| Equipment & Gear > Guns and Ammo |
| Handgunners 2 |
| (1/3) > >> |
| 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. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |