44mag. Ruger or S&W

[abowlieb]

super redhawk Alaskan 44mag with 2.5" barrel or S&W 629 4" barrel? Those are the two wheelguns I am tryinh to figure out which one I would like more. I picked these two because they caught my eye and both companies put out really good revolvers.

I had to pick between the two a few weeks ago, when I was on the market for a 357mag. I went with a Ruger gp100. Im very happy with my choice. The look n feel was just perfect for me.

Now I am having to pick again from the same companies and juat looking for some input on people that have shot them both. What are the pro's n con's? Anything major that sets them apart?

I do hunt but my 357 can handle anything I run across in theae parts of the wood. Pa only has black bear. Granted some of the biggest black bear in the USA come from here but nothing I couldnt deal with, witj what I already have. 95% of the time with this gun will be spent on the range. Thx for any info u share!

 

[Doyle]

Have you ever shot a .44 mag out of a short barrel? It isn't pleasant. I've got a 5" and I don't think I'd want anything shorter than a 4". All that lost velocity just gets converted to excess flame and muzzle blast.

 

[RIDE-RED 350r]

Redhawk Alaskan is a bad-to-the-bone wheelgun for sure.

But I think I would rather compromise toward the 4" 629 and sacrifice a smidgen of portability to gain the advantage you SHOULD have with the 4"bbl over the 2.5", especially with the 44mag cartridge.

A 4" N-frame doesn't carry bad at all, just don't cheap out on the holster and belt. I use a Desantis 3-slot belt holster hanging from an actual gun belt to carry my 4" m29. While obviously a little heavier on the hip and bulkier than a K-frame of equal bbl length, it carries pretty nice for the horsepower it has. And there are nicer holsters out there than what I am currently using too.

My personal opinion, once you get down to a 4"bbl an under, the bbl length is kind of an afterthought as far as ease of carrying. Both are large framed and fairly heavy revolvers.

I vote 629.

 

[Slimjim9]

I've never shot .44 (mag or spl) but how about the 4.2" Redhawk?

 

[laytonj1]

How about a 2.65" Redhawk...
With the round butt it's actually not unpleasant to shoot.

Jim

 

[BigJimP]

There is a significant difference in the triggers ( in double action ) between most of the Rugers and the S&W's....with most of the S&W's being a lot smoother....but you have to evaluate that.

I have 629's and 29's ...in 3", 4", 6" and 8 3/8" barrels....the 3" is a beast - and not that easy to shoot especially in rapid fire ( and its magna ported which in theory should reduce the muzzle flip ) and while I think it does, its still difficult to shoot with full power loads.....

....where the 4" is significantly easier to shoot.../ and the 6" is easier yet...and the 8 3/8" is the easiest to shoot.

The heavier the gun ...the less recoil for a given cartridge / and 4 ounces of weight will typically reduce the Ft Lbs of recoil about 10% in a gun....so a few ounces is a big deal...especially in a .44 Mag full power load ...over something like a 9mm...

 

[Deaf Smith]

If I lived in Alaska, where the temps go way low, and big bear were in abundance, the Toklat .454 would be the ticket.

But otherwise, my S&W 629-1 is all I need.

Deaf

 

[Wheelie_Fan]

Love my 5 shot Model 69 with 4.25" barrel......

 

[timothy75]

Since its going to be a range gun by all means the get the 629 for the 4'' tube. Good luck

 

[22-rimfire]

I'd also suggest the 4". Not much more difficult to carry in the woods either and you may be able to shoot it a bit better. A 6" would make a great hunting revolver in PA.

My 4" M57 goes with me sometimes in the woods. but often it's a 22 as I am not too concerned about black bears.

 

[Drm50]

44s

I live in rural SE Ohio. Probably not much different than Pa. I find that we have
to much"air" between gun and target/game to full around with snubbies. They
look neat, but really not much use in the field. The 4" m-29 will be a lot more
practical for target shooting also. And the carrying of 4" vs 2" is not noticeable.

 

[markallen]

The Ruger Alaskan is not as bad on recoil as you would think.
I load a Hornady XTP 240 gr JHP on top of 23.8 grs of IMR 4227 with about 1395 fps, out of my 5 1/2 " Super Blackhawk.
With the same load fired in my Alaskan the recoil is definitely lighter then in the Super Blackhawk.
And the fps loss out of the shorter barrel is not as much as you would think.
But I do use faster burning powder for the Alaskan because of the shorter barrel.
I have never owned a S&W 629. But I did own a custom Redhawk with a slab sided 4" barrel. And I prefer The Alaskan over it.

 

[JayCee]

The Alaskan is big and heavy for a short-barreled revolver, and is more suited to the 454 Casull. I'd go with the 629.

 

[Paul105]

I have a Ruger SRH Alaskan, but it's a .480. It handles recoil astonishingly well and is amazingly accurate for a big bore belly gun (400gr at 1,050 fps). I would think the .44 Mag Alaskan wouldn't be bad recoil wise. FWIW, the Redhawk and Super Redhawk weigh pretty much the same (even though the Super "looks" heavier). My .480 weighs 42.8 oz on my digital food scale.

I love the looks of the round butt Redhawk 2 1/2", but the grips on the Alaskan are, for me, a game changer -- the bone at the base of my thumb just can't handle the Redhawk. Yeah, you can get after market grips, but the ones I have tried wer built for King Kong (they are very large due to the grip frame). Also, Redhawks might/can have ignition problems due to the one spring design.

Personally, my favorite range/carry .44 is the new S&W M69 (4 1/4", 5 shot, L-Frame .44 Mag). Mine are equipped with the Hogue S&W 500 grips (basically the same as the Hogue Tamers on the Alaskan). Aesthetically, it can't compare with a M29 or M629. and of course it has been denegrated for "off center" ball detents, the dreaded lock, mim trigger/hammer, and frame mounted firing pin.

I have two M69s, one has almost 4,000 rounds down the pipe -- 40 % of which have been moderate to full .44 Mag level loads. Both guns are as tight as the day I bought them and have ZERO end shake.

They are a delight to shoot with 240gr at 850 fps to 950 fps and can handle 325gr WLNGCs at 1,180 fps if you have the need.

Ultimately, it depends on what works best for you -- which you will only find out by trial and error.

Paul

 

[JERRYS.]

not fun to shoot full power 240 grain loads in. after a 50 round box you will want to light a cigarette, that's how spent you will feel.

 

[Webleymkv]

For a general purpose gun, I'd go with the S&W hands down (though that choice might be more difficult if you substituted the SRH Alaskan for a 4" Redhawk). Sub-4" barrels on .44 Magnums are, to my mind, specialty guns made for last-ditch self-defense against large, dangerous animals at short range. While they work very well for that purpose, their utility is mediocre at best for just about anything else. A 4" barrel gives you higher velocity but more importantly it also gives you a longer sight radius and better distribution of weight thus making the gun much easier and more pleasant to shoot.

 

[CajunBass]

I've never owned a Ruger 44, except for a SBH, I think their D/A/s are just plain ugly.

I did have a Smith& Wesson Model 29 with a 4" barrel. Beautiful gun. I probably fired a couple of boxes of full power ammo in it. Those came with the gun. After that I had a small stash of brass to start reloading at 44 special levels. Much more plesant to shoot at the range.

I don't remember the recoil of the full house stuff being too awful. I just don't shoot the hard kickers for grins and giggles generally speaking. I shoot for fun and a leaving with my hands tingling isn't much fun IMHO.

But that 29 was a NICE gun. I came this close to buying another one not long ago.

 

[Pond James Pond]

If you want comfort and controllability, I'd say the Smith (never shot one).

If you want badass looks and the experience of shooting brutally-recoiling rounds without having to pay .454/.500 prices for neither gun nor ammo, then go Alaskan. (never shot one)

If you want a good compromise between the two go Redhawk 4.2" like me!!
Portable, decent sight radius like the 629, and can handle punishing loads if you handload.

I think trying to have a go with some is the way forward.
Don't reject the chance to try other models/brands too as they may surprise you and open up new options you hadn't considered.

 

[madmo44mag]

I am a big Ruger fan of the 44mag.
I own several and all have been used and abused over the years.
I have destroyed two S&W model 29’s with the same ammo I was regularly shooting in my Rugers.
Rugers are tough and dependable.
I would be looking for a Red Hawk or Super Red Hawk for a DA revolver and you can never go wrong with a Super Black Hawk SA.

 

[highpower3006]

You really should go out and shoot a .44 mag. I am not recoil sensitive, but it doesn't take many full power .44 mag's to make me switch to my .44 creampuff loads. If all you will run into is a black bear, you will probably never need any more than the standard 240 grain .44 mag load that is on most dealers shelves. That would negate the Rugers advantage in being able to handle a steady diet of hot handloads as you really wouldn't need to punish yourself or the gun.

I have handled the Ruger Redhawk and it is certainly a nice gun but I have been shooting Smiths for over forty years and they just seem to fit me better.

I don't buy into the current fascination with short barreled, large caliber handguns. I feel that a .44 mag needs at least a 6" barrel to get close to maximum effectiveness out of it and when you start cutting off the barrel, you are exchanging velocity for portability.

I have been carrying a '59 vintage 4" M29 for many years and I really don't think a shorter barrel would be that much handier. Realistically, a longer barreled gun carried in a shoulder holster is just as portable and if you wear it on the outside of your coat (as opposed to having the coat cover your gun in a holster mounted on your hip), it is much easier to bring into action.