I have been looking at 629 & 625 in 45 Colt with a 4" barrel.I have also been looking at Ruger stainless Redhawks 44 mag and 45 Colt with a 4" barrel.It seems the Rugers cost a bit more.I just want a woods gun .I am not interested in using them for hunting unless an opportunity arose for a close shot.Any pros or cons for either of these?Thanks Huntz

The Smiths are lighter and usually have much better trigger pulls. The Redhawks are much stronger but heavier. For your criterier, I'd opt for the Smith. Of course just my 2c.

Criteria.....dang

I think you should pick the one that has the right feel for you. There really is no wrong choice, as both of these will work for what you are wanting to do with it. If you wanted one strictly for a hunting gun I would recommend the Super Redhawk. It is true that the Ruger is more robust but I have always believed the Smiths are a bit more refined for fit and finish.

Smiths are machined from a solid hammer forged billet. Rugers are machined from an investment casting.

Do some reading on metallurgy to see the difference. Advantage to the hammer forged billet.

Thats why the Rugers are heavier.. compensating for the metallurgical weaknesses of a casting.

That being said, I own both, and enjoy them both. My Rugers get used far more than do my Smiths, but If I was gonna do something serious, I'd choose the Smiths.

and if you have a change at a S&W 625 for reasonable money, thats the one I'd go for..

Vote Ruger SRH in 10mm.

Then have your gunsmith ream out the cylinder chambers to 10mm Magnum.

You'll have a most awesome 3-in-1 gun.

quote:

Originally posted by degoins:
The Smiths are lighter and usually have much better trigger pulls. The Redhawks are much stronger but heavier. For your criterier, I'd opt for the Smith. Of course just my 2c.

My experience also. I have a nickel 3 inch 29 that I use for this role. I gave never been able to warm to the redhawk. The grips arevnot a good fit fot my hand, the things weigh a ton and they generally need trigger work.

quote:

Originally posted by Pa.Frank:
Smiths are machined from a solid hammer forged billet. Rugers are machined from an investment casting.

Do some reading on metallurgy to see the difference. Advantage to the hammer forged billet.
Thats why the Rugers are heavier.. compensating for the metallurgical weaknesses of a casting.

That being said, I own both, and enjoy them both. My Rugers get used far more than do my Smiths, but If I was gonna do something serious, I'd choose the Smiths.

and if you have a change at a S&W 625 for reasonable money, thats the one I'd go for..

Rugere May be compensating, but Garret Cartidges load Ruger only 44 mag loads that are not approved for Smiths. I like the double action trigger of the red hawk. It is set up to stage. I am the last person who likes the staging. Much more tactile than my 4 inch Smith’s trigger/action.

All in good faith. Shoot both and pick the one the hand likes better.

I do not think an N frame would stand up to the 454 that the Ruger can house. In addition, the Ruger has its own 45 heavy loads that the Smith is not rated for.

Since you are not interested in hunting the weight (recoil asborbtion) and heavy loads are not important. The Smith may feel your holster. The 4 inch Smith loaded with 44 special is the perfect hiking or walking around wheelgun.

Bought the Smith last night on line.I have had a lot of S&Ws that gave me good service.Thanks for the opinions,OB

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by Pa.Frank:
Smiths are machined from a solid hammer forged billet. Rugers are machined from an investment casting.

Do some reading on metallurgy to see the difference. Advantage to the hammer forged billet.
Thats why the Rugers are heavier.. compensating for the metallurgical weaknesses of a casting.

That being said, I own both, and enjoy them both. My Rugers get used far more than do my Smiths, but If I was gonna do something serious, I'd choose the Smiths.

and if you have a change at a S&W 625 for reasonable money, thats the one I'd go for..

Rugere May be compensating, but Garret Cartidges load Ruger only 44 mag loads that are not approved for Smiths. I like the double action trigger of the red hawk. It is set up to stage. I am the last person who likes the staging. Much more tactile than my 4 inch Smith’s trigger/action.

All in good faith. Shoot both and pick the one the hand likes better.

I do not think an N frame would stand up to the 454 that the Ruger can house. In addition, the Ruger has its own 45 heavy loads that the Smith is not rated for.

Since you are not interested in hunting the weight (recoil asborbtion) and heavy loads are not important. The Smith may feel your holster. The 4 inch Smith loaded with 44 special is the perfect hiking or walking around wheelgun.

I believe the reason on the Garret ammo is because the Redhawk has a longer cylinder and the ammo is too long for the S&W if I recall correctly.

It is both. By loading the bullet out further they use that extra room to load more powder.

Those 44 loads stand up to some 480 Ruger loads.

The S&W cylinder walls are relics of a very low pressure era; Rugers have thicker walls, which take higher pressures.
Cylinders are NOT made from castings, so to infer that Ruger cylinders are thicker because of that is nonsense.
As for the frames, yes, the Smiths are forged and the Rugers are cast; if the Smiths were cast they would be just as strong.
It is amazing that we are still debating the strength of investment castings. I guarantee you that Ruger frames are stronger than any, and this comes from seeing them handle pressures that would turn an S&W into Shrapnel. He was a British Army officer.
So buy the one you want but don't think the Ruger is inferior metallurgy. That is a perpetuated myth.

When the super magnums first appeared it was Ruger they were made from.

Look at the Ruger rifle actions. Everything from 458 Lott to 585 Nyati has been built on them and well.

If you want streagth and the heaviest loads, buy Ruger.

If you want a smaller walking around gun by Smith.

quote:

If you want streagth and the heaviest loads, buy Ruger.If you want a smaller walking around gun by Smith.

I shot and used both the above agrees with my thinking on the subject.

Investment castings have been around for hundreds of years !! Well developed my the people in Peru. Today's versions are far better and used in various aerospace applications such as my impellor from a commercial airliner ,turning at 90,000 rpm !
The argument means little and anyone who loads to the breaking point has bigger problems in the head !!
And forget about MIM parts as that has been beaten to death too.
A little note from your friendly local metallurgist .

The bottom line is it takes more than simply saying cast or forge to make a revolver (and I would say any weapon) strong enough or stronger over the other. Remember those 1873 colts Elmer Keith blew up were forged framed and cylinders.

If he was using the Ruger Blackhawk (not available then) he would not have needed to step over to the 44 N Frame. The cylinders for the 44 N frame were/are thicker than the 1873.

I think the cylinder notches on the N frame are also cut different between the chamber holes instead of over them on the Colt leaving more steel.

Another general rule from today proven not necessary true ; a single action being stronger than a double action. Generally, yes. But it all depends.

Ruger has a solid one piece frame, Smith has side plates, Ruger has coil springs, Smith has V flat wire springs, Ruger has fewer moving parts inside the action. Ruger has more steel in each area. This includes the forged cylinder dcpd mentioned.

Ruger barrels are forged as well. I thing the super red hawk is still a triple lock action.

For your stated purposes I carry a 4 inch N frame with 200 grain 44 specials.

I use the SRH now but had a slick 629 in 44 Mag and it was one of the slickest functioning revolvers I have ever owned. I had to do a small amount of tinkering to get the SRH to be as pleasing in double action as the S&W. I just like the Brick Outhouse school of production the SRH came from. Either one will do. Hope you enjoy the new acquisition.

quote:

had to do a small amount of tinkering to get the SRH to be as pleasing in double action as the S&W

Ruger revolvers are some of the easiest to do trigger jobs on.

SuperRedhawk makes recoil of 44 Mag level almost unnoticeable compared to my S&W Mountain Gun even with the Hogue rubber grips. Both guns are almost unbelievably accurate off a sandbag. But the SRH has a little rattle in the trigger/hammerblock that Ruger says is a part of the mechanism. It's also heavier.

The Redhawk is in a league of its own if you handload or want to run the Garret Redhawk Only ammo. RH 45 Colt will handle the 50,000psi loads which is on the heals of the 454 Casull. It really outsteps the smith. I have a friend that loads the 44 RH to some scary levels on the heals of the 454 Casull as well. The Redhawk a beast of a handgun.

If you just want to run the run of the mill loads, pick which ever one you like best.

Olbiker, did you buy the 629 or the 625? Show us your new woods friend when you have it in hand, will you?
I briefly owned a Model 625-2 in .45ACP/.45 Auto Rim. It was the most accurate revolver to ever pass through my hands with .45 AR handloads, and why I traded I will never know.

I bought the 629.I could not find a 625 in 45 Colt.

That'll work, friend. Load .44 Specials for walkin', .44 Magnums for talkin'. Eight grains of Universal Clays under the Keith 250 in Starline .44 Special brass is the equivalent of eating popcorn. Can't stop ...

Congrats. I too carry 200 grain specials equivalent loads in my 4 inch 29 for walking around revolver.

Hate to be that guy, but can we see pics.

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:

quote:

had to do a small amount of tinkering to get the SRH to be as pleasing in double action as the S&W

Ruger revolvers are some of the easiest to do trigger jobs on.

Smiths don't need a trigger job.

quote:

Smiths don't need a trigger job.

BS

Some don't some do I seen and handled plenty of Smiths that could and have benefitted from a good trigger job.

p dog - you're right !
After trigger jobs on both the S&W is much nicer. I do my own and you couldn't have a nicer trigger than my S&W. Fully reliable absolutely smooth 2.25 SA , 9 lbs DA !

As stated before in numerous ways, Rugers are simply tough and will safely handle loads that Smith (or Colt) cannot. All of my revolvers, both DA and SA, are Ruger sans one, a pristine Colt Python from the mid-80s. No Smiths.

I am a Ruger fan, but think a S&W Mountain gun might well fill your needs.
At one time I had a Redhawk and a Super Redhawk.
Unlike many othere I never did cotton to that Redhawk grip.

quote:

Unlike many othere I never did cotton to that Redhawk grip.

Then change it.

I have taken off the factory wood grips.

Then put after market grips on almost all my revolvers both S@W and Rugers.

PDS
The Redhawk came with Pachmayrs, I got some factory wood, tried them, and sold the gun.
That said, I like the SRH grips that so many abhor so it is different grips for different folks.

Ol Biker
Glad you found what ya wanted and who knows maybe one day that 45 LC gun will wander into your life.

quote:

Originally posted by Pa.Frank:
Smiths are machined from a solid hammer forged billet. Rugers are machined from an investment casting.

Do some reading on metallurgy to see the difference. Advantage to the hammer forged billet.

Thats why the Rugers are heavier.. compensating for the metallurgical weaknesses of a casting.

That being said, I own both, and enjoy them both. My Rugers get used far more than do my Smiths, but If I was gonna do something serious, I'd choose the Smiths.

and if you have a change at a S&W 625 for reasonable money, thats the one I'd go for..

Strength is derived from the parent alloy, how the metal is formed, heat treatment and how thick the metal is.

It's funny how the S&W fans tout hammer forging, but gloss over the 29/629 being glorified 44 specials that are barely strong enough for sustained 44 mag loads and have a long history of being shot loose after a few thousand rounds of full house loads.

The redhawk is a vastly stronger revolver that can handle loads that will blow an S&W to bits. There's a reason 454's, 475 and 500 Linebaughs are built on Redhawks, but never on S&W 29/629's.

Yes, the downside of the Ruger is it's slightly heavier and it definitely can use a trigger job. But after a good smith works over a redhawk the action is as good as the best S&W has every produced, and better than what's currently coming out of the factory.

Here's some input from a Brit. Here in Europeland ALL firearms must be proof tested.

That involves firing in a revolver a greased cartridge through each cylinder. The cartridge is a deliberate 50% overload of the accepted CIP/SAAMI service pressure for the cartridge.

I have never heard of any S & W Model 29 or Model 629 fail. I have heard of Ruger Super Blackhawk Single Actions fail...usually one or more cylinders swell. I don't know about Ruger Redhawks.

Personally I consider the S & W frame characteristics, its cylinder release operation and its grip profile superior in function to any Ruger Redhawk. No gunsmith can alter those properties of any Ruger to make them equal to any S & W 'N' Frame.

quote:

Originally posted by enfieldspares:
Here's some input from a Brit. Here in Europeland ALL firearms must be proof tested.

That involves firing in a revolver a greased cartridge through each cylinder. The cartridge is a deliberate 50% overload of the accepted CIP/SAAMI service pressure for the cartridge.

I have never heard of any S & W Model 29 or Model 629 fail. I have heard of Ruger Super Blackhawk Single Actions fail...usually one or more cylinders swell. I don't know about Ruger Redhawks.

Personally I consider the S & W frame characteristics, its cylinder release operation and its grip profile superior in function to any Ruger Redhawk. No gunsmith can alter those properties of any Ruger to make them equal to any S & W 'N' Frame.

You have "heard" of Ruger failures have you actual seen so called failed revolvers.

How a handgun personally feels is just that.

I change all most all factory grips out on both the S@W and Rugers to get the right feel.

I own many smiths and Rugers and use both on a regular basics.

I am sure that you have the same chance to do so in England.

enfield,I doubt the validity of your source. I shoot a S+W 29 w/ no problems as well I have a Keith # 5 built on SB Ruger frame.Those revolvers are stout. Much as I love S+W I would give Rugers the top notch on action/cylinder strength. All things being within reason of course. (I don't load like Elmer).

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:

quote:

Originally posted by enfieldspares:
Here's some input from a Brit. Here in Europeland ALL firearms must be proof tested.

That involves firing in a revolver a greased cartridge through each cylinder. The cartridge is a deliberate 50% overload of the accepted CIP/SAAMI service pressure for the cartridge.

I have never heard of any S & W Model 29 or Model 629 fail. I have heard of Ruger Super Blackhawk Single Actions fail...usually one or more cylinders swell. I don't know about Ruger Redhawks.

Personally I consider the S & W frame characteristics, its cylinder release operation and its grip profile superior in function to any Ruger Redhawk. No gunsmith can alter those properties of any Ruger to make them equal to any S & W 'N' Frame.

You have "heard" of Ruger failures have you actual seen so called failed revolvers.

How a handgun personally feels is just that.

I change all most all factory grips out on both the S@W and Rugers to get the right feel.

I own many smiths and Rugers and use both on a regular basics.

I am sure that you have the same chance to do so in England.

Getting schooled on handguns from a Brit!

Got both Redhawk and 629
The 629 is from S&W's Performance range with adjustable front the rear sights
The Redhawk was magnaported for me By Ollie Coltman when he lived in SA and has a deep V and gold bead front sight

Redhawk cilinders have lock up notches cut off centre of the chamber whilst Smith has the notches cut where the cylinder is at its thinnest that aside both work well

The Redhawk is a beast !

I shoot 320 gr cast bullets ( JD Jones mold ) with full loads from my Redhawk which is now some 38 years old, still as tight as the day I bought it





Giant African Land snail

That looks like a Ruger blackhawk single action...

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
Got both Redhawk and 629
The 629 is from S&W's Performance range with adjustable front the rear sights
The Redhawk was magnaported for me By Ollie Coltman when he lived in SA and has a deep V and gold bead front sight

Redhawk cilinders have lock up notches cut off centre of the chamber whilst Smith has the notches cut where the cylinder is at its thinnest that aside both work well

The Redhawk is a beast !

I shoot 320 gr cast bullets ( JD Jones mold ) with full loads from my Redhawk which is now some 38 years old, still as tight as the day I bought it





Giant African Land snail

I like the 629 and 625 much better than the Rugers.

I owned a S&W 629 in .44 Mag. Great gun, but a little heavy for regular packing around IMO.

I sold it, and now carry a Taurus 44 Tracker in .44 Mag. It is a bitch to shoot, but a joy to carry.

I had some friends compare it to a S&W .460 Mag. They all agreed the Tracker had more felt recoil!

BH63