What gun is comparable to a Ruger Super Redhawk .44 Mag

smith & wesson model 629,
or model 29 if you like the classic look

While the Smith's are fine pistols, the SRH is built like a tank.

I'd go with a Super Blackhawk.

Hi there

Ive just bought a Redhawk 44. I have to wait two years to get my licence though. I recently shot a friends Redhawk, and i was very impressed with the look, finish and handling. Im realy happy with my decision to go with the redhawk. The SRH is great but heavier than the RH, and seen as though im going to be carrying it alot and it will mainly be used for back-up, the 7.5" RH is perfect for me.

well, you cud always get a 20MM anti-tank weapon!!!!!!

The Smith is a great gun. No question.

However, the Ruger SRh is in a league by itself for heft, beefyness, & sheer mass. If you're looking to hunt or shoot silhouettes, it's the king of the hill. If you're wanting it for more of a heavy-duty trail gun (i.e. bear defense) you're gonna be hiking with a LOT of iron on your hip. I've heard that Jillian & Bob, the trainers on BIGGEST LOOSER, when they really want to be mean, makes their unruley contestants carry two SRh's while running up hills. Breaks 'em down everytime.

Another fellow was pondering a similar thing, but he was asking about the Redhawk, not SRh. Might be some insight here: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=449881&page=2

Q

I love S&Ws. I've had a myriad of Rugers - the one I miss was my .454 SRH. If they made a 4" SRH - in .480 Ruger - I'd happily pay list for it. I would say a .44M SRH is in a heavy weight class with only the Thompson Contender - a single shot 'hand' gun. They are the go-to firearms when you want to shoot ammo intentionally made hotter than the SAAMI spec for .44 Magnum. Stay within box stock commercial .44 Magnum spec's, and get a S&W 629 - you'll be a lot happier.

Stainz

Looks like the SRH I'd the way to go!

Click to expand...

The SRH will digest even the most potent ammo without a hiccup, and you'll feel like you're shooting mild loads. That's the good thing.

The bad thing is that it is a massive handgun. It's big, bulky, and heavy. I almost liken it to a mini rifle.

If you intend to shoot large volumes of magnum loads frequently, that's the gun. If you intend to carry it while working on your farm, you maybe want something lighter.

harmonic really put it in a nutshell.

For a silhouette/range gun, the SRH is great. But for a woods/carry .44, it's too big and heavy. Get a pre-lock S&W 629, Mountain Gun or, heavier but still doable, a Ruger (non-Super) Redhawk 4":

http://www.ruger.com/Firearms/FAProdView?model=5026&return=Y

There is also the funky "sawed-off" version of the Super Redhawk, the Alaskan, whose 2.5" barrel makes it comparable to a S&W 629 in weight. I must confess I want one:

http://www.ruger.com/Firearms/FAProdView?model=5303&return=Y

All these Ruger double action .44 Magnums are basically nuke-proof. You can shoot all the full-power, heavy-bullet 300 gr Magnums you can tolerate.

The S&W .44 Mags are tough guns too, especially those made in the last 20 years, but by most accounts are not quite as resistant to very hard use. The Smiths tend to have smoother actions than the Rugers and slightly superior fit and finish.

Personally, I prefer to do my .44 shooting with medium loads like factory 240 gr Magnums and heavy .44 Specials. The S&Ws digest these with ease. I found the svelter S&W 629 was a more practical gun than the (mostly) heavy Rugers. Backpacking; car carry & nightstand (w/ .44 Specials); range shooting. Very versatile.

You can move up the price list a ways and look at a Colt Anaconda. Sweet looking guns. Never fired one.

Although not currently made the Dan Wesson is another very tough revolver. I believe on ammo maker claims they have loads available only for Ruger and Dan Wesson. The Anaconda is beefy too.

I allmost bought a SRH, but would never use the scope capability and didn't like the grip . I did buy a .44mag Redhawk 5.5 inch and am very happy with it. It also fits nicely in cowboy style holster.

I think some of S&W's Performance Center guns might approach the SRH in terms of shootability, but the Ruger would easily have them beat for value.

Ummm... The S&W X-frame revolver is probably more bigger, but I don't think it's available in .44m. You can shoot some pipsqueak .454 Casull loads in the .460XVR, if you want to wimp out

Maybe a standard Super Blackhawk or Super Blackhawk Hunter? That's the bargain right now, frankly, as everyone is selling their SA Ruger .44 magnums and they can be had for not much. Even in the 7.5 barrel lengths, it's a lighter gun and will recoil harder than a SRH. Your next step up will be your 629's and so on, and it's probably something like a doubling in price. If you have a Super Redhawk in front of you while you're asking the question, buy it! If you have to go hunt for one, that's probably not going to end up being your best bargain right now.

There's also the Taurus Raging Bull series.

www.taurusarmed.net

www.gunnerforum.com

If I were you go for a 4" Ruger Redhawk either 44 mag or if you handload 45 Colt. i wish I could get the 4" in 45 Colt in my state but as yet I can't. Any revolver that throws a 320 gr LBT bullet at 1200-1300 fps is nothing to sneeze at.

Let's muddy the equation with facts. A 7.5" SRH weighs 53 oz - but a 7.5" RH weighs 54 oz! The nearest S&W 629 is an 8.4" - it weighs 53.5 oz. They all take the same HKS #29 speedloader. Guess what - the cylinder chamber to chamber wall thickness is nearly the same, as is the centerline radius (... or else, that speedloader wouldn't work!). Now, the Rugers are cast and machined - the S&W hammer-forged and heat treated. The Rugers have a longer cylinder - allowing longer bullets to be seated.

The .44M SRH is an ugo - I like the grey finish the .480 & .454 have better - kind of a techno-ugo. Of course, it's not standard cast SS, either - those grey monsters are made of a space age variant requiring newer machining techniques.

I'd stay in the commercial SAAMI spec and get a 629... in fact, I did - ultimately, both a 4" & 6".

Stainz

I have a Taurus m44 6.5 inch in stainless on order, it is slightly smaller than the Raging Bull series, more on line with a S&W 629.

Ruger, S&W both make excellent revolvers. I have both and the Smith's are slightly trimmer and the Ruger's bulkier, but it is a good bulky. Much is made about the superior strenght of the Ruger and to some extent this is true.
If you can check both out at the same time, you will notice that the Smith has a side plate held in by screws and the crane is held in by another screw. The Ruger is a solid, one piece frame and the cyl is longer which permits a longer round. There are some 300 gr and heavier rounds that simpliy won't fit in a Smith's cyl. Buffalo Bore and Garrett come to mind.
The story has always been Smith's have a better trigger than the Ruger's, but I not found this to be true on the newer Ruger's, especially the SRH series. I shoot my Ruger .44M SRH Alaskan a lot, and it has as nice a trigger as any Smith I own and I just like the design and the balanced 'feel' better.
Handle both and then make up your mind. IMHO, you will wind up with the SRH. Big? Strong? Accruate? Solid? All of the above. If you go with the S&W you will still have a fine revolver--It's really a win-win.