which 44 magnum?

BCRider said:
Colt? Other than they are REALLY expensive if you find one in half way decent shape? I believe the .44Mag version was the King Cobra. But the odd time they show up they are up so high in price that you really need to want a Colt specifically to pay the cost.

If you're looking for a fun gun then price wise you're far better to stay with Ruger or S&W.

I tend to like the Super Blackhawk I've got. For .44Mag the slight slowing down forced on me by it being single action isn't an issue at all. But some don't care for the curved "plowshare" style grips. If that's an issue then an N frame S&W or a Ruger Redhawk or Super Redhawk with some Hogue grips becomes a nice option.
Click to expand...

Colt 44 mags were called "Anaconda"...

If you feed your Smith a steady diet of hot 44 loads it's not going to last...that's why people in the past bought the Ruger...Smith is prettier, I have a 629 Mountain gun that gets 44 specials and some occasional 44 mag loads....but thats because I want it to last...A super blackhawk or redhawk is the way to go if you want to pound steel...
 
Last edited:
Smith Model 29. I have one and it's a great revolver. I've fired some pretty stout 300gr loads in it that in retrospect, was probably not such a great idea. However, I was younger and thought it was great fun. I have handled and shot Ruger .44s, but, like virtually all Ruger handguns I have had experience with, they felt oversized and "clunky" in my hands. I much prefer the svelte lines and feel of a Smith to the thicker Rugers.
 
I can tell you one thing: I wouldn't buy a Taurus. At least not without shooting it first.

I have read too much about poor quality and poor customer service. However, most of what I have read has been on the internet.. You gotta decide for yourself. If you got the cash go for a Ruger. I also don't trust S&W for the same reasons as Taurus, but to a lesser degree.
 
I like my 629 Classic. Great with magnums, also great with specials for first time shooters.
dscn6334il.jpg
 
Chuckbuster said:
... virtually all Ruger handguns I have had experience with, they felt oversized and "clunky" in my hands. I much prefer the svelte lines and feel of a Smith to the thicker Rugers.
Click to expand...

I love "short barrel" revolvers with "oversized" frames and the "clunky" massive feel to them! (4.2" Redhawk & 5" 460v) Feels impressive in the hands....That said, I'm waiting for the arrival of my Ruger bearcat:) Talk about svelte lines!
 
johNTO said:
I love "short barrel" revolvers with "oversized" frames and the "clunky" massive feel to them! (4.2" Redhawk & 5" 460v) Feels impressive in the hands....That said, I'm waiting for the arrival of my Ruger bearcat:) Talk about svelte lines!
Click to expand...

That's the feeling I get from my 4 inch Highway Patrolman...but it still doesn't feel clunky:)
 
johnl said:
Yep, both a 29 and a 629. S&W doesn't like a steady diet of full loads. Sold mine off years ago. (after they were serviced of course).
Click to expand...

My experience also. My 6 1/2 " 29 and my 629 4" both went back to S&W for rebuild and each time it took a year to get them back.
Luckily I had my ancient Ruger 44 Flattop to shoot and its never had an issue..
 
For all you young feller's out there...and this includes women as well as guns...Looks doesn't necessarily equate into "performance or relliability"....!

I never bought a Redhawk in the past because they always had a long barrel...now that they have a 4.2 inch? Unobtanium someone says...? Don't say it's so...
 
I discovered the rear sight on the SBH might not stand up to a steady diet of heavy handloads, but the Rough Country rear sight sold by Bolin Custom is very tough, and the windage is adjusted with opposing screws rather than a single screw and spring that the factory uses. If I was going to buy a new .44 today, since Ruger sissified the Vaquero, it would probably be a fixed sight version of the Freedom Arms gun, with a 4.75" barrel. I might even consider the .500 Wyoming, even though that goes against my better judgment. DA guns aren't on my list, even the Dan Wessons and Redhawks can have crane issues, and are heavier than necessary.
 
I've had S&W's in the past and would agree the fit and finish is a little better then the Rugers, and it should be for the price difference. The Ruger triggers can be a little rough, but I've found they will smooth out over time. If you know what your doing you can disassemble the gun and smooth out some of the minor machine marks and that smartens them up nicely. Accuracy I've found is close to the same but I'd give the edge to the Ruger. My only complaint with the Blackhawks and Super Blackhawks would be the length of the grips. I've got big hands and an extra 1/2" to 1" longer grip frame would be nice. Some where between the S&W and the Ruger would work for me.
 
My S&W Model 29-3, with barrel shortened to 5":

DSC00330.JPG


S&Ws (especially newer models with the endurance package upgrades) stand up reasonably well to 240-250 grain bullets at around 1200-1300 fps. Where they really come up short compared to the Rugers is when you want to shoot heavier bullets or want to push those 240-250 grain bullets faster. Which to choose comes down to how much of a glutton for punishment you are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom