You guys that have these as well as S&W model 29/629s, how would you compare them in reliability and accuracy?

I have too many revolvers, including 3 model 629s and one 29. I’m thinking of selling one of them and maybe getting a Redhawk. There’s one at the LGS I have my eye on.

One thing I’ve noticed is that the price difference in Rugers and Smiths has gone away, at least in this store. Is that everywhere?

Comments appreciated.

I find I can handle heavier loads thru my redhawk than my 629, I don’t find any accuracy differences, the Ruger is bulletproof

I have owned several S&W 629s, and still have one. I have owned several Ruger RedHawks, and still have three. No discernible difference in accuracy between the two brands. I have had to work on the Redhawk triggers in order to get them close to the Smith triggers, but now are very good both in single or double action. Choose between the two……? I’ll take a Redhawk!

Thanks for the feedback. Is trigger work on the Redhawks easy or does it take a gunsmith?

Also, I see that Ruger’s website shows the 5.5” model with hardwood grips and the 4.2” barrel has Hogue rubber grips. Are the grips on all the Redhawks interchangeable?

I have a vintage 29 and a Red Hawk. Accuracy is about the same, Ruger is heavier and stronger. I like’em both.

DF

There are plenty of YouTube videos on smoothing Ruger revolvers.

I would avoid the 7.5" Redhawk, they shoot very well, but are so heavy and bulky that they are no fun to pack around. I didn't even find it fun to shoot, really, it was just big and awkward for me. The shorter guns (4.2 and 5.5" guns, seem like a better, handier choice.

You might feel differently, your money, your choice. I won't fool with the longer Redhawks again. I don't think a normal person could ever wear one out, and see no need for the Super Redhawk at all, but everyone isn't like me.

I couldn’t agree more, all my revolvers have 4” barrels or less except for a 5.5” Super Blackhawk and that’s my limit.

The Redhawks are indeed very heavily built. That said the very vast majority of the shooting public does not shoot enough heavy loads through their .44s (either Smith & Wesson, or Ruger) for it to matter. I have both, and both work fine. I don't really feel the need to do a trigger job on the Redhawks as while their DA and SA triggers on average may not be as nice as a typical Smith, they are certainly shootable. Plus the more you actually shoot them, the better they get.

It gets repeated ad nauseum about how N Frame .44s are weak and how strong the Redhawks are. A good bit of this is parroting by guys who don't even own examples, or shoot them very little. I have put literally thousands of rounds through N Frames, to include heavy for caliber 300-310-320 grain projectiles. While the N Frames are not quite as strong as the Redhawks, they are certainly not weak, by any stretch.

In favor of the Redhawk, if it is right from the factory, timed correctly, odds are it will last a lifetime, even with loads that are beyond what are recommended. Generally speaking, guys wrists, elbows and hands physically break down from years of pounding heavy loads through their guns, before the guns actually wear out.

I know that in my case, I don't shoot the heavy loads in the quantities like I did in my 20s and 30s. No real need and if I want to continue to shoot for years to come it is better to take care of my hands and wrists, rather than continue to trash them with high volumes of heavy recoil.

Back to the Redhawk, they are a little heavier to pack, but nothing a proper holster and belt won't fix. Great revolvers. If I had to choose just one .44 Mag, it would be a 5" N Frame Model 29 though. There is nothing it cannot take cleanly, and I have yet to completely wear one out in spite of years of shooting.

Older 29s made prior to the introduction of the Endurance package would go out of time or have other issues if fired extensively with heavy loads. My late brother had an original 629 and it began to skip over a chamber at times. He sent it to a smith for magnaporting, an action job, and a ball-detent in the crane. The Endurance package, according to what I’ve read, makes them able to handle a bunch of hot loads, probably more than the vast majority of shooters would ever fire. For carry, a 29 seems better to me, although a good chest or shoulder rig should make any of the three tolerable.

I’ve owned an early 29, a Redhawk, and a Super Redhawk, all fine guns. My dream gun would be a Super Redhawk with the frame cut back and fitted with a Redhawk barrel like Hamilton Bowen does, maybe in .45 Colt.

Just to through it in the mix, the Ruger Super Redhawk is actually lighter than the Redhawk, and from what I have seen they are extremely accurate revolvers, many with the right load to be capable of moa accuracy. I find with the Hogue grips they are very comfortable to shoot with the heaviest loads. I'd also suggest if you are a handloader, consider the Toklat. The 5" barrel is packable and balances well, and you can throttle it any way you want it and not worry about it shaking loose.

I had one of the early 80's 629's and I could not keep the side plates on tight. They would loosen up after just a few rounds. It went back to the factory and all they did put locktite on it. Someone wanted it more than I did at that point and down the road it went.

I had a Redhawk with the 7.5 inch barrel and sold it a few months ago. It could double as a framing hammer if need be . I like the Redhawk better and I kind of have some interest in an Anaconda that my not so local dealer has 6" primarily although he has an 8" model as well.

Or, maybe just one like that…..

In all but one of my revolvers I shoot hardcast loads. I have a 7.5" Redhawk that shoots well with hardcast, but for some reason it absolutely turns into another animal with 300 grain XTPs. It literally is the one and only revolver that I shoot jacketed bullets in.

This is 5 rounds at 100 yards with the red dot equipped 7.5" Redhawk shooting the 300 grain XTPs. I have had rifles do worse.




Bear in mind that I shot a few 2.5" and 3" groups at 100 yards too, but still the thing absolutely stacks 300 grain XTPs, so that is all it is fed.

I reload for sure, but what is a Toklat? I did search and all I found was an equistrian equipment company.

??

I have a 7 1/2” RedHawk and a few 629’s. Like Mackey Sagebrush, I have found that my RedHawk is a whole different animal with 300 grain XTP’s, shooting them better than anything else. Also. It was pretty comfortable to shoot with them. I have done some trigger work on it and it’s okay, but not in the same league with my 629 triggers.

Overall, I find my 629’s and other N frames to be nicer handling, more refined revolvers.

It's a river in Alaska known for big bears.

In the case of the Ruger, it's a 454 Casull Super Redhawk with a 5" barrel.

Something not often mentioned about the Redhawk is that there are not tons of aftermarket grips available. May not be a deal breaker for you if you can find something you like or you like the factory stocks.

As far as strength, as Mackey and other have mentioned it takes a lot of shooting to really wear out an N frame. But other than mainsprings getting light and giving light strikes, I don’t think I ever saw a Redhawk come across my workbench that was “broken”.

I also know two guys who bought both a 45Colt Redhawk and a 454 Super Redhawk. They then disassembled them and swapped the Super’s 454 cylinder into the regular Redhawk. They subsequently shot them for years with no issues. So I doubt you can harm one chambered for 44 Magnum with any halfway sane loads.

Also to add to the Redhawks strength is the notches in the cylinder are offset, so the cylinder is exceptionally strong. I know of folks who have loaded the 44 mag redhawks to well beyond Ruger levels. Not at all recommended, just to point out the immense strength of the gun. The cylinder is stronger, the cylinder lockup is stronger and the frame is stronger.

I’ve often wondered if the offset cylinder notches are the big deal Ruger used to make them out to be. There’s a lot more to the “strength” (however one might wish to define it) than the amount of material between point “A” and point “B”. There’s the matter of what alloy is used. Ruger uses a proprietary alloy developed to investment cast well. Also, the grain structure of parts machined from forgings or rolled bar stock will be substantially different than that of investment castings. There’s a reason Ruger revolvers tend to be big and heavy by design and I suspect much of it has to do with compensating for the metallurgy of their products. I have also wondered, for a long time, if their reputation for endurance isn’t largely a product of the fact that their greater weight tends to mitigate the effects of recoil somewhat. I’m not an engineer, I haven’t done the math. I started working in manufacturing in 1967 and, as a journeyman tool and die maker have been involved in untold numbers of projects involving product or tooling failure and the solutions of those failures.

Just food for thought.

They are beefier on purpose and use the latest greatest alloy.


https://www.carpentertechnology.com/blog/most-powerful-revolvers-get-lift-from-aerospace-alloys

I don't think Ruger used extra metal to compensate for their metallurgy, they just build their guns with a higher factor of safety. A redhawk cylinder will take loads that will blow an S&W cylinder apart.

The durability has nothing to do with less recoil, the added weight has minimal effects on recoil. It just comes down to the stress from firing a load and the amount of steel in the gun to withstand those loads.

I know it's popular to crap on investment casting, but if you understand the process and the alloys use, it does not produce an inferior product, on the contrary when done properly it can produce a superior product. It all comes down to the engineer understanding the process and alloys to design the part properly.

This isn't to say S&W's are bad or week, both guns are well designed and work well. But if you look at the history, the mdl 29 is really a beefed up 44 special while the Redhawk was purpose built as a 44 magnum.

If you like to shoot 1000's upon 1000's of full power rounds, IMHO the Ruger is the superior gun.

I liken the model 29 Smith and Wesson to a Corvette and the Redhawk to a dump truck.

This but in 44, since it’s a dream gun both 44 & 45
Ruger would have a bunch of these sold if they would make one

I've had 2 Ruger Redhawk's chambered to 454 Casull and have fired full power factory loads in them 454 Casull is SAAMI speed at 65,000 PSI.
The Redhawk is is a full frame revolver with no removable side plate which increases frame strength.

The Super Redhawk is made from stronger material and a Super Redhawk cylinder will easily swap into a Redhawk. The SRH has a better trigger system also.

I would agree, the Redhawks are fine, durable revolvers, but again, I think a lot of it comes from added weight and more massive parts and I think any added strength they have over S&W's has been way, way over stated over the years.

Consider the 454 casull's, 475 linebaughs and 500 linebaughs built on the redhawk by gunsmiths. I don't think a single 29 or 629 has been used for that conversion.

The added strength is not over stated. Maybe not needed if you shoot 240 gr loads, but a steady diet of 300's has been known to shake the Smiths loose.

Good to see you back here Paul.

You can’t go wrong with the Ruger.

I found that out after I bought my Redhawk. It will definitely be a SRH next go around.

Back when you could only get the SRH in 7 1/2 and 9 1/2 barrel lengths we were cutting the 454s and 480s to 5” and doing the slab side treatment to get rid of the billboards. Exactly where Ruger got the idea for the Toklat which was a VF Grace special order initially IIRC.

Anyway a good buddy got a smoker of a deal on a long barreled SRH in 44 Mag. Basically nobody wanted it because it had a long spout AND it was just a 44 so he got it for a song. He had me cut it at 5” and move the sight back and remount it. And he insisted that I draw file and polish the markings off the barrel because he didn’t want it slabbed. It was a pain but he was a good friend so I did what he wanted plus a clean up of the seat surfaces and a rebound spring swap.

It turned out to be a very nice rig with a very good trigger. But the most impressive thing was how it shot. My goodness it would shoot groups like a rifle with 300gr LFNs driven hard over 296.

I don’t know where it ended up after his passing but if I ever run into a deal on one I plan to duplicate it.

I've shot 65,000 PSI factory loaded 454 Casull in my Rehawk, try that in a S&W and then tell us the strength difference is overstated

I guess I’m going to derail my own thread, but here goes.

It seems there’s a pretty good consensus that Rugers are stronger than comparable models made by Smith and Wesson. A few years ago Smith introduced their model 69 in an L frame chambered for .44 mag. I have two of them. I don’t shoot Buffalo Bore type full full strength loads from them because I’m not sure they, or my wrists, would hold up very well. But I do really like them.

Now take Ruger’s GP100, which I also have in .357 mag. Over the years I have seen it described here on the campfire as being “made like a tank” literally dozens of times. So when Ruger came out with a five shot version of it in .44 caliber did they chamber it in .44 magnum? No, to my disappointment it is chambered in .44 special. It weighs within an ounce of a model 69. Why didn’t Ruger think it was strong enough to chamber in a .44 magnum? I would love a GP100 in .44 mag.

It's a mystery that they didn't chamber it in .454 Casull, given the the almost magical increase in tensile strength their miracle alloys have over forged machined steel.

My brother bought a Super Red Hawk in 44 Mag when they came out. The bore on that revolver was so over-size the bullets would tumble. You could drop a 44 bullet through the barrel. It shot 12” groups at 25 yard if you’re lucky. I had a FFL license back then and was looking for a decent silhouette revolver. I bought and sold 10 Super Black Hawks before I got one that shot accurately. It shot very well - 2” groups at 100 yards with GC cast.

I lost interest in Ruger revolvers. It was hit or miss in the Ruger’s until they made their own barrels. But by then I was fully a S&W shooter.

I’ve owned quite a few S&W revolvers. I like them all.

See for yourself

The high strength alloy is used on the 454&480 cylinders only.

That’s why my 480 Redhawk needed a SRH cylinder

Ruger just wanted a higher safety factor the regular Redhawk cylinder is strong enough as the many conversion have proven

Redhawk or Super Redhawk??

All Redhawk grips are interchangeable from one Redhawk to another.

Super Redhawk grips do not interchangeable with Redhawks

Correct.

Some posts are talking SRH. Just making sure we are talking RH and not SRH.

This is basically what pappy348 and I were eluding too.
The S.R.H and Gp100 have a grip frame that gives more grip choices and I believe a trigger that is easier cleanup. My desire would be to have a 44 Alaskan fit with a Redhawk barrel. I do not want scope ring notches nor the double barrel look of a Super Redhawk.
I have a Gp100 .357, Redhawk 5.5” 44 and the Redhawk 45lc/45acp. I prefer the Gp100 grip I just can’t justify having Bowen build me my dream gun at least not yet

Agree. Just stating for clarity
Been doing conversions for 30 years on and off.
Starting to do it again for retirement

Ii don't think I'd trade a S&W I liked for a Ruger unless you were planning to do a lot more, heavy load shooting than most will ever do. I have a redhawk that was my first .44. I can't say much bad about it. I've made some great shots I shouldn't have taken with it; mbut I just don't like how it feels / handles as much as some of others.

I think it all boils down to your anticipated use.

O.s. I too was puzzled that the ruger gp 100 was only in special while the Smith was magnumm.

I would really like to see your conversions. I wouldn’t mind my Redhawk 45LC/acp to have a 454 cylinder.
I have a Blackhawk 454 but that 4.2 round butt feels awesome in my hand. Although I have not had the time to shoot it yet.

Being a heavily Ruger leaning handgunner, proven by my safe, if I were in the market for a new .44 Magnum the S&W 29 Classic would be a very seriopus consideration.
Think Bill Rugers Grandson went to work for S&W and showed them how to build a revolver.

I like the various 5" and shorter 629's. A dash 5, 4" is possibly my personal favorite. But, I also like like a couple of the nominal 4" Redhawks. I have one each in 44 mag & 45 Colt. If I had to make a choice, I personally would choose my 4" ish Redhawk over my 629. Partial reason is, I actually like the looks and "feel" of the 4" Redhawk and I can fire any commercially produce factory ammunition in the Redhawk. The looks and feel are strictly a individual like or dislike.
I don't see much in price differences between the two.

They are interchangeable

It’s looking like the cost difference in Redhawks and Colt Anacondas is only about about two hundred dollars. Anyone shot one of the new Anacondas yet?

Oldelk: "They are beefier on purpose and use the latest greatest alloy."
If that is true why did Ruger change the 454 Casull Redhawk from a 6 shot cylinder to a 5 shot to counteract the sticky ejection problem?

Lott: "...the Ruger Super Redhawk is actually lighter than the Redhawk"
From the Ruger specifications on the Ruger website Redhawk 47 ounces. Super Redhawk 53 ounces.

They changed the 480s to five shot.

I got greedy and bought a new 8 inch Anaconda, I have an old one, a Colt Gunshop Custom. I also got a new 6 inch Python. I own 2 old style Pythons, a two and a half and a 6 inch Colt Gunshop Custom (since 1982.) I bought a King Cobra .22 ten shot revolver also.
The new Anaconda is heavy, stoutly built and the quality is very good. It doesn't match my 6 inch Royal Blue Python in good looks but fit and finish are excellent. I have fired about five hundred rounds of mostly 240 grain hardcast TC bullets at nearly 1350 fps through it. I have killed steel plates, rocks, gongs, a laptop computer and other inanimate objects. I have had some serious health problems that have precluded any hunting yet.

I owned a Redhawk for fifteen plus years. I believe this is anything the Redhawk was and better. It is a better shooter than my old Anaconda and is a better hunting partner than my snubby Super Red Hawk.

My criticisms of the new Anaconda include:
1. Single action from the factory had rough creep definitely not present in the Gunshop Anaconda. Pull was 6lbs 3 oz. Double action was a healthy 9lbs 12oz. A trip to Heffron Engineering (641)732 -0050 brought the DA to smooth 9lbs and the SA to 2lbs 13oz.
2. The rear sights are like a turd on an award winning Black Forest Cherry Cake. I would have gladly given Colt a couple hundred dollars more for the Wilson Combat Elliason sights that I bought to replace the worthless original equipment sights. I also installed a Wilson Combat Gold Bead front sight. I liked the Wilson combination well enough to put them on all three of my new snake guns.

When you pay $1500 for a top quality revolver you should not have send it out to have further work done.

In summary, excellent handguns worth the money certainly equal to or better than the Redhawk and probably the venerable S&W 29.(I never owned the S&W but have fired several.) Colt just really missed the target (backstop, even) on the sights.

I have discussed investment casting at length with my good friend who is an outstanding retired ME and said that investment casting has the same grain structure as forged. Did you read my post where I posted a link to Carpenter steel?

Yes I was talking about the SRH not the Redhawk. I believe the Redhawk uses 410 alloy steel.

They didn't. The 454 is still a 6 shot. Sticky extraction is because they did a poor job chambering the cylinders

The 480 factory ammo was slightly sticky in the six shots, but since I load my own and am content with 400 gr cast @ 1200 fps I've never had an issue with my 480. With a cast bullet with a length designed for the SRH cylinder you can push 400's 1350 fps without sticking, but recoil is past my comfort level.

I own a Super Redhawk and a 629. I prefer the looks of the 629 over the Ruger but the function of both are fantastic. I’m looking for a longer barreled 629 now to add a Leupold scope to that sitting in my safe. Here is a 50 yard group I shot with my Ruger with my hand loads.

jwp: Could you please explain how Ruger did "... a poor job chambering the cylinders"? Thanks. Not trying to be argumentative.

Lott: What brass were you using? I had the same issue with a 6 shot 480 Ruger cylinder with Hornady brass. Using the same load in Starline brass the cases drop from the cylinder by gravity alone.

When I looked, 7.5" 44mag: SRH = 53oz RH = 54oz

Hornady. It wasn't really a problem as I saw it, as it gave me a solid pressure indication that slightly sticky was equivalent to factory pressures and just back off a touch. I was content with 400 gr @ 1200 fps and 1" 50 yd groups.

I backordered 480 brass from Starline last year, but still no word on when they'll produce any.

I currently have a Red Hawk, in 41 Rem Mag, for handgun hunting. It has a 7-1/2" barrel and I had a very good smith do a complete action job on it. Very smooth, accurate, handgun that isn't difficult to use. Over the years, I've had quite a few different hunting handguns. T/C Contender Super 14" in 44 Rem Mag, a 28, 29's, 629's, 57's, 657's, SRH's and RH's. Accuracy, for me, has been about the same for all of them, acceptable hunting accuracy with me being the weakest link. Reliability? Have honestly never had an issue with any of them. I was particularly attached to a SRH, in 44 Rem Mag, with a 9-1/2" barrel and used it a lot. Still have the 4" 28, that thing makes me look good! Lol! No matter what I put in it, it shoots right where I point it, from 125's to 180's! The RH 41 Rem Mag and the 28 357 Mag are what I still have and use and don't think you can go wrong with any of them.

We have a Redhawk in 41 mag and a SRH in 10mm. Both are great shooting guns that I don't see me ever selling. These are example targets shot at 25 yards.

Have an older stainless 5.5" Redhawk in .45 Colt. Loaded it up with 300g at 1600fps, cases dropped right out - no sticking.

Strong gun, strong recoil with stiff loads. Maintains timing and easy to do basic smithing.

250g lead with 9g Unique is a nice load.I have an Alaskan chest holster-easy to draw, doesn't make you walk with a lean.

Have 5" Redhawlks in .357, .41, and .44. 4" in .45LC. Havea 629 Mountain Gun .44, 57 .41 Mag, 25 .45LC. My 2 favorites of the bunch are the Redhawk .41 and the Model 25 .45LC. All of the shooter better than me. The .357 Redhawk is a perfect "first magnum" for new shooters to play with as the weight makes it a cupcake even with full house loads. All have taken Pa and or NY Whitetails.

Given the same barrel length or a little bit shorter (6inch S&W vs. 5.5inch Ruger) would the Ruger fit into the same holster made for a S&W M29/629?

It depends on how form fitting the holster is, and how much give there is in the material. If it is some softer material then some will. I know that I have holsters for 4" Redhawks and 4" Model 29s from Milt Sparks, where the leather is very hard, and the Redhawk will not fit in the Model 29 holster. However the Model 29 will fit in the Redhawk. So it just depends.

Thank you, Mackay. I have a 1930 Austin from the EPS company made for S&W N-frame. I wonder if it would fit a Ruger Redhawk