629 vs redhawk

[Buzzcook]

Pick the gun that fits your hand better, that points more naturally, that's the gun to choose.

There is no game in Florida that plain old garden variety .44mag will not kill.

[dayman]

And what about for those who actually need more truck than a Tacoma? While it might not matter to you, some folks need to haul 10-15,000lbs. I have to haul hay and cattle a couple times a year. Can't do that with a Tacoma. That's not a slight against your truck. Different trucks for different purposes.

That's kind of the point I was trying to make.
With a few exceptions, it seems like the people who are arguing for the merits of the 629, aren't saying it's stronger - or even as strong - as the redhawk. They're saying that it's more than strong enough for most people.
It's not like the S&W is going to shoot it's self apart under normal use. Can it handle a diet of heavy magnums as long as a redhawk? No. But, it can handle more than most people are likely to ever put through it. For most peoples purposes, there's not going to be a difference.
It's not a case of a strong gun and a weak gun. It's a case of a strong gun, and an even stronger gun.

Some people need big trucks, and some people need overbuilt guns. Most people don't.

All that being said, my revolvers - including those on my wish list - are all Rugers.

I just wish they made a Redhawk with a full under-lug like the sp101/gp100. The Redhawk/SRH are the only 2 lines that I find less attractive than Smiths, and solely because of the barrel design.. But I digress.

[newfrontier45]

I've never understood the power craving thing.
For my money 158gr .357 @ 1400fps is flatter and the hole isn't really that much smaller.

The .357 is barely adequate for deer. I guess it's more than enough if all you ever poke holes in is paper. There are critters that need a lot more killing than the .357 can deliver. For those critters, you need bigger, heavier bullets. For others, it's more a matter of want than need. Some of us actually take our big bore shooting seriously.

...but... 12 of the 44 replies were made by you.

Somebody has to combat the misinformation that started with the very FIRST response. Now I see we're having to do it all over again.

With a few exceptions, it seems like the people who are arguing for the merits of the 629, aren't saying it's stronger - or even as strong - as the redhawk.

I guess you missed the posts by Ozzieman and JamesK stating that the guns were the same strength???

It's not like the S&W is going to shoot it's self apart under normal use.

That depends on your definition of "normal" use. I crank out .44Mag on a Dillon 650 so my definition of "normal" probably differs from many. I don't consider little more than a passing interest and a couple boxes of ammo a year "normal".

For most peoples purposes, there's not going to be a difference.

Probably so but I'll let the individuals make that judgement. My only purpose is to help ensure that the decision is made with all the information (and as little misinformation) possible. I'd hate to see someone make the wrong decision because they were fed wrong information and there has been plenty here. What's sad is that among veteran big bore shooters, all this information is very common knowledge.


And one more time, if you read the thread, you'll see that my preference for DA's runs to older S&W's. I have no use or desire for a Ruger DA. Nor do I need everything the big Rugers can offer. I much prefer to run my N-frames at 1000-1200fps with standard weight cast bullets and save the heavy stuff for my single action Bisleys.

[Super Sneaky Steve]

The .357 is barely adequate for deer.

In my little carbine I clocked my 125XTP handloads at 2,227fps or 1376ft/lbs.

I'd like to see a deer survive that hit.

In my 6" GP100 with a slightly reduced load I got 1647fps or 750ft/lbs.

I love big bore revolvers too, but to say the .357 is barely adequate is ridiculous.

[Winchester_73]

I have a neutral question. I feel the need to preface with that statement, given this thread.

The S&W 29s, made since 1956 (they were not model marked until about 1959), have been known to shoot loose, perhaps get out of time, among probably some other issues. My uncle (an avid shooter, handgun hunter and competitor) told me he saw a 29 with top strap cutting problems, which S&W replaced for the guy. I assume the loads in that gun were really pushing it, but I don't know for sure, and the guy that did that has since passed away.

My question is this: for all of the evidence that the 29s and for that matter, 629s are weaker, has there been as much evaluation of 629s that were made POST the endurance package? I mean the 629 debuted around 1980 IIRC, and that was before the endurance package. I guess what I'm saying is that there are many generations and variations of model 29s and 629s. Were all of them given equal consideration? I think its a well known fact that a majority of 29s, and perhaps even 629s would be PRE endurance package. Or is it a simple matter of even the endurance package 629s do not hold up either? I don't know either way, I'm just asking. All I can say is that the same Uncle mentioned above has a 629 Classic DX which has had zero problems. I also don't think he pushes the gun to the top limit, so then really, its probably irrelevant to the exact point of this thread: which gun could handle a steady diet of high pressure 44 mags the longest?

If you were Buffalo bore, or some other high power pistol ctg manufacturer, it would be much easier to say for liability sake "No S&W 29 or 629" rather than give serial number ranges for certain generations which would be safe, and those which would not. Many people would probably get confused, and make mistakes, which is why for liability purposes, blanket statements are often used, whether true or not.

[newfrontier45]

The endurance package only addressed weaknesses in the lockwork. Which made them better but IMHO, it came along too late. The pivotal factor that makes the Redhawk so much stronger is that its cylinder is not only much larger in diameter but the bolt cuts are between the chambers. Any cylinder that ever fails will fail at the bolt cut 99% of the time. Ruger's design alleviates this weakness. It's a much less elegant design but more robust for certain. Like I said, you won't see any 50,000psi loads for S&W's.

I'd like to see a deer survive that hit.

How many deer have you shot with that load? Impressive numbers, if you worship energy. Not so good if you need a little better gauge. That's a self defense bullet pushed way past its rated velocity. I would imagine it would make a very nasty, very shallow wound. The .357 is considered by any authority on the subject as the absolute minimum for deer and then, only with proper loads. A 125gr would not be considered a proper deer load but would be great for varmints.

[Buzzcook]

Just a little reality check.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...7&postcount=21

The OP wants this gun for:

1. Mostly shooting paper.

2. As a back up for bow hunting.

3. In Florida.

Now what about those conditions shouts out Ruger only loads?

[buckhorn_cortez]

The OP wants this gun for:

1. Mostly shooting paper.

2. As a back up for bow hunting.

3. In Florida.

Now what about those conditions shouts out Ruger only loads?

Nothing - but, the OP asked "629 or Redhawk" - and people responded with their opinions. I fail to see a problem with that.

In .44 I have several Rugers and Smiths. The ones I shoot the most are a Model 629 manufactured in 1981 and a Super Redhawk Alaskan manufactured in 2012.

I will not put heavy loads in the 629, as my experience with two Model 29's shooting a lot of heavy loads resulted in them being sent back to Smith for work as they did get out of time and loosen up.

Commercial ammunition is fine in the Smiths. The load I settled on 30 years ago for the M29's I had was 19.5 grains of H110 with a 240 grain lead Keith style bullet.

However, that does not compare to the 340 grain Buffalo Bore that I carry occasionally in the Super Redhawk. I would never think about putting that into the 629 as the gun just will not hold up to that level of pressure and recoil.

They're two different tools and need to be used to best effect given their design, features, advantages, and limitations. You either recognize there are real differences between the guns and choose the tool required - or, you don't.

The problem I've run into lately with the new S&W revolvers is that the triggers cannot be tuned like you could with the old guns (pre MIM trigger parts) - and that takes away one of the real advantages of the Smiths.

For the OP's stated uses - either revolver will work.

[kahrguy]

newfrontier45

How many deer or large hogs have you killed with a 357mag.

I have only killed a few deer with a 357mag but much closer to 200 hogs over 20 years with one. Its much more about the bullet and load than the cartridge as far it being to take game with. Back in the days of my 357 hunting some of the bullets we have today were not around and with the neutered 357mag factory ammo we have today it truly is a handloaders cartridge. Info is way easier to find with the internet sites too. None back then.

I tried some hotter factory supervel and a few years later corbon 158gr loads when a young'n. I will say I was not pleased with some results while hunting and had to learn the old slow way, trial and error. I found a speer speer 170gr sp was a fine deer and hog hammer along with a 180gr hard cast for hogs. I did load these 170 and 180gr for a while at a hotter 1450fps + and they worked very well but also found for hogs that follow up shots if the first missed the mark it was not possible do to the recoil recovery. Slowed the 170gr and 180gr loads for hogs down to 1200fps and I could still get pass thru shoulder shots or broke both shoulders to head to tail pass thru shots on smaller 150to 200 lb hogs.

Not sure how much more bullet is needed. A badly placed shot with a 44 or 454 or, or, is not any better. I kept my yardage to what I concedered bow hunting ranges as a walk and stalk hunter. Say 40 yards and way less. Oh , some of those hogs were as big as 350lb+ range gutted. Not your average razor back, part bacon hog being longer of body and some color other than black . Not many deer are bigger or tougher. So, so much for not enough cartridge. I did find out I always liked the heavier bullets in a 357.


I moved from florida to nc and now hunt in other states more often and finally started to hunt with a 44mag and currently use a speer 240gr bonded hp or nosler hp for deer . Travels from a 8" DW barrel at 1508fps average with 18.7gr of 2400. Still easy on the shooter and mild on the cases. Should be a couple thousand short of max psi too. Sure not a typical slow poke lower pressured factory fodder load. Same goes for much of the factory 357 ammo today. You need to handload or buy boutique ammo to push the saami limits today.

Problems with certain s&w handguns is not new. From the model 19 with 357loads to the various upgraded model 29's just to get it to a some what stronger model that can atleast hold up to the factory fodder out there to day.

[Sweet Shooter]

So I just want to check. Are we now saying the heavy, say... Buffalo Bore .357 loads are not advised in the Smith revolvers? What about the newer ones? I have a brand new 7 shot 686-6+ that I was hoping to put some stout rounds into as a bow hunting backup this year.

-SS-

[Wyoredman]

Just some personal info.

I have a 629. I use it for my sidearm in Grizz country when fishing and elk hunting.

For hunting trips, I load it with some old Speer 300 grain JFN (0,429" Uni-Core?) bullets to 1200 fps.

I don't shoot many of these, 100 rounds lasts 5+ years.

My 629 is no worse for the wear. It still works fine!

I am sure I will last for more rounds than I will ever shoot from it.

[dayman]

Loads that are marked "Ruger only" should only be fired through Rugers - no matter the caliber. Other than that you should be good to go.
That's my problem with the "rugers are stronger" schtick: it implies that Smiths are delicate, which they are not. Rugers are just built so much stronger than they need to be (for standard loads) that people started cooking up loads just for them.
If Smith's broke easy there wouldn't be so many old ones around.

[spacecoast]

My question is this: for all of the evidence that the 29s and for that matter, 629s are weaker, has there been as much evaluation of 629s that were made POST the endurance package? I mean the 629 debuted around 1980 IIRC, and that was before the endurance package. I guess what I'm saying is that there are many generations and variations of model 29s and 629s. Were all of them given equal consideration? I think its a well known fact that a majority of 29s, and perhaps even 629s would be PRE endurance package. Or is it a simple matter of even the endurance package 629s do not hold up either? I don't know either way, I'm just asking. All I can say is that the same Uncle mentioned above has a 629 Classic DX which has had zero problems. I also don't think he pushes the gun to the top limit, so then really, its probably irrelevant to the exact point of this thread: which gun could handle a steady diet of high pressure 44 mags the longest?

John Taffin did a pretty good job of discussing the differences in the 29 and 629 generations in this article, up to the 29-6 and 629-4.

http://www.sixguns.com/range/SmithWesson44Mag.htm

Personally, I think my 629-4 Classic DX is just about the greatest revolver ever, and I wouldn't want to even try to shoot it loose with a steady diet Buffalo-bore equivalent rounds. The vast majority of my shooting with it uses either powder puff .44 special loads (Bullseye) or middle-range Titegroup or Unique loads under a lead bullet. When I want to shoot the boomers I use a 240 gr. JHP over 24 grains of H110, which is enough to take down anything in the lower 48 I believe, but I shoot a few, admire the results and otherwise don't abuse my gun. It's capable of way more power in a handgun than I will ever need. Just because I refuse to throw it over the rim of the Grand Canyon (or shoot thousands of heavy loads in it) doesn't mean it isn't a sweet-shooting gun at the apex of the revolver hierarchy.

[mavracer]

Nothing is without cost.
For those that think the Redhawk is above distruction I have this. Several years ago I had a friend who was very into bowling pin competition. He decided that the heavy Redhawk would be just the ticket and it worked pretty good too, until the heavy cylinder beat itself against the bolt causing wear to the bolt, frame and cylinder.
Not sure how many rounds it took but he abandoned the idea after only 2 years.

[Winchester_73]

John Taffin did a pretty good job of discussing the differences in the 29 and 629 generations in this article, up to the 29-6 and 629-4.

I'd say that was a good article, thanks for posting, but if you read, he makes no mention of any stamina issues with the 629, whether pre or post endurance package. However, you also did not say he did. I learned by reading the article that you could say the "classic" version is basically a 3rd type of 629, with the lug. Is it possible that the lug, which would dampen the recoil, lessen the possible wear/damage to the gun from recoil?

[spacecoast]

he makes no mention of any stamina issues with the 629, whether pre or post endurance package

Not exactly, but he alludes to the 629 revisions corresponding to the 29 revisions by adding two to the revision number, i.e. 629-1 similar to 29-3 and 629-4 similar to the 29-6, with the most significant change at the 29-5 (or 629-3) revision, with longer cylinder notches and other internal changes.

[skidder]

he makes no mention of any stamina issues with the 629, whether pre or post endurance package.

True, but he does mention they are not as strong as the Redhawk.

I am an admirer, in fact a real fan of the Model 29. As such I treat it right. There is no way that the Model 29 or 629 in any variation can take the punishment that larger framed and heavier cylindered sixguns such as the Ruger Redhawk, Dan Wesson Model 44, or Freedom Arms .44 can handle and beg for more.

[csmsss]

until the heavy cylinder beat itself against the bolt causing wear to the bolt, frame and cylinder.

This is a revolver we're discussing, correct? Where exactly on a revolver would one find the "bolt" ? Do you mean the crane/yoke?

[mavracer]

This is a revolver we're discussing, correct? Where exactly on a revolver would one find the "bolt" ? Do you mean the crane/yoke?

AKA cylinder latch.

[dayman]

So for the OP - who is buying a .44 mag and wondering which to get - would a good synopsis of the last 3 pages (that we can all agree on) be:
Buy whichever you like more. Except, if you're going to be shooting a lot of really hot loads (or want to try the "ruger only" loads), you should get the Ruger. ?

[AID_Admin]

I've been watching this tread for three pages and still did not see anyone with real experience simply put a list: S$W pro's/con's, Ruger pro's/con's ...

[newfrontier45]

Buy whichever you like more. Except, if you're going to be shooting a lot of factory .44Mag loads or have a need for heavy cast bullets, you should get the Ruger. ?

There, fixed it.

That's my problem with the "rugers are stronger" schtick: it implies that Smiths are delicate, which they are not.

It implies no such thing.

I found a speer 170gr sp was a fine deer and hog hammer along with a 180gr hard cast for hogs.

You're using the right bullet. The 125gr referenced above is not. Like I said, it's "adequate". It's the minimum. As in, no one will recommend a lesser cartridge for deer. Most will start at the .41Mag.

[Winchester_73]

I've been watching this tread for three pages and still did not see anyone with real experience simply put a list: S$W pro's/con's

Ok here goes, for the S&W:

Pros:

Ergonomics (grips, sights, feel, cylinder release, I personally like S&W TTs and THs)
Smooth DA trigger
Light crisp SA trigger (not always, but often)
Customer service
Forged, so not as bulky
Easy to do trigger jobs with
A VERY WIDE variety of alternate aftermarket grips to choose from. Grips *can* make a significant difference in shooting
Gun is lighter when it has a half lug (depending on your purpose, this can be an advantage)
Good enough to last a lifetime, unless you want to shoot hotter loads, and a lot of them

Cons:

Cost
Inability to handle a steady diet of "44 mag + P" from such makers as Buffalo bore
Older design than Ruger (ties into above)
Lighter weight than Redhawk (45 oz when with half lug vs Redhawk, 54oz) which increases felt recoil
2 piece frame, which some say weakens the overall design (I question how considerable this would be for shooting purposes when it is forged to begin with. Of course Ruger does not have a sideplate, but I think its because a sideplate is impractical with a cast frame)

I have not fired 10,000 rounds or anything like that through my S&W 29-2 but from firing it however many rounds I did, and firing my uncles 629 classic DX, these are my personal pros/cons for the S&W 629 (or even 29). I find the S&W 44 magnum to be a graceful instrument, and IMO its CONs are outweighed by the PROs. Hence, I have not sold my S&W 44 magnum! I actually have 3, but 2 are early collector's items, one being a first year example.

[AID_Admin]

Thanks, now everything is summed up at glance.

[BillSussman]

Considering this thread is comparing the 629 to the Redhawk... would this indicate that the Super Redhawk is the clear winner?