Do I need a Redhawk?

mill428

Bearcat
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
50
City & State/Province
Moundridge, Kansas
Okay, I realize right off the bat I did at least two things I shouldn't have. ONE, I used the word "need" in reference to the acquisition of an additional firearm, and TWO, I am on a Ruger forum asking what seems to be a silly question for Ruger folks. But this is the basis for my question:

I have owned many BH's and SBH's over the years (although nothing in comparison to many here). I love Ruger single actions. Up until about four years ago, I had no double actions of any kind - ever. At that time I started buying S&W's to fill that void. I had always been enamored with the look and feel of a finely tuned Smith trigger. They were beautiful (to me) inside and out. Quite a few have passed through my hands in those years in the quest for the perfect four (in my mind). I traded and bartered for years ending up with what I thought were the S&W's that would perfectly fill the double-action niche. I have a 640 no-dash .38 sp., 2.5" 66-2 .357, 4" 19-5 .357, and a 4" 629-1 .44mag. The subject of this post is mainly about the 629.

96168230-4c39-4365-89a0-85a5cc025960_zps877e1776.jpg


It is a beautiful revolver and I love shooting it. It was Magna-ported before I got it along with some trigger work. I don't know that the porting does much - maybe a little. I guess what I am concerned with is the idea that it can be worn out over time by shooting heavy loads. I realize anything can wear out over time given enough abuse, but when I buy something like this it is for a lifetime and then handed down. I buy tools with the same mindset. I don't want something working for a short time and then have to be replaced. I KNOW a RH or a SRH is a bank vault. A tool that, when cared for properly, can take a lot of abuse and live (very well) to tell about it. From my research over time, here and elsewhere, the Ruger double actions will outlive a S&W given the same treatment.

That said, I live in the middle of Kansas, surrounded by trees and farm ground. We have no grizzlies (although on rare occasion a mountain lion). Nothing dangerous other than a few pesky snakes. The biggest game is whitetail deer which on a good day I can shoot from my front porch. I have plans to hunt something bigger someday - maybe an elk or two. At this time, I don't shoot much in the way of high powered loads. I do reload, but most of it is for practice and fun with the kids. If I need to get crazy, I have a slick .44 mag Bisley SBH, I have worked over a little. But it is not a double action.

I am first and foremost a shooter - on the rare occasion a collector. All of my firearms at this point have a specific purpose or fill a particular niche (in my mind). I don't have a huge number (although, my wife would probably argue that point). I value quality over quantity. My desire is to get to a place where I can have both, but to get an additional gun now, I have to be able to justify it to some degree. Don't get me wrong - I would LOVE to have a Redhawk (or SRH) - but I have to have a good reason.

So...do I "need" a RH or a SBH (.44 mag)? Do I replace the 629 with a RH?

Just so you know, it is mainly the fault of this forum that I am even raising this question. :D I was blissfully unaware of the difference until spending time here. There so many here extolling the virtues of the Ruger double action that I have no choice but to ask. While certainly anyone can weigh in on this, I would love to hear from those who may have had experience with both. Oh, and pictures are always a welcome object lesson.

Thanks,
Craig
 
Yes, you need a Redhawk; and keep the 29. Based on my experience you won't regret having/shooting either or both. If you enjoy the Smith trigger, be forewarned the Redhawk will be different, and will likely require some "wearing in". I have both and which do I shoot the most? Redhawk.

BTW, I don't have enough experience with the SRH to comment either way - I recently bought one in 44 mag and am turning it into an Alaskan type - but haven't even shot it yet.
 
Everyone "needs" a Redhawk! I have and have had Model 29s and while I like them, there is something comforting about knowing you can load it from the bottom of the loading manual and never hurt it. The same cannot be said for the Smith.....
 
Being that your gun is a 629-1 and doesn't have all the endurance package upgrades that the later dash numbers had, there is more likelihood you will "shoot it loose" with heavy 44 magnum. That said...

What do you consider "heavy"? That gun should take a steady diet of ammo loaded at or below current factory loadings with a 240 grain bullet. Now, if you are going to run 300+ grain bullets over a case full of H110 or the like, then you're probably going to have some issues and should consider buying a Redhawk, Super Redhawk, or Super Blackhawk. But buy "in addition to" the Smith, not for replacement.

Smith and Wesson, as far as I know, still fixes the guns they sell. Too much of an issue is made, in my humble opinion, about "what if I shoot the gun loose?" If in the rare event you do that, send it back to Smith and they will fix it, usually on their dime. There's a reason to buy guns like Smiths and Rugers, and the willingness to stand behind their products is one of them.

Beautiful gun, by the way. If you ever decide to sell it.....
 
The 629 is an excellent revolver. A Redhawk is easy on my eyes and a favorite, but the 629 is more refined in my opinion. If the primary intent was to shoot ammo no heavier than 240 -250 grain bullets at 1200-1400 FPS, and you favor the 629, I'd stick with what you've got. If the primary intent was to shoot full-pressure heavy-bullet .44 Magnum loads on a steady basis, then the Redhawk would be a top choice.
 
I'm gonna join with the others ... if you want a Redhawk, go for it, but don't get rid of that 629. I've got a 29-2 with a 4" barrel and I do not find it interesting to shoot with full-house loads. OTOH, it is a fine piece shooting Unique and cast boolets. like everyone is saying, you won't find the sort of refinement you get in an N Frame Smith in other factory offerings ...
 
I've been shooting mine a lot of late. I also upgraded to a set of Arhends grips.

S_W_629_2.jpg


Redhawks are hard to beat though when it comes to strength and durability. S&W's tend point better and the actions are smoother from the factory (at least in my opinion). Beyond that it turns into a Ginger vs. Mary Ann discussion. Both are excellent models.
 
Wow! when I posted this, I wasn't certain of the responses. To some degree, I did expect the pro "need" replies but you guys went above and beyond in helping me think through this decision. Honestly, I had taken the 629 to a gun show a couple of weeks ago thinking I would trade it if I found something - namely a RH or .45 Bisley Vaquero (I know two completely different animals). While I didn't find anything, I'm glad I didn't at this point. I like the rationale that is being presented. I was aware that the action of the RH would be a little less refined - but could be changed.

Hammerdown77, I shoot at mostly factory load levels using 240 grain cast or XTP's. I had planned on working up a hotter load for my SBH in the 300+ grain bullet range. If I ran them through the 629, it probably wouldn't be more than a box a year. I don't necessarily have a use for a load that hot at this point but I wanted to have something ready should the need arise. I really want to get into casting my own bullets, but that's a conversation for another time. It is also good to know that S&W will make things right if things get loose. Right now the lock up is tight.

Lee, once again, stunning revolver! Do you own any ugly guns? I hadn't thought about it being a Ginger and Mary Ann discussion but I guess that pretty much hits the nail on the head.

Thanks again guys for the insight. A lot of wisdom gained from experience. Keep it coming!

Craig
 
On the other hand just to add more to the quandary, a Redhawk 4" in .45 is just about perfect.
 
My very first S&W in 44mag is the new 29-10 and she is suppose to eat any steady diet of 44mag i feed her and want more. Its suppose to be the best quality S&W has to offer in 44mag. For a purdy revolver that feels good in our hands with some history behind the S&W company the m29-10 is a great revolvver. But for the peterbuilt / mack truck of the 44mags the redhawk is unmatched. I own many of both.
 
RonEgg said:
On the other hand just to add more to the quandary, a Redhawk 4" in .45 is just about perfect.

Okay, I am not sure I needed hear that! My brain can only process so much (as can my wallet :) ). I started a love affair with the .45 Colt round several years ago when I started reloading that caliber. If I had a better source for cast bullets, it would probably be the round I spent the most time with.

Craig
 
Depending on your hand structure and how you grip the gun, the limiting factor in whether you can shoot heavy 300+ grain loads in the 629 may depend more on you than the gun.

An occasional couple of cylinders full of the heavier stuff should be fine. I wouldn't worry about it. Again, the limiter will probably be you. The silhouette guys who shot them loose put lots and lots of 300 grain loads through their guns. That's not what the average owner would be shooting.

Honestly, your SBH may be the best platform for the heavy stuff.
 
Everyone needs a Redhawk! I have a 7-1/2" 44 SBH, 6-1/2" 41 BH, and a 5-1/2" 41 Redhawk. My "go-to" gun for the woods is my Redhawk. For some reason it just fits me better than the other two and I shoot it much better, too. I've never shot a 629, but I agree you should keep it and get a Redhawk to keep it company.

41magnumredhawk3.jpg
 
From someone who has owned a 629 and a Redhawk...they are both fine revolvers. But when it comes to hunting, the Redhawk provides a broader variety of ammo. Due to the 629's shorter cylinder my favorite hunting load would not fit.

I've had my Redhawk for 17 years and it has been a gem. A very large revolver, but I don't mind the feel of a quality chunk of Pittsburgh steel. They are well built and handle the recoil better than most. I predict you will not be disappointed.

RedWin2_zps2b2779f8.jpg
 
My Redhawk was the last one David Clements made before stopping this conversion in 2007. Right after I sent this RH off, Ruger started building them with the 4" barrel. He has started back with the Redhawks, however I do't believe he "slab sides" the barrel anymore.
 
Everybody needs a Redhawk .... or three.

RedhawkGrips.jpg


But ..... everybodys already got a .44 Magnum. Why not treat yourself to the wild side and go with a .357 or .41 Magnum?

Redhawks.jpg
 
hittman said:
Everybody needs a Redhawk .... or three.

But ..... everybodys already got a .44 Magnum. Why not treat yourself to the wild side and go with a .357 or .41 Magnum?

Redhawks.jpg

Very nice, hittman! You know, up until about a couple months ago, I never even gave the .41 Magnum a second thought. My dad and I were talking guns and he mentioned he always wanted a buntline .41 mag. I told him he was crazy because he would never find ammo for it - especially now! But in the time since that conversation, I have seen and heard more positive comments dealing with that caliber. I had to go back to him last week and tell him I was sorry for judging his choice so quickly - I was wrong. To top it all off, the last gun show I went to the only Bisley I saw (I was looking for a .45 Bisley) was a .41 magnum. What makes it worse is they were only wanting $400 for it. Sad to say, but I didn't even consider it at the time. Now I think it will be my next purchase. I guess I need to see what the fuss is all about.

Now as you say, if I could find a .41 mag RH - that would be something! Thanks for the additional reminder.

Craig
 
When I was shopping for a 44mag I went with the 4" Redhawk.

It is heavier than the 629. The weight is a double edged sword. It tames the recoil but you have to haul it around.

The trigger on my gun is pretty stiff. The 629 will have a much better trigger.

I thought the rubber grips were ugly so I replaced them with factory wood grips.

The Ruger can handle heavier loads than the 629 as the cylinder is longer. You can seat the bullet our further and have greater powder capacity.

Another + for the Ruger is the ease of care. YOu can easily remove the trigger group for deep cleaning.

Personnaly I am done with ported guns. The blast seems amplified by the porting. I am not going to carry or use a ported gun in the field (anymore).

Corbi
 
I can't add much to what has already been mentioned. I have both but my RH's are 5.5" guns. When the 4" became available I jumped on it....and sold it almost as quickly. I found the extra weight over my 29 made it no easier to carry than the 5.5" I already had.

So for me, carrying on a separate belt in hunting or "serious" carrying conditions I take the Big Red. If I want a light but powerful sidearm on a pants belt the Smith gets the nod.

I like to keep my loads for the Smith in the 1100 to 1200 fps range, usually with a lead WFN 260gr. bullet. This range is easier on both me and the gun. In fact I load almost all of my big bore handguns in this same range. When I want more power I move up in bullet weight (and diameter) and not velocity. The Redhawk handles these same loads easily and if I want to go to 300 gr. bullets and beyond this is my gun of choice.

I agree with the thought that if you are going to go out and get a Redhawk by all means I would suggest a 45.

I am now going to go mourn the fact that I did not see that 41 for $400....

Dan
 
I recently picked up this 5 1/2" Redhawk and it's really winning me over! Owned a number of Colt and S&W double actions, but this is my first Ruger D/A. I'm liking it an awful lot.

ruger014_zpsb8a133f6.jpg
 
Keep the 629 as a tribute to ol' Elmer. Be on the look-out for a Redhawk. It can be loaded from mild to wild to cover any requirements.
This one is a 45 Colt.
RR451_zps4c9f7c70.jpg
 
exlogger said:
A very large revolver, but I don't mind the feel of a quality chunk of Pittsburgh steel. They are well built and handle the recoil better than most. I predict you will not be disappointed.

exlogger, the first "real" handgun I ever handled was a RH. I was 14 at the time and I was amazed at the weight! A friend of mine had just got it and kept it in a rug in his truck. I couldn't imagine carrying that around with you - neither could he, which explains the gun rug. We were both skinny little kids at that point (my, how things change) but were so enamored with the heft and bulk of the thing. Of course the fact that it was a .44 lent to the mystic of it all back then.

Savit260 and Roger in NC, beautiful RH's! Roger, I love the rig. I am being swayed by this thread to, one, keep my 629, and two, look beyond the .44 mag and seriously look for a RH in .41 mag or .45 Colt. I realize the .41 will be harder to find but a RH in either caliber would scratch an itch I didn't know I had - until now. You guys are becoming a bad influence :D

BIgMuddy said:
I like to keep my loads for the Smith in the 1100 to 1200 fps range, usually with a lead WFN 260gr. bullet. This range is easier on both me and the gun. In fact I load almost all of my big bore handguns in this same range. When I want more power I move up in bullet weight (and diameter) and not velocity. The Redhawk handles these same loads easily and if I want to go to 300 gr. bullets and beyond this is my gun of choice.

Dan, loads in this range are about the top of anything I do with my 629. I'll admit I haven't gone overboard experimenting. I have a better place now to reload so I am gathering information and components to build loads that have interested me over time. As I said above, the idea of having a .45 RH is becoming VERY appealing. I already have a .45 BH convertible and love it. A Redhawk of the same caliber would definitely add to the fun!

Oh BTW BigMuddy, the .41 was in the far corner, last table :)

Craig
 
deac45 said:
Hammerdown77 said:
If only they put the GP/SRH action in the Redhawk......sigh.





+100! I've been wishing for that for years. One day maybe.


Deac45

I've never handled a SRH. What is the difference between the SRH and RH actions? Trigger pull, smoothness, or ??? My RH requires 9 lb 9 oz in DA, 6 lb 7 oz in SA. My SBH and BH have trigger pulls of 4 lb 10 oz and 4 lbs 6 oz, respectively. I'd like the RH to have a little lighter pull but...... Anyone have data on the SRH?
 
427mach1 said:
deac45 said:
Hammerdown77 said:
If only they put the GP/SRH action in the Redhawk......sigh.





+100! I've been wishing for that for years. One day maybe.


Deac45

I've never handled a SRH. What is the difference between the SRH and RH actions? Trigger pull, smoothness, or ??? My RH requires 9 lb 9 oz in DA, 6 lb 7 oz in SA. My SBH and BH have trigger pulls of 4 lb 10 oz and 4 lbs 6 oz, respectively. I'd like the RH to have a little lighter pull but...... Anyone have data on the SRH?

Is the trigger assembly completely different, then? I have never paid that much attention to the differences. I know I like the looks of a 4 or 5.5" RH much better than the SRH. I just assumed the actions were the same for some reason. I guess I need to educate myself a little more.

Craig
 
Back
Top