Ruger redhawk or s&w629 for cast 44mag boolits, which is better?

[bzajdek]

I am waiting shipment on a Miha 429/640 mold in the group buy section. Specs are about 270 grain with flat nose and 250 grain with hollow point pins, .432 diameter with plain base. My plan is to shoot med and heavy loads but not max so the toughness of a ruger is not so important. I have read here that ruger cylinder throats are all over the place because of gang reaming and the s&w may be better suited for cast boolits over the ruger. Will probably purchase new because there are not many in the lgs around me and I am not sure how to check cylinder gap, lockup and other items, also worried about a dud on gunbroker. The s&w will probably be about 150$ more but that is ok if it shoots cast with less work. Not really interested in shooting jackets after I purchased this mold. It is my only 44 mold and don't own anything else chambered for 44 cal.
thanks, Ben

[osteodoc08]

Buying new- Ruger without a doubt.

Buying used - either.

[rintinglen]

Although my recent experience has soured me on Ruger Products, I think I'd go with the Redhawk. I am on my 2nd 7.5 incher and really have no complaints. The S&W will likely have a better trigger but the Ruger is the stronger gun. New Rugers do not generally suffer from the throat problems formerly encountered, though their QC these days leaves a boat load to be desired. Still, they stand behind their products and their service department is second to none.

[tygar]

I think the S&W is a much finer gun but can't take the stead diet of hot loads like the Ruger. I also feel the Smith is much better in the 215-245gr range than that larger bullet your talking about. I probably have 6 or 8 Smiths 44s & 2 Rugers but for "hot, heavy" stuff I shoot the Ruger but target accuracy stuff is S&W.

[Crusty Deary Ol'Coot]

There was a period of time about the time of the clinton ERROR and for a period of time afterward, when The S&W quality was in question.

Then later they brought out the 29 or 629 "Classic" after which one of the ads they summited for publication said the new "classic" was built to handle "sustained" use of heavy .44 mag loads.

That clearly indicates that there was some question of their durability at least before the entrance of the "classic."

Then when I was once looking for a new .357 at an area gun show, I spoke with the editor (at that time) of the Speer reloading manual and he said buy RUGER as other brands just needed returns to the factory for repairs much to frequently. The new .357 was a RUGER Security Six, so that tells you it has been awhile.

Tough gun and good trigger with minimal work.

I suspect the S&W is now quite good, but I am a RUGER person and my .44 is a 5.5" RUGER RedHawk from which I have used a steady diet of 310gr cast bullets ahead of 19gr of AA#19 for a velocity of right at or slightly over 1300fps.

The RedHawk takes a lick'in and keeps on tick'in. ONE TOUGH GUN!

My trigger IS good. I believe the friend I bought it from had it tuned.

Crusty Deary Ol'Coot

[siamese4570]

I've had both. You'll never get the ruger as slick as the smith but the ruger is tougher. had a couple of issues with screws loosening and the ejector rod backing out on the smith. i know that can be fixed with a little locktite. sold the smith, still have the redhawk.
siamese4570

[bzajdek]

Should have probably mentioned we can't hunt with handgun and I don't plan to take it somewhere where you can. I will shoot paper and steel for accuracy so min 6 inch barrel. I have a 6 inch stainless gp100 in 357 that I like a lot. I don't plan to shoot max loads, I would like to use standard primers to share with 45acp. I have many autos I would choose first for defense so this is a range toy.

[Petrol & Powder]

Tough Call,.... siamese4570 is close to my thinking. The Ruger is a bit tougher IMHO but the S&W is clearly tough enough. I believe the action of the Ruger can be made the equal of the S&W or at least so close it doesn't matter. However, the S&W is no slouch.
osteodoc08 may have hit the nail on the head - New = Ruger; used = either.

[Crusty Deary Ol'Coot]

Just make sure that a S&W is made after the "classic" generation became a reality.

CDOC

[tygar]

Should have probably mentioned we can't hunt with handgun and I don't plan to take it somewhere where you can. I will shoot paper and steel for accuracy so min 6 inch barrel. I have a 6 inch stainless gp100 in 357 that I like a lot. I don't plan to shoot max loads, I would like to use standard primers to share with 45acp. I have many autos I would choose first for defense so this is a range toy.

Given the above, the S&W, no question, for me. Far more accurate, better ergonomics, trigger etc. Cadilac to PU. Just depends on what you like.

[daniel lawecki]

My Ruger is a Super Blackhawk my Smith is a 629 8 3/8 barrel nice gun. But for heavy loads with heavy bullets the Ruger's get the my vote. My Smith is limited to 250 SWC bullets and 2400 powder in the 18-20 gr range. The Ruger all out cannon loads starting at 250gr bullets to 310gr with heavy charges of H110.

[bzajdek]

I am leaning towards the ruger if the throats will be ok. I shoot single action most of the time but like the feel of a double action and also the look. Can anyone tell me the difference between the redhawk and the super redhawk. I don't plan on a scope if that's the only difference.

[Crusty Deary Ol'Coot]

Super RedHawk larger and Heavier with a barrel shroud up close to the frame.

Check out the RUGER web site!

Cylinder throats are an easy/quick cure at a good gun smiths.

CDOC

[bzajdek]

The super redhawk isn't as pleasing to my eyes, but function is the most important to me.

[Dhammer]

I grew up shooting the Redhawk so I am partial to em. I love the way Super Redhawk feels in my hand's and partial to the looks too. We shot lots of cast through my pops when I was kid from target to hot. His was a tack driver. I don't remember what S&W models pops had. But they all had a steady and varied weight of cast.

We didnt have a handgun season for a lot of years then they went to a late season which was only in few counties now you can use a handgun or ml for any gun season in my old home state. Just food for thought unless your from one of the state's whose rules/regs are set in stone.

I bought a used but hardly fired Super Redhawk 12-13 years ago and didnt even realize about the cylinder issues until this site. If I remeber correctly the local gunsmith who is a friend of mine had done a trigger job for the original owner. The trigger was one of the first things I noticed about it at buddies gun store. Sadly between a divorce, and then getting hurt I never really got to put a lot of rounds through it or push the distance. Hopefully, I can get out to my shop tomorrow and find a guage to measure em since I am curious now.

[Gunsmoke4570]

I have an older model 29 that I absolutely love. I only shoot the 245 Keith bullets in it. I also have a Redhawk 7.5" that I use for heavy 310gr WFN loads. Both are very accurate. The Smith is smoother and crisper than the Ruger though. Later generation Smiths are tougher than the older ones, but I'd still favor the Ruger for heavy loads. Since you're not going to be shooting full heavies, I have a preference for the Smith. But it all comes down to what YOU like. The Super Redhawk is an entirely different story. Much heavier frame and has scope mounts in the frame. Unless you are hunting I'd pass on it and stick with a Redhawk or 29/629.

[Mk42gunner]

It sounds to me like you really don't need the Ruger Redhawk's additional toughness over the S&W Model 29; since you aren't planning on running full blown magnum loads on a frequent basis.

What I recommend is that you try them both, then buy the one that feels better in your hand. The redhawk has always felt better to me than an N-Frame S&W. I have owned both, actually more of the N frames than the Redhawks; but I have always ended up selling the N-frames before very long. I just can't find a set of stocks that fit and are comfortable for me, while the Ruger's were decent no matter what grip was on them.

Robert

[LUCKYDAWG13]

have you looked at the S&W 69 http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_827559_-1_757767_757751_757751_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y

[Lloyd Smale]

my money would buy the smith. Its better looking, better fit and finished, Holds its value better and is usually more accurate. Ive had probably a half a dozen of each and still have two 29s and no redhawks. What ive found is the standard redhawks tend to be mediocre shooters. Not near as accurate as the super redhawks which could be argued are some of the most accurate out of the box handguns made (but there ugly). the smiths ive owned in 44 mag have all been exceptionally good shooters. If your sticking to 250 grain bullets and book level loads the smith will last for your lifetime and probably still be being used by your grandkids. Push 300plus grain bullets to 454 ballistics levels that the redhawk will take in stride and youll have a pile of parts I short order. My smiths get a steady diet of 240-250 grain cast bullets at about 1100 fps an at that level will kill about anything, is realitively mild to shoot and will allow my smiths to last about forever. Make mine a 4 inch 629. Probably the best all around hunting/woods bumbing handgun ever made

[bobthenailer]

I prefer S&W over Ruger , just fits me and looks better .
S&W has a lifetime repair policy to orgional owner.

[bobthenailer]

I prefer S&W over Ruger , just fits me and looks better . S&W has a lifetime repair policy to orgional owner.

[kweidner]

Smith for me as well. It's partly aesthetics but mostly accuracy related in the irons I have shot. both have merit but the trigger on the smith is so much better and in my opinion more easily tuned.

[Petrol & Powder]

I'm not certain that across the board the S&W is inherently more accurate than a Ruger. I am certain that there are individual examples of each make that are really good and some that are really bad.
I do agree with Lloyd that a 4" S&W 629 has a LOT of appeal. Its stainless steel construction coupled with a 4" barrel makes it a very packable gun. I like Rugers and think they are often maligned simply because "it's not a Smith & Wesson" . Unfortunately one of the drawbacks to the Redhawk is that a 4" barrel is only obtainable with some major gun surgery.

As for the actions, The Redhawk is a little funky due to its single spring design. The mainspring on a Redhawk serves the duel function of powering the hammer and returning the trigger. That makes tuning the DA pull a bit more difficult than say a S&W or even a GP100. It's not impossible to improve the action but the window between pull weight and positive function is a bit smaller.
The Redhawk is an excellent gun; clearly very strong and well made. The S&W is plenty strong and has more factory options for barrel length. If I was buying a new one I would have to accept the internal lock on the S&W, not a deal breaker but something to consider. If I was seeking a 6" barrel the Redhawk 5.5" barrel would probably be my choice over a 6" 29/629. However I really don't care for 6" barrels. The additional sight radius and velocity of a 6" barrel just doesn't overcome the weight and length penalty in my world.
4" barreled revolvers are just much more pleasant to carry.

[44man]

my money would buy the smith. Its better looking, better fit and finished, Holds its value better and is usually more accurate. Ive had probably a half a dozen of each and still have two 29s and no redhawks. What ive found is the standard redhawks tend to be mediocre shooters. Not near as accurate as the super redhawks which could be argued are some of the most accurate out of the box handguns made (but there ugly). the smiths ive owned in 44 mag have all been exceptionally good shooters. If your sticking to 250 grain bullets and book level loads the smith will last for your lifetime and probably still be being used by your grandkids. Push 300plus grain bullets to 454 ballistics levels that the redhawk will take in stride and youll have a pile of parts I short order. My smiths get a steady diet of 240-250 grain cast bullets at about 1100 fps an at that level will kill about anything, is realitively mild to shoot and will allow my smiths to last about forever. Make mine a 4 inch 629. Probably the best all around hunting/woods bumbing handgun ever made
I agree with Lloyd, go easy on a S&W and they never wear out. I had many but have a problem with grip repeatability with my hands. Never tried a custom grip.
However the RH has never matched other Rugers for accuracy, does not hold a candle to a SRH or Hunter model SBH. I hate the RH grip too. Lighter, strong gun but!
We found the S&W tops out at about 265 gr boolits or inertia hammering will start. Cylinders can unlock and turn with a heavier boolit.
Problems with a S&W were never pressure related, just recoil related. I still love them. All of mine got a steady diet of 22 gr of 2400 and the 429421 or a 240 XTP with 24 gr of 296 and the 265 RD will shoot all day with 22 gr of 296, just don't go near 300gr + boolits.
If I were to buy a new one today, I would get a SBH Hunter with a hog leg grip and put a red dot on. Ultra Dot first choice. Next would be a SRH. Tack drivers to equal a S&W. 7-1/2" in the Hunter and 10" in the SRH.

[Shuz]

I'd go for the Smith 629 in 4 or 5" bbl, and as long as the dash number is 629-2E or higher, you will have a fine revolver that will take the loads you said you wanna use for all of your life, and prolly your grandkids too. Smith gave the 629 performance enhancements starting with the 629-2E that made them a lot stronger. I do not hesitate to use 300g cast boolits outta my 629-3's, 629-4, or 629-5 because the guns will handle them, it's the shooter who gets a little sore shooting 300g boolits out of a 629-4 Mtn Gun!! I shoot those outta my 629-3 Classic DX 5 inchers that have the heavy underlug that helps with recoil.

[bzajdek]

Ok, I am probably stuck shooting 275 gr cast, that mold is $160 but I hear his molds are awesome and was lucky enough to get in on the group buy. I can use large hollow point pins to get down to 250 grain but I will likely break in the mold without pins as it will probably break in with less headache since I have never cast with pins. Comparing the weights of a 629 full lug 6.5 barrel at 48.3 and then a 5.5 redhawk is at 49 oz, even the 7.5 is 54.0 oz. I want to shoot these boolits Miha 429/640 but worry that everyone says 245 grain max for the 629. Is the felt recoil going to be much different between these two guns they almost weigh the same with s&w full lug. Never fired a redhawk or super redhawk but have shot a friends 628 with 240 gr jackets and it was fun and I do think they look nicer, again I am not loading max but want to stay with the 275 gr boolit. Just don't want to have problems as 44 man states, not pressure problems but inertia problems, and cylinder unlocking and turn.

[44man]

Might get away with 275, don't know. They made the enhanced 29 but never tried one. I don't know if they changed springs or the unlocking rod hardness. I know the X frame in .500 S&W could double. The spring in the cylinder stop was still too weak. Fantastic revolver but I think the spring supplier had too little quality control. Means one gun would work and another fail.
265 or 270 for the 29. You might be good to go with 275. Try it and see if the cylinder stays locked. If you can't open the cylinder and need to hammer the thumb piece with a stick and hammer, your boolit is too heavy.
No sense beating a fine gun.
I had the X frame apart that doubled and can say the parts are the best I ever seen, so precise it is amazing but it came down to a simple spring.
The S&W is like the 45-70, will live forever but the small problems are so easy to fix.

[Petrol & Powder]

Just a point for the OP, the Redhawk and Super Redhawk are totally different guns. The Super Redhawk has a completely different lock work that is similar to a GP100. The Super Redhawk also has an extended frame that incorporates cuts for scope mounts and a different style grip frame. The Super Redhawk is a fine hunting gun and is well suited for a long eye relief scope but it is a boat anchor to carry. Based on the original post on this thread, I'd say the debate is between a S&W 629 & a Ruger Redhawk. The Super Redhawk is a totally different proposition.

[dubber123]

Might get away with 275, don't know. They made the enhanced 29 but never tried one. I don't know if they changed springs or the unlocking rod hardness. I know the X frame in .500 S&W could double. The spring in the cylinder stop was still too weak. Fantastic revolver but I think the spring supplier had too little quality control. Means one gun would work and another fail.
265 or 270 for the 29. You might be good to go with 275. Try it and see if the cylinder stays locked. If you can't open the cylinder and need to hammer the thumb piece with a stick and hammer, your boolit is too heavy.
No sense beating a fine gun.
I had the X frame apart that doubled and can say the parts are the best I ever seen, so precise it is amazing but it came down to a simple spring.
The S&W is like the 45-70, will live forever but the small problems are so easy to fix.

I have a 4" .44 Mountain Gun, one with the Endurance Package. I have shot a lot of 300 grain boolits with 20.5 grs. of H-110 for 1,262 fps. from the 4" barrel. I have never had a single malfunction, and the gun is still very tight. I don't see the need for loads like this much anymore, but the newer guns seem to hold up very well.

44man, don't bank on the cylinder stop spring fixing the X-frames issues, I went down that road, to the point of boring the pocket for the spring oversize so I could fit a much larger, stiffer spring in it. It still unlocked and rotated backwards.

[MakeMineA10mm]

bzadjek - You can drive yourself crazy with all the information out there on this question (which may be why you posted it here), and to be frank, most of the posts on this thread are people's opinions, based on what they like, not answering your question.

Ironically, the first post was a great answer, but due to brevity, you may not know why and therefore may ignore it.


Buying new- Ruger without a doubt.

Buying used - either.


Osteodoc is right for one basic reason: You asked about shooting cast boolits in the pistol you wish to buy. Many, most, all (?) newer S&Ws have EDM-cut rifling in their barrels. EDM rifling is proven to give poor accuracy results with cast bullets. (Jacketed are fine.) I honestly don't know if S&W EDM-cuts all their rifling nowadays, because I only buy slightly older Smiths. (My personal bias is towards Smith, but I'm recommending, if you're buying brand-new, to follow Osteodoc's advice, and buy the Ruger.) The best 629 to get is the 629-4 and 629-5. These have the older lock-work and no EDM but they do have the Endurance Package/Radius Stud Package/etc. This would require you to buy used to get the best option for a S&W 629 for cast.

Ruger has started to cut all their chambers/throats with a single reamer and moving it around to cut each chamber, as opposed to the gang reamers they used to use. This started in 2005 with their 50th Anniversary 357 Blackhawk, and has moved through the other models. Again, I research each gun before I buy, and I've not researched the Redhawk/Super Redhawk, but I'd do some googling if I were you about the reaming process. I thought (for what that's worth...) that I read Ruger is now doing all their revolvers with the single reamer, thus eliminating the former problems with the gang reamer. (Now that I'm thinking about it, maybe I read it was all their Single-Action revolvers?)

So, if you're buying new, I'd buy the Ruger. If you're buying used, I'd buy (and have done so) a S&W 629-4 (or -5).

[tygar]

I have a 4" .44 Mountain Gun, one with the Endurance Package. I have shot a lot of 300 grain boolits with 20.5 grs. of H-110 for 1,262 fps. from the 4" barrel. I have never had a single malfunction, and the gun is still very tight. I don't see the need for loads like this much anymore, but the newer guns seem to hold up very well.

44man, don't bank on the cylinder stop spring fixing the X-frames issues, I went down that road, to the point of boring the pocket for the spring oversize so I could fit a much larger, stiffer spring in it. It still unlocked and rotated backwards.

OK, have to jump in!

Have to admit, I don't closely follow everything on a thread, so this just jumped out.

1. "Endurance package"???

2. "X frame issues"???

Explain pls. I still have 6 or 8 S&W .44Mags from -1s - 8s & have probably owned 30+ from 5 screw on & only shot 1 loose & 1 cylinder latch off. With many, many k rounds thru them.

On Xs had 2 500s & 1 460 with maybe 4-500 hot rounds between them 300+ with the 6 1/2 500 I kept & no problems, so I'm curious about what's up.

Thank

[MakeMineA10mm]

Oh, one other thing - 44man has great experience, and gives good advice, but he also gives some clues that he doesn't know it all. He said, "They made the enhanced 29 but (I) never tried one." Wow, 44man, have you really not shot a S&W made after the late 1980s?!? :)

I have a S&W 629-1 made in Jan or March 1985, and I shot that thing to death (almost literally). My regular load was (DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME; THIS IS WHEN I WAS YOUNG AND RECKLASS) 24grs Hercules 2400 w/ Thompson 429244GC-HP (with the HP it ended up about 235grs, which is probably what saved me from blowing myself and my gun up with that overload). After 6000-8000 of those, I got the classic, bolt-jump-out-of-recess-and-cylinder-counter-rotates-malfunction, which leads to the chamber you just fired being under the hammer when you re-cock it. This is one of the several problems (including the ones 44man mentioned) that happened to S&W 44 Magnums after people started actually shooting them, a lot, with heavy loads. I've relegated this gun to target loads nowadays (7.5grs of W231 w/ 265gr Hvy. Keith SWC). (I got lucky and didn't break any of the studs on the frame, so I'm treating this sentimental favorite MUCH nicer nowadays.)

I've since purchased a 629-4, which has all the endurance upgrades, but none of the stupid new stuff (EDM rifling, MIM parts, silly trigger lock hole above the cylinder latch) for my heavy loads, which are NOT what I shot back in the 1980s!!! I have honchoed a heavy Keith SWC, which ended up at 265-270gr (depending on alloy), and my other main bullet is another custom bullet mould from here at CB: the Boomer Mikey 431640, which drops at 290grs from my mould and alloy. I load both of these boolits with 16.5grs of AA#9 for the heavy load. All I'm looking for is 1100-1200fps with these bullets. It's their nose and diameter that does the work; velocity is just for flatter trajectory and 1100-1200fps is a trajectory I'm used to from shooting 9mm, 10mm, and 357 Mag in the same velocity range, so hitting is second-nature out to a goodly distance.

[MakeMineA10mm]

OK, have to jump in!

Have to admit, I don't closely follow everything on a thread, so this just jumped out.

1. "Endurance package"???

2. "X frame issues"???

Explain pls. I still have 6 or 8 S&W .44Mags from -1s - 8s & have probably owned 30+ from 5 screw on & only shot 1 loose & 1 cylinder latch off. With many, many k rounds thru them.

On Xs had 2 500s & 1 460 with maybe 4-500 hot rounds between them 300+ with the 6 1/2 500 I kept & no problems, so I'm curious about what's up.

Thank

tygar,
Read http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-revolvers-1980-present/409433-n-frame-endurance-package.html for info about the endurance package. There are better threads over there that have complete lists of the changes among the different dash numbers and what the endurance package consists of, but I found that one pretty quick. S&W hardened the yoke, cut the bolt-stop-notches longer, and several other changes to make the 29/629 series able to handle a long, steady diet of very heavy silhouette loads with 300gr bullets... If you've read my two prior posts, I'd point out that my 629-1 never saw a 300gr or heavier bullet, and I was still able to shoot it hard into problems... So, in my opinion, S&W tried to blame all the problems on the very small, select group of silhouette shooters, when there really was a problem across the board. I think the problems didn't show up commonly because most people didn't shoot their 44 Magnums hard and long, like silhouette shooters (or 17-25 year old kids :) ).

[tygar]

Ya like I said earlier 225-245s for the S&Ws & the Rugers for the bigger hotter stuff.

It's been a known fact for 50+ yrs not to run super hot thru them, especially a lot of them & they will last.

I havn't bought one in a long time since I had so many & have been selling them off so missed on the upgrade thing.

Matter of fact been working up loads with the new MEHEC mold 210-225 HP/Solid mold.

Still, what's the deal on the X frames? I do go full pop with my 500, but with 400s & less.

[dubber123]

Ya like I said earlier 225-245s for the S&Ws & the Rugers for the bigger hotter stuff.

It's been a known fact for 50+ yrs not to run super hot thru them, especially a lot of them & they will last.

I havn't bought one in a long time since I had so many & have been selling them off so missed on the upgrade thing.

Matter of fact been working up loads with the new MEHEC mold 210-225 HP/Solid mold.

Still, what's the deal on the X frames? I do go full pop with my 500, but with 400s & less.

I'll answer even though it's a bit off topic. The .500 X-frame I dealt with was an earlier, long barreled, ported model. VERY accurate. With anything approaching full power, (450 grain boolits at 1,400+), it would unlock, and rotate backwards so that the next hammer fall hit on a previously fired cartridge. Just a click. It went back to S&W at least twice, with no improvement. I blamed it on (like 44man), a weak or inadequate cylinder stop spring. I tried just beefing up the same diameter spring, no luck. I finally bored the hole out the spring rides in to allow a larger diameter, stiffer spring. No luck. This problem occurred with several different shooters. It was finally sold at a significant loss to a fellow who already owned one. The problem was told about up front, but he didn't care, as the one he had "does the same thing, and I only shoot targets". I also saw a video of another .500 shooter posted here on the site, that showed a misfire mid string, and when I questioned it, the owner said it was doing the same thing I had trouble with. It happens. The gun in question was replaced with a BFR in .475, and the owner is very happy now.

[MakeMineA10mm]

That's the same problem my 629-1 has. It is caused by the recoil forcing the cylinder backwards against the recoil shield so hard and so far that the bolt slides forward of the cut far enough that it is out of the notch. Heavier spring won't fix it. It requires the bolt stop notches be cut longer... That's one of the mods in the Endurance Package on the 29/629 series. Sounds like they need to do that to the X-frame too?

[bzajdek]

I am wondering how bad edm rifling is, I will research a little more on this and also if ruger is using a single reamer on their double action revolvers. I am still very far up in the air on choosing one.

[tygar]

I do believe I had to send a 10 or 12" 460 or 500 back for something but can't remember what for. Not that problem tho & it was fixed. My 6.5 has had 0 problems & I have shot hot loads.

[MakeMineA10mm]

I am wondering how bad edm rifling is, I will research a little more on this and also if ruger is using a single reamer on their double action revolvers. I am still very far up in the air on choosing one.

There was an article in a recent Handloader magazine about this, specifically in one of the S&W 44s, possibly the new S&W Model 69 (L-frame 44 Mag). The author talked about, with cast lead bullets only, the pistol shot 2"-2.5" groups, but when switched to jacketed, it tightened up to 1.5" or so. Author flat-out said it was the EDM rifling. There's plenty places on the web, including here at CB and at the Smith-WessonForums that addresses this issue. I think doing your own reading about the guns your researching is half the fun/enjoyment of the anticipation of getting a new gun. It's right up there with finally getting to shoot it when it comes in; at least it is for me. :)

[44man]

True, I never shot a newer one except the X frames. I had 5 or 6 made in the early 80's. never had a problem. But even back then there were reports of cylinders going backwards and I did fix a few by adding a small spring inside the original because I never had a spring to fit.
You would need a lot of end play for a cylinder to back up enough the slide the lock out of the groove. The geometry of the S&W stop is such that as the gun rises, it wants to stay in place from inertia. We took movies of the .500 with a magic marker spot on the cylinder. My friend has a new one with a regular barrel, no under lug and is FIERCE but there has been no trouble with it other then not wanting to shoot it much at one time.
Doubling happens with a full cylinder ONLY so rotation goes to a live round with the first shot. It can't happen if you leave the chamber empty under the hammer. The hammer is bounced back from internal pressure on the primer and firing pin so it is back far enough to fall on a live primer. You can see this if there is any unlocking with a 29 or 629, there will be a double strike on the primer or even on the case head. We had pictures of a SA hammer near full cock from bounce but the stop does not come out of the groove. Weaker hammer springs will show more bounce. Yes, even the BFR will show it. I use over power, variable Wolfe hammer springs, 26# in mine for more accuracy, primers need struck hard. Rifle primers in revolvers need 28#. 45-70, etc. My Rugers get stronger springs too, Ruger hammer springs are sad and take a set, 1/2" shorter then new so I had to change my IHMSA gun many times to keep good scores. When accuracy started to go, I changed the spring, bought packs of them. Wolfe fixed it.
I am surprised Dubber could not fix his. But he gave me good info.
A question is can holding the .500 much tighter limit the stop coming out? Does too free a recoil make the problem worse? Does a shorter, lighter gun make it worse?
S&W blamed the shooter making a double trigger pull and we proved it false. They would not listen. It was Whitworth that I worked with and he knows his stuff. With movies and pictures, we learned a lot.
You can't convince me a S&W has so much end play, the stop slides out unless you have the frame stretch reported, something I never seen yet.
One other thing the enhanced model has is a hardened crane so it will not bend. Old guns could get the crane bent by the wrist twist closing of the cylinder, movie junk. They were so soft I fixed them by hand bending.
I believe S&W also hardened the unlocking pin in the center of the cylinder to prevent the peening.

[twc1964]

Luckydawg, that is one sweet 44 you put in your post. I havent owned a smith in years but thats one i would like. In reguards to the op, i am a ruger guy, plain and simple.

[bzajdek]

I am going to take the advise and not by a new s&w, but might look for a used model, my lgs had a 7.5 redhawk with wood grips very nice looking gun but a little long and have only shot a blackhawk with wood grips I have to admit rubber grips are more comfortable. I am still a little ways away from buying, that is ok because I am still undecided.

[tygar]

I am going to take the advise and not by a new s&w, but might look for a used model, my lgs had a 7.5 redhawk with wood grips very nice looking gun but a little long and have only shot a blackhawk with wood grips I have to admit rubber grips are more comfortable. I am still a little ways away from buying, that is ok because I am still undecided.

That is actually a good point. I like the rubber grips on the SRH when shooting hot loads. The Goncalvo Alves wood grips fit my large hands well on the Smiths but rubber is easier.

[Crusty Deary Ol'Coot]

The only time I've ever been hurt with a .44 was with a BlackHawk and rubber grips.

The next BlackHawk remained with the wood grips, allowing the gun to rotate a bit upon firing and no more problems.

What ever happened, it was deep in the hand and accompanied with a lot of pain That took weeks to heal before I could shoot again.

With my RedHawk, there has never been a problem with the rubber grips, but it is a heavier gun.

My steady diet for a number of years in the RedHawk has been a 310gr cast at 1300fps.

Crusty Deary Ol'Coot

[btroj]

I really like my SRH. Not very pretty but dang it, it will last forever even fed the heavy bullets.

[MakeMineA10mm]

If it were me I'd tend to lean towards the SRH over the RH. I can't seem to find the twist rate for the S&W's?? If memory serves S&W have a slower twist? Ruger is 1:20"

At one time, all S&W revolvers had a twist of 1:18.75", regardless of caliber. I always thought that was weird, but from a production standpoint, it's only one set up on the rifling machine, so I guess it makes sense from that point of view. With their current sourcing of the 2-piece barrels from an outside vendor, I'm not sure this is 100% the case nowadays.

[Petrol & Powder]

I am going to take the advise and not by a new s&w, but might look for a used model, my lgs had a 7.5 redhawk with wood grips very nice looking gun but a little long and have only shot a blackhawk with wood grips I have to admit rubber grips are more comfortable. I am still a little ways away from buying, that is ok because I am still undecided.

DECIDE WHAT YOU WANT FIRST THEN GO FIND THAT EXACT GUN !
Buying what's in the display case because it's close to what you want is a good way to make an impulse purchase that you will later regret.
If you don't see what you want - Move On ! Don't try to convince yourself that it's close to what you want and buy it because you might grow to love it. Trust me, decide what you want first the right gun will come along. If it takes awhile to find the right gun you'll have more money in your pocket and be in a better position to negotiate. There's NO urgency!

[44man]

S&W is Faster at 1 in 18-3/4" so it loves a 250 gr over a 240. The twist is better then a Ruger and will handle heavier boolits but then you run into recoil damage.
A S&W will serve all needs as long as you don't beat it.
The new BFR .44 has a 1 in 16" twist and I wish I could afford one.

[44man]

The only time I've ever been hurt with a .44 was with a BlackHawk and rubber grips.

The next BlackHawk remained with the wood grips, allowing the gun to rotate a bit upon firing and no more problems.

What ever happened, it was deep in the hand and accompanied with a lot of pain That took weeks to heal before I could shoot again.

With my RedHawk, there has never been a problem with the rubber grips, but it is a heavier gun.

My steady diet for a number of years in the RedHawk has been a 310gr cast at 1300fps.

Crusty Deary Ol'Coot
You let it slip. no "roll" allowed with a six gun. Heard it many times about blisters on the palm. Torn skin. Get a grip is the answer.

[MakeMineA10mm]

For the OP, I have to modify my advice a little. Essentially, I agreed with osteodoc on "S&W buy used; Ruger buy either new or used." Now I'm going to say only buy used.

The last 2 new Rugers I've bought have both had problems.

I bought a 50th Anniversary 44 Magnum Blackhawk which had the barrel over-torqued, which results in having to crank the rear sight completely to its travel limit to the left to get the bullets to hit where I'm aiming.

Now, I just picked up a new 44 Special Lipsey's limited run with 4-5/8" bbl., and it has several problems: stocks don't fit right with gaps at frame, chatter marks, and frame standing .050"+ from several spots; the pin which holds the rear microsight walks out to the left a consistent 1/8" for each 12 rounds fired; and the trigger and hammer pins walk out to the left and can be pushed back and forth with finger pressure...

One problem on 1 gun, I'd let slide, but it's obvious NO QC check was done on this 44 Spl, which is a shame, because it's beautiful and a joy to shoot.

I just can't recommend the Ruger, if their letting new guns out of the factory like this consistently...

[Crusty Deary Ol'Coot]

44man,

The damage was not a "blister" or other surface damage/abrasion, but deep seated damage with in the hand.

There was never any surface discoloration or other indication.

Cracked some bones or just a bruise, can't say, I just know it took some weeks to heal and allow me to get back shooting the .44.

I do know that the rubber after market grips felt good, but I was never again hurt by the .44 once I went back to the factory grips and stayed there.

And ------------- that included extensive firing of 300 - 325gr cast bullets at full magnum velocities during load development/testing.

As I also indicated, no such problems with the .44 in the 5.5" RedHawk with a diet of 310gr cast at 1300fps using the after market grips. Heavier firearm and different grip angle.

Crusty Deary Ol'Coot

[wdr2]

bzadjek - I totally agree with MakeMineA10mm. Find a SW 629-4. I have one in the DX model, 6.5in barrel. Very accurate with cast bullets. I use the mold you are waiting for, the Keith, and an LBT LFN 270gr. As 44man says, stick with a max bullet weight in the 265-270gr range. I would not worry about a 275gr (Scrape off 5gr of lead and see how small the volume actually is = 1/8 of a 22LR bullet!). Just leave the 300gr+ bullets for Super Redhawks and BFRs. Sending you a PM.

[44man]

44man,

The damage was not a "blister" or other surface damage/abrasion, but deep seated damage with in the hand.

There was never any surface discoloration or other indication.

Cracked some bones or just a bruise, can't say, I just know it took some weeks to heal and allow me to get back shooting the .44.

I do know that the rubber after market grips felt good, but I was never again hurt by the .44 once I went back to the factory grips and stayed there.

And ------------- that included extensive firing of 300 - 325gr cast bullets at full magnum velocities during load development/testing.

As I also indicated, no such problems with the .44 in the 5.5" RedHawk with a diet of 310gr cast at 1300fps using the after market grips. Heavier firearm and different grip angle.

Crusty Deary Ol'Coot
Can't say then since I shoot the .500's with rubber grips and no glove. My .44 is a little piece of cake now. Gun weight is important too. My friends .41 is worse then my .44. Had .357's that I did not like. Short, light guns do not fit me at all. I do not like a .458 rifle in a 6# rifle either, the thing needs 12#. I shot some big bores where the barrel was straight up, 90*. No fun!

[ballistim]

DECIDE WHAT YOU WANT FIRST THEN GO FIND THAT EXACT GUN !
Buying what's in the display case because it's close to what you want is a good way to make an impulse purchase that you will later regret.
If you don't see what you want - Move On ! Don't try to convince yourself that it's close to what you want and buy it because you might grow to love it. Trust me, decide what you want first the right gun will come along. If it takes awhile to find the right gun you'll have more money in your pocket and be in a better position to negotiate. There's NO urgency!

Great advice! I've made this mistake before unfortunately. I've decided on a SRH in 44 mag because I have molds & loads worked up for my 77/44 already, have the NOE 432-265gr. RD & the MP 44/444 mold & am on waiting list for the MiHec 429640 GB, although the MP 44/444 will probably be my choice with a 305gr. solid. Had considered the 45/454 SRH as well. I'll probably get a used one as they are reasonably priced around here & would like to have one shortened to 5.5" & only ones I've seen come in the longer barrel length. Hope to hear if anyone has done this & what their experience has been, since the decision really isn't final until the gun is in my hand.