.44mag... S&W vs. Ruger help please...

[sig22018]

There is a used Ruger Redhawk w/ a 8" barrel and custom trigger job at my local gun shop. I would prefer a used SW29 or even a new 629. What are your experiences with S&W verses Ruger in that caliber? Quality, stronger action, etc... Opinions on Ruger revolvers in general?
I'm going to make my decision on monday. Any input would really help!
Thanks

[battleship]

I own a few 44 mag smiths my opinion is there more than enough robust, with great smooth actions. Rugers seem to be built like tanks or a bit of overkill which from my stand point, makes them not as cosmeticaly attractive in apperance. Some people love rugers for these qualitys alone. I prefer smiths, plus ive recently heard bad things about rugers customer service, and always great things about smith wesson service.

[dfletcher]

Lucky night - I have both and each is in the longer barrel, Ruger with 7 1/2" bbl and an 8 3/8" bbl.

First, I'd be wary of the "custom trigger job" on the Ruger info. It takes 5 minutes with a stone or wetndry paper and a Wolf spring to make the Ruger better, but given the geometry I think the Smith wiill always have the better SA pull.

The Ruger is very strong and heavier, probably handles strong loads better and allows the shooter to handle the recoil better. The Smith has, I think, a shorter and crisper action - probably a combination of the action's structure and use of a leaf mains spring as opposed to the Ruger's coil.

Smith generally has a better fit & finish and sights, the Ruger has easily interchangeable sights, I've switched to the gold dot front and "V" rear on the Ruger.

The basic response of "the Ruger is a tank, the Smith is more refined" is probably a good appraisal.

FYI - when I carry a back up gun in souther OR during bear season I carry the Ruger with 300 grain hard cast bullets. It's not so much that it's better for the job, I just don't want to scratch up the Smith.

[Catman]

[Miltiades]

Prefer S&W for trigger feel

I have a S&W 629 Classic and a Ruger Vaquero, both in .44 magnum. I have shot them both a fair amount at the range, but have not carried them in the field.

I prefer the S&W for shooting purposes, as it has one of the best triggers, either DA or SA, that I have experienced. In fact the DA pull is so smooth and the gun so heavy that you can fire several fairly rapid shots with good accuracy and reasonable recoil, which is what you might do if a large animal were coming at you from close range.

[Beelzy]

If you plan on shooting heavy bullets, get the Ruger.

I personally prefer a Smith, however the backstrap is a liitle skinnier and the
result is way more felt recoil in the web of your hand.

Other than that tidbit, the Smith is superior IMO.

[JTROKS]

When it comes to 44 magnum it's Ruger revolvers I go for just because I would hate to send a revolver back for a timing problems. If you want a gun that will gain/keep it's value get the S&W. If you want a gun to shoot and use as it is designed to do then the Ruger will stand up to the challenge and the added bonus is it will keep on tickin ' after firing +P+ 340 grain hardcast loads at 1400 fps until you have tendinitis and pain. A trigger job for a Ruger Redhawk is done by polishing the moving parts, but if done wrong you'll have to send it back to Ruger to bring back to factory heavy pull specifications.

[X-NewYawker]

Smith = Beautiful

Ruger + Cheaper, stronger.

Taking it into the woods? Ruger.

[mike100]

A SUPER Redhawk is good, but a regular Redhawk with a lightened trigger is going to have occasional light strikes. More importantly, the single action on the redhawk is not great and the d/a stacks a little (although it is lighter than a smith d/a). The downside to the super rh is that it has looks only a mother could love.

super RH or s&w 29, but not the regular RH.

[RobG]

I have owned a 629 and SBH. The Smith was really nice to shoot, well balanced, easy (as a .44 can be) on recoil and a real beaut to look at. The SBH was scoped and even better on recoil with heavy 300 grainers due to the grip design. Accurate too, about 4" at 100 yds off a bag. I would go the S&W IF those are your two choices. The Redhawk is ugly and for me has a funky grip. The Rugers will allow heavier loads d/t cylinder length, if thats in your future.

[kurac]

S&W for sure its a more refined better looking revolver that is easier to work on and will be worth more in the future.

[Two Shots]

S&W for sure its a more refined better looking revolver that is easier to work on and will be worth more in the future.

Ruger built like a mule, It will never be worth more then a S&W. It is a helluva working gun.

[wellfedirishman]

If you ever plan to handload, get a Ruger

Why? Because they are built like tanks, are plenty accurate, and can take more shooting than a Smith.

A guy I know at the local range has blown out two Smith 629s. He shoots moderate loads, but lots and lots of them, probably 300-400 a week. He is a very knowledgable revolver collector with tens of superb pieces, so not some yahoo.

Rugers are nice, plenty accurate for hunting, and if you drop them in the mud you won't mind. Obviously, for loading you need to use a manual and load safely. If you accidentally overcharge a case, the Ruger is likely to stand up better than the Smith will, IMO.

I own a 629 and a Redhawk. I will only hunt and shoot hot loads out of the Ruger. The 629 is primarily a target/range gun.

[bwiese]

Most folks will be fine with an S&W for 44Mag. Realistically I don't think most folks will shoot 100% full-house loads all the time (44Special is FUN) - aside from wear & tear on the gun there's wear & tear on the *shooter*.

If you are really worried about handling of hotter loads, go get a single-action 44Mag Super Blackhawk - and you'd probably want Bisley gripframe.

[X-NewYawker]

Even if you don't overload a case, the M29 was not designed for a steady diet of 44 mags. The bolt notches are cut too close to the cylinder walls, as well. I run 44 specials through mine, mostly.

Ruger was designed to take hottest 44 mags out there.