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.

I've had multiple 29's, 629's and Redhawks. My current is a Mountain Gun and a Ruger Blackhawk, as far as 44 Mag's go. Given your situation, I'd stay with the Redhawk. I've never owned a 329, though I've tried to trade into several. IMO the 329 is a trick gun that won't last. I think most of those who really have a use for a 329 would do better to get a model 69...and I am not a huge fan of that model either. Overall I think you should just stay with what you've got, especially given your loads.

I own both 629 smith`s and ruger red hawks . I like the feel and accuracy of the smith 629,ruger`s might be better built ? not sure ? I do think ruger`s recoil a little more my 454 casull in a Alaskan is terrible with recoil.

Guys, I think I'm keeping the red hawk, I just like it too much, I may buy a 629 down the road but I just think if I ditched my red hawk, I'd need to replace it down the road. The weight isn't a big deal as I'm 6'4 215lbs and if I really want lighter weight, I have other guns.

I appreciate all the advice.

I think that's a good decision.

Might be nice to have a 4" of either, but am saddled with a 629 6.5" w/ Herrett grips and a SRH 7.5". For home they're both loaded with lighter 200gr, hopefully "won't-go-through-the-walls-rounds". Likely...they would.

In the field, 300, 305 or 310gr WFN GC cast in the 1150-1250 fps range for the 629 and 310 and 320gr WFN GC cast in the 1200-1350fps range for the SRH. The Ruger can handle the 1425 fps Buffalo Bore, but it can spank the hand holding the grip. Takes a bit longer to be back on target with more powerful rounds for hopefully, a follow-up shot if first is a miss.

I’m a big fan of Redhawks!

The 329 was the correct answer. If you are really worried about armored grizzlies then you should step up to a 454,480, etc. so that carrying all that heavy steel is meaningful.

All bears are armored, but prefer one of my 45-70s with 405 or 420 gr cast or 12ga with 660gr slugs for bear "defense". .44 is a sidearm.

What do you mean by this? Thanks.

If you can find some old school 210 grain 44 Mag Silvertips, I tested those against 45/230 Hydra Shock on water-filled jugs a few years ago. Guns were a 4" Model 29 and 5" Auto Ord 1911. Penetration was a dead heat, though the Silvertip had better waterpark theatrics. I had pics and lost them to a computer crash. The Speer 200 grain Gold Dot 44 Special is a nice mild-mannered defense load, too.

But you are correct. Any load that is suitable for defense will punch through a couple of sheets of drywall.

458 Lott {Smiths are for collecting, Rugers are for shooting}

Short and sweet but sums it up. I've had several of each. I like the looks of Smiths and the feel of them, but I don't trust them to hold up with heavy loads. Only had one that didn't and had to have a sear replaced, but I take my bones personally and I know the Redhawk is going to hold up regardless. I trust them. Still like to have a 629-4 but I carry Redhawks for serious business.

The "weight" difference just isn't enough to make it an issue. Use a good holster and you are good to go. I use a Diamond D Custom Leather guide holster. I don't like a holster pulling on my pants.

If the guy thought he had the better guns, he wouldn't be trying to trade you out of your Redhawk.

Spot on.

Well first off I've only got forty some posts here so my words and experience don't mean much. In fact I'm diluted to about 2% credibility up against 458Lott with 20K plus. I don't even know the secret handshake and I don't spend most of my time here so I'm pretty much wondering why I'm even jumping in on this thread except it's adrift.

But there really isn't much credence to much of the swipes at S&W strength. Before I run for cover let me say first off that I can't imagine or understand how a Smith & Wesson sear could have been damaged or even associated with a heavy load failure ? Fact is 458Lott if your gunsmith told you the sear was damaged from this then I'd go hunting for one that knows where and what a S&W sear does. The sear on these actions is much different than what most folks know as a trigger linkage sear. On the S&W DA the sear does nothing more than move the hammer. The foot of the sear picks up the trigger at the upper bevel then as it rotates the sear it slips by into the trigger cam where it resides until it lets the hammer drop and ignition. By the time the hammer nose or firing pin ( depending on age ) makes primer contact the sear is out of the picture.

So I pretty much agree that Ruger offers a level of strength redundancy but at a cost of performance. Those who compete at the highest levels of DA revolver competition might know something and just perhaps know what works for speed and accuracy. Not saying that heavy bears loads is something that I'd buy a Model 29 for but Keith and many others made em work. And those who have nightmares of repeated close bear encounters or derailed circus trains and loose tigers and lions out back should probably consider other options. The point is that those who read this stuff actually start to believe after a while that an N frame Smith will come apart is just pure internet fantasy. That's all folks

My 29-2 started shooting loose after the first 500, 300 grain loads. About halfway through the second 500 the hammer stud sheared off, inside the frame. The magicians at S&W drilled it out and press-fitted a stainless stud in the port and finished it so nicely you had to look hard to see it against the nickel finish. They also rebuilt the revolver while it was there and tightened it up. By the end of the second 500 rounds of 300 grain loads, the rear sight couldn't be trusted to hold zero.

Don't get me wrong; I love Elmer guns. To me ultimate evolution of the S&W 44's was the pre-lock Mountain Gun. Light, quick in the hand and still capable of full 44 loads when the need arises.

The OP sounded like he was more interested in carrying it than shooting it. If that is true the added reliability of the Ruger it moot.

Exactly.
Too many one tooth Billy Bobs trying to turn the 44mag into a 454 cause theyre too retarded to buy the right revolver in the first place.

I think that is wise. You like the RH, so why get rid of it.

I had a 629-6 that started getting loose really fast shooting the 300gr XTP at 1200 fps. Maybe I pushed it too hard, but I'd go Ruger next time, or reduce the load to 1000 fps. Yeah, I know, sample of one

Please tell us all you know about big bears.

Also, still waiting to read more about this.

Well, not quite. 300 grain 44 magnum loads we're just another case of pushing the envelope, which is how we got the 44 Magnum in the first place. And I think the fact that the number of ammo makers now offer 300 grain Factory 44 Magnum loads shows there was merit to the concept. We just had to figure out which guns would a steady diet of them and which would not.

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.

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.

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.