Posted: 5/14/2007 10:39:23 AM EDT
| Which would you choose and why? |
| i have several 629's love them, single action trigger is always perfect- with a scope 2x shooting 4-6 inch groups (hitting steel plates) are not a problem from 40-out to 60 yards. the ruger feels to big and heavy...yes its bulky...that being said i own a smith 500 so compared to that it is lean and mean but to the 629 classic it feels heavy. |
I voted Redhawk because I just bought a 4" model  .I've shot S&W and Ruger. I just can't tell enough difference to justify the higher price of the Smith. Without measuring, I can't feel any difference in the trigger pull. As far as accuracy, both shoot way better than I can  .
|
|
Let me be a little more specific in what my wants are, and why. I don't intend on hunting with a revolver although it would be nice if I had that option. I currently own an older 620, (It's an old gun, I inherited it, I think that it is a 620 anyway) I had a Ruger GP-100 years ago and I really liked it, I actually preferred it over my 620. Unfortunately I sold it during my divorce. I've always been a fan of Ruger revolvers, I just wanted to get some feed back on S&W. I also once owned a 629 classic 5". The firing pin broke on it, which is no big deal, I think it was just a lemon, but for a few years I had negative feelings about S&W. I had it repaired and sold it shortly after. I only had that weapon for about a month, I wasn't very fond of it, it was inaccurate (for me) and had way to much muzzle flip. I want something with a 7 1/2" or longer. Anything to reduce recoil. I shot a Taurus Raging bull in 8" last weekend and it shot like a charm, I was very impressed with its accuracy and mild recoil. Although no matter how much I have tried in the past, I can never convince my self to buy a Taurus. Its not they aren't great guns, I just would rather have a S&W or Ruger. By my reasoning, the Super Redhawk weighs more, and if I got a longer barreled SRH, I could eliminate much of the felt recoil. Is that a accurate assumption? |
|
I own a S&W 629 classic in 6.5" and love it. My buddy owns a Ruger Super Redhawk in 7.5" and likes it. I feel the trigger on the S&W is vastly superior. Both my friend and I shoot better groups with my revolver. IMO a 7.5" barrel is too long, but to each his own. Also I don't notice any difference in recoil between the two guns. As I once heard it put: "If you want to go romping through the woods, get a Ruger. If you want to sit and drink tea, get a Smith." Rugers are built tough, but S&W is a smoother shooting gun. Plus, I like the look of them better. |
|
I owned a Ruger Redhawk and sold it to buy my S&W 629. I'll admit that I originally sold the Redhawk because I was pissed about Bill Ruger's communist politics, but I've had no regrets about buying the Smith. It is a superior revolver as far as fit, finish, and trigger. The Redhawk was okay, but the Smith is NICE. Allan |
|
Ruger Super Redhawk. As far as I know, nothing is stronger than the Super Redhawk frame. Mine has been fed a steady diet of max loads since the day it was new and shows no signs of wear from the treatment. You've got to love loads that belch a 2' diameter fireball.... 
|
Which gets us to the the question of really how much stronger is the Ruger then the Smith? I have heard folks say the N frame is forged and there for as strong as the thicker cast Ruger. I'm betting the Ruger is still stronger but some folks do shoot full power hot loads from the Smith's and the gun never slows down even after thousands of hot loads....the strength difference may not be much at all in reality. |
I didn't realize the Ruger's frame was cast! That's good to know, although I have to admit I'm still leaning in the direction of a SRH. |
All I know is that the original Model 29 does not have a good reputation for longevity when shooting hot .44 Magnum loads. On the other hand, you can find loading manuals with hot .45 LC loads for use in the Super Redhawk only, in addition to being chambered in the new, "super magnum" calibers. In other words, there is no question that the Super Redhawk was designed for the hot loadings. Even if it is cast, the Super Redhawk frame is significantly more massive than the S&W frame. |
|
Whatcha want it for? Hunting or shooting targets? S&W is a more refined gun, more accurate, better trigger. Ruger is built like a brick shithouse, tough as hell. I voted Ruger since I use mine to hunt with and sometimes load that ammo to max power. ETA; IIRC the Ruger has a longer cylinder and allows a longer cartridge OAL. This is quite handy in developing loads using the 300gr bullets. |
|
I own a SRH [but in .454 Casull] and after running thru a lot of full power loads [original freedom arms stuff, Buffalo bore and the likes] it still locks up well and is tight. So far I've taken around 12 deer with it and it shoots plenty fine. I wouldn't TOUCH a raging bull, I've seen a lot of loose as a goose one's for sale that didn't look fired much but the slop in them was horrendous, 1/8 cylinder wiggle plus end shake up the arse seems to be the order of the day if they are shot much. Bleh. The new 629s are beefier then the older one's that were a bit fragile with full power loads, especially heavy weight one's. They do seem to have better triggers on average but for longevity I doubt that you can beat the SRH, they are beefier then they need to be maybe, but they will live a long time under full power stuff. [down to 4 boxes left of original Freedom Arms .454 stuff, I LOVE that stuff!!!!! |
When you say the newer 629's are beefier then the old ones do you mean older 629's or 29's. If you mean 629's how do you tell if it is a beefier one/new vs. lighter/old? Thanks! |
|
I "think" they beefed up the new one's a bit more, know the old 29s were not holding up well to a diet of heavy loads. Really ave not heard any horror stories on the new one's but the few people I know that own them don't really shoot them all that much. To be honest, I only shoot a few hundred rounds of full power stuff in my SRH a year, lot of what I shoot is loaded down to a stout .45 Colt load. Down to a bit over 1000 rounds of .454 and I got a lot of that cheap from some gal who was selling it for less then $10.00 a box [20] a few years back, bought all she had and pissed everybody else off at the show who wanted some. Same show there was some guy selling .45 Colt factory stuff for $11.00  a box, bought all he had too. Down to a case and a half now left from that.Seriously, Either revolver would work fine, I like the SRH mostly because they have a great reputation for running and running and running.............. S&W does have some decent triggers tho, something Rugers don't out of the box but a lot of dry firing really does help them a lot. I have the 7.5 BBL, if I buy another .454 it'll be a FA as I know where I can get a top of the line one very lightly used for well under $1500.00. Not a Ruger or S&W that can compare to those but they are S/A. |
|
I have long owned a Blackhawk,it was one of the first guns I ever bought. Shortly after the Blackhawk I grabbed up a Redhawk before thay had the SRH. After I later got my first 629 I sold off the RH as whenever I was going shooting I always grabbed the S&W. The big deal to me in a revolver is the trigger and accuracy and although the Rugers aren't bad they are really second rate alongside the S&W guns.I own a couple different length 629s and I really love the way they shoot . I don't have much use for any loads more powerfull than full factory 44mag loads and if I did I would look for some other gun so the likely extra strength of the SRH is a moot selling point for me I have to chuckle at the nuts in my club, there must be six or seven of them who had to buy 454 Cashual (or however it is spelled) because somehow the 44mag isn't powerfull enough for them but the only load you ever see them shooting is factory 45 colt. |
|
I've had both. The 629 will hold up to magnum loads longer then your wrist will. The Ruger is made out of pot metal which is why it's physically bigger and heavier. Big and heavy are only bad things if you have to lug it around. I carry my smith and leave the ruger for range day. Smith is slightly more accurate from a bench, but the ruger is more then adequate. Smith has better lines for better swing and point. Ruger is oddly balanced. DAN Wesson is superior to both and cheaper to buy. Extreme accuracy reliability and balance. But my DW is in .41 mag so... |
| I own a 629w/ 8 3/8" barrel, unfluted cylinder, FL underlug,and target stocks. Very accurate, nice trigger. I also own a SBH with 7 1/2" barrel, unfluted, stainless. For upper end loads, I prefer the SBH. For plinking and plate shooting, the 629. If you read through the reloading forums, they talk about how the action on a 629 was never designed for a steady diet of modern full house loads. I dunno, I like 'em both. |
The Ruger is made out of pot metal? I'm sorry, but that is a complete load of bullshit. The Super Redhawk is investment cast stainless steel, which is a hell of a long way from the zinc alloy mixture known as "pot metal." |
Really? I haven't seen many of these, I was always under the impression that they costed more than the others. Just curious, how easy is it to change out barrels? The .445 Super Mag is nice, but probably costs alot more than the others. |
As soon as you said "pot metal" you lost all credibility. Only recently has any of their revolvers [S&W] even been in the ball game as far a strength wise and you might as well carry a damn rifle as soon as carry a 6 pound handgun. .454 is plenty for me, I honestly don't see any reason unless hunting dangerous big game where you need more OOMPH then that. The 500 is cool, but I've yet to see someone actually shoot one at the range. Plenty used for sale with a cylinder full thru them at the most, just another fad of the day IMHO, the 460 is a bit more interesting and practical if only because of ammo case interchangability. A SRH can handle 60K PSI, a 629 ain't even close as far as strength goes. |
I disagree on Dan Wesson. I have seen many Dan Wessons that were lacking in the fit and finish dept. Dan Wesson has had many up and downs with quality control. Smith and Wesson is the most consistant manufacturer when it comes to quality across the borad....Smith is superior to Dan. |
Yeah that top quality forged investment casting....  Have Ruger make one as light as the 629 if investment casting is that great. You can't because its cheap and weaker then the stainless Smith uses. It's not necessarily a bad thing but if Ruger turns out a .550 S&W mag it'll be the size of a howitzer. If you open up any Ruger the metal inside where you're not looking is a mirror image of an old cast iron skillet. It's rough and just not well finished. That doesn't make the gun not work or blow up or anything terrible but it is true. ETA: If someone will tell me how to post pictures in the members image server I'll put up a picture of the grip frame of my Vaquero to show the pitting and rough finish. About DW. I got mine at a pawn shop for $300. Fit and finish on mine is excellent but I haven't found a replacement barrel that works as good as the original (Hell I can't find .41 barrels anyway). I'm sure there are a few bad guns out there but there are a few bad Rugers, Smiths, and even a few good Glocks so common rules of thumb are just guidelines not warranties. I like mine. I think it's fantastic. The trigger is a crisp 6 lbs double and 3 1/2 single. It just snaps away. I've shot it from a bench at 100 yards and always hit my 32oz cup. I have no complaints. Why would you want a cast frame anyway? Didn't get enough die cast metal cars as a kid? 
|
DKing, you might want to use Google and do some research. Both Dan Wesson and Ruger Redhawk are way stronger than the S&W 629. Go to one of the diehard .44 magnum forums and see what they say. Or just check out Garret Ammo and read the FAQ. It tells you not to use their ammo in any S&W revolver. S&W makes a nice, light, accurate .44 mag. revolver. But it is considered one of the least strong makes out there. Ruger makes one of the strongest. Rugers may be heavier, and less appealing out of the box, but they are stronger.
|
| as far as the 629 not handling rull house 44 mag loads..... well let me put it to you this way.... pain and me...recoil and me go together.... i own 2 freedom arms 454 casulls, 1 s&w 500 and 1 629 1 29 silouette.... i have owned my 629 classic for almost 10 years. it has over 1000 rounds down the tube of full house 44...never lost time...perfect lock...trigger is like glass. i have never seen a s&w come apart from shooting full house 44 magnum rounds. |
|
The metal is weaker, there just more of it. They could make a slightly larger gun then the Smith out of their cast metal and it would handle the same pressure. Instead they made a huge monster of a gun that handles high pressures. I know it handles more pressure then Smith, but what I'm trying to get at (poorly) is that if you made a revolver out of forged metal to the same dimensions as the Ruger it would be proportionally stronger as well. The metal is cheaper to produce then forged and it is weaker ounce for ounce then a forging. THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT A BAD GUN. I actually like the Ruger. I like Desert eagles too. I love big guns. But it is cheaper to use cast metal and it is weaker then a forged piece of the same weight and dimension. The Ruger gun handles the pressure by design not materials. A Ruger is a much nicer platform for shooting heavy mag loads because it BIG and Heavy. The Ruger has proprietary scope ring mounts built in. Very sweet for hunting. The Ruger is a light weight alternative to a Remington 700. That's wonderful! But it's still cast metal which is cheaper and weaker. Saying that the Ruger is stronger because it handles more pressure is like saying a Silverado is strongest because it can haul more rocks then a Corvette. It hauls more rock because of design not because of engine strength. Another example is compare a forged Colt Peacemaker with a Ruger Vaquero. The vaquero shoots much higher pressure shells, but the peacemaker has a forged metal frame. Again design makes all the difference. And to prove I can use Google...
I realize that these links don't address Ruger guns directly but you can get the idea that cast is cheaper but forged is stronger ounce for ounce of finished product. We make guns out of plastic now, materials may not be as important as they once were...  |
|
Never shot aS&W 629 but I'll bet the trigger is smooth. I have owned and hunted with a Ruger Redhawk. It has killed more deer in the 15 years I have owned it than I can say. A buddy had a Dan wesson and could'nt hit the side of barn. Always messing with the barrel. I shoot handloads with it and would not trade it for any hunting revolver on the market. It makes clean 1 shot kills and I shoot it single action so it has a nice sharp trigger. Double action trigger could use a polish. Chinook3 |
Isn't it amazing the blatant bullshit that gets posted on the internet these days? A quick trip to the ruger factories will show otherwise. As far as DW, its now owned by CZ. No telling if this has helped/hurt product quality. |
 Gee, thanks, and here I thought I had a few degrees in mechanical engineering to help me "figure all this stuff out." 
|
|
I would not exactly call the Super Redhawk a monster of a gun. The trigger pull on mine became very decent with some work and is better than my 629-2 Classic Hunter was out of the box with the floating hand. The 629-2 has, of course, a regular hand in it now and the trigger of a tuned S&W N-frame can be extremely smooth. I just worked up some heavy loads and, guess what? Checked them in the SRH - and I barely ever shoot single action. The groups were very satisfying and barely larger than the Classic Hunter with the 8 3/8th inch barrel and a 240gr LFP with 12gr of Unique. Like I said before, it is just a matter of personal preference, maybe even aesthetics, but the Redhawk does not have to by afraid of a comparison to a S&W when it comes to range work. Particularly not in the hands of the average shooter. |