.44 Magnum +P

Status
Not open for further replies.
Because the other revolvers listed are known to be very much more strongly built than the S&W 629. Others will have more technical details, but if you heft a Super Redhawk and compare it to a 629, you'll see what I mean. It's not that a 629 will just "blow up" on the first round, it's that it's not designed to take that kind of beating over time. IIRC, Canadian Game and Fish officers used to carry Super Redhawks with Buffalo Bore 300 gr. solids for protection from Polar bears. Can't remember if I read that in a gun rag or somewhere else, but it makes sense. They may have changed since then, however.
 
The top strap on the 29 is rather delicate , Rugers are much beefier.

It's a trade off between elegance and brawn.

I wonder if my Winchester 1894 would enjoy this ammo ?
 
I won't argue that the Rugers are much "beefier" than the Smiths, but they're not as much stonger as they appear to be. And don't take this the wrong way - I'm definitely not bashing Rugers, which are fine handguns (own a couple myself). But...

Smith & Wessons are built with forged frames, and Rugers with cast frames. Pound-for-pound (and inch-for-inch) forged is considerably stronger. Ruger frames have to be made much heavier simply to be as strong as a lighter, forged frame.
 
Last edited:
It may have to do with the "torch cutting" of the top strap that was problematic for most manufacturers that tried to market revolvers that could handle the .357 Maximum and .445 Supermag.

IIRC Dan Wesson models were the only ones that could actually solve the problem, that had a lot to due with the barrel assemblies that Dan Wesson's have though, much smaller gaps between the forcing cone and cylinder can be achieved. I own a .445 Supermag and .357 Maximum from Dan Wesson, I seem to recall that Ruger had one as well, but it wouldn't stand up to the repeated firings that the Dan Wessons would, and that all other manufacturers gave up as well.
 
Smith & Wessons are built with forged frames, and Rugers with cast frames. Pound-for-pound (and inch-for-inch) forged is considerably stronger. Ruger frames have to be made much heavier simply to be as strong as a lighter, forged frame.
Click to expand...

I believe that this statement is a mistake. Cast frames can be every bit as strong as forged. Given that the Ruger Redhawk and Super Redhawk are much beefier than the 629 any difference would be overcome if a difference between cast and forged existed.

But it's more than that. The 629 is based on a 100 year old design. When the M29 was introduced it was found that it could not hold up to prolonged use of heavy loads, timing would go off, cylinders back up, etc. So about the time of the 29-5 S&W re-engineered the design. The choice they had was to either rebuild the gun entirely (changeing it's look quite a bit) or install an "endurance" package, radiusing the studs and some work on smaller parts. They did this and it's been a part of the 29/629 package since. It worked some but only up to a point.

The Ruger guns, especially the Super Redhawk are built from the ground up for high pressure ammo. The lock up is stronger. The overall design stronger and simpler. They are not as handy as the 629 or a good looking,but they are much stronger.

The 629 is a good strong gun based on a 100 year old design long before the .44 Mag or stronger loadings of the .45 Colt existed. The Ruger is stronger though built from the beginning for the higher pressure magnum rounds.

tipoc
 
It has always been my understanding that forged steel is, always has been, and always will be stronger than cast. That's why cast revolver frames are thicker, to compensate. I know that when I was younger and playing with hot rods the cast crankshafts that became common from Detroit starting in the late 1970s were shunned by racers who preferred the earlier forged units.

Cast is cheaper to produce. That's why it became popular with some manufacturers.

BTW- The problem with the S&Ws isn't the frame, it's the bolt stop cuts which are directly over the chambers leaving a very thin bit of steel.
 
SaxonPig is right about the problem being the cylinder cuts.

Forged is stronger than cast if the metallurgical (hope I spelled that right) formula is the same. The strength of either can be changed by manipulating the formula of the steel and I really doubt that S&W and Ruger use the same grade steel.
 
Having given the matter a little thought, I've decided that if 240gr at 1200fps won't kill it I'm not shooting at it. Instead, I'll hire it as a bodyguard. If I think there's a chance I'll be charged by a grizzly, cape buffalo or rhino I'll stay home. Unless, of course, my bodyguard is with me.
 
.44Mag +P? Are you kidding me?

That's kinda why there's a .454Casull, .460S&W, and .500S&W.

If it takes more than a full power .44mag, I'm not going to screw around and make one more punishing to shoot- I'll go one size up, get an X frame, and blow whatever it is into next week. Or I'll just use a long gun.
 
A new production 629 will be able to shoot these. How much, though, is the question. Maybe a 629 will break down after X amount of rounds, and the Ruger would break down after X+Y amount of rounds. Does it really matter? These would be shot only a few times anyway, due to the price and their designated purpose.
 
What if you don't have any of those heavier calibers? The .44 +P makes all the sense in the world. If you need to kill very large animals. For any game animal in North America, the .44 mag will do it. It just makes sense to make a bigger, heavier bullet for bigger heavier animals like Elk & Bear.

The whole idea of 'heavy for caliber' projectiles is well known among handgun hunters. I use 300gr bullets in .44 mag myself, though I don't believe they need to be driven at 1500fps to be effective!
 
+P in .44mag; S&W revolvers

A +P in .44magnum seems to be a bit much, :rolleyes:.

Smith & Wesson revolvers in .44mag have had a bad rep with full power loads due to the stupid security lock system the company has pushed on the US market, :cuss:.

That's why I'd buy a Ruger .44magnum over most S&W models. :D

The N frame Lew Horton DA revolvers do look nice though, :).

Rusty S
 
I own a 629-5. It was my understanding that two professional metallic silhuette shooters shot 10,000 full-house rounds through the prototype mules to varify the strength of the modifications.

To that, I have never fired a full-house reload in my life in any gun I have ever owned in my life. Even my rifle varmint loads were backed down one full grain.

My question is, (in the real world), why would you even want to fire 10,000 full-house rounds of anything?
 
First of all, there is no evidence that cast frames are weaker than forged frames.

Second, there real risk with using heavy loads in a revolver is developing "end shake." This is a condition where the cylinder can move slightly back and forth. This means the cylinder gets a "runup" when when fired. Over time, the constant back-and-forth battering causes the revolver to go out of time.

The Ruger Redhawk is much less susceptible to this kind of damage than the S&W design.
 
I thought it was due to the overall length of the round. The cylinder in my Alaskan is a bit longer than normal, and thus can accept a round with a longer OAL. It was my understanding that S&W cylinders use a standard .44 magnum length.
 
Vern Humphrey said:
Second, there real risk with using heavy loads in a revolver is developing "end shake."
Click to expand...

That is my understanding, as well.

Having said that, I know of one SW 19 belonging to a retired LEO that was fired so much over the span of his career (and repaired) that the frame was "stretched."

(I also believe that we use that term "stretched" to actually signify the intense wearing of all parts which lock the revolver on ignition, coupled with flame cutting. In truth, I have seen more forcing cones cracked that any other long duration damage.)
 
That is my understanding, as well.

Having said that, I know of one SW 19 belonging to a retired LEO that was fired so much over the span of his career (and repaired) that the frame was "stretched."
Click to expand...
Frame stretching is the ultimate consequence of end shake.
 
The heaviest load I've shot in my 6" 629 no-dash is 270gr at 1326fps. The gun has no problem with that load, but I sure do. Barrel rise above the head. Big, big blast. Zero fun on the range.
 
Mr. Humprey, do you know about any of the newer data on later 629-5s and the Rugers?
Click to expand...
I know of destruction tests on Rugers -- mostly by companies which converted Rugers to 5-shot capacity. I do not know of any head-to-head destruction testing of Rugers versus Smith & Wessons.

If someone does know of such a test, or even of comparable tests, I would be very interested to see the results.
 
Dash-5 629's have all the improvements of the earlier -1, -2, -3, -4 guns, and also have MIM parts in the lock-work, smooth grip frame without serrations, frame mounted firing pin, and no cylinder stop stud.

rcmodel
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
44 Mag +P
Replies
8
Views
2K
Rampant_Colt
R
C
  • Locked
.44 Magnum: Buffalo Bore vs. Doubletap vs. Garrett
Replies
15
Views
5K
Sundles
S
O
  • Locked
DT 200gr WFNGC hard cast short barrel velocity?
Replies
2
Views
511
ORHunter79
O
O
  • Locked
Ruger Security Six 2.75" for woods defense?
2 3
Replies
50
Views
8K
PabloJ
P
C
  • Locked
Double Tap 45acp+p Hard Cast???
Replies
9
Views
689
klash545
K
Back
Top