Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: S&w 629

  1. #1

    Default S&w 629

    Howdy folks, I am a S&W fan (lets not start a fight) but I find myself in posession of a Redhawk in 44mag. I have shot the Redhawk but would really like to shoot a 629 so that I can compare them. I am in Valdez if you know of anyone in this area that would be willing to let me put some store bought rounds thru theirs please post. No I am not selling and will not travel to do this. If here great if not I will have to deal with no comparison.

  2. #2

    Default

    I'm nowhere near your location, but own three 629's and a couple of RH's. If no one pipes up and gives you the opportunity for you to try for yourself, I can give you some feedback based on years of shooting the two models side by side. I've done everything with them from bowling pin shoots to big game hunting and a whole lot of plinking and practice in between the two.

  3. #3

    Default 629

    Hey, even if I do find someone any/all input is good (unless it becomes a S&W vs Ruger arguement). Let fly with your observations. One last comment, I want to pass on that I am also a 357mag fan and the only reason I went to 44 was for the larger then black bear variaty of furry friends we have in this area. If I can tame the recoil it would be enjoyable and I do have a "decelerator grip".

  4. #4

    Default

    I'll start with some quick feeds, then get specific if they stir up any questions for you.

    #1- I'm a dedicated and serious double action shooter and been doing it for close to 40 years. I can't tell you how many action jobs I've done on both Smiths and Rugers. And after doing my best action jobs on Rugers, they're still nowhere near as smooth and easy to control in DA as a good Smith. As a result I tend to use the Rugers for single action shooting and hunting and the Smiths for double action shooting and bear protection.

    #2- If you're shooting hot handloads through the Ruger, they might choke a Smith. I have to keep my loads for the two labeled and not shoot hot Ruger loads in the Smiths. They'll bind up every time. Stick to factory equivalent pressures and the Smiths will perform beautifully and for a long life, but load them up with some of the really hot heavy bullet loads you read about, and they'll lock up.

    #3. Due to the extra weight and maybe its distribution, the Rugers seem to recoil a little less than the Smiths, no matter which grip you put on them. But magnaport the Smiths and it tames them a bunch- to an even lower level than the RH. My magnaported 4" 629 is much easier to control than even my 7.5" RH.

    #4. For a purely hunting gun and with no double action shooting to factor in, I think the RH is much the superior gun. And not just due to the ability to digest heavier loads. In relegating mine to hunting, I've put the accessory "express" sights on both. Those are the ones with a gold bead for the front sight and a v-notch rear with a white line leading up to the V. They add measureably to my consistency at longer ranges. They are also easier to acquire in low light. I still do some hunting with the Smiths, but usually limit my range with them to 50 yards, while I'd go to 75 and maybe beyond with the RH and express sights.

    That's enough for now. In a nutshell, if you're not going to go to the trouble learning to shoot fast DA and will mostly stick to single action shooting, the RH will be fine. But if you are willing to learn to shoot DA, as well as magnaport and have an action job done, the Smith is an outstanding carry and defense gun, even if you aren't able to shoot hotter-than-factory loads. I never carry my RH's for protection because for my needs the Smiths are so much better. I can put 4-6 aimed shots on target in less time than most guys can manage a second aimed shot single action. For me that considerably ups its value in defense.

  5. #5

    Default 629

    good advice, I want to be able to go to the range and shoot specials and normal loads but the main reason for the gun is that one time something decides I or my wife is in their favorite berry patch and decides we might taste better. I have reloaded before and will be reloading when my press gets here so I will be able to mix up any kind of blend I wish for my comfort level. The plan is to have some tank killers that may get shot once or twice a year to clean the cobwebs out then only be used incase of emergency. The rest of the time the gun will be (I hate to say it) a dust collecter in my safe coming out to kill paper and pop cans. I have read about porting and heard that it doesn't make a difference unless you have a longer barrel and I want to keep it at 5-5.5 inches.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alaskabear99687 View Post
    I have read about porting and heard that it doesn't make a difference unless you have a longer barrel and I want to keep it at 5-5.5 inches.
    Lots of opinion out there floated by keyboard ballisticians. It made a huge difference in my 4" 629. That's what I used for years in bowling pin shoots. My 8 3/8" 629 has it too, but the difference from an unported 8 3/8" is not nearly so noticeable. I think you will be impressed with what it does to a 5-5.5" gun. Unless there's some magic in half an inch of barrel, it sure made a difference in my 6" 629. Neither of my Rugers have it, but I've been thinking of poking holes in the 5".

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default Ruger or S&W

    The other factor is pride of ownership. The S&W is a finely machined and finished piece of machinery inside out and out while the Ruger is more to the utility side with "as cast" surfaces evident in many places, larger gaps in the fitting of non-critical parts, etc. I carry Rugers as cheap beater boat or truck guns when I think they made get lost or stolen but I'd really rather have my S&W or M70 classic.

    If you don't ppreciate the manufacturing and finish differences then you should be happy with the less espensive Ruger.
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  8. #8

    Default 629

    I am sorry, that is the kind of post I don't want and spicifically said not to post. I will simply say that you can have pride of ownership in ANYTHING!!! and if you had read my first post you wouldn't have posted your comment. Please no more posts like that. I am simply trying to gather information and that is not information.....................

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default Comparison?

    I own as many Rugers as S&Ws - I think my comaprison was pretty valid and that most people would agree with my asestment. Different people take pride of ownership in different things I well understand - if you don't understand the differerences between S&W and Ruger it really doesn't matter - as I stated!

    Specifically what kind of comparison are you looking for anyway? Both are nice accurrate well made reliable revolvers. Past that it is mainly personal preference and what feels and looks right to you. Comparing the two pistols side and sie and shooting them both - as desired in your first post - is obviously the only way to go!
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  10. #10

    Default Hoo Boy

    Do I detect tvfinak finding an opportunity to continue his recent overly biased S&W versus Ruger flame? Enough already! I agree that the Ruger is not the slick gun a S&W 29 is, but having shot for almost the same amount of time as our astute comrade Brownbear, I have found that for an Alaskan working gun the Super Blackhawk and the Redhawk are hard to beat. No, ultimately, they are not as smooth as a Smith action because the angles and leverage of their action works are quite different, but with a little smoothing, which I also have done, they are quite acceptable and once you get accustomed, they are just fine. The Redhawk is not the horrible double action gun some think, with a bit of work. Besides, when you are shooting at a ticked off moving bear, you don't need a target quality gun because you don't have the time to take a fine bead. So, the extra strength and the bit of extra weight of a Ruger actually works for the right load and situation. I am thinking of getting the 4" Redhawk. I think the newest Redhawks, at least the 4" have had some slight changes made to their inner workings that help the single and double action. I've always found the Smiths to put felt recoil in more of a straight back at you mode then the Redhawk, but that might be just my perception.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default Disagree?

    What did I say about the Rugers that you disagree with?

    I pointed out that Rugers were a bit more on the utility side while S&Ws were a bit nicer finished esp. inside and better fitted in non-vital areas - otherwise they were both great guns. If the owner took pride in the better fit and finish he may want a S&W, otherwise the Ruger may be a equal choice - the fit and finish being the primary differences.

    Otherwise the choice was personal preference and what looked and felt good to the owner when he fired them.

    Also mentioned that the previous posts were a good assesment of the other differences.

    If this assestment is "biased" and offends anyone they have pretty thin skin!


    Quote Originally Posted by mauserboy View Post
    Do I detect tvfinak finding an opportunity to continue his recent overly biased S&W versus Ruger flame? Enough already! I agree that the Ruger is not the slick gun a S&W 29 is, but having shot for almost the same amount of time as our astute comrade Brownbear, I have found that for an Alaskan working gun the Super Blackhawk and the Redhawk are hard to beat. No, ultimately, they are not as smooth as a Smith action because the angles and leverage of their action works are quite different, but with a little smoothing, which I also have done, they are quite acceptable and once you get accustomed, they are just fine. The Redhawk is not the horrible double action gun some think, with a bit of work. Besides, when you are shooting at a ticked off moving bear, you don't need a target quality gun because you don't have the time to take a fine bead. So, the extra strength and the bit of extra weight of a Ruger actually works for the right load and situation. I am thinking of getting the 4" Redhawk. I think the newest Redhawks, at least the 4" have had some slight changes made to their inner workings that help the single and double action. I've always found the Smiths to put felt recoil in more of a straight back at you mode then the Redhawk, but that might be just my perception.
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  12. #12
    Moderator Daveinthebush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Valdez, Alaska
    Posts
    4,402

    Default AKalaskabear99687

    Maybe this will help. I live in Valdez and have a 6" 629. Shoot me a PM and we will try to set up a time so you can TRY one like in your original post/request.

    Vietnam - June 70 - Feb. 72
    Cancer from Agent Orange - Aug. 25th 2012
    Cancer Survivor - Dec. 14th 2012

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default S&W bias?

    I've never even mentioned the action of a Ruger! Some how I've gotten tagged with trashing the Rugers - there is some confusion somewhere.

    My primary point is that Rugers could be lighter and/or stronger if they used a forging like S&W rather than a casting for the frame. I've made no mention about any problems with Rugers other than what I stated was a rumor that the RHs had some issues with loose barrels. I picked this rumor up from a number of posting on the web and did not state it as fact but as rumor.

    My beef was all the comments that the X frames were too big asnd heavy compared to a SRH. I pointed out that some models of the X frame were close to the weight of a SRH and exceeded the power level of the cartridges avaliable in the factory SRH. I attributed the favorable power to weight ratio of the Xframe to the strong forgings S&W used for the frame as compared to the castings used in the SRHs.

    I hope this clears up some confusion as to my "flaming" Rugers! you can verify my statements if you like by reading my postings.

    Quote Originally Posted by mauserboy View Post
    Do I detect tvfinak finding an opportunity to continue his recent overly biased S&W versus Ruger flame? Enough already! I agree that the Ruger is not the slick gun a S&W 29 is, but having shot for almost the same amount of time as our astute comrade Brownbear, I have found that for an Alaskan working gun the Super Blackhawk and the Redhawk are hard to beat. No, ultimately, they are not as smooth as a Smith action because the angles and leverage of their action works are quite different, but with a little smoothing, which I also have done, they are quite acceptable and once you get accustomed, they are just fine. The Redhawk is not the horrible double action gun some think, with a bit of work. Besides, when you are shooting at a ticked off moving bear, you don't need a target quality gun because you don't have the time to take a fine bead. So, the extra strength and the bit of extra weight of a Ruger actually works for the right load and situation. I am thinking of getting the 4" Redhawk. I think the newest Redhawks, at least the 4" have had some slight changes made to their inner workings that help the single and double action. I've always found the Smiths to put felt recoil in more of a straight back at you mode then the Redhawk, but that might be just my perception.
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  14. #14
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    730

    Default the other 44mag S&W.....

    Hey BrownBear ....

    You should mention your experience with and opinion of the S&W M329 - with an action job and Magnaported.

    You convinced me a long time ago the ported and tuned up M329 is THE natural choice for woods carry in Alaska.

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    I've never even mentioned the action of a Ruger! Some how I've gotten tagged with trashing the Rugers - there is some confusion somewhere.

    My primary point is that Rugers could be lighter and/or stronger if they used a forging like S&W rather than a casting for the frame. I've made no mention about any problems with Rugers other than what I stated was a rumor that the RHs had some issues with loose barrels. I picked this rumor up from a number of posting on the web and did not state it as fact but as rumor.

    .
    Again you post more incorrect info as the S&Ws are cast as well as the Rugers, the S&W are not forge today . Once again you do not know what you are talking about

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default forged S&Ws

    S&W uses forgings for the same reasons as manufacturers all over the world use forgings for critical applications requiring a better strength to weight ratio than a casting.

    If castings were as strong as forgings the use of forgings would cease since forgings cost more to make and finish machine than investment castings. Obviously forgings are not justified for every application requiring a metal part - S&W obviously thinks their revolver frames are a good application for a forging and are able to extract a higher price in the market for their revolvers than Ruger.

    Fortuanetly we have a choice as both products have their good and less favorable features. Pay your money and take your pick. Which one is a "better" revolver is up to the buyer.


    Quote Originally Posted by jwp500 View Post
    Again you post more incorrect info as the S&Ws are cast as well as the Rugers, the S&W are not forge today . Once again you do not know what you are talking about
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    foothills of the Brooks Range
    Posts
    638

    Default

    there you go Dave in the Bush has an answer for you. I own them both and am partial anymore to the Smiths-actually have been for over 40 yrs. I like the way Rugers are built, BHWKs & RDHWKs and do think and appreciate its design-pretty tough! My slickest shooter is my custom Ruger Bisley .45LC cut down to 4 5/8's-more money spent in that than any of my Smiths.

    Lots of shooting to get any good-try them both on!

    regards,

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •