Handgunners 2

[ZEN]

I know you're out there so lets run this tangent really quick.  Been to the shop and held some of the guns we discussed and with great scrutiny I have inspected them better than you can of course on a web site.  I didn't think I'd like the redhawk as much as I did...but i did.  The SW 629 was pretty nice as well.  Both 44mag, both 4".  Things I noticed.

1.The Ruger outweighs the S&W but I was surprised how light they felt for me.  I wish they had a 5" for comparison but the balance seemed perfect for me.

2.The grip of the Ruger is fuller.  What do you call the distance from grip to trigger?  They seemed to fit me the same there.  Neither felt like I wass reaching at all.

3.The sight's on the ruger are more robust but only one tap hole.

4.The Ruger has more metal.  duh, more weight but I can see why people say they're indistructable.

5.The cylinder release on the Ruger is almost it's best feature.

6.The S&W has a tiny gap between the cylinder and the barrel.  DAYLIGHT!!?  That seems all wrong.  The Ruger had none.

Both have nice triggers.  Both have nice grips and both and the same capacity I believe.  The Ruger is almost $140 cheaper which surprised me.  The tie breakers for me are the cylinder release and the daylight.  Then I hear the cash register ringing.  Unless you can talk me out of it that redhawk may be a go.  I like the weight of the 629 unloaded.  I feel like the loaded Ruger approaches obecity.  In 44mag that's in my favor though.  HAve at it.

[ZEN]

Just want to jump in and reiterate that the gap between the cylinder and the barrel is really my main concern.  Can anyone speek to this.  The rest keeps my wheels spinning but that gap, although pretty small, was enough to see through and inspire me to ask.  lots of die hard Smiths out there so maybe the gap is no big deal.  anyhow, thanks.

[MikeWalking]

I believe the Industry standard for Barrel to Cylinder gap is .006 inches.

My 629 was I think .004  my Redhawk .002

I'd say the difference is meaningless and don't let that pinch of light influence you either way.

The Smith will be more expensive due to the extensive hand fitting and extra workmanship that goes into it.

It's your $$ pick what ever feels best. 

[GoldTip]

Don't let that gap bother you.  They are there on many different makes of gun.  My blackhawk in 357 I can see light, but my Dad's S&W in 41mag you can not see light.  On a Dan Wesson 22mag I had there was no discernible gap.  On my Ruger Alaskan in 454 casull you can not see light.  I have a buddy who has a Taurus in 41 mag and there seems to be a large gap.  My wifes protection gun when she is hiking is a Taurus Titanium 5 shot 357 mag, and I can not see a gap there.  I do not see any difference in accuracy between any of the these guns. 

I have to admit I am a Ruger man all the way on revolvers.  More metal+stronger in my book, also look at the cylinder stop grooves on the cylinder for even more strength with the Ruger.  On the Ruger those stop grooves are located on the thickest part of the cylinder, they are located at the thinnest part of the cylinder on a Smith.  Now does that truly make any difference?  It does in my mind, but if it truly made a strength difference I am sure the guys at S&W would have changed it by now.

[dbllunger]

The gap is required.  They all have it or had better have it.  Now some have different tolerances, but they all have it.  If you have no gap then you will have functioning problems escpecially when dirty or it heats up.  Just check the top strap for errosion.  If there is errosion or cutting then you don't want that POS anyway.  One it has been shot thousands and thousand and thousands of rounds.  Two it has has some seriously hot and overpressure loads and a lot of them throught it.  You are worrying about pretty much nothing unless it is extremely wide.  I have never seen a revolver from any of the decent manufacturers with a problem.  Even some Dan Wessons with shot out barrels shooting hot loads for the entire barrel life.   

[WAcoyotehunter]

My wifes protection gun when she is hiking is a Taurus Titanium 5 shot 357 mag, and I can not see a gap there.  I do not see any difference in accuracy between any of the these guns. 

That's what my wife carries!  The 6" barrel, she's killed loads of rattlesnakes off her horse with that gun!  

[ZEN]

Final thoughts and I'll let you know soon. 

If you own both and can load the same ammunition into both:
1.What do they weigh loaded respectively?

2. Whose mounted a rail on the Ruger?

3. Will the Ruger shoot 44 special?

4. What holsters do you like.  I'll probably get dressed, strap on a shoulder holster of some kind and wear any back pack/what ever over that so that the gun doesn't fly around when the pack comes off.  Then again, i'm not apposed to a hip holster it's just that this year I may switch to a torso/wrap- around-hip-military-style-kinda-pack design instead of a back pack.  I'll still wear a hydration unit of some kind but I like ready access to my compartments which a back pack can't really offer.  Plus I don't carry much so even the small pack was too big this year.  Thanks yall.  I can't wait and i have to.  Other expenses first.  Discipline is hard some times.

[dbllunger]

Well there is 7000 grains in a lb.  Do do the math based on what bullet with a powder charge 44 mag 20grs, casing ?50-75grs??? and how many rounds you are carrying.  Yes a 44mag can shoot 44spcl.  I like leather as it is durable and quiet.  Shoulder holsters - I have them but they are not that movement friendly IMO for hunting and fishing.  Easier to carry weight wise in a shoulder rig but the big revolvers flop around a lot.  I prefer a hip holster for that style pistol. 

[MikeWalking]

The weight difference between the two is a matter of a few ounces, not pounds. Wanna carry less weight? No seconds at diner

I have one holster, nylon, that can be threaded onto the waist band of all my packs or to the belt that came with my waders.  Shoulder holsters have their good points but wearing one bugs me. Experiment with the cheapie nylons till you find a set up you like then get it in leather.

You seem to be headed for the trap of Over Analyzing.

My bottom line: If I was headed for Alaska it would be the Ruger because it can handle/is recommended for the 330gr thumpers from Garrett  FTR it is what I bought for my first 4 solo trips into the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, as a backup to my 1895gs.  (have since sold both to help buy my jeep)

When I can buy another .44 it will be another 629 classic 5in (sold after a sudden layoff) simply because it fit my hand better, was more pleasant to shoot and I shot it better.

I'm looking forward to my 5th solo trip to ANWR in June following the Porcupine Caribou herd.  Weight being the critical issue it is this time it will just be my 1895 LTDIII 45-70 with me.

[cohoho]

How far do you travel with the herd, seen folks doing this, thought it would be a cool thing to do.  How long do you go for?

[ZEN]

The over analysis is over.  A smith is coming home with me.  And look, the analysis is so I don't feel stupid. I hate that more than almost anything in the world.  I gotta talk it out.  Check it out.  Weigh it out.  I experience the world and it's mechanics with my hands and in the end I don't like paying people to do things that I should know how to do.  Like change my oil etc etc.  There is a point when a gunsmith is a crucial serviceman but to a great degree I want to know what I'm talking to him about.  That's more productive.  These guns are not designed at random.  And you and I know the little things count.  I always ask what and why + who and where if it's relevant.  That's how I work.  In the end I've pushed through a couple handguns and lost a little money.  I'm willing to pay into the pot to learn what I like though and it's been fun but this won't be cheap so I don't intend to rush it or regret it.  Tell you what.

[MikeWalking]

cohoho.

Most trips were 16-17 days. One was 10 and that was the only one that went as planned. The weather either added days or had my pilot dodging severe thunderstorms to get me out early "before the window closed for???"

This trip in June is planned for 10 days on the ground including drop off-pick up. But we may be able to make it 12. Have to wait and see.

The terrain I'll be in is such that a person hiking more than 2mph on flat ground is a major stud, I'm not. Well not anymore

It's almost impossible to tell someone how rough the Tundra can be up there. One step is mush, the next hard, it all looks the same...calf/knee deep ankle wide trenches covered over by grass. I did one 7 mile, RT, trek from camp across a valley up 400 feet to a view and back. 7+ hours, I think it wore me out more than 15 on the PCT with a week long pack. A lot like climbing sand dunes. It makes those gravel river beds water crossings and all look real good.

ohhhh quitting time...

I'll pick a spot not far from the LZ and day trip. With 100,000+ Caribou going by no need to chase'em much

[ZEN]

I'm jealous of your trecherous and laborsome adventures.  Sounds worth the back ache to me.