If you were buying a 44 magnum, would you choose a Smith &

Ruger, obviously. The existence of "Ruger-only" .44 MAG loads should put this one to bed instantly.

>>34493494
Don't those loads only exist due to cylinder length?

>>34493525
i believe they claim higher chamber pressures for the rounds also.
something something stronger frame

>>34493489
Get both. Perfect solution.

>>34493489
Ruger stronk and has no hillary hole. S&W can eat a bag of dicks every day until they take those dumb ass locks out of their guns.

New: ruger
Used: pre Hilary hole sw

>>34493555
Aren't the ruger frames not any stronger though? The thickness of the cast frame is structurally equal to the forged smith frame.

I have a new 629, and Redhawk, and I prefer the Smith any day of the week.

>>34493489

I'd pick Ruger over any comparable wheel gun.

I've had issues with Smith, Colt and Ruger firearms in the past, but only Ruger stood behind their product and resolved all issues to my satisfaction.

>>34493881
This. Old Smith or new Ruger.

File: hillary hole.webm (3MB, 720x404px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 720x404px

>a Smith & Wesson

>>34493489
I have a Redhawk, 5.5 inch. Fairly heavy but so is .44 recoil, so it's warranted.

If it's a shooter, Redhawk. If it's a carry gun, model 69. If you're new to big bore recoil, Redhawk.

>>34493937
>Double Negative
Large frame Rugers are stronger than N-Frame S&W's. Period.

>>34493937
Nah son, Ruger isn't some shit company that can't into quality casting. A smith will break long before a Ruger

>>34495816
what is that? and what exactly is a hillary hole?

>>34495884
You take a key, insert it into the hole and turn it. Then a little metal tab rotates up and "locks" the hammer in the closed position.

File: image.jpg (1MB, 2119x1359px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2119x1359px

I'd do a ruger if you want to do a steady diet of max loads. If you want it for backpacking (pic related), or Dirty Harry role playing, then SW. I've enjoyed this and may eventually do a SW 357 and a ruger 44.

>>34495949
so a safety essentially?

>>34496003
yes, most people tend to hate them and now you have certain guns that predated this selling for premiums over the ones with it. So it pissed people off enough to basically create two "eras" of Smiths. they also are known to be faulty, and if it breaks, well you gun is as good as a paper weight

>>34496084
wait, ALL new smiths have that?

>>34495859
>>34495854
Do you have any evidence beyond anecdotes that prove this?

I have both, and like both, but I do think the Smith is an overall nicer gun. Even with the eyesore of a lock on it I prefer everything about it over my redhawk.

>>34496146
Several S&W's were damaged in the 80's and 90's due to being fired with heavy amounts of 300 grain ammo, which had come into vogue well after the advent of the cartridge. They were forced to do "endurance package" modifications to prevent them from going out of time. This only really occurs with high volumes of fire that go along with silhouette shooting. John Taffin goes a bit into it here:

http://www.sixguns.com/BookOfThe44/bot44c21.htm

Super Blackhawks, which were also used heavily in competition, had no such problems. Redhawks are stronger than Blackhawks, so neither did they. Both Buffalo Bore and Garret Cartridges make ammo for the .44 and .45 that are not to be fired in S&W's. At least one of them can physically fit into the Model 25's chamber, being specifically designed for the Freedom Arms 97.

There's also the fact that large frame Rugers have been rechambered for the .454 and beyond, both from the factory and by custom gunsmiths. I have never seen a N-frame go beyond .44 magnum.

Fair enough, this is the kind of stuff I come to /k/ for.

Thanks anon. I'll feel better shooting heavy and hot loads out of my Redhawk from now on, though to be fair I still believe my 629 is a much nicer firearm overall.

>>34496106
most revolvers i believe do. SOME performance center ones may not have it

>>34496106
yes

>>34493489
I've got a performance center 629 and I'm buying a redhawk if that helps. I intend to carry it as a woods gun as the 8 3/8 hunter is a bit much for anything other than being a range toy. I would speak with a little authority here as to the strength of ruger vs sw. I've had quite a bit of trouble out of the pc sw trigger and I've never heard so much as a peep out of my gp100 at all. Well over 500 rounds into the 629 and it hiccups now and again vs never any trouble from the ruger. I've come to expect a little less refinement out of ruger with a lot more emphasis put on use instead of pretty.

Tl:dr Ruger stronk carry it, Smith range toy where 44 magnum is concerned IMO

>>34493525
Yes, and? Do you not want to have access to all ammo types?

>>34493489
I like my redhawk...so i have a bias for that.

>>34497104
Of course, my understanding was that Ruger frames are not actually structurally stronger. I may be incorrect.

The Redhawk is better if you plan on shooting a lot of full house magnum loads. The Smith and Wesson N-frame .44s have come a long way since the old days of early Model 29s, which could--and frequently would--break in a single afternoon of competition, but the Redhawk has also been improved as well. I have little doubt that it remains the objectively superior gun from a long-term durability standpoint.

>>34496712
All current production guns with the exception of a few variants concealed hammer J-frames have the lock. The reason these do not is because they are still popular as police backup guns and the police collectively insisted on a version with the lock removed.

>>34497173
Your comparring apples and oranges but with the oranges while it iscadt metal, it's the highest quality cast in the industry and the designers factored that in my making them extra thicc.

>>34493489
>S&W Model 69
If only Ruger made a 5 shot .44 magnum instead of a .44 special....

Taurus makes some sick looking magnums.

>>34493489
s&w only if it was an older used model without the stupid hole in the side. for brand new, get a ruger. not as aesthetic or good on the trigger but durable and decent. no need to support the s&w shitlords running the company into the ground for politically correct reasons

Ruger.
S&W betrayed us.

>>34496106
yes, only 1 or 2 models of the J frame 5 shot snubbies have an option without it. i think the 357 340 PD and the 442

>>34493489
It depends on what you're going to be using it for. If you want super high pressure handloads to send screaming out of a handcannon, it's better to go with Ruger. If you plan on just putting factory ammo and/or normal pressure hand loads through it, both will serve you well.

I have a S&W Model 69, it's holding up just fine, but if I get another .44 it'll probably be a Ruger, unless I can get a good deal on a pre dash Model 29.

They're both good, but desu if I were buying a .44 I wouldn't get a .44. Instead I would buy a Glock 21 and convert it to .460 Rowland and then walk around with an eternal erection.