Which is stronger, Redhawk or N-frame Smith?

I'd have to think that either of them would have no problem digesting a near infinite diet of hot .45 Colts ... but I don't know specifics of which is stronger in certain areas.

The Redhawk. AFAIK it has a fatter cylinder, and in .45 Colt, that matters (at least if you want to run magnum-style modern hot .45 loads).

I have a .44 Mountain Gun, and I really like it. I don't think I'd be interested in a .45, though, since the chamber walls are getting mighty thin.

The Mountain Gun has a regular N Frame and cylinder, but a lighter barrel, skinnier trigger and hammer than the "target" controls, and black sights.

I'm not sure what you consider 'hotish' .45 Colt loads, but if you look at both, the Ruger has a thicker cylinder and top strap, but is heavier than the Smith.
If you are talking about loads like Buffalo Bore or Double Tap, I would think the Ruger will stand up better in the long run. Nothing wrong with the Smith, but when you are shooting those kinds of loads, you want as much metal around you as possible.
Both guns are based off their .44M models and the cylinders and frames are the same for the .45 Colt as the .44M, just bigger holes. This makes the cylinder walls thinner. Ruger started out with a bigger cylinder than Smith so the walls and frame are thicker. If you plan to carry a lot and shoot little the Smith should do you fine. If you plan to shoot the 'hotish' .45 Colt loads on a regular basis, then I would go with the Ruger.
The Mountain Gun is the same frame and cylinder as the other N frames, but has a lighter contour barrel and 'black powder' bevel on the cylinder and a few other enhancements to lighten the weight. I have a MG in .44M and it is a delight to carry, but I have the Hogue X-frame grips so I can shoot the thing. Hope this helps----

the Ruger has a thicker cylinder and top strap, but is heavier than the Smith.

Click to expand...

Good point.

For carry, I'd pick the Mountain Gun any time.

To test new handload recipes for signs of overpressure, I have Rugers.

I'd say both would probably stand up to whatever shooting the (even above) average gunner can put through it.
The difference is most likely academic.
My two cents.

The difference is most likely academic.

Click to expand...

In .44, perhaps. In .45, the N Frame is pushing the limits of its dimensions. That doesn't mean it's weak; it means that it wasn't designed for hot .45 ammo. That's one reason why the .44 Special was settled upon as a parent for the Magnum, instead of the .45 Colt: in existing revolvers at the time, this allowed for a bit more steel in the cylinders.

S&W makes a frame with plenty of room for a big, beefy cylinder: the X Frame.

It's not a question of whether a Ruger or a Smith is stronger. It's a question of which frames are designed with what tradeoffs in mind.

Of course, for standard .45 Colt. this is a non-issue. The S&W is plenty strong enough to shoot a lot of standard .45 Colt. In the modern world, though, .45 Colt has gotten a Magnum makeover.

I thought those two frames were practically identical?
In terms of dimensions what exactly is the difference?

In short, the N-Frame .45 Colt S&W is a 25,000-30,000 PSI gun due to the very thin cylinder bolt cuts left in .45 caliber.
.44 Magnum is rated 36,000, but the holes are smaller.

The Ruger will take about twice that, or 45,000 - 48,000 in .44 Mag.
Probably a little less in .45 Colt, but still a lot more then the S&W.

rc

I have loaded 300 gr. (317gr. drop with gas check) Freedom Arm mould bullets over about 19 gr. of 2400 for use in Rugers and have tried them in my N frame .45 and I feel that it was too much for the Smith. The Rugers are siginificantly stronger from talking to big bore friends of mine and on the boards.

In terms of dimensions what exactly is the difference?

Click to expand...

I don't have a Redhawk to caliper, but if you look at the guns on Ruger and S&W's websites, some of the differences can be seen.

The Redhawk weighs about 6 oz. more than an equivalent 629 (and about a half pound more than a 629 Mountain Gun). That's not all in the grip frame, right? The top strap and the cylinder are both a bit beefier.

The Redhawk has offset notches, the S&W has them dead-center on the charge holes. That makes a pretty big difference, when you bore the things out to .45 Colt dimensions. That's where early .45-based Magnum experiments would blow through.

Like I said, Smith makes a big-bore frame: the X. The N-frame was always intended for holster carry, and was no bigger than necessary, to save size and weight. Bill Ruger, looking to offer something that Colt and Smith didn't already offer plenty of at the time, had a different design philosophy, with a different resulting set of tradeoffs. The N frame dates to 1908, BTW. It just happened to work well with the .44 Magnum, so it was retained for the hot new round in the 1950s. Ruger didn't design any of the current .44 (or .45) lineup until the .44 Magnum existed.

Ahhh, didn't notice the offset ... that would make a huge difference, I'd think.

I've had both. The Smith Mountain Gun in 44 mag is a carry a lot, shoot a little gun. Full house loads will wear you out in a hurry.

The weight savings is in the 'pencil' barrel and the round butt. IIRC the 44 version weighs 39oz...the same weight as a standard 1911, 3oz lighter than a 4" L-frame! The 45 will be a little lighter due to the bigger holes in the barrel and cylinder.

The Smith MG in 45 Colt with standard defense loads is a sweetheart, I even carried one on duty for a coupla years. However when you start with the hot stuff it's just like the 44 version, not a fun gun to shoot.

The newer Smiths are pretty strong.

It is my belief that the Redhawk is stronger.

If you are going to shoot hot stuff or reload the hot stuff you will be better served with the Redhawk. That little bit of extra weight takes most of the sting out and makes the gun more enjoyable to shoot.

If I could carry a revolver on duty again it would be my 4" 45 Colt Redhawk.

If the S&W could handle the same loads as the Ruger, I'm sure S&W would have had something to say about labelling hot .45 Colt loads as "Ruger and Contender Only". The S&W is perfectly fine with the .45 Colt loaded to the 21-23 kpsi level of the .45 ACP however and Accurate Arms does list some of these as "Ruger and Contender" loads.

DWFan beat me to it. In most of the reloading manuals I have, you can find "Ruger and Contender Only" loads.

I was just at the gun shop, and you can look at the N Frame and the Redhawk, and see the difference in cylinder and frame dimensions, easily. The guns don't even need to be next to each other, and you sure don't need calipers.

Personally, I prefer the Smiths. Ruger single actions make great range and hunting guns, but if I want a 4" DA .44 Magnum, it's to put in a holster. However, there's just not enough steel in the N Frame to make a "Ruger-only-load" .45 Colt if that's what you want. The bigger, heavier Redhawk is the best bet for that.

Bill Ruger, looking to offer something that Colt and Smith didn't already offer plenty of at the time, had a different design philosophy, with a different resulting set of tradeoffs.

Click to expand...

Do bear in mind that part of the reason for the increased dimensions is that Ruger uses Investment castings, rather than steel forgings. While it is plenty strong, pound for pound, it is weaker than a good forging.

That said, The RH (and especially SRH) can take a bit more abuse than an N-frame. But they ARE NOT indestructable. You can batter a Red Hawk to death with a steady diet of nuclear ammo.

Ruger's dimensions have always fallen in between what S&W had. The SP-101 falls between J and K frame. The Security six is larger and heavier than a K, but smaller and lighter than an L (The GP-100 is damn near equal to the L). The RH is a little bulkier than an N-frame, but no where near an X-frame

To the OP-

If you're not gonna consistently run loads hotter than ~1,200 FPS with a 250 grainer, choose which one fits you best. If you wanna regularly pound it with loads that equal or exceed standard .44 Magnum, I'd opt for the RH. I'd trust the Smith to handle those 1,300+ FPS loads in the event of defense against things with claws and fangs, but I wouldn't make a regular practice of pushing it's limits.

RedHawk

Do bear in mind that part of the reason for the increased dimensions is that Ruger uses Investment castings, rather than steel forgings. While it is plenty strong, pound for pound, it is weaker than a good forging.

Click to expand...

That’s not exactly true-it’s a little more complicated of an answer than that, but casting do not require more steel to equal the same forging strength. Example: Ruger’s newer pistols have much thinner slides than previous models yet still retain their renowned strength. Higher quality materials and better heat treatment go a long way.

it’s a little more complicated of an answer than that, but casting do not require more steel to equal the same forging strength

Click to expand...

That depends on what type of strength you're talking about. But regardless, it really is pretty simple. Forging causes realignment of molecules, which also causes work-hardening. From there, the piece can be annealed to make it more workable or ductile, or chemical and heat treated to further increase it's hardness, tensile strength and shear strength, while the exact composition of the metal and the hardening process will dictate brittleness.

Casting has come a long way the in the last century, but it is still inferior to forging for strength in all capacities. But it is strong enough, and it is much less expensive, which is why Rugers are more affordable. Of course, S&W has turned alot more to casting and MIM to stay competitive............

Higher quality materials and better heat treatment go a long way.

Click to expand...

Forged steels (and other alloys) have benefitted from the same metallurgical advancements

Very true; forged frames & cylinders make a big difference.

Years ago one of the gun rags (I think Guns & Hunting) did a blow-up comparison between the S&W Mod. 29 and Ruger Super Blackhawk (this was before the Redhawk was introduced).

The S&W held together after the Ruger let go.

I realize the SBH is not a Redhawk, but it's still a stout, solid frame, complete with (slightly) off-center locking-bolt slots.

Anyone feel like donating an S&W and a Ruger for an updated test..?