Which is a better 44Mag? Better value?

Thanks,
QD

I have the super redhawk ss in 44Mag topped with a leupold 2x scope.I think its a pretty nice pistola!

There is a significant amount of ink out there that would lead you to believe that the Smith and Wesson is a "weak" revolver. That is not the case at all. If you want to "hotrod" a revolver, then in all likelihood the Ruger will tolerate more "over the top" handloads than will a Smith. But to me that is irresponsible handloading, and abuse of a fine firearm, no matter which one you are shooting.

To me the Smith will always be a more aesthetically pleasing firearm. They are just prettier, and to me that is some of the appeal of a handgun. And I also believe the Smith has a trigger design that is more easily worked with, if a man has the inclination.

As for value, every 44 Mag Smith I have ever seen at a show ran roughly $100-$150 more than the same caliber Ruger Redhawk. The Super Redhawks are different, but they are a different design, and to me that skews the comparison.

Nothing wrong with a Ruger, and I have several. But given the choice, make mine a Smith...

How much are you going to shoot it and at what? The heavier weight of the Ruger makes it a more pleasant experience when firing heavy bullet full bore hunting loads, and it's got a much superior scope mounting capability. I would choose it for big game hunting without hesitation. The better accuracy of the S&W as well as their better triggers makes them my choice for target work. The S&W is lighter and easier to carry for long periods, and it goes in and out of a holster more easily. It's not a weak revolver, but it weighs less and the amount of hunting rounds I can comfortably fire out of it at a range session before the web of my hand becomes tender is noticably fewer. It is perfectly adequate for hunting, however, just not as much fun to practice with where heavy loads are concerned. About the only thing that the two really have in common is their chamberings. Both are well designed, well made revolvers. Each has things that it does better than the other, and things it does not as well. "Value" is a relative word. Most owners of big bore handguns don't shoot them regularly, so the differences between them are a non-issue, except where esthetics are concerned, (then the S&W's are prettier) and cost, (then the Rugers are a little less expensive). If you are trying to figure out which you should buy, then the only practical answer is that you should buy both, shoot them side by side, carry them, load for them, cast for them, hunt with them, and then decide for yourself which one best meets your own individual needs. No free lunch this time.

I have both of these fine revolvers. For general shooting I like the S&W's but for full house 44 mags the Redhawks get the nod. The weight of the Redhawks help handle the recoil a bit better. As far as accuacy goes they are about even. I do love the 4 inch 629 for shooting moderate loads at bowling pins. The 6 inch just isn't quiet the same, and the Rehawks are just plain to much gun with the full bore loads, for pins.

Depends on ones definition of better

The ruger is a stronger gun, ie will last and last when fed a steady diet of full patch loads. The Ruger is less expensive, so that makes it a better value. Can't comment on accuracy, but Rugers do generally shoot quite well, some amazingly well.

The smith does have the better trigger action out of the box.

To me the ideal gun is the Ruger redhawk that has been sent to magnaport for an action job, then you end up with a gun that is definately better than than the 629, IMHO.

I've had Ruger and I've had S&W. Get something better than either of them, get a Dan Wesson.

quote:

Originally posted by cobrad:
I've had Ruger and I've had S&W. Get something better than either of them, get a Dan Wesson.

I have several Dan Wesson Handguns and there quality control sucks compared to a Ruger or S&W. If Dan Wesson had better Quality Control they would be a fine handgun. To bad they went under again, but from what I read here the last owner did not have the Quality Control either but sure jacked the price.

Next time I want a FA 454.

Thanks for all of your thoughts. I think I might go with the Ruger.

I guess I've decided I want something better than a Taurus.

I guess I got a good Dan Wesson. It is the first one I've owned. I was set to buy a S&W 629, but after a lot of research chose the Dan Wesson because it is one of just a few revolvers Garrett recommmends for his +P 320 gr hard cast loads, and it has a good rep for accuracy.

I like my M629 Mtn Gun just fine for a belt gun but must admit it's pretty snappy with full power loads. If the short barreled Redhawk came cut for scope rings like the 7-1/2 does I'd think hard about buying one. These days I've been thinking about buying a stainless Bisley Vaquero 4-5/8 before they disappear.

I have the SRH, and had the 629 and RH. The 629-3 is the reason I don't waste my money anymore on S&W. I'm sure with the current ownership they are better but the old M3 version was sloppy at best. It had a large gap between the barrel underlug and the frame. Grass and thin brush would get caught in it while hunting! I wish I still had the Redhawk with 7.5" barrel and Magnaport. Seller's remorse. My Super Redhawk is sweet though and has the weight and simply the appearance of the "brick outhouse" style of engineering. Guess I'm just not a purist. Go Ruger and don't look back. Packy

Dan Wesson with 8" heavy barrel and Leupold 2x will shoot REAL 4" groups at 100 yds. Use the barrel nut to tune the barrel for the load you have chosen.

I started with a Super Blackhawk, then a 29, then a 629 and a couple Redhawks...can't beat the Dan Wesson!!

I have mostly Ruger firearms. That said, if I were to only have one handgun, it would be my 629 Mountain Revolver. Handy, accurate and great trigger. I also own a SRH, two Vaqueros, a Single Six, an SP101, and a MKII. They're all strong and accurate. However, they all have terrible trigger pulls. By the time you fix that, you've matched the cash put out for a S&W. S&W prettier. Ruger stronger. Your choice.

I'd buy a Smith.

No reason other than I like Smiths. I've shot several and stick with what works. JMHO.

629 vs SRH?

Been there, done that.

I went with the Ruger since I like the scope mounting set up.

Not really a bad choice between the two.

SRH is a great gun. I find it very unwieldy. I just bought a 629 and I love it.

quote:

Originally posted by Paul H:
Depends on ones definition of better

The ruger is a stronger gun, ie will last and last when fed a steady diet of full patch loads. The Ruger is less expensive, so that makes it a better value. Can't comment on accuracy, but Rugers do generally shoot quite well, some amazingly well.

The smith does have the better trigger action out of the box.

To me the ideal gun is the Ruger redhawk that has been sent to magnaport for an action job, then you end up with a gun that is definately better than than the 629, IMHO.

The S&W will handle anything the Ruger will handle. It is an old myth about S&W not being able to handle a steady diet of full house loads. The old S&W model 29 at one time had a problem but S&W fixed they problem years ago. The S&W is an all around better gun in my opinion.

Both have strong points, and I had a good 7 1/2" scoped Redhawk that is probably still making someone very happy today. I sold it to buy a stubby Winchester Lever to go with my Smith .44. I miss the Redhawk a lot less than I enjoy the Lever & Smith combo.

Working up some loads for my 629 Classic Hunter and am finding it quite fun to shoot and getting real close to hunting proficiency with it. Hogs, here I come!

To me the SRH is a hand rifle, not a hand gun. Same goes for the 500 S&W. The early 29 is my favorite, followed by the regular Redhawk and then followed by the 629. Just my skewed opinion.

smith and ruger are both great pistols, the ruger will hold up to max loads better,just look at the strap over the cylinder. the strap over the cylinder on a ruger is thicker than a smith. but smiths have a little smoother trigger pull.
i am partial to redhawks, since i have seen a redhawk blow up from a too light of a load

quote:

Originally posted by nwwash:
smith and ruger are both great pistols, the ruger will hold up to max loads better,just look at the strap over the cylinder. the strap over the cylinder on a ruger is thicker than a smith. but smiths have a little smoother trigger pull.
i am partial to redhawks, since i have seen a redhawk blow up from a too light of a load

Redhawk blow up from too light a load? Could you offer more details?

Quickdraw, the original Smith 29 is not only a classic but is in a class all its own. If you were to purchase an earlier version of the Smith model 29 the retail will always out do the Ruger. The fit and finish of a Smith is wonderful, again in the earlier versions. You will spend alot more in acquiring one but I do not think you will regret it. Using hardcast offers you the penetration that most handgun hunters demand and it would still be in the tolerance of the design.
On the other hand you will notice that Rugers are ever where, which means they work! They truly are a work horse. Get one to fit you ie.. bisley grip, shorten the barrel, ream the throats, trigger job, custom stag grips and get a Belt Mtn. base pin and you can do some serious shooting. Mine is built like this so I do know what it takes to get a Ruger in "true shooting" perspective.
How you carry one helps as well. I had Kirkpatrick set me up with the "Tequilla" rig and it is smoooth fine draw with my 4 5/8 bbl. Ruger.
I think the big difference is really the difference of a single action vs. dbl action.
If you stay from Taurus and Dan Wesson you will be ahead of the game. The last Taurus I owned was the Casull and what a sloppy peice of work. I had to keep on the light side or the metal peices would tend to loose. Does that mean all Taurus are that way - too me if they can't keep the tolerances together on their big boomer what is to keep them from doing that on their little handguns.
Go Smith or Ruger.

I owned both and currently own a 629. When I was shooting siloettes (spelling) I observed a fair share of S&W's losing timing and having to go in for repairs. Never once heard of a Ruger going back. My point being if if you are going to shoot it a lot with heavy loads go with the Ruger. Otherwise the S&W is easier to handle and has a much nicer trigger and fit and finish.

I have owned two S&Ws, a 4" 29 and a 8 3/8 629, and two Redhawks a 5" and a 7.5". I regret selling both of the S&Ws as they were very fine handguns and I shot hundreds of rounds out of both (probably thousands). The 8 3/8 S&W was the smoothest and most accurate handgun I have ever owned and if I ever see it again I will purchase it in a minute. I have never missed the Rugers and would not buy another. The Redhawks are just too heavy for comfortable carry on the hip and the triggers are not great. I hunted bear with dogs in NM a few years ago and carried the 5" Ruger. It was like toting a boat anchor. I now own a 329 and it is a great gun for carry but will tire you out in a hurry shooting full power loads for practice. I would buy a S&W any day now the ownership has changed before I would buy a Ruger.

Perry

COBRAD, the only thing i can think of was it was loaded with 9.5-10 grains of unique and the powder charge was below the primer hole; which caused a shaped charge. i seen an artical in some type of gun magazine a few years ago talking about this.

I have a great deal of hunting and shooting time on both the Ruger and Smith. However, I shoot my 629 Classic DX better than any handgun I ever used. Either will serve you well.

I have owned both. I kept the 629 with no regrets. IMHO the 629 is lot more accurate.

I've used both models (and brands more generally) quite a bit. My father bought a redhawk back when they first came out (early-mid 80s?), 7.5" CM. I shot that thing all through my new-to-reloading-teenaged years. I shot, and shot, and shot, and shot - usually loaded as hot as possible. I generally treated that RH like you'd expect a minimally supervised, over zealous, and shooting-crazed teen. Thousands of rounds went down that barrel. That RH is as tight as the day it came out of the box and is every bit as accurate.

I've since owned a dozen or so other Ruger revolvers, some of which I have had complaints about (none of which were accuracy, BTW), but no serious complaints.

During that time I've also owned some S&Ws, mostly 657s, but a few 629s as well. Save for an overly long front right screw that was minorly marring the cylinder up discharge (a bit of filing fixed the problem), my current 629 is a fine revolver. It is lighter than the RH and SRH, so is nice for carry (it is a 6" half shroud). Two new 657s I had had some fairly major problems (that I won't go into here) that really lowered my opinion of S&W quality control. I have a 657 PC that is a fine revolver (though it did arrive with a crack in the wood grips, but S&W replaced them without any fuss.)

Triggers: S&W wins hands down - no contest. (However, a Super BLACKhawk Hunter trigger can be made VERY nice at zero cost.)

Accuracy: No difference in my experience. All my scoped hunting revolvers are capable of 4" groups at 100 yds. Best results with Cast Performance bullets...

I hear people mixing up the original idea of double action choice. Single actions were not mentioned were they? The Redhawk and Auper
redhawk are built like the brick outhouse. The S&W is somewhat more refined in trigger action. But I just put a cheap parts kit in my SRH and made it easily as good as the 629 I owned. It was a629-3 and horrible on QC. Large gaps existed where there should be none. That was a bad time for S&W and guns from that time should be thrown in the river if they are as bad as mine was. I hope someone has sent it back and made them fix the thing. Packrattusnongratus

Oh, one more thing...

In my experience, the SRH has a much better SA trigger pull than the RH. Not sure why this is true, but the various SRH (44,454,480) I've had all had very acceptable (SA) triggers, though not quite as nice as the S&Ws I've had.

I installed an aftermarket trigger-spring kit in my most recent RH (a 45 colt) that helped some, but the trigger is still not as good as any of the SRH or S&W triggers I've had. Just my experience...

9.3x62

Where did you find a 45 Colt RH?

quote:

Originally posted by Tex21:
9.3x62

Where did you find a 45 Colt RH?

I bought a NIB one off AA last year. Ruger made them for a few years, but discontonued them a couple years ago. Mine is a 7.5" with rings, but I believe they mage a 5.5" version as well (no rings)... both were SS...

There are a few for sale on GB just now (as of the time of this post):

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=45915559

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=45703118

They come up for sale every now and then. Nice rigs, I really like mine. Nice shooting piece...

Thanks for the education! I may have to look into buying one towards the end of the year.

Thanks,

I have a 3" 629 (alaskan backpacker) my wife bought for me about 10 years ago. She's got a 4 5/8 ruger.

Years ago I bought some 320 and 330gr cast from Paul H. they slid slick as crap in the ruger, wouldnt even go into the smith. I ended up sending my smith back to S&W cuz the empty brass wouldnt eject without being rough on the ejection rod (factory ammo). come to find out I had oblong chambers. They replaced the cylinder and I had it machined for full moon clips and I can also use single rounds.

Overall I like the smith alot better for anything under 300gr (since the big boys still wont fit). To me it just feels and shoots better.

I own both and the smith is hands down the better gun. I wish smith would offer the x frame in .44 mag.

Ruger is a great example of investment casting and producing a strong firearm at a cheap cost.

I shoot alot of bullseye and ruger doesn't even show up.