Ruger Redhawk vs M629

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.

I've had my Redhawk since Father's Day of 1982 (thank you, dear wife) and what WrongHanded reported is exactly the same as what I've experienced with the trigger pulls on my revolver. Unfortunately, the trigger pulls (heavy on the sa; light on the da) is the reverse of how I would want it as I shoot sa on my Redhawk 99.99 percent of the time. But the da pull is pretty sweet, not withstanding...
 
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

1. Really? That SRH above pretty much does this with everything I've shot through it and these aren't light target loads.

007.jpg

2. How is a lighter gun lighter in recoil? In the video of my water buffalo hunt, it looks like I'm shooting a PPC gun. Even though it's a 300gr bronze solid at 1450fps. The big Ruger is much more comfortable to shoot with heavy loads..

3. Yes, S&W's tend to be lighter. Unless it isn't. Some of the PC offerings are actually heavier. Which flips #2, sort of.

4. How you figure that, the tired old cast vs forged argument? They use the same alloys and the Ruger is a stronger design so what's the logic here?

5. Buy the gun, not the story. Bullets kill game, not Hollywood legends.

6. Meh. Nothing is cheap anymore and S&W has cheapened its product until there's little or no advantage.

7. It's a hunting gun. That said, the above SRH has a 3lb single action pull and any gunsmith can make it better.

8. Again, context. We ain't gunnin' for ole Jerry with a .44Mag.

9. The role of ultimate strength still comes down to intended purpose.
 
I don't see me shooting loose my 629 with SAMMI pressure loads. I have no doubt the Ruger will last longer especially with +P loads. But if I planned on shooting a lot of +P or +P+ rounds I would get my BFR out as I am sure that can handle more then either.
 
I three 44 magnum revolvers: a SBH, SRH, and 629.

The 629 has the nicest DA and it's the prettiest. If I just wanted to shoot 44 magnums every once in a while, it would probably be my choice.

If I wanted to shoot a whole lot of really heavy loads (I don't), it would be the SBH for sure. That thing looks and feels super reinforced.

full&d=1569701550.jpg
 
I like my Redhawk vs either S&W simply because felt recoil is less.

All three are fine guns. I would never shoot enough hot rounds to destroy any of them.
 
My 8-3/8" M29-2 nickel Plated was new in box w/ papers until about 2 years ago, where I got the urge to shoot it. Yeah, I know, stupid right? I go back and forth between keeping certain firearms pristine, then getting the notion of "guns are tools" and meant to be used..... I've fired at least 3 or 4 unfired collectibles over the years, but only a little bit at the range.. Python, and Smith's mostly. I feel I didn't devalue them much, maybe a couple hundred bucks.....
A beautiful weapon that just spends a lifetime sitting doing nothing to me is a bit sad. Now to my point.....
That M29-2 shot POA/POI right out of the box, and the LSWC, medium velocity rounds I fired from it all overlapped each other in a clover-leaf grouping at about 30 feet.... That made me want a 29 that could become a designated shooter.
This makes me wonder how much a modern day M629 would differ from the sweet crispness of my mid-century pinned/recessed 29?
 
Last edited:
I like magnums more from having the option to shoot high energy loads if I want to, but most of the time I don’t want to. The strength debate doesn’t mean much to me personally. I like the looks of both, but am more drawn to the 629 and so that is what I have. I also love what I perceive as lower maintenance requirements for stainless steel. Not the most rational approach, but the most satisfying to me.
 
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.

Nothing has changed about either design which would make either stronger or weaker than they used to be.

If you weighed a brick in 1990 and weigh it again today, would you be kindly accepting the single thought as scripture that it should weigh the same as it did 30yrs ago? C’mon… they’re the same designs and materials they’ve always been, so the Ruger RH still has a dual-acting single spring design, and the M29/629 is still thinner in the cylinder wall and still has a weaker crane and yoke.

The S&W is still weaker than the RH, the RH still stronger than the 29, and for some reason, that remains critically important - for whatever reason - to a bunch of folks which never shoot anything over 36kpsi, and typically never anything but boxed factory ammo…
 
that remains critically important - for whatever reason - to a bunch of folks which never shoot anything over 36kpsi, and typically never anything but boxed factory ammo…

Look you and most of us here, are handloaders; we know what the strengths and weaknesses are of each design. But I guess that is what makes us handloaders different, same reason why .41 mag is a viable caliber many of us will still chose as well; ammo selection just doesn't affect us.
We look at the pros and cons of Ruger vs S&W very subjectively; we like S&W because it's a prettier gun, we like Ruger because it's a sturdier gun. We know exactly what our ammo does so we shoot accordingly.
To a novice who just wants a cool .44 mag for the hell of it? Redhawk would be a safe bet.
But when it comes to all hard decisions, safest answer is just Both.
 
To a novice who just wants a cool .44 mag for the hell of it? Redhawk would be a safe bet.

And for this novice, you’re implying the M29 isn’t a safe bet?

Do “we” know that novices, categorically, will be loading ammo which exceed 36kpsi (but also does not exceed 40kpsi, which is the accepted safety limit of the RH)? Or are you implying that “we” know M29’s have a history of dangerous failures, especially in the hands of novices, such they can’t tolerate even the 36kpsi SAAMI standard they’ve tolerated for decades?

Get my drift? Way too many folks - handloaders especially - which have never in their life fired a round which exceeded 36kpsi in 44mag are all too eager to bat this “Ruger’s are stronger” ball around as if it meant a damned thing to more than about 20 dudes out of the entire world…
 
@CraigC thanks for clarifying why Ruger was killing it when Bullseye or silhouette or other accuracy type revolver hand gun competitions were still popular. Not saying they are dead now, just not popular.

In my experience competing, very few Ruger revolvers on the line as compared to the Wessons, Smith and Dan, or Colt. I’m being generous, I cannot remember a Ruger revolver competing, but I must be forgetting, probably.

Hunting? Oh heck yea, lots of Rugers, myself included. Free standing rimfire 22 pistol? Tons of MK II’s etc., myself included.
 
Last edited:
Both have quirks , some quirks I can tolerate or correct and others I can't . I'm openly ruger biased but I got over needing to speak bad on revolvers that I don't prefer. I had a 629, it was a nice one. Had a 44 mag super redhawk at the same time, I don't have either anymore.

I don't think many folks are wearing out s&w revolvers all over the place. I also don't think dudes that carry a 44 mag revolver give a hoot about a couple extra ounces on their big iron. In 44 the ruger has the edge because of the longer cylinder, heavier bullets can be chambered and that's what the guys in the know go for. Less velocity , heavier bullet.

If I were you, I'd get the freedom arms ;)
 
@CraigC thanks for clarifying why Ruger was killing it when Bullseye or silhouette or other accuracy type revolver hand gun competitions were still popular. Not saying they are dead now, just not popular.

In my experience competing, very few Ruger revolvers on the line as compared to the Wessons, Smith and Dan, or Colt. I’m being generous, I cannot remember a Ruger revolver competing, but I must be forgetting, probably.

Hunting? Oh heck yea, lots of Rugers, myself included. Free standing rimfire 22 pistol? Tons of MK II’s etc., myself included.
Well, "absence of evidence" and all that. People use various guns for competition for various reasons. They also ALWAYS replace the barrel on a PPC gun. Is that proof that a Model 10 is inaccurate? Or are there other reasons? Folks use S&W's instead of Colt's, Dan Wessons or Rugers because they're just overwhelmingly better? Nope. They use them for one reason, trigger return speed.

People use .44Mag's in bullseye? Because they used a lot of Rugers and Dan Wessons in silhouette. In fact, it was the silhouette shooters who first discovered S&W's inherent weaknesses. I've got 34 Ruger revolvers and 12 S&W's. If there is a difference in inherent accuracy between the two, I haven't found it. If there is a distinctive standout, it might be Dan Wesson. As I said, my most accurate is that Ruger. It shoots like my Freedom Arms. When John Taffin tested all of his various .45Colt sixguns, it was a Ruger Vaquero that was the most accurate.


.....such they can’t tolerate even the 36kpsi SAAMI standard they’ve tolerated for decades?…
They only tolerate them for decades if you don't shoot them. Most people don't. I would wager that 99.99% of the folks who argue about strength in favor of S&W, the Ruger deniers that always bring up the "cast vs forged" nonsense, have never fired more than a few hundred rounds through one. That's the problem, they don't tolerate a steady diet of full pressure loads but very few people shoot a .44Mag enough to find out. Jack Huntington is on his 29th model 29. When a guy that builds some of the finest custom revolvers imaginable, including a custom five-shot .475 N-frame, when he cannot fix them, you know there's a problem. That .475 is an 800fps cartridge similar to the .475Cooper, not the Linebaugh. Because even with a fortified action and oversized five-shot cylinder, the frame is a significant limitation. For most people, these limitations are a non-issue but they do exist.
 
... Jack Huntington is on his 29th model 29. When a guy that builds some of the finest custom revolvers imaginable, including a custom five-shot .475 N-frame, when he cannot fix them, you know there's a problem.

Then again, he bought #29 didn't he? And #28...and #27...
 
Ruger has a bad habit of over sizing the cylinder throats on their 44's in my opinion.
 
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.

S&W's N-Frame pre-dates the .357 magnum by quite a few years. The N-Frame was designed for the .44 Special and was used for the Triple Lock. The .38-44 Outdoorsman and Heavy Duty were on the N-Frame as was the Model 1917 used by the military due to a lack of 1911s for WWI. All of these pre-date the Registered Magnum, the first .357 magnum revolver...some by decades.
 
You are correct. Those earlier models differed mostly in minor details, and except for the first Triple Lock generation they are all very similar, and identical as far as size of the cylinder frame.
 
I have had a M29 and currently have a M629 4" as well as two redhawks. The Smiths will NOT maintain time if lots of heavy .44 mag loads are used in them. You will be correcting cylinder end-shake and replacing hands as I had to do. The Rugers will take anything, everytime, all the time. I have shot the 4" 629 with the 320 grain SSK bullet over 21 grains of WW296 and it is NOT fun! I now only shoot 245 grain cast bullets at a little over 1000 fps in that gun now and it is accurate and pleasent to shoot. As far as triggers go...the redhawk and super-redhawk can be improved to an acceptable level but will never be as sweet as the Smiths trigger.
 
I have had both and like them for what they are. The recoil on the Redhawk is more manageable to me because the gun rolls in your hand instead of pushing like a Smith and Wesson.
 
I have had both and like them for what they are. The recoil on the Redhawk is more manageable to me because the gun rolls in your hand instead of pushing like a Smith and Wesson.
I hate the "roll". My plow handled 8" SBH rolls A LOT
 
Redhawk or S&W model 29/629? Both have strong points and to me it is purely a matter of personal preference. I have owned both and shot them a lot and you can’t go wrong with either. I like them both, but my preference is for the S&W because I shoot them better. Probably because I find the action better on the Smith and its design is less bulky and easier to handle. I have never had any of my Smiths shoot loose, but I do not shoot “barn burner” loads in them as some like to do.
 
This was one reason besides the trigger that I went with the M629. I do shoot really hot and heavy handloads out of it with great satisfaction. However, it is in no way always and frequently.

"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.
 
Back
Top