[Huntolive]

Hello!

I was hooked on SRHH 7.5" brl which comes pre-drilled and with scope rings, and needs no specail mounts.

Though I will get one like that in either 454/45lc, or 44mag, or a SBHH 7.5" 44Mag, for a second hunting and trail gun, I was thinking of a shorter barrel, still long enough for deer/hog hunting, perhaps 5.5 " brl, and wondering how to set up optics (either Ultradot 30, or magnified scope) on revolvers that don't come set up to receive scopes.

All suggestion regarding best optics, mounting optics, and best caliber to select are appreciated.

[bikemutt]

I've only used his no-drill scope mount for my Redhawk, highly recommended.

http://www.jackweigand.com/

[pbearperry]

I never have understood putting scopes on handguns that will be used only from 0-100 yards.Carrying the extra weight does not appeal to me at all.

[98Redline]

For a shorter barreled gun, just stick to the iron sights.

If you are going to increase the size of the gun by putting a red dot or scope on it, why not just carry the longer tube SRH? Not that much difference in size.

If you want a trail gun, quick handling is the goal so the extra bulk of the optic is a detriment.

As stated in the other thread, my hunting gun wears a red dot sight.
My trail gun (5.5" 44 mag Redhawk) wears iron sights (gold bead front and express rear)

[Huntolive]

Thanks,

Once again 98 Redline, your advice is practical. So, what do you hunt w/ the5.5"RH? Or is it just for peace of mind? You had said 4" brl was 2 short for hunting. With practice, what can I responsibly hunt w/ 5.5" w/ iron sights?
Or should I just get SRHH 44mag, and call it a day, adding lcr for cc in town?

Thanks bikemutt for lead.

[GP100man]

It`s not me wanting optics , it`s my 50 yr. old eyes !!!

[98Redline]

When hunting I primarily hunt with a 7.5" SBHH with a red dot.
I do have several other 7.5" iron sighted guns that see some field time every now and again, but my effective range with them is much shorter than the red dot topped gun.

The 5.5" Redhawk is more of a woods, walking around, checking stands, plots gun. I have taken it out for hunting hogs when I was primarily guiding for another guy, more of a backup than anything else. I have never taken it deer hunting. That 5.5" barrel just does not give me the sight radius that I like to maintain my accuracy. To be honest, my SBHH sees more field time than all of my other guns combined.

Go ahead and get your long hunting gun. Stick the red dot on top of it and use it for awhile. After awhile, go get something else and add to your collection.

You seem to be obsessing over this decision and you could end up undecided for another month, continually vacillating between barrel length, caliber and optics choices. No one gun will be perfect for everything. Pick the one that will see the most honest use (a hunting gun, long tube, optics or irons your choice) and enjoy.

Let me put it another way, if I could only have one gun, it would be my 7.5" 44mag SBHH and I wouldn't even have to think twice about it. I love my 5.5 Redhawk, it is a great gun and fun to shoot but when push comes to shove, the dedicated hunting gun is what I would keep.

[Steve in PA]

I hunt with a 9 1/2" SRH which wears a Bushnell 3-6x scope. It is my primary deer hunting weapon. Zeroed dead on at 100 yards. If someone wants to complain about the weight of a small scope on a handgun, my advice would be to leave the thermos home.

There are a few times I will carry a rifle, and when I do, I carry a 7 1/2" SBH. There is no scope on this, and I would keep my shots to under 50 yards.

My primary deer/bear hunting weapon.

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d159/Steve_in_PA/Guns/100_6330.jpg

My sidearm when carrying a rifle. If a shot presents itself under 50 yards, and I have the time and opportunity, I will use this to take the animal. Yes, I love handgun hunting.

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d159/Steve_in_PA/Guns/20120107141135.jpg

[CraigC]

There is no reason why you cannot hunt with virtually any big bore sixgun with iron sights, with a 4"-6" barrel, at ranges up to 50yds. Some folks can stretch that to 75yds. Contrary to popular belief, 50yds is really not that far to be shooting with a 4" handgun. The key is to practice and become proficient with your weapon. Which usually means you have to get away from indoor ranges.

[Huntolive]

Thanks Again,

you guys are great!
And 98Redline, I appreciate all your help, and please feel free to ignor my posts from now on if my inquiries annoy you, as I already owe you a debt of gratitude. On the other hand if this amuses you, I am always happy to consider your sound advice. ;-)

CraigC and Steve PA, thanks, and while I know you have different views on scopes, both your experience help me as I get started on this quest.

It seems that I could just stay w/ 7.5 w/ some type of optic, or also get one of those, and then add a 5.5" iron sighted to learn to shoot "pure" and have for trail fun, and excessive carry. ;-)

Question: why not an Ultradot 30 on the 5.5" for me getting started to improve accuracy?

I will get one of the 7.5" versions w/i the next couple weeks, so this saga will reach its conclusion, so Thanks!

[98Redline]

I don't think there is any particular problem with putting an optic on a 5.5" or shorter gun but part of the reason you go with a shorter barrel is for easy of carry. When I take my woods gun out, it is not with the primary intent of hunting with it and it will probably get carried a lot and shot a little. To that end the carry side becomes more important, thus the smaller size of an iron sighted gun is more attractive. The weight of a red dot sight is not all that much so the weight factor is less of an issue than the added bulk.

Other than the loss of velocity due to the shorter tube, a 5.5" gun with a red dot should be as accurate as a 7.5" gun with a red dot. Although the longer barreled gun will probably be a bit more pleasant to shoot due to the extra weight of the barrel.

[Huntolive]

Ok, so I had been going for a 7.5 " brl for dedicated hunting pistol (SRHH or SBHH) and still will get one of those.

Also interested in 5.5".

But recently saw a great deal on a 9" SRHH, that is hard to pass up, that also throws a 7.5" Bisley SBHH in with the deal, optics, etc. But the best deal (if I have the $) is to get the whole package deal.
That is, only IF I really could get good use out of a 9" brl SRHH.

I notice Steve PA uses one, and want his and others views on this length barrel for hunting Deer, black bear, possible moose/elk) all are 44Mag.

Is the 9" brl just downright impractical and uncomfortable to carry/shoot? Primary concern is holding the damn thing straight and steady.

[98Redline]

Different strokes for different folks.

Some really like the longer barrels some don't. Once again, Suburban vs. Tahoe. I can't say that I have ever owned a gun with a barrel that long....other than a rifle...and for a hunting gun, carried in a vertical shoulder holster, I don't think the extra 2" will make that much of a difference. Putting it in a holster on your hip might be a different story.

With respect to the shootability, I personally am not crazy about the way they balance, but that is just a personal opinion, nothing more. I am sure they shoot very well, and the extra 2" gives you a bit more velocity. I certainly would never give anyone grief for carrying one.

[Huntolive]

"I certainly would never give anyone grief for carrying one. "

Especially if it was loaded ;-)

Thanks, and am eager to hear more views on 9" barrel. Especially form those who have shot it.

Also want to verify if 44mag is able to take moose, black bear, elk, as on ocassion I might love that... or do I acually NEED the 454 for that.
I have all the reloading equ. for 44mag, and would just as soon keep everything 44mag. But see no problems with the 454/45lc option.

Discovered my neighbor/friend has all materials to re-load 44mag , 44sp, and 45colt, and I can borrow any time. So I will cross bridge into re-loading.

[98Redline]

44 mag is good for anything that walks on four of the continents and a good portion of what walks on the 5th.

[hardluk1]

For those that say you don't need a optic sight on a handgun be thankfull for good eye sight. For those of us that can't see sights , a simple redot makes a world of difference. I have a burris 35mm speed dot on my 44 DW and a pair of buddies have eotechs on the srh's on weigand adapters. Off a rest 3" groups at 100 yards is very possible . You open sight guys try that.

[spclpatrolgroup]

I have a scope on my blackhawk as well, being far sighted I have a hard time picking up the rear sight.

[Huntolive]

Ok, I have heard from enough folks who seem solid, and found that 44 Mag can take moose and black bear just fine. Care to confirm? Disagree?

Seems no need for 454. 44Mag seems to offer simplicity and flexibility.
I also now have access to loading equ. for 44, and 45. What would need to be added to reload 454, just dyes? Some have said just shoot 454 w/ 45lc bullets, due to big round and lower pressure. What is the practical effect of "lower pressure"?Less recoil? I Still don't really get why to go the 45 lc only route in a 454...?

Hardluk1 and sptlrgrp, what lengths of barrels are you shooting w/ those red dots/scopes?

More experience with 9" barrels? Effect of magna porting?
5.5"?

Either way I have shot and will get 1 w/ 7.5" .

[CraigC]

Personally, I have no use for a barrel longer than 7½-8". Even those see limited use. The only way I would buy a ported gun is if it was very, very cheap and I had things I wanted to do to it in addition to chopping the barrel off behind the porting. I would never have one ported.

The .44Mag has been used successfully to take all the biggest game on planet earth. Including the "Africa Big Six". The critical piece to this puzzle is to choose the right bullet. I would suggest 240-250gr (cast or jacketed) for deer, black bear and average sized hogs. Bump that up to 300gr for elk, moose and really big hogs. For anything bigger, 330gr-355gr LBT's can be pushed in excess of 1200fps and that is enough for anything that walks with proper placement. Of course, the rifle-shooting energy worshipers will disagree.

[Huntolive]

Thanks,

I am leaning 44mag.
CraigC, why no to magna porting? What are pros and cons?
I am not planning to have this done to a gun, but encountered what looks like a good deal on a SBHH and a SRHH that have had this done, and I know it is expensive, and would seem to reduce recoil and perhaps improve accuracy.

Experience with this anyone???

Also still trying to figure out if 45LC +P owuld be smoother and just as effective as 44Mag...

[CraigC]

Increased noise and blast. Recoil is directed more into the palm, rather than upwards. I'm primarily a cast bullet shooter and would not want to have to keep the ports clean of bullet lube.

[98Redline]

No ports here as well.

Ports/Compensators have their place but I don't think a hunting revolver is one of them. Maybe if you had a Contender/Encore in one of the rifle calibers, but I just don't like them on my revolvers.

[Samari Jack]

It`s not me wanting optics , it`s my 50 yr. old eyes !!!
Same here!! I have an EO-Tec holographic site on my AR and was thinking of putting in on my 686. It is pre-drilled but scope rings won't work with the holographic site. Deer hunting is legal in my back 40 with a .357. I have two buddies that have stands on either end but figure I could cover the middle from our sun-room out the window. Just think of it as a big blind with central heat.

[22-rimfire]

I use the Ruger mounts and rings for my 9.5" 480 SRH. Needed to loctite the screws however as they worked loose quickly (like 6 rounds) from the recoil. I have a 2x Leupold on mine. I pretty much leave the rifle at home now unless for some reason I am hunting a field from a stand. In which case, I could easily handle both the rifle and SRH, but carrying both in the woods is a pain.

[Huntolive]

At this point I am NOT getting the 9.5" or any of the ported stuff. I have a line on alightly used SRHH 44mag 7.5" for $625 w/ 100 rds. 44Mag included and the original rings. That is a used version of what I originally wanted. And I save the $ to get a scope/reddot. I believe the gun was made in 1998, is there any big difference btwn the SRHH from then and now, aside from the lack of the hogue grip? Do you folks recommend I install the Hogue grip?

I may still try to find a way to get the 454/45 SRHH, or wait and later get a SBHH, and keep it all 44mag, for simplicity reloading and grabing ammo.
Or should I get the 454 to diversify and have a master blaster? ;-)

[98Redline]

Same answer as before regarding the grips, different strokes for different folks.

The Hogues work well for some and not so well for the others. If you have the older type of grips with the wood side panels you should try shooting with them first. Those original Lett grips are really pretty good. I have a set on my .480 SRH and I prefer them over the Pachmyrs or the Hogues but once again, that is just me.

From a quality standpoint, there is no difference. AFAIK the SRH platform has never had any quality issues or systemic problems with the design so a first year or this year's SRH are the same quality wise. The only thing that is different is the older guns were roll marked, the new ones are laser engraved. I actually prefer the look of the roll marks myself.

I think buying a used gun is a great way to go. Someone else takes a big hit on the price and you get a gun that other than a couple of minor surface blemishes functions as well as a brand new one.

[hardluk1]

Huntolive Check your PM. Try the grips on the revolver. Some like them fine and then like 98redline covered , grips can be a very personal thang. I prefer hogues soft rubber grips and pachmyers. Good that we have choices. Atleast you can walk in to many LGS and finger a new ruger with the factory made for ruger hogues they use today to deside if you like the fit. And go from there.

[98Redline]

Handling them in the LGS does not tell the entire story though.
Until you put a few rounds down the pipe you really can't tell whether they will work for you or not.

Case in point, my 5.5" Redhawk. The standard grips felt great in my hand, pointed well and I was content with keeping them on the gun. That all ended after the 2nd cylinder full of hot hunting rounds. Took me a couple of tries before I found a set of grips that worked for me.

That being said, you can't decide on what grips are best for you until you actually buy a gun........hint...hint...hint.

[Huntolive]

Fair enough on getting off the pot and picking!

The main thing that keeps holding me up from pulling the trigger (pun intended) on the 44mag, is the idea of the massive amount of extra foot pounds of energy delivered by the 454. This seems like a clear advantage in knock down power.
Is it really more bang for the buck, or just alot more BANG in recoil, and alot more BUCKS spent on ammo?

Some have said, how much deader than dead does dead need to be, and that the 44 mag offers plenty even for medium bear and moose w/ the right ammo. But the case made for the 454 is "it does everything the 44Mag can (with the 454, plus the 45lc) plus more, but the 44Mag can't do evrything the 454 can"

Final thoughts? Is it too redundant to get both?
Looking at it now, if I do get the 44mag, and also got the 454, I would only shoot 454 out of it.

[98Redline]

<sarcasm>Given that logic, I would say that you really need to step up to the 50 Alaskan to get "enough" energy for what you are looking to hunt.</scarcasm>

You shouldn't feel under gunned with a .44mag. Selection of the correct loads is paramount to every hunting situation. While many deer hunters sort of have the "any bullet will work" mentality when it comes to deer hunting, that is mostly because deer are not that tough and most deer hunting guns have more than enough energy to cleanly dispatch deer sized game.

When you start moving up in game size, a hunter needs to be more selective regarding their ammunition to ensure that they have selected the correct bullet for the job. If you are looking at moose or large bears, regardless of whether you are shooting a 454 or a 44, you will still need to be selective about your bullet choice. Both are lethal when the bullet is placed in the correct spot.

Personally, if looking at a 2 gun handgun hunting battery the 454 would not be on my list, I would put a 44 mag as nearly a necessity and would be the #1 caliber on my list (which is why I currently own 5 of them). It is immensely versatile and has more than enough energy for anything you are likely to hunt.
For the second gun, I would be looking for something in the truly "big bore" category (.475 or larger). Something like a .480 Ruger, .475L, etc.... These are truly the big boomers and WILL cleanly take anything on the planet, including cape buffalo.

If you were to look at my reloading journal you will find that I reload about 10x more 44 mag than my nearest other caliber (.357 mag). I use a 44 for nearly all of my handgun hunting and have never felt like I didn't have enough gun. I also couldn't tell the difference in how deer die between being shot with a .44 and a 480 Ruger. Some drop and are DRT, other take off for a bit.

But this is just one man's opinion. I am sure that there are other proponents of the 454 that will chime in a well.

In the end, you are the only one who can make the choice.

[Huntolive]

Ok, thanks for great info!
I will probably get 44Mag SRHH.
But if I want something bigger, wouldn't the 454 fill that role fine?
98Redline, please school me on 480, 475, etc. I thought the 454 was just as powerful as the 480.

[98Redline]

If you want/need something bigger than a 44mag, then I would be looking toward some of the calibers I mentioned above. I think that the .454 has too much overlap with the 44mag to be of much value to me. I suppose if you had an encore or contender pistol in 454 the extra velocity would start to work to your advantage when you start getting out to 200+ yards but if I were going in that direction I would be looking at some of the rifle calibers.

While there is certainly some overlap between the 454 and the 480, the top end heavy loads in the 454 are around 400gr. This is really just the mid point of the 480's bullet weight range. There are bullets up to 440gr.

I admit, I prefer a heavy slower bullet to a light fast one. I will take penetration over expansion every day. To that end, the 480 works for quelling my big bore needs....for now.

I haven't really compared energy between the 454 and the 480 however I suspect that they are around the same. However the 480 does not have the recoil and muzzle blast of the 454 that I find objectionable.
Another data point is something that came out of one of the seminars that John Linebaugh puts on. In the penetration tests the 480 Ruger (essentially a 475L special) provided bullet penetration that was within something like 3" of a full bore 475L.

All of that being said, you are just stepping up into the big bore handguns. I would suggest that right now you concentrate on the 44/45 caliber flavor and determine if those give you everything you want. Honestly in North America I really can't think of any game animal that would require the use of anything more than a 44mag.

[22-rimfire]

I too favor slow and heavy rather than fast and light for handgun hunting. As mentioned earlier, I chose the 9.5" SRH in 480 Ruger. I didn't like the muzzle blast and recoil of the 454 and experience has demonstrated that I tend not to shoot low powered rounds (specials) in a magnum handgun. If I purchased 480 SRH today, I'd choose the 7.5".

The 460 and 500 S&W were not available when I first purchased the 480 Ruger. Today, since I have a slow and heavy preference, I would lean toward the 500 S&W if I couldn't find a 480. I have not regretted my choice of the 480. The 475 Linebaugh appeals to me as well and would most likely be my next step up in power versus the 500 S&W. Honestly, the 480 Ruger is plenty big enough for me. Anything else would be a pure novelty.

I think you need to work up in power and experience gradually or you end up with a handgun you don't want to shoot. That is not uncommon with the big bore handguns including 44 magnum. I would get a 44 mag first (or in my case, 41 mag) and move up after getting comfortable with that caliber if you still want more power in a handgun.

[Huntolive]

Thanks,

Yes, I definitely will NOT start any bigger than the 454/45lc.
And I have seen that off the shelf 45lc of any power is PRICEY!

That makes 44Mag all the more a better place to start.

But if I committ to re-loading (my good friend/neighbor has all the equ. for 44 and 45) is the 45lc a better place to start than 44Mag, based on the larger bullet?
I agree what I want is penetration and energy on the animal/knockdown power, not tons of velocity and nasty recoil. So, since the 45lc is pretty much same size as 454, but slower, a good hot 45 could be perfect?
So why is 44Mag better?

[98Redline]

A hot loaded 45 and 44 mag are so close together ballisticly that you could flip a coin and come up with a winner heads or tails.

Regarding which is "better"....hell, do you want to start another 6+ page thread debating the nuances between the two? This is one of those hotly debated topics that I will just steer clear of.

Pick the one that YOU like.

I would be happy with either.

[Huntolive]

The 44mag seems like a smarter gun to start with, but the 454/45lc seems to give me both the "starter gun" and the "next step gun" all in one, and at under $600, that is what is so hard to pass on.

Ammo prices/availability also steer me home to 44mag. But I do plan to learn reloading, and have access to equp.

Do the high end 44mags (think Double Tap 325grn at 1300 sps)
recoil as much as the equivalent 454? or less?

I have this idea, that high end 44mag will be worse in recoil than mid range 454, since you are maxing out the guns/rounds potential. Is this wrong?