I need a 44 mag....
- Thread starter Mush
- Start date
When you'll see it , you 'll have the boner of your life. That is a gorgous handgun. I'm only 5 hours north of you. You are welcome home. Not for the boner
Considering your buying habit, I think I have found my buyer !
Mush
I am very impress by the Freedoms Arms 454 Casuall Premier in 5.5 inch... JP.
When you'll see it , you 'll have the boner of your life. That is a gorgous handgun. I'm only 5 hours north of you. You are welcome home. Not for the boner
Considering your buying habit, I think I have found my buyer !
Mush
I forgot.
Strap that Nemesis on your back.
I must confirm some of your 300 yards groups
thenewbieglockguy
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Ontario (GTA)
I love my .357 but now I'm urging for a .44
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
Even if that were true, and its not, aesthetics come into the equation. What looks good to one might not appeal to another. Curious though that you seem be of the opinion that happiness can be had with a 5" 629, but no purpose can be seen in owning one half an inch shorter.
everybody need to have a .44 mag at least once. Ive tried various lengths but i just love short barreled revolvers, so the 4.2 inch is my pick. However, the 5 inch with full underlug is much more comfortable to shoot.
Well Boomer I am somewhat unsure of what you are getting at.
Is it untrue that we are not allowed to carry, or is it untrue that i see no value in the shorter barrel length?
maybe its untrue that i am happy with mine? Or perhaps that i even own them at all?
I suppose it may be untrue that longer barrel lengths with open sights give a longer sight radius.
maybe it just isn't true that you burn more powder, gain more velocity and have less muzzle flash with a longer barrel.
But you no doubt are correct that Dirty Harry looked cool with a 6.5
Seriously thoe. The man asked for an opinion, he got an opinion.
Is it untrue that we are not allowed to carry, or is it untrue that i see no value in the shorter barrel length?
maybe its untrue that i am happy with mine? Or perhaps that i even own them at all?
I suppose it may be untrue that longer barrel lengths with open sights give a longer sight radius.
maybe it just isn't true that you burn more powder, gain more velocity and have less muzzle flash with a longer barrel.
But you no doubt are correct that Dirty Harry looked cool with a 6.5
Seriously thoe. The man asked for an opinion, he got an opinion.
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
Sorry if I wasn't clear. More than a few CGNers have Wilderness ATCs and do legally carry, so your premise that we (Canadians) can't carry is flawed. My pal Pounder carries a 4" Redhawk, (the ATC allows for both restricted and prohibited) while I prefer a 45/8" Vaquero. Another fellow up here swears by a 6.5" barrel Smith, and more recently acquired a 7.5" SRH.
Long barrel revolvers do have a longer sight radius than short barrel guns, and some find it easier to shoot well with a long sight radius, although this is not universally so, even amongst those who carry. Thus there are personal preferences but no absolutes, which is why I took issue with your assertion that there is no need for a short barrel revolver in Canada; that sounded far to much like the Left's assertion that there is no need for handguns in Canada. Had you simply stated a preference for longer barrels, I could of had no objection. As for long barrel revolvers producing greater velocity, that's true all things being equal, the trouble is they seldom are. I've seen cases where 4" revolvers produced higher velocities than a 6" with the same load. Although seemingly counter-intuitive, it was a result of that particular 4" gun having a tighter cylinder gap, thus providing a larger percentage of the propellant gases were available to push the pullet down the shorter bore.
Last edited:
Sorry if I wasn't clear. More than a few CGNers have Wilderness ATCs and do legally carry, so your premise that we (Canadians) can't carry is flawed. My pal Pounder carries a 4" Redhawk, (the ATC allows for both restricted and prohibited) while I prefer a 45/8" Vaquero. Another fellow up here swears by a 6.5" barrel Smith, and more recently acquired a 7.5" SRH.
Long barrel revolvers do have a longer sight radius than short barrel guns, and some find it easier to shoot well with a long sight radius, although this is not universally so, even amongst those who carry. Thus there are personal preferences but no absolutes, which is why I took issue with your assertion that there is no need for a short barrel revolver in Canada; that sounded far to much like the Left's assertion that there is no need for handguns in Canada. Had you simply stated a preference for longer barrels, I could of had no objection. As for long barrel revolvers producing greater velocity, that's true all things being equal, the trouble is they seldom are. I've seen cases where 4" revolvers produced higher velocities than a 6" with the same load. Although seemingly counter-intuitive, it was a result of that particular 4" gun having a tighter cylinder gap, thus providing a larger percentage of the propellant gases were available to push the pullet down the shorter bore.
I know CGN member pancake uses a 4.2 inch ruger redhawk for his ATC. I know cause i sold it to him.
I will concede that my statement was not entirely accurate however those that can carry are an exception rather than the rule.
You will note however that my statement was qualified by my own personal preference, I did say "I" rather than "nobody needs". I am quite sure that my tolerance for gun rights goes well beyond most here as I would be opposed to any law that restricts an individuals right to protect themselves.
I would even suggest that qualifications with a handguns and rifles along with CCW should give a firearms owner a rebate on their taxes.
I have owned many 4" and less Barrels before C68 came into effect and having none in the moment lost the ability to buy them. I have no prejudice against them at all.
In my experience I have found that many want a .44 mag, buy it, shoot it a few times then sell it as the recoil and muzzle blast are beyond their comfort level. While .44 spec can be used, you may as well stick to the .357 mag if that's the power level you are comfortable with. I am not against the .44 special, I would choose it over the .357 mag, but in a smaller frame like the Ruger Blackhawk. I still think that a heavier pistol for those getting the .44 mag bug is best.
But that is still just my opinion however right or wrong, with absolutely zero underlying anti, lefty, commie, discriminatory prejudice.
You will note however that my statement was qualified by my own personal preference, I did say "I" rather than "nobody needs". I am quite sure that my tolerance for gun rights goes well beyond most here as I would be opposed to any law that restricts an individuals right to protect themselves.
I would even suggest that qualifications with a handguns and rifles along with CCW should give a firearms owner a rebate on their taxes.
I have owned many 4" and less Barrels before C68 came into effect and having none in the moment lost the ability to buy them. I have no prejudice against them at all.
In my experience I have found that many want a .44 mag, buy it, shoot it a few times then sell it as the recoil and muzzle blast are beyond their comfort level. While .44 spec can be used, you may as well stick to the .357 mag if that's the power level you are comfortable with. I am not against the .44 special, I would choose it over the .357 mag, but in a smaller frame like the Ruger Blackhawk. I still think that a heavier pistol for those getting the .44 mag bug is best.
But that is still just my opinion however right or wrong, with absolutely zero underlying anti, lefty, commie, discriminatory prejudice.
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
