Which Big bore Revolver for hunting?


September 6, 2007, 10:39 PM
I want a big bore revolver for hunting. Which is most versitle? My dad Has a .44 mag But I was thinking of .454 casull or the .460 anyone have any input?

If you enjoyed reading about "Which Big bore Revolver for hunting?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
September 6, 2007, 10:46 PM
If your going behond the .44 mag I would take a hard look at the .460

You can shoot .454 Casull as well as .45 Long Colt through that chambering, as well as the .460 of course.

These are X frame (large) guns however and different in handling than those available in .44 Mag. It comes down mostly to a matter of personal taste and what you plan on hunting, and in what conditions.

September 6, 2007, 10:54 PM
Mostly I will Hunt whitetail and Hogs and maybe someday Black bear

September 6, 2007, 10:55 PM
If your going behond the .44 mag I would take a hard look at the .460

Excellent advice.

44 mag works for me and the hunting I do. I've never felt under-gunned hunting deer with either a .44 mag or .41 mag.

The .460 will probably give you more range over the .44. That, along with the ability to shoot .454 and .45, would be my reason to purchase a "bigger" handgun than the .44.

September 6, 2007, 11:01 PM
Mostly I will Hunt whitetail and Hogs and maybe someday Black bear

September 6, 2007, 11:04 PM
I will add my voice to the S&W 460 too for all the above listed reasons.

I'll add... fires a big bore projectile faster than any other pistol. The .460 Magnum is even faster than the .500 Magnum.

September 6, 2007, 11:12 PM
All you really need is a 44mag...but more power and a heavier bullet is nice.

I own a Super Redhawk in 480 Ruger. It's a great cartridge. The recoil and muzzle blast is a lot less than the 454, but it's got a bit more oomph than a 44mag.
There's something to be said about a 400 gr 0.475" diameter bullet too.
The 480's heavier bullets will penetrate more than the 454's and the gun won't beat you to death.

Having said that, the 480 isn't for everyone. It's really a reloader's cartridge. There are only a few factory loads for it. Also, you don't really need 4 feet of penetration to kill a deer. :uhoh:

The most versatile is the 454. You can shoot 45 long colts, there's tons of different factory ammo, and components are cheaper if you reload.

I wouldn't consider the 460 S&W...it's just too much gun and if you're going to shoot mainly 45LC or 454 then you may as well save money and get a 454.
I personally think people are too caught up in velocity.
You can kill an animal pretty d4mn dead with a slow (if you call 400gr@1300fps slow) fat bullet. More velocity is just more noise and flash.

My advice:
If you're not recoil shy then get the 454.
If you don't have a lot of experience then get the 454 and load it with 45 LC.
If you reload and want something unique that performs the same or better on game than the 454 without the recoil and blast then get the 480.

September 6, 2007, 11:13 PM
If your going behond the .44 mag I would take a hard look at the .460
Great Advice

September 6, 2007, 11:16 PM
When I was younger, if my Dad had a 44 mag, I'd probably get a 41 mag. I sort of like the underdog calibers. The 32 mag intrigues me, but I don't have one. Have a SRH 480 Ruger and it does everything I want a gun to do when I need something larger than a 41 mag.

If I wanted to make 200 yd shots with a handgun, I'd buy a Contender. That is one of the reasons I have the 480 Ruger, plus I like that fact that it shoots a big diameter slug (larger than 460 mag) and can be loaded with much heavier bullets. The 480 is my whitetail handgun which I use as the primary gun on hunts. I leave the rifle at home usually these days. Plently of power for black bear or hogs. The recoil on the 480 is about all I want although I find that the Smith X frames are fine and tolerable (from a recoil standpoint) platforms for the 460 and 500 mags.

If it were me TODAY and I didn't want a 41 mag, I'd get a 500 S&W for the same reasons that I like the 480 Ruger. It is just a bit more. Mostly un-needed for the most part, but more. The problem I hear about the 500's is they wear barrels out quickly. I'll stick with the 480 Ruger. Just wish Smith would build a revolver in that caliber.

September 7, 2007, 12:02 AM
I would look at A .45 ACP and get it bored out to 45 Roland. Its A very flexible handgun and you could use it for many range games in .45 ACP.

Snapping Twig
September 7, 2007, 12:13 AM
.44 mag is plenty. I have a .454, but I carry the .44 mostly since it's smaller, I train with it more, I reload for it so I'm getting more out of it than factory rounds and it's double action if you need it.

The .460 is inordinately heavy, do you want to pack that around all day? You may, if so it's the best selection since it will shoot all the different variations of the .45.

The Casull is beyond a doubt the best made pistol in the group, but single action and heavy recoil.

Get a nice .44 and reload for it - done deal.

September 7, 2007, 12:42 AM
Use the .44 for deer and hogs. Get a .500 for black bear. Seriously! :eek:

September 7, 2007, 01:23 AM
44mag is plenty for anything you mentioned.I had a 44 and sold it,great shooter,bought a 454 casull and my hand hated it,I could not hit the broad side of a barn so it was not for me,Bought another 44mag and now I am back to hitting what I am aiming at.I can only think the 460 is a great gun but when it comes to cost and recoil I will stay with the 44.IMO.Just remember it used to be one of the most powerful.

September 7, 2007, 01:29 AM
Gah, the .460 is absurdly heavy, expensive relative to the Rugers, and that compensator is great if you want to be Captain McBlasty.

Get a .44 mag or a .45 Colt. If you want double action look check out a Super Redhawk, or the Blackhawk (http://www.ruger.com/Firearms/FAProdView?model=460&return=Y)and Bisley (http://www.ruger.com/Firearms/FAProdView?model=447&return=Y)in single action.

For platform, I personally would recommend the Bisley. The Bisley grip frame is particularly recoil friendly, and even the 7.5'' barrel version comes in at 48.5 oz. For comparison, the 5'' .460 Smith is 62.5 oz, and the 8'' is 72.5 oz. The Ruger single actions can be found for around $500, often less.

Caliber? My favorite is the .45 Colt. The .45 Colt in the Rugers will do anything a .44 mag will, and at lower pressures. If you handload, then the possibilities are vast. As for factory ammo, the popularity of cowboy action shooting has made plinking rounds a regularly stocked item at most gun shops, and mail order specialty ammo means high performance loads are also readily available. Best bang for the buck in the high performance stuff is DoubleTap's .45 Colt +p line (http://www.doubletapammo.com/php/catalog/index.php?cPath=21_38). The 255 grain loads are a great deer and hog round. I'd say go up to the 335 grain for bear (perhaps for hogs as well if you're going after really big hogs). But if the recoil is too much the 255 grain will take black bear as well.

And no, you don't even remotely need a .500.

September 7, 2007, 01:52 AM
.44 mag.
Heck for some smaller game, the .44 Special is plenty fine.

I've piddled with .454 and Ruger .480 and they have their place, no doubt, and it depends on locale and size of critter.

I've piddled with .41, but if were going to have 2 big bore guns for handgun hunting, one for sure would be a .44 mag, and the other a .45Colt.
Just fuddy-duddy me, and I have not spent that much time with the .45Colt, just too many folks have too much good luck and enjoy the whole experience.

Heck most gun shops got some kind of .44 mag load in stock...

September 7, 2007, 02:20 AM
I wouldn't consider the 460 S&W...it's just too much gun and if you're going to shoot mainly 45LC or 454 then you may as well save money and get a 454. I personally think people are too caught up in velocity.
I have to disagree with your statement. I'll agree that wanting high velocities just for the sake of speed is silly but high velocities are an asset in a hunting round. Most who hunt with a big bore revolver do so to challenge themselves. Many will hunt with good glass at distances further than most non-hunters would consider shooting a handgun. When firing a heavy projectile at distance you want that projectile to have lethal velocity when it reaches it's target. IMO, that's why high velocities are important in a hunting handgun.

September 7, 2007, 06:29 AM
I noticed that DoubleTap has a 320gr WFN normal SAAMI spec'd .44 Magnum... I would think that would do for nearly anything here in the lower 48. I cannot think of anything more appropriate for hunting with a handgun than my iron-sighted 6" half-lug 629 - with any of the widely available .44 Magnum ammo.

Don't get me wrong, when I decided I needed a .45 Colt DA revolver - and couldn't find a Redhawk - I settled for a then-new .454 SRH (7.5"). I shot the stew out of it over the years... thousands of .45 Colts, .45 Colt-ish loads in .454 cases, and hundreds of 'real' .454's. I stupidly traded it away - my favorite Ruger. The 5.5" .45 RH I eventually got would eclipse it with my wimpy-moderate .45 Colts - my 625MG's did better, so the RH left too. I miss that SRH - even to the point of looking at another new one! The grip made it easier on the mitt to shoot hot than most .44's with milder loads. Scoped - from smoked/burnt sandbags - with hot .454's - that SRH would put five in 1.6" at 50yd - pretty good - especially for me.

I found my 'milder replacement' - a new 6" h-l 629 with .500 Magnum grips. Fun as a plinker now, too. It is not likely I will ever stomp the woods of Alabama hunting again - the tree-stand seated snipers pop away at anything that moves.

In the conceptual hunting considerations, I must admit I got interested in the Ruger .480 too late. You folks with a .480 SRH enjoy them... Ruger axed all of their namesake caliber offerings this year. My 'dream' for a woods stomping protection - a 4" .480 SRH - will remain a dream, I suppose. I did try to find a .480 Alaskan when the first - and only - batch was out - to no avail. My .45 Colt 625MGs will have to 'do'.


September 7, 2007, 06:36 AM
In the cosmic scheme of things, a .45 Colt is better for .45 Colt revolvers! Also, while T/C single shots are fine single shots... this forum is on 'revolvers'. My .454 SRH made horrible groups with my usual 200gr LRNFP @750 to 255gr @ 900 fps .45 Colt fare. My 4.6" BHG Vaquero grouped better at 25 yd. My 4" 625MG was even better - and, later, my 5.5" .45 RH was nearly as good as the MG. The rifling rate was the key. The .454 SRH - and even more so with a .460 S&W - has a slow twist rate, favoring high speed round - like a rifle. The original PC .460's were to have a gain-twist variable rate for even more velocity. A relatively 'slow' .45 Colt, like the hunter's favored 300+gr WFN, won't do as well as it would from a 'closer' designed twist rate (RH, S&W - within limits).

We all play the "But, it will also chamber x, y, & z!" game. I did it two years ago. Tired of my 'dainty' finished blued 24's in .44 Special, I said goodbye to my 6.5" 24-3 and Heritage 24 - and bought a SS 6" .44 Magnum - a new 629. It see's .44 Russians, Specials, and, after cleaning, Magnums - all from 700-1,000 fps - within it's abilities. (Most .44 Magnum rounds are under 1400 fps, so no big problem.). I have fun... a proper chamber matching my desired caliber would be best, sure... but the .460 round was initially designed for 2,600 fps (It had to be derated as the barrels tended to unscrew!). Still, a huge difference in size & mass between a 4" 625MG or 5.5" RH and a .460. That 6" 629 looks better...


September 7, 2007, 12:57 PM
Many will hunt with good glass at distances further than most non-hunters would consider shooting a handgun. When firing a heavy projectile at distance you want that projectile to have lethal velocity when it reaches it's target. IMO, that's why high velocities are important in a hunting handgun.
The 460 has its place, but true long range handgun hunters are few and far between.
If someone is asking about what caliber to get then they probably aren't highly experienced. Why not suggest a more packable platform in a caliber that's more user friendly?
If you only shot 45LC in a 460 then you wouldn't get good accuracy, that's something else you need in a hunting handgun.

If you really do shoot at distances requiring those velocities then go for the 460.
I just think people don't realize what they and their "normal" magnum caliber guns can do with a little bit of practice.

September 7, 2007, 01:22 PM
Unless you're just hung up on revolvers for hunting, get a Contender. My go to hunting handgun is in .30-30 Winchester. I handload a 150 grain Nosler BT to about 2100 fps.

Vern Humphrey
September 7, 2007, 04:58 PM
A hot-loaded Ruger Blackhawk in .45 Colt is about all the gun most people can handle. You don't get any practical benefit from going to bigger, faster, more poweful cartridges. A 300 grain cast bullet at 12-1300 fps will sail through the biggest black bear that ever lived, and kill the second-biggest standing behind him.

September 7, 2007, 06:32 PM
some good advice......some food for thought. I've always been a believer in to each their own. If you are serious about hunting medium and large game with a handgun only, a .460 is a viable and effective solution. If you just want a backup piece to carry on your belt while carrying your long gun than a .357 or .44 or anything in between will suffice. Try and find one to shoot.....you'll be pleasantly surprised. Those here making comments about recoil have probably never shot one. My 14 year old son has been shooting mine for two years...regularly.....and he has done so accurately. I've shot and hunted with a .357 for years and the .460 brings handgun hunting to a new level. It aint for everyone, but then, that's one reason I like mine.

September 7, 2007, 06:41 PM
I like the .480 Ruger. That's myhttp://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y35/ShaunsXe/twocents.gif

September 7, 2007, 09:56 PM
I take all manner of game with the SRH in .454. I use a Burris 2x scope. The gun is not too heavy or too big to carry. My major complaint about the 500/460 S&W magnums is their size and weight. I'd say that .44 mag up to the 454 is plenty sufficient. My main reason for the 454 is trajectory, very flat. I've taken some pretty long shots on good sized game.


September 8, 2007, 12:05 AM
I have a 454 super redhawk, and it is not for everyone, and I would not feel undergunned in a black bear confrontation. This being said , I would recommend that you try various revolvers and get the feel for them if you can.
Most people who shoot my 454 with 320 grain hardcast leads that go 1600 fps only shoot it once. I notice alot of locked arm positions, that transfers the shock up the arm all the way to the shoulders.
I use an isosceles/crouching stance and have never had problems rapping off rounds repeatedly.
The 44Mag will do the job, I don't have one, but I have seen an angry elk dropped with just 2 shots. Shot placement is key , so get what you can handle and practice with it when ever time allows.

That is my advice, please don't take it as gospel, I am just a man.

jack the toad
September 8, 2007, 08:35 AM
Currently owning both a S&W 4" 500 and 4" 629, my major complaint with the 500 is that the 4" only comes with a comp and Smith doesn't offer a blank compensator like with the 460.
I don't care for any type muzzle brake on a handgun especially for hunting because it's not practical for me to wear hearing protection then.

September 11, 2007, 02:15 AM

When my wife and I take a trip, with our little Boston Terrier, I take a car . . . not a bus.

When I have to kill a fly I don't grab a baseball bat.

When I am charged a dollar for an item I don't pay ten.

And when I'm hunting whitetail and hogs I don't need a heavy, mega-sized handgun . . . a .44 magnum does incredibly well, thank you.

My goal is to pack light and I hate toting heavy guns and scopes in the woods. My 6" barreled Model 29 w/Holosight is relatively light . . . and the massive 300 grain, hardcast bullet really thumps deer and hogs and "plants" 'em right where they are hit if you do your job correctly!

I've owned and hunted with a Contender. No thanks. My Model 29 allows me to take accurate shots at any distance practical.

Are the .500 and .460 rounds "overkill?" No really . . . for you cannot "overkill" anything. Once they are dead . . . they are dead!;)

Naah, I don't need the expense of a bus, nor the expense of a bigger cartridge either . . . for the .44mag is plenty gun for the job!


September 12, 2007, 11:08 AM
<<Are the .500 and .460 rounds "overkill?" No really . . . for you cannot "overkill" anything. Once they are dead . . . they are dead!>>

S & W fan,


I overlike that statement you made. Yes….It’s an ambiguous term.
Doing the reverse. What is “underkill”, then?

<<My goal is to pack light and I hate toting heavy guns and scopes in the woods. My 6" barreled Model 29 w/Holosight is relatively light .>>

I, myself, overlike my handguns on thee….relatively heavy side, generally speaking, in ambiguous terms that is.
I have to use heavier bullets in my 29, to make up for those weight deficiencies.

September 12, 2007, 04:39 PM
Take the 454 Casull. Properly loaded, it offers more punch at 100 yards than what the 44 mag. does at 15 feet and the trajectory at 200 yards is as good as the 44 mag. at 100 yards. NO - I'm not putting down the 44 mag. as it is still my all time favorite handgun pistol cartridge. Each one has it's own place and usage in the game fields....



September 12, 2007, 10:04 PM
D&T I picked up one of those today. I haven't had a chance to go to the range yet, but as soon as I can get the rings and the scope mounted I'll be heading out. Question, How do you carry yours in the field? Belt holster or Bandalera? Also do you reload or use factory?

Big Boomer
September 13, 2007, 04:53 PM
Although, I own a pc 12" in 460 I am not 100% sold on the smiths. There is really no need for the double action and the cost is quite high.

I have been thinking about a 500 and have decided on a Magnum Research BFR. These are around 800 or less and you can even get the longer barrel without paying the big bucks. They are built like a tank similar to Ruger in single action and seem to be worth the bucks.

The longer cylinder will allow you to play with seating depth and heavier bullets to get lower pressures.

I heard a rumor that frames are actually made by Ruger (can anyone confirm?)

pay them a visit, many places do not stock them but they can order them as I found out.


I'm sold on the 500 with the 10" barrel.

September 13, 2007, 06:20 PM
The shorter frames were just Ruger SBH - with lots of care in fitting. The longer frames, like the .45-70 and .45/.410 chamberings, may be made elsewhere. The MR BFR's are nearly as nicely fitted together as FA's - but all list at $999 MSRP. That $800 is little more than dealer cost - and would be an excellent price for any new one. The barrels are custom, as are the usually 5-shot cylinders. The screws are generally hex head (Allen head). The lockwork is smoothed, too... just a lot of TLC - certainly not a 'bare bones Ruger'. While functional, I don't care for the rubber grips - wood stocks, etc, are extra. They don't cut weight, either.

Several years ago, they dropped their only .45 Colt-only chambered variants - admittedly made by D-Max, a company they absorbed some time earlier. A closeout dealer had them for $449 - a super deal. My local pusher had one forever - until the day before I went to buy it! It really was nice - and, if my SS Bisley BH was worth the $390 I paid for it, that BFR .45 was clearly worth it's original MSRP of $900+. Look at one at a gunshow - or a really well-stocked dealer - any caliber.

Guns not bought...


September 13, 2007, 07:40 PM

September 14, 2007, 12:02 AM
my choice would be the larger new Ruger Revolvers. the Ruger line of revolvers is way over-built and will take a beating for a few life-times. most revolver manufacturers recommend that you shoot lower power ammo in them and accassionally use the magnum loads, example - A .357 should be shot mostly with .38 specials, they just arent built to last, theyre built for pretty. -Eric

September 14, 2007, 12:25 AM
A Ruger Redhawk is an ideal revolver for hunting. A .44 Magnum load that is handloaded can be downloaded for plinking and target duty and with just a little tweaking can be a small handheld cannon right on the edge of controllability for most people. Under 50-75 yards, the .44 Magnum properly loaded can put down most if not all North American game.

If you buy ammo look at Buffalo Bore ammunition. Some of their ammunition is loaded just for Ruger Redhawks or Super Redhawks due to their having longer cylinders than most revolvers. Due to the rounds OAL being longer, they can push more velocity from the same round with similar pressures.

LAK Supply
September 14, 2007, 12:30 AM
The .460 is a sweet setup.... but the X frames are freakin' HUGE!!!

I like the 45/454/460 thing, but even the Trail Boss X frame is too big to wanna pack around much. A 44 mag loaded with hot stuff (I second the DT ammo recommendation seen earlier in the thread) is more than adequate for most anything, and the frames are still a manageable size.

If you're strictly hunting get the 460..... you'll be using a longer barrel and likely a scope so you'll be out of holster range anyway. If you want to pack it in a holster you'll thank yourself for staying in the N frame range.

I can't comment on the Super Redhawks since I don't own one...... How do they compare to the N or X frame Smiths? I'd be curious to know.... if they're smaller than the X frame and available in something in 4-5" I might just have to pick one up for myself.....

September 14, 2007, 04:21 AM
I can't comment on the Super Redhawks since I don't own one...... How do they compare to the N or X frame Smiths? I'd be curious to know.... if they're smaller than the X frame and available in something in 4-5" I might just have to pick one up for myself.....

Much lighter than the X frames. 7.5'' Super Red is 53 oz. But, the 7.5'' is as short as it comes (aside from the giant snubby Alaskan version). Pretty easy to have it cut down though. They can still be had under 700 new. Spend a couple hundred to have that barrel cut, and it'll weigh about the same as an N frame but will take loads that'll turn an N frame into a hand grenade.

September 14, 2007, 04:49 AM
With proper shot placement, you can kill a deer, hog or bear with a 38 Special. If you miss, a 375 H&H won't do the job. A lot of guys have trouble dealing with the blast and recoil of hot 44mag loads, much less 460-500. A large-frame 357 is fun to shoot and adequate. 45 Colt is fun to shoot and adequate. I use 10mm revolvers, which are fun to shoot and adequate.

ryan b
September 15, 2007, 02:02 AM
my 2 cents if you cant stop it with a 44 mag it needs to have a stock on it

Vern Humphrey
September 15, 2007, 04:35 PM
Amen -- a hot loaded .45 Colt of a .44 Mag is about all the average man can shoot well. I don't deny there are some men who can shoot the .460, .454, 500 S&W and so on -- but I bet a lot of guys who buy those revolvers never put a full box of shells through them.

September 15, 2007, 11:55 PM
I have a ruger SRH in 454 and I absulutly love it ! I started handloading so that I can aford to practice with it ! the more I shoot it the better I like it !If you are limeted to factory rounds then I would get the SRH in 44 mag because you need to practice to get to be competant enough to take game !.44 mag costs about 22-24 dollars per 50 rounds 454 starts at around 22dollars for 20 rounds ! If you handload go with the 454 ! The 250 to 260 grain bullets are cremepuffs in the SRH!!

September 21, 2007, 11:17 PM
Well, first off, I handload.... SO, with that out of the way, here's my reasoning...

I began hunting whitetail with a handgun about 12 years ago with a 6" S&W 686 (iron sights only) loaded with 180gr. Hardcast or 180gr XTPs over a max load of H-4227. I knew that I was toting the smallest legal caliber for my state (WI) then (though now the laws have eased up on this a great deal), but the performance I witnessed on game was nothing less than outstanding. I guess I made sure to take only good shots that I knew were within my ability and I never had an animal move more than a few yards after it was hit. Also, over the years, I have posted my stories on the 'Net from many of these hunts.

Then around 1998/1999 or so, I caught "10mm fever" and bought (2) G-20s, (1) G-29, a 6.5" 610 classic Hunter, and a 4" 610. I hunted with the 6.5" and found it to be a wonderful platform. Then, after returning from a deployment in 2003, I began to consolidate my collection down to only those pieces I actually shot regularly. In the end, I kept one version of 10mm (the G-20), a 4" and 6" version of my .357s (both 686-4) as well as a few others (a pair of 642s, a G19, etc.)...

Anyway...then the seller's remorse set in.

So, I bought and sold a few more...and also began taking a serious interest in the .41 mag (& picked up a 6" S&W 57-2). My rationale was similar to what I thought about the 610 - basically, I saw both of these as having all the power I needed in a platform (S&W DA revolver) that had served me so well over the years. Also, I had owned a 629 "Classic Hunter" at one time that needed timing work sooner than I would have liked it to (thus, I sold it after it was fixed), and I had also seen a few of my pals' other .44 mag N-frame guns begin to show their age after a few thousand stout 240+gr. hunting loads (yes, a few THOUSAND - they shot steel plates weekly). Since I really preferred the feel and action of the S&W guns, I figured that the .41 mag was the way to go if I wanted to maximize (a) power over my .357, (b) the long-term durability of the firearm (in this case, an N-frame S&W).

Further, I figured that if I honestly thought I were ever in a situation where I needed "more gun" than what a .41 mag offered, I would necessarily also think I needed more than a .44 mag too. While the .44 (.430) does hold a slight edge in raw HP over the .41, I just didn't feel that this marginal increase in energy was significant enough to justify owning a .44 AND a .41 since I could not think of any task that a .44 mag could accomplish that my .41 could not. In the end, I decided to stick with the .41 mag and .357 mag in revolvers and keep the 10mm confined to my autos. I guess if I ever do feel I need "more handgun" than my .41, I'd probably step up to the .454 Casull in a SRH as I view it a "real" gain...but, that said; I really don't think I'll ever actually take that plunge. Most likely, if I were confronted with such a situation I'd just choose to tote a 12ga. Rem 870 + slugs as a primary weapon and keep my 4" .41 mag on my hip.

Thus, I guess the .41 mag is, to me, a "44 mag-like caliber" that will allow my N-frames to keep on ticking longer than they might if few a steady diet of equally-maximized (HOT) .44 mags. I think the .41 mag does everything I'd want either caliber to do...and after all, the job I now have my .41 mag assigned to (whitetail hunting) is one I used to use a .357 mag to accomplish with good results anyway.

- My .02... YMMV.

September 22, 2007, 02:52 AM

I apologize for taking so long to respond...

I carry mine in an Uncle Mike's cross draw shoulder holster and I only shoot handloads. My main load for deer is SPEER's 260 gr. JHP load at just over 1,800fps.. With the muzzle brake on this one, recoil is more comfortable than a 44 mag. shooting a 240 gr. bullet, which allows for a lot of practice in the off season....

If you enjoyed reading about "Which Big bore Revolver for hunting?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!