Your opinion on SW 629 v Colt Anaconda v Ruger SRH?

[el Godfather]

Dear THR:
I would like hear opinion from those who have experience with Anaconda, SW 628 classic and Ruger SRH. Which is better in your opinion and why?

Kindly share pictures if you can.

Thank you.

 

[silicosys4]

I can't say which is "better", but in deciding between .44 mag DA's, here was my reasoning in picking what I picked....
Buffalo Bore says no to the S&W using their heaviest loads while Colt and Ruger get the ok... I wanted a work gun, not a range queen. S&W is very pretty, but not stout enough for what I wanted. I'm a handloader though, and that played a large part in my decision to pass by the S&W. If I were to stick with factory ammo only, there is no reason I wouldn't pick the S&W.
Colt...again, I wanted a work gun, a field gun....I didn't want to worry about collectors value while out in the rain and mud. I also didn't like that the colt was literally 2x the price of the Ruger.
The Ruger Super Redhawk is UGLY. No doubt about that. At only $600 I wasn't going to stress out about the finish or scratches while I was out hunting, it will never be collectible. It is able to take scope rings without being drilled and tapped, and it holds a very respectable group.
I wanted a pure working gun though, if strength, durability, and functionality weren't my top requirements, I might have very well gone another direction.
Sorry I don't have direct experience with all three.

 

[CraigC]

The S&W is a more refined, elegant design. It is no more than is necessary for the .44Mag cartridge, some would say not quite enough. While I don't care for the newer models, an older 29/629 can be a fine sixgun indeed. Although admittedly not quite enough for the heavier loads. It survives just fine with standard weight bullets at 1000-1200fps.

The Super Redhawk is a very utilitarian sixgun. I agree that it's ugly but it is also brute strong. Strong enough to digest loads that would turn a S&W into shrapnel. Its cylinder is also very long to accommodate extra long, heavyweight cast bullets. Due to the length, they can be pushed to very good velocities without excessive pressure. They're not quite as heavy as they look, actually being quite comparable to a standard Redhawk or Bisley Hunter with equivalent length barrels.

The Colt Anaconda is somewhere in between. Stronger than the S&W but better looking than the Ruger. That said, I've heard quite a few opinionated sixgunners say they wouldn't cross the street for a free one. Personally, I'd never pay the high "Colt collectible tariff" for one.

 

[Dr.Rob]

I've only fired the 629 vs the Super Redhawk. The SW is lighter, the blue versions are really good looking pieces.

The SRH is a big sturdy belt gun, no frills plain jane sixgun. Hate that 'target gray finish.. looks spray painted.

Colt's Anaconda is massive... hangling one it FEELS bigger than a 629 or SRH, but I didn't get to shoot it.

629 only if you want the Dirty Harry model, SRH if you plan to hunt with it.

The Colt is easily 2x the price of the others and no longer made.

Like a few others the standard Red Hawk would be my preference.

 

[Pointshoot]

'Better' has to be defined by each person for themselves.

Of those you listed, I chose the 629 (in an older pre lock model). It is a fine, elegant design.

I don't like the Super Redhawk, which I find ugly. Looks like somethin you'd find in a plumber's toolbox IMO.

Ive shot an Anaconda a few times and theyre nice revolvers. Since they don't make them anymore parts may be be an issue, so I'd personally stay away from one of those. I'm a shooter not a collector

 

[ColtPythonElite]

I am a shooter. I shoot my Anacondas as often as I like with no worries. They are stout.

 

[K1500]

Max loads..Ruger.
Hold and increase in value..Anaconda.
Refined trigger/general purpose..Smith.

 

[Jaymo]

I'd love to have an Anaconda.
I like the Redhawk a LOT better than the Super Redhawk.

 

[danjet500]

No Super Redhawk but ........................

 

[Backpacker33]

I have an Anaconda I bought waaay before the prices went up, $350 used. Then sent it to Colt for retiming and to change the 4" barrel for a 6". $125.
I had a Redhawk, not a SRH, until middle son stole it from me.
I've had S&W 29 4", 29 and 629 Mountain Guns 4" and a 29-2 4".
LOVED 'em all!
The Redhawk was a strong as any, not as "ugly" as the SRH.
My Anaconda has a fine trigger, factory tuned, and will handle any load in a refined fashion. I hand load everything from 210-gr deer loads to 300-gr bear loads (and expect to pray to the Goddess if I ever REALLY have to shoot a brown bear with one!). I find it is the one I feel most comfortable shooting of the three, and according to authorities such as John Taffin, it can handle more powerful loads than the S&W.
For black bear country I usually carry a S&W 329PD with hard-cast handloads because it is WAAAY lighter than the Anaconda, but I just have a special feel when the Big A is on my hip. Very rational, No?
Other than family, my backpacking friends tend not to own handguns - a female lawyer friend being an exception(!) - so I often wind up loaning them a revolver, along with one of my opinionated "lessons." I always keep "Annie."
- Backpacker

 

[Backpacker33]

Mine show WAY more trail wear, danjet500!

 

[Walkalong]

All great guns. I prefer the standard Redhawk though.

 

[bikemutt]

I've owned all except I had a RH, not SRH. The only one I regret selling is the 4" anaconda, I plan to replace it some day.

 

[highpower]

I can't speak for the other guns, but I have a 629-4 Classic DX. This version has the endurance package and can digest hot loads all day. It shoots like a rifle out to 100 yards and is my favorite carry gun when hunting. I found it used for $600 at a gun store and I figure I got a fair deal on it.

 

[el Godfather]

From rhe readidng the esponses i feel like that the actual comparison for me is between SRH and Anaconda. If work horse then SRH. If collection then Anaconda. SW629 remains second as collection, and third if one wants collection, work horse and another.

 

[hardluk1]

The colt is as strong as the ruger but if a revolver that going to be used and abused again the ruger is the one to buy. Way less money invested and simply works well.

One of the big colts designers was the same man that designed danwesson revolvers. That why its as heavily built as it is.

 

[Manny]

I shot my buddy's 4" Anaconda several times, a beefy revolver that I never developed any affection for. I've owned a 5.5" Redhawk, an 8-3/8" 629, 6" & 3" 657's (virtually identical to the 629's), and a 7.5" SRH, but in .454 (also an Alaskan in .454).

The standard Redhawk is a nice gun overshadowed by the SRH. Lighter but still very big & beefy, it would be my choice in the Ruger line. the 7.5" has the best balance to me. The SRH is IMHO overbuilt and oversize for a .44 mag and at it's best in bigger calibers. Yeah it'll take near nuclear level loads, but that isn't the .44 mag at it's best IMO. Regular to even somewhat moderate loads give lots of power without making a reasonable weight gun miserable to shoot. My favorite .44 loads were Winchesters 210 gr Silvertip and a fairly moderate 300 gr load. Elmer Keiths classic load was fairly moderate and is the load that made the .44's reputation. Cylinder stretching loads do the .44mag and the guns chambered for it a dis-service IMO.

When used with standard or somewhat moderate .44 loads the S&W "N" frame is the gun that really shines in this caliber IMHO. I detest the old Magna stocks, but there are a ton of other grips available in both square & round butt that are absolutely terrific There is enough weight to damp recoil but not so much to preclude carry. My favored caliber was the .41 mag as I thought it was a perfect match for the "N" frame, but the .44 is nearly as good. If you can find a pre-lock version with the longevity enhancements you'll have a fantastic gun. Even the new lock models still get my attention and are very nice guns.

 

[huntsman]

From rhe readidng the esponses i feel like that the actual comparison for me is between SRH and Anaconda. If work horse then SRH. If collection then Anaconda. SW629 remains second as collection, and third if one wants collection, work horse and another.

define you needs then choose the gun that best meets the needs, I've only owned one of the three but I've shot all and the one I owned KSRH-7 Ruger was deemed too heavy for my need(deer hunting) so I got rid of it.

 

[CraigC]

The colt is as strong as the ruger...

While I think it's stronger than the S&W, I don't see anybody recommending 50,000psi loads for the Colt. "Ruger only" loads in .45Colt but no heavier.

The standard Redhawk is a nice gun overshadowed by the SRH. Lighter but still very big & beefy...

Like I said before, it only looks heavier. Weights are comparable. Cylinders are the same between the two and for all intents and purposes, they are of equal strength.

From a post last year:
"Actually Redhawks and Supers are nearly the same weight, with the standard Redhawks running a mite heavier. The SRH looks heavier but it really isn't. For instance, my .480 SRH is 2oz lighter than a Bisley Hunter .44 (54oz vs. 52oz). I don't know how accurate Ruger's advertised weights are but they have been better about that in recent years and list the 7½" Redhawk at 54oz, with the .44 Super Redhawk at 53oz."

Elmer Keiths classic load was fairly moderate and is the load that made the .44's reputation.

Keith's classic .44Spl load 'may' be considered somewhat moderate compared to the .44Mag but his .44Mag load was anything but moderate. I wouldn't call a 250gr cast bullet over 22.0gr 2400 for nearly 1500fps "moderate".

Cylinder stretching loads do the .44mag and the guns chambered for it a dis-service IMO.

I disagree. Heavy loads up to 330-355gr at 1250-1350fps really show what the cartridge is capable of and catapult it to a whole nuther level. The N-frame just isn't enough gun for the .44Mag cartridge and its full potential. In the 29/629, it's really only a glorified .44Spl.

 

[Hammerdown77]

The N-frame just isn't enough gun for the .44Mag cartridge and its full potential. In the 29/629, it's really only a glorified .44Spl.

BLASPHEMY! You take that back!

 

[Hammerdown77]

Of the three on that list, if'n I weren't going to be shooting bullets heavier than 270 grains, I'd pick the N frame, no hesitation whatsoever.

I've shot the Anaconda, and it was nice, but functionally (and I buy guns to shoot, not look at) it's not worth the price premium over a run of the mill N frame 44.

I used to dislike the Redhawk. Until a friend loaned me one. Even then, I disliked it until I actually shot it. 100 yards, at a steel plate, off the bench. First shot, dead center of the plate. Second shot just made the gray mark on the plate a little bigger. Third shot, gray mark moved a little to the right. Dang. Maybe this thing ain't so bad after all.

If I were going to feed the gun a steady diet of 300+ grain bullets, that Redhawk would be the one I chose.

Here's my 629 Classic. This is one of those "last guns I'd ever sell" deals...

 

[CraigC]

It's not an indictment but it's true. I have three N-frame .44's, two Mag's and a Special and I love them dearly. I also want more of them. However, I never feed them anything heavier than Keith's 1200fps .44Spl load. Nor do I ever plan to. Nor do I ever see anyone recommending to do so on a regular basis. So in that context, what's the difference between a .44Spl and a .44Mag?




I talk a lot about the potential of the .44Mag and .45Colt with heavyweight cast bullets but that does not mean that those are the loads I shoot every day. My most used load extant is a 240gr SWC over 10.0gr Unique for 1150-1200fps. I turn these out by the hundreds on a Dillon 650. Why? Because it's all I need and I can use it in any of my .44Mag's.

 

[Hammerdown77]

I would not hesitate to feed a 29/629 with the endurance package upgrades a steady diet of 240-250 grain cast bullets at velocities greater than 1200 fps. Now the earlier ones, yeah, I'd probably just stick with the 10 grain Unique load.

I know there are people who have shot 'em loose, but those folks generally shoot a LOT more than 95% of the people who come on here asking "which 44 mag is better". Most regular shooters are just not going to shoot a modern 29/629 loose with ammo that stays within factory loading parameters. And if you do, just send it to S&W and they'll fix it for free.

I don't like shooting a steady stream 1400+ fps loads in the N frame not because I feel the gun can't handle it, but because my thumb knuckle eventually cries uncle. I could fix that problem by getting some better grips, though.

Which dash # is that 29 in the upper left of your picture? -3, -4?

 

[CraigC]

Well, that's another reason. I find that recoil with loads heavier than that are entirely uncomfortable out of a double action. With the rare exception of the SRH with original style rubber grips.

It's a 29-3.

 

[S&Wfan]

Built in 1989, my S&W Model 29-5 (the 29 is the blued version of the stainless 629) has been my main deer hunting firearm since around 1999 when I bought it used. The -5 series of the Model 29 has the endurance package and I've shot mine a lot . . . bowling pin matches, practice AND hunting deer and hogs.

My bullet of choice is the Federal Castcore Premium Hunting round, a hard-kicking 300 gr. hard-cast lead flatnose bullet. I've taken a lot of deer over the years with this incredible round and my Model 29-5 is still as tight as new, IMHO!

The Colt and Ruger are fine handguns but for me, make mine a S&W.