurance Package is just another alteration.

Mike Venturino has had several write ups around 38-44 and 44 Special revolvers (23/24) using loads above the std. cartridge specs. Mike also uses Ransom Rests....

Needless to say, he had the cylinders unlatch because of the loads, the basic design and the effects of physics on that design.


I don't agree with the idea a Smith isn't a great hunting revolver. I'd much rather hunt with one than a Ruger Redhawk and by no means does one need a 1,300 fps. load with a 300 grain bullet to keel over deer sized stuff, so I don't load them that way. One certainly can, but the volume of practice using such loads would be unduly hard on a basic Smith. If one needed a gun with such loads on a routine basis, the Ruger would be the way to go.

For a good cross between the Smith and the Ruger, I hunt with Anacondas anymore.

The endurance package didn’t address the design or added material where needed. Heat treating doesn’t increase strength , it hardens or softens depending on which way you take it.

The M-29 holds up better today because factory loads with 240 grain bullets chrono betweem 1180 to 1240 not 1400 to 1500 like the early 44 mag loads.

Their are a number of smaller companies that load above the present SAAMI level load# and their 240 grain loads do an honest 1400 FPA or a bi5 above. These are the loads that take a toll on the M-29 over time. Hot 300 grain and heavier have high recoil take a tool on M-29 lock work.

Exactly!

I don't know the Whitworth dude.....but I've been a member here for over 15 years.... I think he has some experience with handguns and hunting.

Several posters on this thread are not folks that I would question about their knowledge of handguns. Whitworth1 and jwp475 are two such persons, along with 458Lott, especially when it comes to shooting and durability of big bore revolvers. Another reference as to the durability of the two handguns in question would be Hamilton Bowen, a highly respected gunsmith and shooter who states in his book, “The Custom Revolver” that the Smith, even though a graceful and well made revolver, will NOT hold up to the use of full power heavy bullet loads as will the Ruger Redhawk.

Having said the above, I like a nice 629-3 or -4 (endurance pkg guns) but relegate them to shooting 44 Special +P type handloads or lighter in magnum brass.

Hawk these are some interesting opinions and comments regarding S&W revolvers vs Ruger's revolver designs . You obviously know something so ill just go through your list and throw out some replies. It's not about agreeing or disagreeing but getting real info out there.


The S&W frames especially the K and some older N’s will always lack the inherent stiffness found in the solid frame RedHawks and predecessor Service, Security Sixes. The simple answer is the removable side plate, but there is more to it. You have to remember this side plate design goes back over 100 years to the ‘ Hand Ejectors ‘ designs and it has worked fine with sub 35K psi/357 Mag full power cartridges in the smaller K-frames and N’s. Consider Bill Ruger didn't even bring out the Redhawk till early 80’s as I recall so he had a lot of years to work on the design and see where the bumps in the road were. He also saw marketing options for big bore handgun hunting that everybody else was late to. S&W I believe was a victim of their own success and like so many long standing inbred companies was reluctant to change or experiment. Bill Ruger on the other hand took notes and saw all to well the labor problems Colt & S&W were having and how the assembly process requiring so many hand fitted parts was only going to create bigger problems down the road with cost and quality. So Bill started Pinetree Castings and commenced quality investment casting of parts for all sorts of industries but originally for his handguns. With such parts he could close the gun frame up and reduce the hand fitting stages that others had to deal with. This was a manufacturing process move as much as a design move.

When you hear shooters claim they shot a S&W loose what they are generally saying is that the cylinder has excessive movement forwards and back the result of yoke/crane lengthening and often some lockup play at the cylinder stop engagement. Some of this is the result of the frame opening distortion from high pressure rounds and the cylinder lacking a good strong two/three point lock up. S&W Back in the early 1900’s designed the ‘Triple Lock ‘ revolvers that had a strong three point cylinder lock-up design but back then the cartridges didn't need such strength so the factory dropped it and sixty to seventy plus years later must have forgotten about it. Well gunsmiths like Ron Power didn't and he and others would fit up ball detent locking arrangements that immediately took care of the cylinder movement problem on hot loaded or comp guns. Ruger's always had a superior cylinder lock up design so another plus for Bill.

When a cylinder is allowed to move during the lockup phase due to lack of mechanical advantage or as a bi-product of frame movement the cylinder stops ( latch Ruger )
will wear laterally resulting in cylinder wiggle or lockup play. S&W Offers oversized cylinder stops that can be fitted for those guns that have excessive play. Ruger on the other hand has tweaked the shape of his cylinder latches and plunger design among most of his DA revolvers but retained the basic design which is deeper and more secure. The S&W cylinder stop involves four different fitting surfaces and uses a wider shallower cylinder notch geometry. This lends itself to a good mechanic who can set up and time a revolver for speed and crisp positive DA trigger staging for those who use it for action comp events. Basically any failures or sloppiness with S&W ‘s cylinder lockup are most likely the result of some high pressure frame distortion and inadequate cylinder support that over thousands of rounds results in a gradual accumulation of tolerances.

The occasional problem of loose backing out extractor rods on earlier S&W’s was a problem especially for people who liked to pull he extractor star and clean under and around the cylinder ratchets. These rods had both LH and RH threads ranging through the 5,4 & 3 screw models. As a rule 4 & 5 screw guns are RH but 3 screw can in some cases be either. The . universal rule is all stainless rods or 6-series are left hand. Unless you know the different shapes and design of the extractor rod head it's tough to know which is which. So trying to unscrew one going the wrong way can stretch those fine delicate threads and Loctite just aggravates the problem when you need to strip down a cylinder next time. Proper torque on extractor rods is important and should never exceed 50 inch pounds. Again better front a rear cylinder lockup would tend to fix this. I've got four Model 14/K38’s and two are LH two are RH so I'm aware of what a PITA this is.

You mentioned the Smith utilizing a “Pope” rifling design prior to the newer barrels. Perhaps you know something about Harry Pope and his rifling philosophy that I don't. Like almost all of Pope’s target barrels were 8 groove left hand gain twist. He cut Narrow lands with very wide shallow 003-004” grooves that had a hollow or radiused bottom. All of my S&W barrels ( I don't own anything newer than maybe 1990 ) are right hand, no gain, five groove of equal width land and groove. Now Ruger’s as I recall are narrow land wide groove right hand fives. Colts were always left hand six groove with narrow lands wide grooves. The narrow land design and deeper groove have generally been considered better for most cast lead bullets. As I recall Ron Power once told me the early 1950 and early 1955/25 S&W’s were barreled and chambered for comp use with lead bullets only and don't handle jacketed bullets worth spit

Apparently you never heard about any of Ruger's cylinder throat-chamber problems over the years. I suggest looking at the cylinder throat reaming thread on this forum. As for S&W barrels being inaccurate or out of spec I have no idea where this comes from. I've machine or Ransom rested a whole lot of stock barrels from 32 to 45 and can't confirm this rumor at all. Again that is not to say a defective product never gets shipped but I can tell you a whole lot if very good Bullseye shooters at regionals and Camp Perry thought their factory barrels were accurate. Actually whenever a customer came to me wanting a Clark, Shilen or custom barrel it was usually because he wanted a scope or adjustable front/rear site options, different weight or contour or twist. Colts barrels always outperformed S&W’s or Ruger's with lead bullets every time and I believe it was their rifling and slower twist. Plus the left hand twist torques the gun into the grip of a right hand shooter. No offense here but there have always been more accuracy minded competitors shooting S&W’s or Colts than Ruger's. Hunters usually don't demand that nit picking accuracy that Bullseye shooters do.

I'm curious why you claim velocity is lower in the S&W guns and why do you think this is. I've never heard this before in all the years I've been competing or working on these guns.

Sorry for the length of this but I can't say it in a couple of lines.

How many bullseye competitors use 29's and 629's with full power 44 magnum loads???

Smiths might be the be all end all using powder puff target loads, but that's comparing cream puffs to steaks.

Woodpecker,

I agree. It's about getting the real info out there.

We agree on the age of design; the basis for the Smith is over 100 years old while the Redhawk is younger than probably both of us. I posted Mike Venturino's use or 23/24 (or pre) and his cylinder "unlatchings" with 38 and 44 Special loads. Maybe they were above 35,000psi, but I don't believe so. It's my belief if he fired his Magnum chambered Smiths in his Ransom with heavy bullets, he would see the same thing.

I don't agree all Smiths are shot loose from stretching or excessive loads; I've had cylinders unlatch and rotate on the fired round under recoil in my own 29-2. It wasn't subjected to even factory pressure loads, ever. It was subjected to a mid-magnum load of 280 gr. bullets @ 1,000-1,100 fps.. Simple physics did it. It rotated back under the fired round twice and that was enough for me. I've since reduced the bullet weight and have never seen it happen since.
I do agree an improved cylinder locking system (which they have addressed), was needed and an improvement. It wasn't part of the Endurance Package. My point is that if the cylinder latch moves, which it can,it's a weakness in the Smith. There is no doubt some red line loads did make more than one fly apart due to fatigue; no disagreement there.

The extractor rods backed out; just again simple physics. 17, 18 and 14/15's do it. Again, a simple fix and Smith addressed it.

I referred to the old 5 wide land smith rifling as "Pope". It is my understanding the mass production barrel making equipment for Smith was designed and initially set up by Harry Pope; its obviously not "Pope rifling", as in single shot BP fame, but Pope was employed in setting up the equipment that was used for almost a hundred years. This is my understanding, and I would certainly like to know for sure. IIRC, I got my info on his involvement from an article or some obscure line form Elmer Keith.

Rugers are six groove.

The 1950/55's, to my knowledge, were six groove as are/were 25-2's, specifically for jacketed ammo, at least in 45 ACP. If they didn't work for jacketed, I would point the finger to throat diameters for not shooting well. Anyone with a 25-2 or 1917 (Colt or Smith) can verify this.

I do agree narrow land and anything that reduces deformation of the lead bullet has a tendency to increase accuracy. Twist plays into this.

Ruger throat issues, to my knowledge, exist commonly in 45 caliber, not the 44 Redhawk, which was the thread subject. Every Blackhawk, Bisley, Redhawk and Super Redhawk .44 I've come across has much less variance than the Smiths I've slugged. I shoot cast only in my wheelguns, so I have a tendency to want to know what I need to do to make them work.

I've never seen a Smith barrel out of spec; I think you are misunderstanding me. They changed the rifling system, and that should be taken into consideration. Brian Pearce has stated they do not do as well as the old 5 land rifling with cast bullets. I don't have any EDM rifling guns and can't verify this.

"Why Ballistics Get Gray" in the #13 Speer (and earlier versions) along with David Bradshaw's write up in Nosler #4 point to Ruger revolvers as having faster velocities per given load. Just something to research.

I think accuracy minded competitors is subject to era and discipline; Dan Wesson ruled silhouette and Rugers also were favored by top shooters.

Bullseye competition basically started with Smith and Colt 38's.

I also agree with Hawk.

I also believe that if you do need or want more power than the standard .44 mag loads of today provide it is better then to step up to a more powerful cartridge like the .480 or .454.

I will always prefer the Smith in .44 mag.

I used to have a stainless Redhawk in 45 Colt, 5.5” barrel. Nice gun, but HEAVY to carry on the belt. It also just handled like it was “massive” ( not svelte). I sold it. A few years later I came across a used S&W 629-3 classic 44 mag ( full lug barrel, no cylinder flutes). Not light, but not as much as an anchor as the Redhawk. Still have it, and really enjoy shooting it ( 240-265 grin bullets, mostly cast, to 1100 ++ FPS ( subsonic, not redline max loads).

Be careful about what you read about “ durability superiority benefits” of a Redhawk over a S&W 629. RedHawks are indeed durable, but compare them to the “ correct” S&W 629 version.

S&W 629 went through several engineering upgrades, designated by their “ dash numbers”. The earlier S&W 629 versions ( 629, 629-1, and 629-2) had some issues with the cylinder bolt jumping out of the cylinder slot with heavy loads. S&W addressed this with their “ Enduro enhancement package” which included improved metallurgy to the crane, and deeper/ longer cylinder slots, and a different hand design (?). This was done at the end of the 629-2 run, and those “ enduro package” revolvers are stamped 629-2E ( E for Enduro). The Enduro package was standard on all 629-3 and 629-4 versions. These two are considered the best of the 629 series. The subsequent 629-5 had mim parts, the 629-6 had the locking hole ( I think) on the side plate ( may also have gone away from the hammer mounted firing pin, to the framed mounted firing pin), and with MIM parts.

If you are comparing a RedHawk to a S&W 629-3 or 629-4, it would be interesting to read a well-designed a side-by-side endurance testy see how they compare.

So, before you made a trade, make sure you look for “ dash numbers” on the S&W 629 ( open the cylinder, and it will be stamped on the frame, under the serial number). If it is a 629-3 or -4, that’s the one you want for a 629 - IF you want one. It sounds like your 4” Redhawk 44 mag is meeting your needs, so why swap? At least learn about your buddy’s 629 ( dash number version). Get together with your buddy and have a plinking session and shoot each others’ guns. That’s what friends do. You both learn and get to “test drive” other guns for free. Can’t beat that for an enjoyable couple of hours together.

Good luck. My view is that since your 4 “ Redhawk works for you, then just keep on keeping it.

I think you missed the point. The idea is to NOT wear them out. To have issues with the Smith doesn't mean you are going to blow it up, but they will no longer function. Once it happens (as it did with me) you move on to a heavier gun that will function for your use.

+1

I've never had anyone try to talk me into a deal where they thought they would come out of it on the short end.

I don't need to worry about big bears but these two guys pretty well summed up my thoughts on the matter and the reasons why I have 1 Remington revolver and 5 Rugers.

Remingtons might have smoother triggers straight from the factory, but the Rugers tune up nicely and they are built to outlast the bunny. And my grandkids.

I love the look & feel of my S&W revolvers & they shoot as good as they look but I don't lean on them, even the ones with the endurance package. The over built Rugers, plus the design difference makes them the choice when the going gets tough, just makes sense, they just keep on working even with maximum loads day after day.
Really not much to argue about, especially with heavy weight bullets. Mine are always heavy & always cast. Nothing over 250 grs or 1250 fps goes in my S&W six guns, ever. That's a good starting point for a Redhawk.

Dick

What Remington revolver is it that you have? And I agree with you on Rugers. Redhawks have served me well for over 35 years.

If you ever shoot a Smith enough to wear it out, lucky you. I'm sure you got your money's worth. Now go get another one. Personally every Ruger I have ever owned has left me wanting.

Lots of folks have headed off on tangents espousing their macho fantasies with big hairy he-man Rugers. But now that they're spent, I'd like to makebthe point that the 329pd is the best 44mag revolver to actually carry. It weighs less than the glock 20.
Thing is that Ruger owners dont like to confess that they "carry" from the safe to the truck, and back again. The 329pd was optimized for carry.
So I actually carry the 329pd. On my belt, on my hunting pack, on my backpack.

Never had a problem packing the Ruger 480 for the dozen plus years I've owned it.



About 11 miles between the trail heads.



Little bit of elevation gain to the top of the peak in the center of the pic.



Another hill around down the road from our house.

Believe it or not, there are folks that manage to log 100's of miles on foot with their Rugers, and fire 1000's of rounds down range.

No need to disparage others that can't handle the weight of a real gun or don't shoot it enough to consider durability or shootability. It is what it is.

Yea, and I used to hump 80lbs on my back too - doesn't mean I liked it. I got older and smarter - that's who the 329pd is for.

What 'some' blowhards fail to mention is that they can't shoot a cylinderful without crying about it.

According to those that stake their professions (and lives while testing) on it, at some point, there is a difference between the strength of the revolvers. All can shoot the traditional loads all day and forever, so that is great if traditional 44 mag stuff is what the shooter wants. But if someone were inclined to get the most bang out of what each could tolerate, the makers of Buffalo Bore and Garrett's Cartridges have important warnings. BB has the 340gr load only for the Rugers, 305gr load only for all steel revolvers (not scandium or alluminum), and GC has similar classes of +P ammo. This is not a knock on the standard 44 revolvers, it's just that these folks have carefully pushed their ammo up for the overdesigned few. In the end, there's just a greyed area between 44mag, 45 Colt, and the 454. This makes sense, as those chamberings in the Ruger platforms are almost the same anyways. There's just no way to cheat reality. Heavier 44's do afford some more top end performance. But then again, if that was the goal, why not just move up to the 45's or 480 with a little more steel bored out. This is all an academic argument though. To come back to reality, weight saving is hugely important and probably more influential in a system's success than a nominal increase in power. That's why I personally love my scandium 340 J frame.