Ruger Redhawk vs M629

[Palladan44]

I know the traditional thinking is that the Ruger Redhawk is a stronger gun and can take a steadier amount of heavier loads. But I'm not a fan of getting a single thought burned into my brain and accept it as scripture forever......

I'd like to take a fresh look at the new manufactured guns. I currently own a new 4.2" Redhawk. I do like it, but every Smith and Wesson I own has a better trigger.
I've been eyeing up the Smith and Wesson 629. 4" The price point is about the same as the Redhawk (Rugers crept up to Smith prices in the last 10 years)

I know companies like Buffalo Bore say NO-GO to Smith's with their heavy 44 ammunition. Making me think there is some weakness with them......I'm not sure it's true.

Let's take a fresh look into this. I know there are complaints about newly manufactured Smith and Wessons when compared to ones of the yester-years.
Also, stainless is softer than carbon steel, so is there even more concern with a Stainless M629 than that of a Regular M29 as far as durability?

Let's keep this thread polite and no brand bashing. I need to make a decision based on real world information and experience, and no here say.....I'm likely going to own both of them anyways, unless I find the New 629s can't offer me something more than the Redhawk.

 

[WrongHanded]

The experts at Handloader magazine have stated that the Redhawk is stronger. There is a whole article on .44 Magnum "+P" loads, specifically for the Redhawk. There should be no doubt about which is stronger, until S&W do something different.

But the Redhawk has a few issues. Grip choice is extremely limited, and due to the size and shape of the grip frame, it's hard to get a grip that will cover the backstrap without being too large in the hand for the vast majority of people.

The other issue is the trigger. The Redhawk has a single main spring for both the hammer and the trigger return. This makes the DA pull rather smooth as you work against only one spring. Unfortunately, it also causes a heavy SA trigger because you aren't just working against a trigger return spring and the friction of the sear interface. Instead you are working against the entire compressed force of the main spring (hammer spring), compressing it just a little farther to disengage the sears. So the RH is good for DA, but not so good for SA work.

The cylinder is also (I'm fairly certain) longer, which means more room for increasing COAL with handloads. And mild crimp jump is somewhat less of a concern.

If you don't want to shoot hot and/or heavy loads, the Redhawk is probably not the best option. But if you do, it's a good choice if you can find a grip that works for you. Though the Super Redhawk is probably better overall, due to some design differences that mean better ergonomics, a better SA trigger, and typically the ability to mount a scope/optic without removing the iron sights.

 

[Styx]

What @WrongHanded said. If it's for a no frills heavy duty hunting/wilderness tool that you might be firing hot loads out of at 4 legged creates, go with the Redhawk. It's the best for that situation. The trigger is more than adequate for that.

If you're mostly going to be carrying 44 spc, shooting standard pressure loads, doing a lot of plinking, and want a nicer, prettier, more refined revolver with a better trigger and aftermarket support, I'd go with the 629.

 

[Necessary_Nutrient]

I think we need to redefine “heavy loads”. Factory 44 Mag will run up to pretty heavy levels- the examples below from my testing are showing nearly 1000 ft/Lbs from a Smith 629 6” using Factory PMC 180 Grain JHP.

The Winchester ‘White Box” 240 Grain soft points are running at just under 1100 ft/Lbs from a 7.5” Ruger SBH.

I wouldn’t hesitate for a minute to run full-zoot, SAAMI spec 44 Mag in the S&W all day. In fact, 23.6 to 24 Grains of H110 reloads are about all I run in these guns.

As far as +P or +P+, that’s another matter. It isn’t technically 44 Mag at that point and if you need those energy levels I’d recommend bumping to any of the heavier rounds like 454 Casull, 460/500 Smith, 475 Linebaugh/480 Ruger, etc but I’m a very cautious, by-the-book sort of reloader. YMMV

I recently acquired a Redhawk 5.5” and I think it’s delightful- accurate as the Smith and heavier so it rolls nicely in the hand with heavy, SAAMI-spec loads. No chrony testing yet. I truly love both my 629 and Redhawk easily two of my handgun favorites. The Smith is a bit lighter and easier handling, both seem to have great triggers in SA to me.

 

[SDGlock23]

My biggest complaint against the Redhawk is the trigger, in that area the Super Redhawk is MUCH better but Ruger doesn't seem to want to offer it in anything but a short 2.5" barrel (Alaskan) or the longer 7.5-9.5" models. Why they don't offer it with a 4-5" barrel is a mystery. I have a 629 5" and the trigger, stock, is pretty good. It can handle warm loads but I wouldn't shoot the really HOT stuff through it, those are better left to the Rugers.

Of course I have to wonder, just how hot do .44 Mag loads need to be in order for it to be effective? My thought is that it doesn't have to be super high end stuff, that's just more recoil and the beauty of big bore revolvers is that you don't need to run them to nuclear levels in order for them to be effective. In addition to the 5" 629 I also have a 2.75" S&W M69 and I'm considering getting a 7.5" Super Redhawk, it's got the same trigger system as the GP100 and with a Wolff spring kit it makes for a very good trigger, better than a stock S&W.

If I need more power than the .44 Mag (and I don't...), I do have the .500 too.

 

[Styx]

I think we need to redefine “heavy loads”. Factory 44 Mag will run up to pretty heavy levels- the examples below from my testing are showing nearly 1000 ft/Lbs from a Smith 629 6” using Factory PMC 180 Grain JHP.

The Winchester ‘White Box” 240 Grain soft points are running at just under 1100 ft/Lbs from a 7.5” Ruger SBH.

I wouldn’t hesitate for a minute to run full-zoot, SAAMI spec 44 Mag in the S&W all day. In fact, 23.6 to 24 Grains of H110 reloads are about all I run in these guns.

As far as +P or +P+, that’s another matter. It isn’t technically 44 Mag at that point and if you need those energy levels I’d recommend bumping to any of the heavier rounds like 454 Casull, 460/500 Smith, 475 Linebaugh/480 Ruger, etc but I’m a very cautious, by-the-book sort of reloader. YMMV

I recently acquired a Redhawk 5.5” and I think it’s delightful- accurate as the Smith and heavier so it rolls nicely in the hand with heavy, SAAMI-spec loads. No chrony testing yet. I truly love both my 629 and Redhawk easily two of my handgun favorites. The Smith is a bit lighter and easier handling, both seem to have great triggers in SA to me.

View attachment 1136159

"Heavy loads" in this context I believe is referring to loads the Ruger can safely handle a diet of that the S&W can not. We're simply saying the Redhawk is a tougher and more robust revolver that gives the option to handle loads that the 629 can not. If those are features some owners prioritize. Same somewhat true for why many perfer the GP100 over L frames.

 

[Necessary_Nutrient]

I know what you’re saying but I think it would be more clear if +P or +P+ was used to refer to heavy loads.

 

[Palladan44]

How would we say that 240grain
Loads with 23-24 grains of WW-296 stack up to these +p loads?
The above load is the hottest 44 loads I run.
I'd be happy to get a Smith and only run say 3/4 throttle loads through it. Keep 240grainers to 1250 fps or so.....maybe using 2400.

 

[BBarn]

S&W's N-frame was originally designed for the 357 Magnum. If you want strength/durability, the Ruger is a better choice. If you want a lighter/smoother action, choose the S&W.

 

[CraigC]

Nothing has changed. The S&W design is its biggest flaw and it hasn't changed since the original Triple-Lock, a relic of the blackpowder era. It was designed for the .44Spl, not the .357. S&W's are still going to shoot loose long before their Ruger counterpart. I won't even feed my N-frames full pressure loads and treat them as slightly stronger .44Spl's. Mostly a 240gr SWC at 1100-1200fps.

Bill Ruger had the advantage of hindsight and deliberately engineered the known weaknesses out of his designs. Which is why the Redhawk/Super Redhawk has a larger solid frame, larger cylinder, offset bolt notches and more robust lockwork. Same reason why Blackhawks have coil springs and a more durable bolt, to alleviate known weaknesses in the Colt design.

I have to disagree with the notion that if you want more than the .44Mag, you need a bigger cartridge. It was pushing existing cartridges that created those new cartridges. I don't think the .454 obsoletes the .45Colt in the least. In fact, if you load the .44Mag, .45Colt, .454, .475 and .500's to 50,000psi using bullets with a sectional density of .25-.27, you get the same result. Around 1350fps and tons of penetration. With the Redhawk or Super Redhawk, you can do that with the .44Mag, without the expense of a Freedom Arms, custom Ruger or a 5lb X-frame. A 355gr WLN at 1350fps is potent stuff and penetrates better than a 360gr .45/.454. This is a realm of performance that the N-frame can't touch. It's up to the individual to decide if it's necessary or not.

PS, this .44 SRH is untouched other than the grips and sights and has a 3lb single action trigger and is one of the most accurate handguns I own. That said, anything can be tuned to be slicker than butter on glass. I would never choose a sixgun based on the factory trigger.




For a Ruger single action to be capable of the same loads as a box stock RH/SRH, you need an oversized cylinder.

 

[Palladan44]

The Redhawk is mine, and the M629 in the second pic is the specific firearm I'm considering.

 

[CraigC]

There's certainly nothing wrong with them, as long as they're used within their capability. You can get a lot done with a 1000-1200fps load. You'll gain more capability with a 310gr at 1000fps than you will pushing 240's to 1400fps.

 

[Riomouse911]

I think a lot has to do with long term durability when shooting max-type loads. For a long time S&W’s were breaking down shooting lots of stout loads and the reputation got widespread.

S&W did address a lot of this years ago with the “endurance package”, which apparently beefed up hammer and trigger pins, lock work parts, sturdier bolt notches, etc. Newer S&W.44’s are pretty darn tough, but the Redhawk/SRH still has the rep as the toughest factory DA of the batch.

(In all honesty, with the increase in recoil unpleasantness from a very effective .44 load up to a max load, maxing stuff out just doesn’t do it for me anymore. )

Stay safe.

 

[nofendertom]

In my .44 Mag days, I had a Ruger Redhawk for maximum, heavy duty loads and a Mod 29, 8 3/8in for shoot all day (approx 1100fps) loads using a 240gr bullet.

 

[Walkalong]

Apples to Oranges IMHO, two very different guns suited to different purposes.

 

[Palladan44]

Apples to Oranges IMHO, two very different guns suited to different purposes.

So having both makes sense then?

 

[Targa]

So having both makes sense then?

That’s what I did…

 

[CraigC]

I think a lot has to do with long term durability when shooting max-type loads. For a long time S&W’s were breaking down shooting lots of stout loads and the reputation got widespread.

S&W did address a lot of this years ago with the “endurance package”, which apparently beefed up hammer and trigger pins, lock work parts, sturdier bolt notches, etc. Newer S&W.44’s are pretty darn tough, but the Redhawk/SRH still has the rep as the toughest factory DA of the batch.

(In all honesty, with the increase in recoil unpleasantness from a very effective .44 load up to a max load, maxing stuff out just doesn’t do it for me anymore. )

Stay safe.

They fixed what they could. Which is the action pins shearing off the frame but they can't fix the flex in the frame without a total redesign. They started fresh with the X-frame but still stuck with the sideplate design. Which is probably why we're hearing of high round count rental guns shooting loose like the N-frames always did.

 

[Barbaroja]

It’s very easy to change the springs and polish the internal parts and you will have a super strong revolver with a trigger that can beat a smith and Wesson

 

[Riomouse911]

They fixed what they could. Which is the action pins shearing off the frame but they can't fix the flex in the frame without a total redesign. They started fresh with the X-frame but still stuck with the sideplate design. Which is probably why we're hearing of high round count rental guns shooting loose like the N-frames always did.

Ya, 1900’s design vs 1950’s design. Lots of time for Bill Ruger and Co. to see what weaknesses to overcome to handle firing a lot of heavy loads .

Stay safe.

 

[Ru4real]

It’s amusing that these revolver threads come down to strength, always. If this were a rifle vs rifle thread, it would come down to

1. Accuracy S&W 29
2. Recoil & follow up S&W
3. Lightness S&W
4. Strength of materials S&W
5. Icon S&W (see Dirty Harry thread)
6. Value S&W (tie when RH was $200 cheaper than S&W)
7. Trigger pull SA and DA S&W
8. Speed of operation S&W (ask Jerry M)
9. Proof strength RH

 

[Targa]

Delete

 

[WrongHanded]

It’s amusing that these threads come down to strength, always. If this were a rifle vs rifle thread, it would come down to

1. Accuracy S&W 29
2. Recoil & follow up S&W
3. Lightness S&W
3. Strength of materials S&W
4. Icon S&W (see Dirty Harry thread)
5. Value S&W (tie when BH was $200 cheaper than S&W)
6. Trigger pull SA and DA S&W
7. Speed of operation S&W (ask Jerry M)
8. Proof strength BH

Nice list. Only "BH" generally stands of Blackhawk. We're talking about the Redhawk, or "RH".

 

[Palladan44]

It’s amusing that these threads come down to strength, always. If this were a rifle vs rifle thread, it would come down to

1. Accuracy S&W 29
2. Recoil & follow up S&W
3. Lightness S&W
3. Strength of materials S&W
4. Icon S&W (see Dirty Harry thread)
5. Value S&W (tie when BH was $200 cheaper than S&W)
6. Trigger pull SA and DA S&W
7. Speed of operation S&W (ask Jerry M)
8. Proof strength BH

....And with semi autos, I'm interested in how long they can be frozen in a block of ice, covered in mud, blew up, and threw against a brick wall and still operate.......

 

[paul105]

I don't think there is any question that the Redhawk/Super Redhawk is a much stronger handgun than the S&W M29/629. Craig C pretty much said it all.

With that said, I worked with a guy that ruined a Redhawk (burned out the forcing cone/barrel extension and spider webbed the cylinder face requiring replacement of both at his expense. He worked out in the boonies on a mine reclamation site, and had some steel sihlouettes set up across an arroyo and shot several hundred rounds a day (240/22gr 2400) after work for a couple of years (he had a Dillon 650).

I shot the barrel loose on a Freedom Arms M83 475 Linebaugh (15,000 + rnds of 380/420gr at 1,100 - 1,300 fps). Talking with Bob Baker (FA Owner - we decided that to replace the bbl).

I had a couple of S&W M329s replaced and the replacements with more than a few factory repair/replace fixes (9,000 rnds of 240-265gr at 1,150 - 1,250 fps from 4").

The point is that if used (abused) enough, mechanical devices exhibit wear and will ultimately require repair/maint or even fail.

Will you really shoot enough "hot" .44 mag loads to cause a problem with a 29/629. And if you do, is the N frame platform worth fixing to continue shooting - the above 329s were to me.

It's all about tradeoffs.

Paul


(The question I always have is what are you going to use the gun for? Are you really going to shoot thousands of max heavy for caliber bullet loads.