Author Topic: 629 VS Redhawk (Read 4479 times)

whetrock · « **on:** July 20, 2012, 07:47:47 AM »

I've been in the market lately for a DA 44 magnum of some sort and have narrowed my choices down to either a S&W 629 or a Ruger Redhawk. The primary purpose for this handgun would be as a hunting and possibly woods bumming arm. I reload but am not into the crazy hot loads and am not sure if I would benefit from the larger more robust Redhawk but rather the smaller more agile 629. I've got a Blackhawk and super blackhawk and am kinda partial to Ruger SA wheel guns but have always kinda liked S&W DA revolvers.

Mike in Virginia · « **Reply #1 on:** July 20, 2012, 08:47:05 AM »

Although Ruger's are stronger, I never heard of anyone wearing out a 29 or 629. One experience: I was with a friend who carried a 6" 29 in a shoulder holster. We had stopped shooting and decided to catch some lizards out of the creek for an upcoming fishing trip. He bent over, the 29 dropped into the creek. Must have hit a rock, because it never shot right again--shaving led and bad accuracy like it had been knocked out of time. I'm no expert, but I expect a Redhawk could take a lot more abuse than a Smith. Smiths are prettier though.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #2 on:** July 20, 2012, 09:25:32 AM »

I have owned both . If you check the specs. they weigh with in a couple oz of each other for like set up. The S&W is a fine gun of a design that is a 100 years old . The Ruger is a bit newer . The S&W comes out the box with a nice trigger and cost more. The Ruger can have a nice triger mine cost $40.00 for a trigger job. Grips can be changed so its not an issue. I had a S&W custom DX and shot loads that were for my Ruger which will take much more pressure as noted in several reloading manuals. My DX never shot as well after that YES I KNOW IT WAS MY FAULT . I dropped a Redhawk and broke the rear sight blade , replaced it and it shot the same (good). I now only have the Redhawk I like to be able to shoot more powerful loads . I also like the tapered bbl profile of the Ruger. They fit the same holster .
Now if you reload check out the Redhawk in 45 COLT

Bugflipper · « **Reply #3 on:** July 20, 2012, 09:43:09 AM »

I am not a Smith fan in the least so my opinion would be very biased. Speaking of biased her is a Chuck Hawks article on Smith. http://www.chuckhawks.com/smith-wesson_dark.htm

whetrock · « **Reply #4 on:** July 20, 2012, 10:44:38 AM »

LOL at that article. Can't say I disagree . I like smiths but there is a lot of brand loyalty that goes with the brand, but still IMO they make a grand product. The same can be said with Ruger. I've heard that the chambers on the Redhawks allows them to chamber heavier bullets so that may be a plus. The 629 will however be a bit finer around the edges. I've done a bit of research and still can't find an answer as to which is the better pistol. I guess it's kind of a Ford VS Chevy debate. I personally like the look of the red hawk better seeing as it looks like the old Security/Speed/Service Six revolvers.

Lloyd Smale · « **Reply #5 on:** July 20, 2012, 10:56:25 PM »

Unless you have a desire to shoot heavy bullet heavy loads id personaly prefer the smith. Ive had a number of both and still have one redhawk and a number of N frames. Its like comparing a porche to a mack truck. the redhawk is definately stronger but the N frames are ample strong for factory level loads and the fit and finsish is much better and ive over the years struggled with many redhawks getting them to shoot but all of my n frame 44 mags have shot like a house afire. Now step up to a super redhawk and your odds of getting an accurate gun are good. Problem with them though is you about need a wheelbarrow to haul them around and in my opinion, for what thats worth, there a bit ugly.

Mikey · « **Reply #6 on:** July 21, 2012, 12:27:08 AM »

I have owned both the M29 and the Super Blackhawk, and have used a Redhawk. I prefer the Smith and the newer ones are more than strong enough for extensive heavy loads.

Redhawk1 · « **Reply #7 on:** July 21, 2012, 01:26:10 AM »

It is all in the owners taste. I have owned both S&W 629's, and the Redhawk's in 44 Mag. The smith is a fine handgun and shoots well. I also love my Ruger's, my Redhawk was sent to powers custom shop and had a trigger and action job, and a few other details done to it. It is a tack driver, and a work horse. Sold my 629's and only have my Redhawk now. Not a real fan of the super Redhawk, just to heavy and the look of the gun does not help, but they are a great shooting gun. If I had to have a super Redhawk, make mine in Ruger 480.
I suggest you find some that has both, or try to go shoot both and see which one trips your trigger. You won't be disappointed with either.

kynardsj · « **Reply #8 on:** July 21, 2012, 01:32:40 AM »

Have never owned a "bad" S&W but I still go with the Rugers. Only S&W I own now is an Airweight that belonged to my mother. I keep it for sentimental reasons more than anything else. The S&W's I have intentionally bought or traded for, and there has been a pile of them over the years, have been flawless and great shooters but I always end up with the Rugers in the guns that I plan on keeping. Built like a tank means more to me than slick and pretty and after all that I still think my "tanks" are beautiful pistols.

HGunner · « **Reply #9 on:** July 21, 2012, 02:27:25 AM »

I have shot and handled both. My only double action revolvers are S&W. I have borrowed and shot a redhawk on two different occasions. The triggers were fair to poor and the wood grips were uncomfortable in recoil. I don't think you can beat a S&W 629 Classic for an out of the box double action hunting revolver. Put your hands on one if you can as even S&W triggers vary from good to excellent.

dpe.ahoy · « **Reply #10 on:** July 21, 2012, 03:29:02 AM »

629's have been changed to increase durability during it's production. I work in a sporting goods department and HAVE seen a few 629's that have been shot loose and needed redone. The last one was this week was so loose after tens of thousands of rounds, S&W wouldn't do anything with it. It had been a silouette gun and the owner was willing to pay what was needed to get the old girl in fine shape again since she had won many matches for him. Most of us wouldn't shoot enough to hurt one, but my Redhawk IS a tank. DP

1911crazy · « **Reply #11 on:** July 21, 2012, 05:08:41 AM »

I've only shot the redhawks in 44mag with a 5 1/2'' barrel and a 7 1/2'' barrel. With stout 44mag loads the 7 1/2'' barrel handles it much better over the shorter barrel. with my first S&W purchase its the M58 in 41mag. With the heavier N frame this caliber handles it awesome with the 4'' barrel with federal ammo. I just purchased a S&W M29-10 withy the 6 1/2'' barrel but i haven't shot it yet. The ruger redhawk DA is suppose to be the strongest in 44mag iout there. I'm on both sides of the fence now after shooting my 41mag N frame S&W I love rugers and Smith & wessons & colts too now. I have changed my ways for i have lost a lot of fun by not having both. "BUT" If your going to get just one i'd go for the ruger all over again like i did. I chose the rugers in magnums because of no screws to come loose. But i have shot the screws loose on the ruger SBH's. A tad of moly can make any trigger smoothout and feel like a trigger job was done on it. Here's a pic of my S&W N frame M57 w/ 6 1/2'' barrel its the same size as the 44mag. Here's a pic of my S&W M58 with the m57 grips on it.
Lets talk about revolver grips. The only grips that feels good to me is the S&W presentation or target grips. Ruger grips suck. There way too small. I like the pachmayer rubber grips because i can sink my fingers into them. When in doubt buy both sooner or later you will.

Ladobe · « **Reply #12 on:** July 21, 2012, 06:37:46 AM »

Well, since you said up front that you are not into full house loads much and it's obvious you won't be shooting truck loads of ammo through it anyway, IMO durability is not much of an issue in your case with either a 29/629 or Redhawk.

FWIW I did shoot truckloads of ammo through my Smith's, especially all those I shot matches with - including some getting plenty of hot loads, and I never had any durability issues with any of them ever. But I also still have Ruger SA's I've owned for up to over 40 years as well that have also seen truckloads of any ammo of my choosing, and they are still solid and very reliable revolvers as well. As a very serious handgun hunter from the late 60's until a few years ago (and lots of target matches early on, several years shooting IHMSA later), I put far more rounds through my SA's and DA's in a year or three than most folks would in a life time.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. In mine the Smith's win hands down over Ruger every time with DA's. But I have been a Ruger fan too since the mid 60's, mostly the early SA's, DA's and rifles. Their newer fodder mostly doesn't appeal to me much. But a shorter Redhawk with better grips does some ever since I shot an early one quite a bit that belonged to a friend with very nice after market Lett grips. The Super Redhawk has no appeal to me at all and never will. If I wanted to drive an ugly tank I'd buy an ugly tank though I guess. I had a truckload of specialty handguns that would handle cannon cartridges that it won't, and they just appealed to me more. I did mostly like my SA Ruger SBH 44's, although not carrying the 10.5" while hunting, and I have always highly preferred the Ruger pre transfer bar model SA's to the point that they are all I have owned for many years. I grew up with Colt SA's, so the number "5" is burned deep into my soul and I just don't care for Ruger's newer and so called safer SA's.

All of my Smiths were older models bought decades ago (from the 60's), including 3 or 4 Model 29's with up to 8 3/8" barrels that were used for shooting target matches and hunting. I have little experience with owning those newer, including the 629's, so have mostly only shot those newer that belonged to friends. Back in days of yore when I bought mine the Smith's had pretty good triggers and actions right out of the box, better than the Ruger's. But more serious shooters of them still had trigger/action and/or sight jobs done on them anyway. Target triggers and hammers were a fad back then, as was red ramp front and white outline rear sights. So from the early 70's in our gunshop doing Smith "action and/or sight" jobs was at least a weekly business, sometimes several per week for years on almost any model of Smith.

Long way of saying if it was me wanting a DA 44 now I'd be looking for another older Model 29 in good condition, and maybe consider an early Redhawk if I couldn't find a 29. I'm stuck in the mud for sure, but old school is old school and at this late date that's not a change I'm willing to make.

whetrock · « **Reply #13 on:** July 21, 2012, 12:47:27 PM »

Well I'm still on the fence guys. I dunno if I've ever been so indecisive with a firearms purchase before. I even considered briefly getting a Contender barrel instead. I want to put some healthier loads through it for hunting however when I shoot my SBH informally or for practice I've found that I prefer shooting 44 specials (200 grain gold dot in front of 8 grains of unique) to full house loads anyhow so it's beginning to sound like the Smith might be better for me. Still I've recently taken up bullet casting and might want to shoot some heavier hard cast through it so then again I might find the Rugers chambers better for the heavier bullets more accommodating .

Lonegun1894 · « **Reply #14 on:** July 21, 2012, 01:09:25 PM »

I personally prefer the Ruger over the S&W. Also, since you just started casting, and that means I now know you reload, I would suggest looking at the .45 Colt instead of the .44 Mag. Do a bit of reading, and if possible, try a few first, because you may be very pleasantly surprized at the side by side comparisons. Either way, sounds like you have a fun project ahead and I'm sure you'll enjoy it either way. You'll just enjoy it longer with a Ruger.

whetrock · « **Reply #15 on:** July 21, 2012, 01:41:56 PM »

I've got a Rossi R92 in 45 LC ( it was a gift) and reload a bit for it, but still I've got a little more time into the 44 special/mag I also load a great deal for the 41 mag as well. I like the 45LC and IMO it is a good cartridge in modern firearms and capable of incredible performance however I dunno if I can tell the difference between the two as far as power goes in a real world scenario. I do know however that the Redhawk only comes with a 4.2 inch barrel in 45 LC. I was wanting something a bit longer.

Mike in Virginia · « **Reply #16 on:** July 21, 2012, 02:54:05 PM »

What lonegun1894 said. If I were to buy a Redhawk and not the Model 29, I would definitely get the .45 Colt version. A heavy hardcast flat point bullet can be pushed to more velocity with less pressure than the same weight bullet in a .44M. That's an old argument, I know, but it stems from the .44 enthusiast who cannot accept the truth. A .44 Magnum is plenty of gun for any purpose, but a .45 Colt is more (if you reload). Bigger brass, bigger bore equals more room for powder. The ancient belief that .45 brass is thinner and weaker no longer applies; I don't believe it was ever a factor, but for sure and for certain, modern brass in .45 is every bit as strong as modern .44 brass.
I'd buy a Redhawk in .45 if I didn't already have a Blackhawk in that caliber, which shoots 300 grain LBT bullets into an inch group off sandbags at 25 yards. I like 2400 for that round. Just my 2 cents.

Lloyd Smale · « **Reply #17 on:** July 22, 2012, 12:14:15 AM »

Sure the math figures favor the 45 IF YOU RELOAD but ive shot enough game animals with both to say without a doubt NO animal can tell the differnce. 44 brass is much easier to come by. So is loaded ammo if you need it and across the board having owned at least 20 of both through the years my 44mags have hands down outshot my 45 colts. Its rare to find a 44 mag that isnt a tack driver and its a crap shoot to find a 45 colt that is. Same with bullet designs. Most any 250 grain 44 bullet shoots well. Its a chore to find a bullet in that weight that shoots well especially at long range out of a 45. the 45 comes into its own when you step up to 300 grain bullets but if recoil is a consern which is sounds like it is the 44 will serve you much better. I kind of chuckle at the cult following the 45 and 41 gets. Dont get me wrong i own quite of few of both and have killed alot of game with them but if push comes to shove ill take the one that there all compared to. Hell i even named my dog after elmer keith. I could care less if someone thinks im cool because ive got a cult caliber. the 44 puts meat on the table with less fuss and muss.

sixshot · « **Reply #18 on:** July 22, 2012, 05:39:07 AM »

Try to shoot both guns side by side before you buy & you'll decide which is best for you. Either one would be hard to wear out with sane loads. Its actually hard to find a 44 maggie that doesn't shoot well, the trigger might need some attention but the guns will always do their part.
I've probably taken about equal amounts of game with the 41, 44 & 45 but I'll still put my money on the 44 for anything & everything. Its kind of like a warm blanket, it just always feels good!
I know that the heavier bullets are suppose to work better, they have more going for them but I've taken game for 45 years with all 3 & I still can't prove to myself that the heavier bullets have taken game better than the 250's. I've been shooting a 250 gr LBT in my 41 maggie the last few years & its outstanding, but maybe no better than my old Saeco 230 gr Keith.

Dick

Mike in Virginia · « **Reply #19 on:** July 22, 2012, 05:53:22 AM »

The .44 is a Clint Eastwood thing. No other encouragement is needed. A Hollywood lie, at best. I ain't stupid. I know that a .44 Magnum will take whatever game you go after, and it will do it with class and style and with no effort put into reloading. Plenty of factory loadings give the .44 shooter/hunter unlimited choices. BUT STILL, (and I cannnot understan why this simple fact bounces off people's brain), the 45 Colt is bigger and better if you reload. The reason reasonable factory loadings are not available is because of the Colts and replicas that can't stand the pressure. Do you have a single-action Colt .44 Magnum? No, you do not. Ruger and fixed that. Now you can have a stronger, tougher, and more powerful hunting cartridge than ever before. Clint's statement that he had "the most powerful gun in the world," means nothing at all now except to those afraid to move higher, or who refuse to reload, or who live in a fantasy realm.
A .45 Colt loaded to it's maximum safe potential is no where near as week as the stoutest load you can either buy or build for a .44 Magnum. I firmly believe that shooters cannot see that simple fact because of the hype that comes with a .44 Magnum.
But I still say a .44 Magnum is enough, it just simply is inferior in terms of power and accuracy as the .45C. Someone above said that an accurate .45C is the luck of the draw. Bogus, bogus, bogus. I've had a lot of 'em, and never had one that couldn't be hand fed an accurate load.
A lively discussion, and I appreciate all the remarks on both sides.

kynardsj · « **Reply #20 on:** July 22, 2012, 06:08:36 AM »

I have owned both calibers and settled on the 45LC as I just love the caliber. Maybe it's nostalgia for this proven old round. I do reload so I can make them as mild or as wild as I choose. Both the 44 mag and 45 LC are proven game getters in the field and to the gentleman that said an accurate 45LC is a crap shoot, I say baloney. All of mine are more accurate than I can hold them. I have four of them now and each likes it's own bullet weight. Just like any other firearm you have to find what load shoots best in it. And not to get too far off the subject..................I still pick Rugers over a Smith. Mostly because I do shoot a 45 LC and some of the loads that my Rugers shoot well would destroy a Smith in the same caliber. 44 Mag in either would be just fine as they're designed to handle that kind of pressure.

ratgunner · « **Reply #21 on:** July 22, 2012, 07:31:03 AM »

For a hunting gun...I'd go with the Redhawk. Ofcourse I'd do a spring kit on it and some rubber aftermarket grips.

Lloyd Smale · « **Reply #22 on:** July 22, 2012, 09:25:58 AM »

i could say the same thing and tell you why fool with a 45 colt when you can step up to a 480 or better yet a 475. Its the same reason the old 06 is popular. Sure theres harder hitting rounds and flatter shooting rounds but the o6 just gets it done. Ive killed game from rabbits and squirrels to buffalo with the 44s and it gets er done! Ive got 454s 45 colts 475s and even 500linebaughs but when im hunting 9 times out of 10 it will be a 44 in my holster

Quote from: Mike in Virginia on July 22, 2012, 05:53:22 AM

The .44 is a Clint Eastwood thing. No other encouragement is needed. A Hollywood lie, at best. I ain't stupid. I know that a .44 Magnum will take whatever game you go after, and it will do it with class and style and with no effort put into reloading. Plenty of factory loadings give the .44 shooter/hunter unlimited choices. BUT STILL, (and I cannnot understan why this simple fact bounces off people's brain), the 45 Colt is bigger and better if you reload. The reason reasonable factory loadings are not available is because of the Colts and replicas that can't stand the pressure. Do you have a single-action Colt .44 Magnum? No, you do not. Ruger and fixed that. Now you can have a stronger, tougher, and more powerful hunting cartridge than ever before. Clint's statement that he had "the most powerful gun in the world," means nothing at all now except to those afraid to move higher, or who refuse to reload, or who live in a fantasy realm.
A .45 Colt loaded to it's maximum safe potential is no where near as week as the stoutest load you can either buy or build for a .44 Magnum. I firmly believe that shooters cannot see that simple fact because of the hype that comes with a .44 Magnum.
But I still say a .44 Magnum is enough, it just simply is inferior in terms of power and accuracy as the .45C. Someone above said that an accurate .45C is the luck of the draw. Bogus, bogus, bogus. I've had a lot of 'em, and never had one that couldn't be hand fed an accurate load.
A lively discussion, and I appreciate all the remarks on both sides.

whetrock · « **Reply #23 on:** July 22, 2012, 01:17:02 PM »

I guess it's a 45 long Colt Vs 44 mag thread now JK. While I do believe that both the 44 magnum and 45 LC are established venerable cartridges when it comes to power the 45 wins. With that being said I reload and brass and components for each cartridge run about the same so it's really just a choice of personal preference I suppose. Bigger isn't necessarily better and I can understand that if one wanted more power but why not just go to a 454 or 460 as others have stated. IMO the 44 while at times portrayed as a super magnum certainly fills a nice niche between the 41 and 45 from what I gather. I'm not a 45 hater and hope to someday get a 45 wheel gun of some sort, however there seems to be a lack of 45 LC DA revolvers (the Redhawk is limited on barrel length anyhow I'm not too sure about Smiths model 25's ) and I'm set on getting a DA for some reason. I've reexamined my needs and wants and have come to the conclusion that I'm in no desperate need of a hunting handgun and own several capable of such a role so I'm gonna play around with what I have and take a bit of time to form some an opinion of the cartridges I shoot and some others I don't. I've got a 41 and 44 so I guess I could use a 45LC as a companion piece to my Rossi and to fill out my revolvers.

Mike in Virginia · « **Reply #24 on:** July 22, 2012, 01:55:12 PM »

Lloyd, good valid points you make. Don't take me as an argumentative type because I prefer the 45. I just enjoy pointing out the benefits. Here's another: All things being equal, my 45 gets more velocity with less pressure than your .44. If the case is bigger, it will hold more of any given powder. If I choose say a 300 grain bullet and you choose a 300 grain bullet, guess which one hits harder if loaded to maximum potential. The fact that we can buy even bigger revolvers, like the .460 or .480, or .500 takes nothing away from the obvious difference between .44 and .45, because those two are so similar in size and weight. In fact, my part alloy Blackhawk in .45 is lighter than your Super Blackhawk or your 629, yet, it's more gun in every regard.
Still, it makes no sense to beat that horse. The .44 will get it done, with no less authority than my .45. I reckon it just comes down to numbers and ballistics, which are not visibly important when it's time make meat.
What is visibly important to some is the lettering on a ".44 Magnum." In terms of images that come to mind with that lettering, most people see the most powerful revolver in the world. They see a man who is man enough to handle that kind of awsome power. When they read ".45 Colt," they see cowboys on the trail eating a pan of beans, using the gun of that day for his daily cattle driving and street fighting. It's all perception; it's what our minds tell us is best for our purposes. Therein lies the truth of the matter: A .44 Magnum is not the "best" for any purpose when the .45Colt is available. Good enough, sure, but not the best. So, you say, a .500 Smith should be even better, but that ain't so because it's too dern big for most purposes. Bigger don't make something "best," but bigger is definitely better when comparing 44/45. Not much, but some.

sixshot · « **Reply #25 on:** July 22, 2012, 06:13:52 PM »

Mike, there is absolutely nothing wrong with liking the 45 in strong guns, I'd never be without one & I've taken a lot of game with one including 4 elk. As you said it will do as well as the 44 with less pressure & when you get to heavy for calier bullets it beats the vaunted 44 maggie with ease......but, there are a few differences. Some, not all 45's need a little help, usually with the cylinder before they shoot their best, a 44 maggie rarely needs any cylinder work to get it running. I've had to fire lap one SRH 44 maggie, I've fire lapped several 45's.
If anyone could tell me the 45 is a better game getter I'd like to hear their story, I've just never seen it happen & I've used both extensively on big game. I could live the rest of my life with either one, but if I had to choose one it would be the 44 maggie.

Dick

Lloyd Smale · « **Reply #26 on:** July 22, 2012, 11:05:54 PM »

Like i said i have nothing against the 45 colt. theres 9 of them in the safe as i write this. Ive used them alot for hunting and have nothing bad to say. Sure the 45 might be able to push a 300 grain bullet a few feet per second faster if your using a large framed ruger but either will push a 300 to 1200 fps easily and thats all the load i need in one anyway and if i need more power then that im not going to push the bullet faster im going to step up in caliber and push a 475 400 grain bullet to the same speed. Funny thing is if you look in my safe other then my linebaughs most of my custom 6 guns are 45s. Most of my 44s are as they came from the factory with maybe differnt sights and an action job or a nice set of grips. Ive never had a full custom 44 built. the closest is the flatop aniversary gun dustin just rebarreled for me and that one probably wouldnt have gotten rebarreled if he could have taken the warning and that goddy gold lettering off . Probably two reasons the 44s get left alone. First my 44s are my working guns. they sometimes get ridden hard and put away wet. Second is most of them shot so well out of the box i hated to risk changeing them. Then if a guy wants a mid framed ruger your better off with a 44 spec. they can be loaded to the same level of performance and you dont have to deal with the cartridge being borderline to long for the cylinder which disallows the use of many bullet designs.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #27 on:** July 23, 2012, 12:01:46 AM »

Nothing beats cubic inches IMHO so the larger dia of the 45 will win every time all elae equal.
As for breaking , I have sent S&Ws back to be tightened up but never a Ruger . And have shot the Rugers way more .
A trigger job by a compent GUNSMITH can give either S&W or Ruger great trigger pulls.
Grips beg to be changed on most factory guns . I like the REDHAWK grip though.

Redhawk1 · « **Reply #28 on:** July 23, 2012, 04:14:22 AM »

If you really want to change things up here, do like I did, get a custom Redhawk in 475 Linebaugh. I can shoot some light loaded 480 Rugers or pump it up to hot loaded 475 Linebaugh's. After shooting my 475 Linebaugh, the 44 Mag seems like a pop gun...

Lloyd Smale · « **Reply #29 on:** July 23, 2012, 05:29:43 AM »

the 480/475 have allways been a favorite of mine. They are a step up in power from a 44/45 thats noticeable unlike to me at least the differnce between a 44 ad 45. The 480 is probably the most ballanced big bore round ever designed. If it werent for rugers blinders being on it would have been brought out in a single action gun and would have been a 100 percent more popular.