Taurus 44c 2.5" 44 mag mini range report


PDA






Antihero
November 26, 2006, 08:17 PM
So i have been on the look out for a nice small bear worthy caliber gun and the 44C is what i ended up picking. I wanted to share my experience with the gun since i wasnt able to find out much about it when i was researching it, its not even on Taurus' site.

First of all let me say that the recoil is way less than you would think it is. I admit i was pretty worried about the recoil of the little beast when i got it, I do fire a Blackhawk with 325 Buffalo Bores, but this is a pretty small gun. Anyway ive fired 200 240&255 44 spec and 240 and several 300 grainers and the recoil is very manageable.

Firing from 7 to 9 yards its pretty accurate with heavier loads. So far the best accuracy is from Federal Cast Core 300 gr. It shot a 1.75" group if you take out the user induced flyer, very respectable for a fixed sight snub i feel. The most accurate 44 spec load so far is a PMC 240 SWC. Hornady 300gr and a company called Garnets 300gr magnums also shot pretty good groups. It didnt really like the 200gr Blazer 44 Spec nor the 240gr magnum version of the same company. Also oddly enough the 117 gr Defender from MagSafe was pretty accurate also( i got them for free with the gun). However Buffalo Bore's 255 Keith style SWC 44 spec wasnt accurate at all. I will have to dig out my chronograph to see how much velocity is lost in this 2.5 barrel. I will post that when i find it...and it stops snowing like heck.

The Hi Viz front sight is fantastic! The dealer i got it from was very suprised that Taurus would put it on a gun so cheap(mine cost $325 although i ended up getting it for a worn stainless Gp-100 that i didnt need). The ribber grips are also pretty damn cool, although if i wanted to carry one of the tauri' concealed,and i dont personally, i would get it without the Ribbers 'cause they are very grabby to clothing. The porting work fantastically, but the hi viz sight get sooted up after a couple dozen rounds which to me isnt a big deal.

Fit and finish seems to be pretty good. Lockup is tight and the trigger is nice and crisp on both DA and SA. One thing i will say is Taurus oils the crap out of their guns when they leave the factory. Mine is brand new and was almost dripping when i got it.

All in all well worth the money for what it is, a small bear defence snub.

If you enjoyed reading about "Taurus 44c 2.5" 44 mag mini range report" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
counterman6
November 27, 2006, 10:39 PM
Anti-hero,
I have a Taurus 445 .44 spl. and have been considering the Buffalo Bore ammo to carry in it. Was the accuracy so bad you would not recommend it? Have you tried their .44 mag ammo? I went to their web site and almost had heart failure when I saw the prices so I want to know what to expect. Thanks, congrats on the new magnum.

Antihero
November 27, 2006, 11:41 PM
I have a Taurus 445 .44 spl. and have been considering the Buffalo Bore ammo to carry in it. Was the accuracy so bad you would not recommend it? Have you tried their .44 mag ammo? I went to their web site and almost had heart failure when I saw the prices so I want to know what to expect. Thanks, congrats on the new magnum.

The accuracy was very bad, i didnt measure but somewhere in the vicinity of 5". I wouldnt recommend it if it shoots as bad as it did in my gun.

What are you planning on using this gun for? I wouldnt recommend the 255 hardcast for Personal defence, and im not sure i would count on its stopping power against bears, although its probably the best 44 spec ammo out there for bears....

I would definatly give it a try in your gun before you totally write it off, my gun is a way different animal than the 445.

GunNut
November 28, 2006, 12:14 AM
Where are the pics?:neener:

Steve

Antihero
November 28, 2006, 01:17 AM
Where are the Pics

I wish i could get you some pics of my personal one, but my only digital camera at the moment is a .00000000000000000000000001 megapixil that would show a slightly gun shaped bluish blob in a indeterminate background.

But here s a pic of another 44C that looks exactly like mine.

http://www.gunsamerica.com/guns/976795907.htm

GunNut
November 28, 2006, 01:20 AM
antihero,

Ok, all that is needed for posting pics is a 1 mega pixel camera.

Steve

Antihero
November 28, 2006, 01:24 AM
antihero,

Ok, all that is needed for posting pics is a 1 mega pixel camera.

Steve

Believe me this Walmart Camera isnt even 1 megapixil. It does produce something close to images though...

Plus the link shows a pic thats pretty good and is the exact same gun.

GunNut
November 28, 2006, 01:29 AM
Thanks, I'm just giving you a hard time.:neener:

Steve

Antihero
November 28, 2006, 01:31 AM
Thanks, I'm just giving you a hard time.

Steve

Its all good, i want to keep this bumped so others that are looking at this gun have some info on it anyway.

GunNut
November 28, 2006, 01:34 AM
Just today I was looking at a Taurus 445 5-shot 2" .44 special, so I to am interested in what others say.

I'm trying to decide if I should go back and buy it.

Steve

Arcticfox
November 28, 2006, 02:18 AM
gun Nut! I have the 445 .44 snubbie. If you are considering it, I have some friendly advice:

Do you need to fire 44 mag? Or just 44 special? And what is your budget?

I have fired the S&W 696, and it is a much better gun! More accurate, better trigger. the trigger pull, and hammer pull on my 629 is WAY better than my taurus. I don't think a million dry fires will ever make my Taurus as nice as my Smith.

That said, my taurus is my pack gun. It also goes with me to work. And yes, the ribber grip, and the sights are fantastic! I trust it will fire when i need it to. I'd sooner trust my life to a smith.

If you can dole out $700 for a 696, I'd say do it. Unless you've never held a Smith, then you won't know the difference. BTW Mag rounds out of that small gun are brutal, but manageable. My hand was sore after 5 rounds.

Antihero
November 28, 2006, 07:47 PM
Just today I was looking at a Taurus 445 5-shot 2" .44 special, so I to am interested in what others say.

I'm trying to decide if I should go back and buy it.

Steve

What are you going to use this gun for? CCW? Bear defence for walking in the woods? The reason i ask is because the 44c is only about half an inch longer and taller than the 445 and you can shoot magnums as well as specials in it. It also has a nice hi viz sight added in. You might also find that the magnums dont kick much and you have a much more powerful gun.

Just dont use the Buff Bore 255 44 spec in it.....

counterman6
November 28, 2006, 10:54 PM
Antihero,
I use my 445 and Alaskan as "taking a walk" guns and here in the northeast we haven't much in the way of dangerous critters. That being said, I like to hit what I'm aiming at. A coyote or rabid porcupine could add a little excitement to the day and I hate to go to the parts store the next day and brag about the the one "I almost got".
I've had nothing but good luck with Taurus.

Preacherman
November 28, 2006, 11:01 PM
Arcticfox, the S&W 696 is chambered in .44 SPECIAL, not Magnum! If you're shooting Magnums in that gun, you're begging for it to blow up in your face! :what:

GunNut
November 28, 2006, 11:04 PM
Preacherman,

I think arcticfox was confusing the Taurus 445(.44special) that I was talking about with the 44c(.44mag) that antihero posted about. He was basically telling me to look at the 696 if I didn't need a .44mag.

Steve

Arcticfox
November 29, 2006, 02:12 AM
Arcticfox, the S&W 696 is chambered in .44 SPECIAL, not Magnum! If you're shooting Magnums in that gun, you're begging for it to blow up in your face!

Yes, I did butcher my quote a little. Smith 696 is .44 special only, and a mighty FINE shooter! I shot Mags out of my Taurus 445 snubbie, and that was brutal, but do-able.

Antihero
November 29, 2006, 03:03 AM
Yes, I did butcher my quote a little. Smith 696 is .44 special only, and a mighty FINE shooter! I shot Mags out of my Taurus 445 snubbie, and that was brutal, but do-able.

The 445 is 44 Special only also. If you did fire magnums thru it im suprised it didnt blow up. More than likely you majorly accelerated its wear, and may have caused some stealthy damage like a bulged cylinder.

Antihero
December 1, 2006, 12:42 AM
So i finally got a chance to use my Chrony and tested some loads thru the $$C. Here is the results.

Brand WT in GR VEL ME TKO

Fed Cast Core 300 1084 734 19.31
Garnet JHP 300 1139 864 20.94
Buff Bore 44spec 255 945 506 14.77
PMC 44spec 240 635 215 9.34
Blazer 44spec 200 784 272 9.61
Blazer JHP 240 956 487 14.06
Hornady JHP 300 985 646 18.11
MagSafe Defender 117 1804 845 12.94
Handload 300 1129 849 20.76
Fed HydraShok240 1132 683 16.65

Thats probably more info than you need, but i like to know as much as i can about what loads im shooting. The most accurate loads are the Fed Cast Core and the Garnet in Magnum. The most accurate 44spec load is the PMC which is the slowest by far.

Also notice that the Blazer magnum didnt even hit 1000 in this gun:scrutiny: I should lso mention that the Magsafe was pretty accurate, but when i was testing this the cases jammed in the cylinder and had to be punched out:cuss:

Enjoy

If you enjoyed reading about "Taurus 44c 2.5" 44 mag mini range report" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!