Redhawk or model 29 shooter input?

[Wheelie_Fan]

Hey gang.... I'm interested in a .44...... Either a "new" SW model 29 (classic) 4 inch or a Ruger Redhawk in .44Mag. I'm thinking the 4.2 inch barrel, just because I'd get a rig to carry either, every now and then.

In all likelihood, I'd launch .44 SPL out of either, most of the time, for comfort and accuracy.... Choices, choices...

Anyone have either one?, shoot one? Enjoy one? Also, if talking Redhawk, I'd like to know if the wood stocks from the longer barreled revolvers will fit the grip frame on the 4.2 inch gun? I'd like to have both the rubber and wood grips.





Thanks all !!!

[Daggitt]

I have no complaints about the Redhawk I have been shooting for almost 30 years. Mine has the 7.5 barrel and the rings. You can't go wrong with a Big Bore Ruger revolver. By the way it is worth a lot more than the three bills I paid for it new. God that was a lot of money back then. Two weeks pay at my part time job.

[Mystro]

Having owned both at the same time. The S&W is refined and has a trigger the Ruger will never have. The Ruger is chunkier and not nearly as pretty but is cheaper. The Ruger uses a transfer bar that has sometimes given my issues with weak primer strikes. The S&W never had the problem with the same primers. The S&W ozzes quality and is a more polished gun. The reason I owned the Ruger was to shoot super hot reloads but since realized it was unnessisary for hunting. The strength difference between the two modern versions are too close to care about so I sold my Rugers. I am not sure the Ruger is any stronger. I have owned serval early models 29 with the original piano black blueing. The newer blueing is flat and doesn't hold a candle to the old formula.. That said, I really really prefer the SS look of the 629 with 6" barrel. Low maintance and the finish is tough as hell for hunting use.

The new S&W factory grips are the best I have seen on a factory gun for shooting.

[testuser]

Sure. I have a 4 inch 29-10 that I bought new a couple of years ago. It's very easy to shoot with .44 special reloads and just fine with light magnums...say 240 grains at 1000 fps.

I chronographed some full power reloads a while back: a 240 grain bullet @ about 1250 fps. I thought the recoil was unpleasant with the wooden grips, so I switched them with Pachmayr grippers that cover the back strap. We'll see if that makes a difference.

If I had to do it over again, I'd probably get a 6 inch or longer barrel. More weight up front to control recoil and higher muzzle velocities. As is, I'm happy, since the revolver doesn't see too many full power magnums.

[feets]

You really can't go wrong either way.
The S&W will feel more refined out of the box. After a little careful stoning the trigger will border on orgasmic.
The Ruger will be heavier and a bit more solid as the years go by. The trigger can be worked to feel better than an out of the box S&W.
What you need to do is hit a gun show and fondle each gun. Your money will be best spent on the gun that fits your hand and sight picture best. Internet gun rangers can't tell you what you like. Only a little hands on time will do that.
Yes, the Redhawk will accept wood or rubber grips. There are countless grips for the S&W too.

I love my model 25 but still lust for a Redhawk in 45.

[highpower3006]

I've never owned a Redhawk. I do have two Model 29's and a 629. You really need to handle both to find which grip fits your hand the best. I have shot a Redhawk in the past and it certainly was a solid feeling gun, but the Smith and Wesson just feels better to me and has a better trigger out of the box. While I like the balance of the S&W's, there will be others that like the feel of the Redhawk better.

If you are primarily going to shoot .44 special level loads out of it you will never wear out a Smith. The new guns with the endurance package will digest thousands of rounds of heavily loaded .44 magnum rounds without a problem. My 629-4 was used for years as silhouette gun and is still as tight as a new one.

Both will serve you for a lifetime if you take care of them.

[codefour]

I was in the dame boat last year. I bough the Redhawk in 4.20 inch. I have not regretted it one bit. But, that is my oppinion. Here is why..

Strength: The Redhawk is stronger by far. Ruger is the John Deere of revolvers. They just keep going. I know many will chime in "my 29 is 40+ years old) but there are not any "29 only" loads out there but many "Redhawk only" loads.

Action: This is a personal preference but the S&W is smoother from the factory. Yes, I have many S&W revolvers and love them. But, a Wolfe spring kit on a Redhawk makes them very smooth. If you smooth out the sear and hammer with an India stone, they have a very clean and crisp SA break. They will come very close to or match a tuned S&W.

I have quite a few Ruger revolvers and S&W revolvers. Most I bought new in the last few years. The Rugers never went back to the factory for warranty work, two of my S&W's have. One of the S&W went back multiple times. They finally admitted the frame was bent causing poor accuracy.

If you handload, the Redhawk has a longer cylinder allowing the use of longer 300+ grain bullets.

I am not bashing S&W by any means. This is just my personal experience.

I do not own a S&W .44 mag. I do have a few of their other N-frame variants plus a XVR in .460 mag. I just think Ruger got it right with the Redhawk. Just my $0.02 worth...

[skidder]

My experience is similar to codefour.

I started reloading in 95 and purchased a brand new Redhawk in 96 and really liked it. My crew at the sawmill told me the 629 was better so I traded my 5.5" Redhawk and $50 for a 6" 629. My first range trip went great until I got to my heavier magnum loads. The recoil on the 629 bit my hand a little more where the Redhawk seemed to roll up without the sting. I didn't get to try my hiking loads... they would not fit in the shorter cylinder of the 629. I was a little surprised and confused about the advice I had received. Two weeks later I went back to the LGS where the trade went down and I was happy to see they still had my Redhawk. The guy was really nice and said he would trade me back straight across (had someone looking for a 629). So I lost $50, but I gained a lesson on which was better for me. The 629 is a fine weapon, but it didn't work for my hunting and hiking needs.

Sometimes you can't always try them both out before you choose, so my advice would be to choose according to purpose. For standard magnum loads the 629 or Redhawk would be fine, but for heavier bullets and max loads no doubt get the Redhawk.

Here is the Redhawk I traded and got back. The bullet is a 320 Corbon... it would not fit in my 629. This is my preferred hiking load in grizzly country.

[stevelyn]

Strength: The Redhawk is stronger by far. Ruger is the John Deere of revolvers. They just keep going. I know many will chime in "my 29 is 40+ years old) but there are not any "29 only" loads out there but many "Redhawk only" loads.

The Ruger is more like a T-72 tank....

But anyways, strength was the reason I chose the Redhawk. A S&W wouldn't be able to contain the book Ruger loads I use for very long.

[Mystro]

Perception of strength and actual strength are two different things. I don't think anybody has compared both modern versions to say which is actually stronger. It even comes to a point where overbuilt is not nessisary and just adds needless weight.
Build materials a have ALOT to do with it. I haven't seen any newer 629's succumb to heavy loads.....I am not so sure the strength argument still applies.

[spacecoast]

I haven't seen any newer 629's succumb to heavy loads.....I not so sure the strength argument still applies.

+1, I believe S&W fixed the strength issues in the 29/629 several model changes ago.

[Bob Wright]

codefour wrote:

I was in the dame boat last year

Forget .44s, tell me more about this boat!

Bob Wright

[PetahW]

I, too, prefer the Model 29 - but will never have a barrel as short as you want (again).

Although I'd settle for a 6" bbl, I much prefer the 8-3/8" length for hunting - carrying's NP, because I use a Bianchi 4100 Ranger H.U.S.H. bandolier-style cross-chest holster.

I found the Ruger much too heavy for my needs - I'm long past the point where I want a super-duper, heavy boolit slinger.

A 240ge JSP at factory speeds has worked just fine on every animal that's been willing to step in front of me to come for dinner.

.

[DAnjet500]

I like 'em all.

[jmr40]

As an all around gun, especially with a shorter barrel I like the S&W version better. For a gun you will carry a lot they are lighter and trimmer. With a longer barrel and a gun you plan to use for hunting I like the Ruger a bit better. I've had no issues with any Ruger or S&W revolver. They are just made different for different purposes.

[FoghornLeghorn]

Lesse, I've owned two Redhawks, one Super Redhawk, and a bunch of 29s. I'm now down to two 29s, both -2 designation, one 4 inch barrel, the other 6 1/2 barrel.

The Smith is lighter and has a much better trigger pull which is good for plinking and target punching. I reload and my loads are ~ 44 special. I prefer the Smith for that purpose.

If I were looking for a field gun though, I'd go with a Redhawk. It's heavier and the trigger is rougher, but it's a tough gun. And when you're pumped full of adrenaline (face to face with a 1000 pound hamster) you don't notice the heavier trigger pull.

It all depends on what you want to use it for. If it's for plinking, I'd shop for a pre lock model Smith. But that's just me.

[dgludwig]

If I were looking for a field gun though, I'd go with a Redhawk. It's heavier and the trigger is rougher, but it's a tough gun.

And, if the "field" you happen to be in is a remote, boondocks location, Ruger revolvers are some of the easiest to tear down for cleaning or repair purposes.

[geetarman]

I have a couple of 29's and one 629. All 6 inch. I have a Ruger Redhawk 4.5 inch in blue.

The Smiths are really something. One is a -2 and one is a -3. Not sure about the 629.

The Ruger was a bear to find as I wanted one in blue. Mine has had some trigger work done on it.

All the guns are a handful with full house loads but are sweet to shoot with handloads.

I shoot the 29's better. The trigger is somewhat better than the Ruger.

The Ruger is a tank. I don't know how you would go about breaking it with recipes from a reliable reloading manual.

I really like the looks and feel of the big N frames.

[dgludwig]

The Ruger is a tank. I don't know how you would go about breaking it

From what I've read, barrels were falling off some early models, apparently due to an improper use of an adhesive.

[FoghornLeghorn]

barrels were falling off some early models

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=310125



I expect they've fixed it by now.

[Rifleman1776]

Redhawk all the way.
Even S&W advises against heavy loads in the 29.
The Redhawk is, by far, the heavier, beefier, stouter, stronger in every way firearm. The 29 is another, smaller caliber lighweight model adapted to the .44 mag.
Absolute no brainer. Go Ruger.

[Webleymkv]

I've had both and I prefer the S&W myself. My first .44 Magnum was a 5 1/2" Redhawk that had a very nice trigger job done on it (it was almost S&W smooth). While I never really had trouble out of the gun, I did find it to be awfully big for what I wanted to use it for. At first, I bought into the whole Ruger strength thing but I soon found that the heavy loads that shouldn't be shot in a S&W did nothing for me but kick harder and use more powder. As time went on, I found that all I was shooting from my Redhawk were "normal" .44 Magnum loads that would be perfectly suitable for a S&W as well. Finally it dawned on me that all the famous Ruger strength was giving me was a bigger, heavier gun to lug around and I sold it to finance a 4" 629. I'm quite happy with my S&W and it is more that strong enough to handle a 250gr SWC over 20gr of 2400 which is the most powerful handgun loading I can ever see myself needing anyway.

[jmr40]

Redhawk all the way.
Even S&W advises against heavy loads in the 29.

That was years ago. Early S&W's were known to have problems with a steady diet of very heavy loads. They upgraded their guns several years back. I think the Ruger will hold up to loads that are "off the charts" so to speak. But modern Smiths will hold up to any factory load or any handload in the loading manuals.

[Viper225]

With 44 Special plinking loads mostly in mind, I would go with a 29/629. I really like S&W revolvers. Good selection of Grips, Holsters, etc. A little smaller than the Ruger, and I am sure lighter.

As was said many times above. If you plan on very many Full House 44 Magnums I would go with the Ruger. The John Deere of Revolvers is a good comparison. There is a reason you see so many Old John Deere tractors still in everyday use. They over built them. I have a John Deere 1520 with a factory original front end loader from I believe around 1974 as my current tractor. My John Deer before that was an MT from around 1951. It is still in use as a Hay Rake Tractor.

I have owned several 29/629's over the years. I have also owned 2 each 44 Super RedHawks. I have no doubt that the Ruger will handle a steady diet of heavy 44 Magnum loads better than the S&W.

For Bear Country again the Ruger would get my vote. A S&W will not handle my 310 grain Hammer Head bullets. The cylinder is too short.

The Rugers never whack my second knuckle like a S&W does with heavy loads either.

Just My 2 Cents

Bob

[Redhawk5.5+P+]

Hmmm, that's a tough one!