Help mr choose

[John Allen]

I have both Ruger and Smith 44's My personal favorite is a Smith 629 Mountain Gun. It has the thinner barrel in 4"

[Larrypeterson]

Wic,

I have a predujice about the older Ruger Super Blackhawk. Last June I was shooting my 44mag Sblackhawk at a range in Richfield, Utah. After about an hour of shooting and cooling, I fired a round that blew the top 3 holes of the cylinder and top frame off. (No injury) We searched for the blown off pieces but never found them. I sent the gun to the Ruger folks who replied that the pressure was too high for the cylinder. If I were to get another 44 pistol, I would want a little more metal between the cylinder holes. The Smith & Wesson has more thickness than my old 44 had. My wife reminded me that I had shot over 4000 rounds, counting the 1000 packs of primer boxes, and that I was shooting max loads in most of them.

The 44 mag. is a wonderful round. I shoot them in my 44 Henry and 444 Marlin "handi rifle." I wish you well and hope you will enjoy your 44, regardless of which brand you choose.

LP

[tygar]

I didn't address the "brand" either since you specified Ruger & I didn't say which I preferred. I would go with the SRH. I have it in .44 & .454 & I think, .480.

But...I have at least half dozen S&W .44s and much prefer them except when putting a steady diet of max loads downrange. Ergonomically I like them better & they shoot better for me & their is no comparison in the trigger. Matter of fact, my Taurus RBs .454 have a superior trigger.

[Tatume]

I believe the design and construction of the Super Redhawk addresses Larry's concerns about strength. When asked how long the Super Redhawk should last shooting full-power 454 Casull ammunition, a Ruger engineer replied "indefinitely." I believe it; the gun is massively strong.

Now consider the 44 Magnum Super Redhawk. The cartridge operates at lower pressure, and the cartridge is smaller and therefore the cylinder walls are thicker. Recently I asked Ruger and was told the same steel is used in the cylinders of the two.

In addition, the cylinder bolt notches are cut off-center, not directly over the chamber, eliminating a weakness that is found in many other designs, including the Blackhawk series.

[TCLouis]

I bought my first 44 Mag in about 67 and few folks owned a "magnum" handgun back then.

When folks asked why I had a Forty Four instead of the more popular 357 Maggie,

I had a pretty simple answer . . .

"I can load my Forty Four to to be a 38 SPL, but i sure can't load a 38 SPL/357 Mag to be a Forty Four."


I like the Super RedHawk and Super Black hawk better than the Redhawk and I have all three. I actually prefer the Super Redhawk, but it is a chunk of iron best for range and lugging around only to hunt, it is just not a "Packin Gun"

Something about the grip on the Redhawk, but if you like the S&W grip, I think you will like the Redhawk.

S&W 629 or Mountain gun is better to pack around and there is no reason any of them need to be stoked with fire breathing Mag rounds all the time.

[Jackpine]

Wic, as you can see there are lots of pros for either and really not many cons. I currently own three variations of the Redhawk and five or six SBH. I have hunted quite a bit with handguns and have always chosen a SBH with 7 1/2 barrel for that purpose. It just seems to be the best choice for me. I have always thought that the SBH triggers were better than the RH, but obviously others have had a different experience. The Redhawks will run heavier than a comparable SBH, which may be considered either a pro or con. If you practice, the speed difference between shooting with comparable accuracy, double vs single action is pretty small.

The real question, is which one shoots the best for you and which one do you like the best. Hopefully you have friends who own both. Shoot each as much as you can. If you don't have friends with both, maybe there is a local range that rents guns where you can try them. Both are great guns, and neither is the wrong answer. The other great thing is that both hold value well, so if you decide your first choice is not the one you want, you will not be out much, especially if you buy one used, which brings another point. There are probably more used 44's out there in excellent shape than any other caliber, because so many people buy them, put a box of shells or less thru them and then decide it is just more gun than they want and trade it off.

Good luck,

Jackpine

[Petrol & Powder]

Given the restriction of Ruger (a S&W Mountain Gun with its tapered and therefore lighter barrel would be my choice ). Ruger makes some great revolvers and I love them but the S&W Mtn. gun is a bit lighter. This is a gun that will be carried a lot !
I would go with a Redhawk and a 4" barrel. The Super Redhawk is a beast and almost a pure hunting/target gun. The extended frame with its integral scope ring cuts is great for strength & mounting optics but just way too much extra steel to wag around all of the time. I wouldn't consider a single action for a gun that might be called upon for self defense. Not saying a SA wouldn't work, just wouldn't be my choice for that duty.
The same is true for the 5.5" or longer barrels. The longer barrels give you a bit more sight radius and a little more velocity at the cost of a lot of bulk and weight. A 4" tube is a very good all-around barrel length for a revolver. Anything longer gets unwieldy in my opinion. When selecting a revolver to guard against two legged predators, I actually prefer a 3" barrel.
Other criteria would be: stainless steel construction, the best fitting grip I could find (probably synthetic) and a holster/belt that held the gun securely but allowed a fast draw. I might even consider a lanyard for a gun used while fishing.

[GL49]

I've got a Redhawk in 44 mag, a SRH in 44 mag, a SBH in 44mag, and a S&W mountain gun in 44 mag. Easiest to pack is the mountain gun with the 4" barrel, and it's comfortable to shoot with the stock rubber grips, or Hogue grips if you want to replace wood grips. That's what I would choose for something light with a lot of snort, if I was limited to 44 magnum. Given your options, I'd pick the Redhawk with a 4" barrel, get grips that feel best to you. Go to you tube and watch Jerry Miculek shoot the 44 mag double action.
My personal option, if I had the money to spend and was worried about brown fuzzies, would be a SRH in 480 Ruger or 454 Casull, get the barrel shortened to four or five inches, and buy a holster that would put it across the front of my chest. Big things with sharp teeth are scary. If you cast your own, they'll load just as cheaply as a 44 for plinking loads.

[wlc]

Thanks for the opinions. I'm still in a quandry of sorts. Been talking to some trusted local folks and one of the posters here on this thread even suggested the 454 or larger caliber. I had almost made up my mind on the one (44mag) I wanted and doubt started creeping in about 44mag vs 454. I know I can load down the 454 IF I wanted to or shoot 45 Colt in it. Can't load up the 44 to match or surpass the 454. I'm likely to buy a couple of boxes of factory loads initially regardless of which I go with (mostly for the brass), but I'm planning on this being a cast and reload myself proposition for the most part.

Next question.... Does anyone have any thoughts, or better yet, personal experience with the 454 in a Ruger SRH? Looking particularly at the Alaskan or the Tolklat(sp) with its slightly longer barrel. This won't be a hunting gun, pretty much a fishing, hiking and tote it around in the woods when I don't have a rifle with me gun. Sure, I'll shoot it regularly, but it'll definitely get carried more than shot. Opinions??? I've never carried a revolver, only a glock 23 with its shorter length. I'm not sure what would be the "best" overall as far as barrel length for a revolver with my particular intended use. Shorter is better????

[krag35]

My preference is for a 4" Redhawk. I had my 7.5" cut back t 4" and it sure made it much more handy. IMO, the extra weight built into in a Super Redhawk is a detriment. I have full cylinder length shot shells that duplicate the 2.5" 410 round, and kill grouse out to 20 yards or so. Lyman's 429667's that duplicate 44 specials (I shoot these the most) RD-C-430-265 that I can push to 1250 FPS that I load with when I'm hunting with my muzzle loader ( kind of a security blanket thing) and Lee C-430-310's in case I ever get to hunt dinosaurs. 2 .437 RB in one case over Unique are fun to shoot too.
When I was In Alaska ('84-'86) I carried a Marlin 444 cut down to 16" and loaded with Hornaday 265's. If I were to go back, I'd carry my Winchester 94BB in 444 loaded with Lee C-430-310's over a stiff charge of AAC2015.
Just my .02c your mileage may vary.

[tygar]

I have several SRHs, 44, 454, 480. Instead of looking for longer than the 7.5 (or whatever they are), I would look to the 5" I heard they have. For a back up fishing gun 5" or maybe 6" is about perfect. Long enough for sight radius & speed & short enough to be handy, out of the way & quick drawing.

If you are now considering the .454, also look at the Taurus Raging Bull in 5 or 6". I have Rugers which I shoot a lot cause I like to hot load em & shoot 50-100+ yds. But the one "I" usually carry in the bush is my 5" Taurus RB. It is easier to shoot, has less felt recoil, has a better DA trigger, is just as accurate or more so & it's lighter.

The .454 is very versatile, load it light with .45LC with light bullets for plinking, or fast with big bullets that is adequate for anything on this continent.

You have some choices to make.

[MtGun44]

Hmm. .44 Mag will punch through about 2 - 2.5 ft of meat or more with a normal cast SWC like a
Keith 250.

Can't see that the pain from recoil and much slower shot to shot time for the bigger boomers
like .454 Casull, .460 and .550 S&W would be helpful, and once you are 2 - 2.5 feet in, you are there.
Deeper is irrelevant for a griz.

Bill

[Lonegun1894]

I have a 4" RH in .45 Colt, a 4 5/8" BH in .45 Colt, and a 5.5" SBH in .44 Mag. I know the calibers aren't all .44 Mag, but I shoot all three of those a lot and trust any of them for the use you're talking about with the proper loads. And all of them are comfortable to carry all day long, and shoot very well when needed. I'd say just try shooting all your choices, side by side if possible, cause they're all great options, but one may just be more comfortable than the other.

[Petrol & Powder]

Hmm. .44 Mag will punch through about 2 - 2.5 ft of meat or more with a normal cast SWC like a
Keith 250.

Can't see that the pain from recoil and much slower shot to shot time for the bigger boomers
like .454 Casull, .460 and .550 S&W would be helpful, and once you are 2 - 2.5 feet in, you are there.
Deeper is irrelevant for a griz.

Bill

I have to second this. At some point you're just chasing a little bit more energy with little to gain. It's the law of diminishing returns. There's a point on the curve where you just have to say the H*** with it and just get a rifle!

Cartridges like the 454 & 460 mostly exist because there's always a market for something that's bigger. Yes, they do produce more energy than a 44 mag., but is it really useful energy or just bragging rights ?

For a gun that must be carried A LOT and carried with other gear, weight and size becomes a major issue. I don't think it would be wise to go below 4" on the barrel but a 4" tube gets you a decent sight radius and extracts plenty of velocity out of a 44 mag.

[tygar]

Yep and a .22 will also kill a bear. There is no doubt a .44 will also kill a bear but it is not "that" it will, but how "quick" it will stop it.

So many people postulate on what is the best option (I'm guilty also), but have you shot/killed a charging bear with one.

I know I havn't, thankfully, but I have seen a 500# sow, take 11 375s & 300Wbys, all in the chest locker, before she died.

There are a myriad of stories on 1 shot kills with marginal guns & multi shot kills with boomers. None mean crp.

It is the 1 time you need it, & you better be packing the biggest, badest you can handle, cause, this one "may" be one of the multi shot bears coming at you at 30 mph. Your carrying this for a "maybe", so "maybe" a 44 will work for you. It's also "maybe" the .454 will work, but it has a better chance.

Don't know if I mentioned, but I carry a S&W .500. FWIW

Believe me, you won't even notice the extra 1# your carrying.

[wlc]

Well thanks for all the replies. I made my decision, right, wrong, or otherwise. Put money down on a Ruger SRH Toklat in 454.45LC today. Should be here next week sometime at the LGS.

[GL49]

Just my personal opinion, but that would have been my choice also. I didn't know Ruger started making that particular model, I've stayed away from the "Alaskan" because the barrel is a little too short. (Now I've got to put another firearm on my "don't need, but need to have" list.)

I've got a FA mod 83 454 Casull, and have fired a Ruger SRH 454 Casull with a 9" barrel, the recoil isn't bad, but I've never tried the SRH double action to see how fast you could get back on a target. Given a choice, I'll take the recoil from either 454 over the recoil from a heavy 44 mag load in my Super Blackhawk with the stock grips. I think you'll like the style of grips that I noticed were on the Toklat.

Let us know your impression of the Toklat after you take it out and fire it with full horsepower loads.

[Bullet8542]

My fishing guns are as follows.
1. 3" 629 Talo Edition
2. 2.5" Ruger Super Redhawk Alaskan
3. 5" X frame .460 really like the fact I can shoot three different rounds from it (This is my Alaska Gun) in Grizzly country

Both are great revolvers I really like the Super Redhawk's for just pure strength, Triggers are ugly but can be fixed, The Smith's are a generally great all around revolver both of mine had a great trigger's right out of the box (Surprised me) I like the shorter barrels for fishing guns.