S&W 629 vs. Ruger SRH .44 Mag

[gravelyctry]

Folks, I sold my last .44 Mag to a friend of mine and need to get another one. I'm trying to decide between a S&W 629 and a Ruger SRH. From my reading, I believe the SRH is stronger, cheaper, has the integral scope mounts and comes with scope rings. What does the 629 have going for it other than maybe looks? I'll be using it alot for target shooting, silhouettes, but I'll probably also use it for some hunting. Thanks for the feedback, Neil.

 

[Legionnaire]

For hunting, I'd go with a 7.5" SRH. Had one for years, and took several whitetail with it. For plinking and/or trail carry, I'd go with a 4" 629. It would be lighter and easier to hand than the shortest barrel SRH. I have thought of having a smith cut a SRH down to 5", though.

 

[Lone Star]

The Smith is a better general -duty revolver. It is lighter and prettier, and has a finer trigger pull. For your needs, the Ruger seems a better choice.

The Ruger is stronger and more durable,if you will fire a great many Magnum loads, and that is your scenario. You want a scope.

With .44 Special loads most of the time, it won't matter, and the M-629 looks and balances better, and is amply strong for firing occasional Mag loads.

It is sort of the .44 Magnum equivalent of the K-frame .357's.

Lone Star

 

[MAX100]

If you want a 44 for hunting the Ruger Super Blackhawk Hunter would be better with the Bisley grip. You will not use double action pull when hunting.


GC

 

[gravelyctry]

Max100, my thumb had a run-in with a table saw blade a few years ago, and it's easier for me to load a double action vs. a single, which is why I'm looking at the 629 or the SRH. Thanks for the advice, though.

 

[Deer Hunter]

Unless you are feeding both revolvers a constant load of 300 grain bear-stopper uber-thumping magnum loads that cost 5 bucks a piece on a regular basis, the strength difference is minimal at best.

The Smith comes pre-tapped for a rail to put any kind of optic you would want on it. I have a Millet red dot on my 625.

The Smith does has a better trigger and is a tad bit lighter. Accuracy has been reported as very, very nice.

Either will do, but just letting you know a bit more about the 629.

 

[GunNut]

I've owned both and they are both very good guns.

For a walk around the woods gun, the S&W wins hands down. It is smaller and weighs less.

If you plan on using a scope and shooting heavy magnum loads, then I'd go for the SRH. The SRH is not a hip holster gun for me.

Not a bad choice in the bunch it really just depends on your desired use.

 

[461]

I can only comment on the Super Redhawk as I don't own a 629. I'm having a lot of fun with my Super and really look forward to a hunt with it. It indeed is not a carrying gun though as it's a biggie. I have a 4" Redhawk or Super Blackhawk for that. I wanted a big, scoped .44 and the Super fits the bill very well, I get a kick out of the look on peoples faces when I pull it out, 9.5" barrel and a Leupold scope on board. One friend looked at it and said "You Win".

Get the picture? It's a big gun. The 629 is a nice gun too and I want one before long. As has been said, you can't make a bad choice.

 

[mbkmkk]

My first 44 was a SRH with a 9" barrel and now it just sits in the safe with a scope on it. Looking back, I wish I bought the 7" instead. Now that I have been collecting more guns it seems that I am buying S&W models compared to anything else. If I had it to do all over again I would have bought the 629 instead of the SRH. The days of shooting the hottest loads I can, are gone. I shoot mid range loads in my 44’s and when hunting I shoot a grain lower than Max with 296 under a 240 or 265 bullet.

Just my .02