"lightish weight" 44 mag

Status
Not open for further replies.
lobo9er

lobo9er

Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Messages
3,457
Location
Earth, Currently
what do you guys carry in the woods. I have a Super RedHawk and enjoy owning it but would like more compact 44. I know my basic options just wondering whats popular here. would like Double action always like he looks of the Ruger Alaskan but also am intrigued by a compact blackHawk with a bisley grip I saw a while back. Pics if you got 'em... :) thanks in advance.
 
I have a Redhawk, Alaskan, and just got a Smith 69. I am really liking the Smith 69. It is a five-shot and the same size as a GP100/686. It carries very well and is super accurate. Since it is mostly for carrying, I don't mind it being a five shot. I put X frame grips on it and recoil is not bad at all. I like my Alaskan, but the Smith is more accurate and easier to shoot with the 4.2" barrel. It also works in my existing holster for a 4" GP or 686. I would give is a good look.

Here are a few pics before I changed the grips and deleted the safety.

IMG_5304

IMG_5304

Smith 69 Desert

IMG_5300

IMG_5300

Smith 69 next to a GP100 4 inch holster..It fits like a glove!
 
My preference always leans toward the Single Action for semi-emergency or emergency use. Would be a toss up for me for this .45 Colt Ruger Blackhawk:



Or this .45 Colt Blackhawk:



Was going to post my 5" Super Blackhawk but PhotoBucket has an "unexpected" problem.

AH! Here it is:



Old Three Screw Super Blackhawk.

Bob Wright
 
Vaqueros should be plenty strong, but I would guess that the regular Blackhawk is stronger. I believe Ruger came out with a more gracile version of the Vaquero (New Vaquero) that is more in line with the Colt SAA. Vaqueros lack adjustable sights as well, which can be trouble some if you shoot different loads.

The Blackhawks are bullishly strong, accurate, and just plain work. I have been shooting a Ruger Bisley .45 Colt for about 25 years with some fairly heavy loads and it is still as tight as the day I bought it. I have since added several more Ruger Blackhawks to my collection and love them all. I like to use my guns and the Blackhawk can handle all of the abuse without issue. I do like the idea of a double action if I am around any toothy things. I am about 50/50 between a SA and a DA revolver in the woods or desert. I love the simplicity of the SA, but am a tad faster with the DA and don't have to worry about missing the hammer if I am in a hurry (Although this has never happened to me.)

Honestly much of this is personal preference. Practicing is probably the most important thing once you make a choice.
 
Last edited:
ECVMatt said:
Vaqueros should be plenty strong, but I would guess that the regular Blackhawk is stronger.
Click to expand...

Your guess is wrong.

The large frame Vaquero in 44mag shares the exact same cylinder as the Blackhawk and Super Blackhawk, and shares the same frame dimension. Other than exterior aesthetics, they are one and the same. The "durability" of a revolver is measured in it's ability to sustain reliable lock up and timing, and the parts in question are EXACTLY THE SAME for the Vaquero and the Blackhawk (and Super Blackhawk), and the "strength" of a revolver is measured by its maximum yield strength of the cylinder (the first part to fail in a revolver due to excess pressure) - and again, these are EXACTLY THE SAME between the Vaquero and blackhawk (and super blackhawk).

lobo9er said:
great looking guns all of them. Are vaquero's just as strong as the blackhawks?
Click to expand...

Yes, the Vaqueros in 44mag are EXACTLY as strong as the Blackhawks.
 
lobo9er said:
what do you guys carry in the woods. I have a Super RedHawk and enjoy owning it but would like more compact 44. I know my basic options just wondering whats popular here. would like Double action always like he looks of the Ruger Alaskan but also am intrigued by a compact blackHawk with a bisley grip I saw a while back. Pics if you got 'em... :) thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

If you really want a light 44mag revolver (be careful what you wish for!!), then look at the S&W 329PD. It's a scandium frame and comes in about the same weight as a Ruger SP101. You WILL eat up the top strap "shield", but S&W WILL replace it for you at no cost, with a relatively fast turn around time. The recoil is violent, but manageable if you're skilled at shooting large bore revolvers. The recoil is no joke.

In addition to the 329PD, I have Bull Dogs, snubby Raging Bulls, Alaskans, Kodiak Backpackers, Vaqueros, Blackhawks, Super Blackhawks, 629's... I'm a 44 o'phile - very few things in life bring me joy greater than 300grn XTP's and H110. The Alaskan is not light. The Kodiak Backpacker is not light. The snubby Vaqueros are not light. The snubby Blackhawks are not light... You're talking about revolvers all tipping the scales over 40oz. Yes, the snubby versions are lighter than the long barrel versions, but it's kinda like being the lightest kid at fat camp...

The 329PD is LIGHT, for a 44mag.
 
I don't really keep up with the Vaqueros that much as I perfer adjustable sights.

Here is a nice explanation from a very trusted source:

When you get into the 3-digit prefix Flattop Blackhawks or New Vaqueros, they have a smaller cylinder frame ... but it's not the frame that dictates strength ... it's the cylinder and that only applies to the models chambered in 45 Colt. In other words, the Flattop and New Vaquero frames are just as strong ... maybe even stronger than the conventional Blackhawks. All cylinders in the mid-frame models are the same length and diameter, but smaller than conventional BH or SBH cylinders, which makes those chambered for 45 Colt a bit on the thin side. As such, they will not hold as much pressure as noted above by rclark. For 357 Mag, 44 Special, and 44 Mag, the cylinders are thick enough to support any SAAMI rated cartridge.

so yes, my guess appears to be partially wrong...I would not feel comfortable touching off my hotter 45 Colt loads in a New Vaquero.

I will still just stick to my Blackhawks and be happy.
 
While its true the cylinder is much of a revolver's strength, be aware that the top strap takes a beating as well. I once stretched the frame of a Colt Single Action Army, the top strap being the part that gave way. The stretching was to the extent that the rear of the cylinder bound against the underside of the top strap, and the barrel angled downward to a noticeable degree.

I did get the gun realigned, but it is no longer a .357 Magnum but instead a .38 Special.

This area is beefed up in a Ruger Blackhawk by the ribs on either side of the rear sight, plus having a slightly thicker top strap than a Vaquero, there's a slight difference in strength in this area.

As for me, the Vaquero's sights don't allow me the precision permitted by the Blackhawks sights.

As for speed in getting the gun into action, I am far more practiced with the Single Action revolver and can get off an accurate shot much faster than I can with a DA revolver.

Bob Wright
 
ECVMatt said:
I have a Redhawk, Alaskan, and just got a Smith 69. I am really liking the Smith 69. It is a five-shot and the same size as a GP100/686. It carries very well and is super accurate. Since it is mostly for carrying, I don't mind it being a five shot. I put X frame grips on it and recoil is not bad at all. I like my Alaskan, but the Smith is more accurate and easier to shoot with the 4.2" barrel. It also works in my existing holster for a 4" GP or 686. I would give is a good look.
Click to expand...
I've had a Redhawk, several Super Blackhawks (still have one), and a couple of Smith 629s, but my favorite 44 mag by far is my Smith 69. As ECVMatt said, it's accurate and easy to shoot, and it's about the same size as a GP100. Which to me, makes it the perfect size for carrying when I'm just bumming around in the hills. The only thing I don't like about it is that it has replaced my beloved 4" Taurus .41 Magnum as my bumming around in the hills gun. Now my .41 Magnum just sits in a drawer dreaming of days gone by.
I use medium loads in my Model 69 - 250gr Keith's at 950 -1000fps. So the recoil is not bad, even with the factory grips.:)
 
Here's a pretty good article comparing the Old Vaquero to the New Vaquero with both measured dimensions and pictures:

http://www.gunblast.com/Ruger-NewVaquero.htm

Although this thread is not about Ruger frame sizes, I would still perfer the Blackhawk for similar reasons previously stated by Bob in the above post.

I do think it's important to talk about weight though. All I can say is that it is a very subjective topic. The 69 and similar sized guns feel "light" or "just about right" to me. The 69 is not really noticable on a good belt and yet is heavy enough to hold steady and aim. My Redhawk, with a 7.5 in barrel feels a tad heavy (this is starting to sound like a goldilocks tale...) and I am aware that I am carrying it. As I get older, I have a much more difficult time acclimating to altitude. When we deer hunt I go from sea level to about 9 or 10 thousand feet above sea level in five hours. I find that ultra light guns are much harder for me to steady and accurately fire while sucking wind and trying to acclimate. This might not be an issue for others, but it is for me.

I think the best solution if possible is to go to a good gun store and actually hold the different guns you are interested in purchasing. Finding something that feel comfortable to you is probably more important than worrying about a few ounces.

Like .308 Norma, I shoot a lot of Keith bullets at about 1000 fps. The 69 does this with ease and not really that noticable for me on the belt; for me it's a winning combo.
 
ECVMatt said:
I don't really keep up with the Vaqueros that much as I perfer adjustable sights.

Here is a nice explanation from a very trusted source:

When you get into the 3-digit prefix Flattop Blackhawks or New Vaqueros, they have a smaller cylinder frame ... but it's not the frame that dictates strength ... it's the cylinder and that only applies to the models chambered in 45 Colt. In other words, the Flattop and New Vaquero frames are just as strong ... maybe even stronger than the conventional Blackhawks. All cylinders in the mid-frame models are the same length and diameter, but smaller than conventional BH or SBH cylinders, which makes those chambered for 45 Colt a bit on the thin side. As such, they will not hold as much pressure as noted above by rclark. For 357 Mag, 44 Special, and 44 Mag, the cylinders are thick enough to support any SAAMI rated cartridge.

so yes, my guess appears to be partially wrong...I would not feel comfortable touching off my hotter 45 Colt loads in a New Vaquero.

I will still just stick to my Blackhawks and be happy.
Click to expand...

You need to do more reading. There are no 44mags built in the mid frame new vaquero nor in the mid-frame flattop blackhawk frame. All of the 44mag single action revolvers Ruger makes are ALL in the same large frame size, all sharing the same frame dimensions and cylinders, and as such, all are exactly as strong as the other, whether it says Vaquero, New Vaquero, Blackhawk, or Super Blackhawk on the side. They are all the same.

The mid-framed 3 digit new vaqueros and .357mag Flattop Blackhawks are not chambered in 44mag. These two mid-framed models do share the same frame and cylinder size, so within their class, they are equals, but again, these are not relevant for the question at hand, pertaining to 44mag Vaqueros and Blackhawks. None of the 44mags are built on the mid-frame.

So again - a 44mag Vaquero is every bit as strong as any 44mag blackhawk or super blackhawk. Been rebuilding Rugers in 44mag for far too long to need google to know the difference between the 44's and the mid-frames.

You seem to have missed the boat - all of the new production "New Vaqueros" in .44mag, the limited edition birds heads, are ALL built on a large frame. These are NOT built on the Colt SAA sized mid-frame used for all of the other New Vaqueros. The New Vaqueros in .44mag are the same size as the original Vaqueros in 44mag, and the same size as the Blackhawks and Super Blackhawks. So the difference between non-44mag New Vaqueros, old Vaqueros, BH's, Flattops, and SBH's is completely moot. All 44mag Ruger Single Actions are built on the same large frame, and share the same exact strength and durability.
 
Last edited:
If you can live with a 5 shot cylinder the Taurus Tracker 44 may be an option. They weight around 34oz unloaded and are about the same size as a K-Frame revolver. I had one and because of the weight they are not just real fun with full power 44 mag loads for a long range session. I shot far more 240gr 1000fps loads from it and saved the mags loads for carry. Its one of those gun I truly wish I still owned. And it had none of the issues that Taurus supposedly has.
 
Lobo9er, I was about to write a longer post, but now I see that you are close to making a choice. Between the Model 69 and the Bisley Blackhawk, there are no wrong choices. Obviously, you need to choose which type of action you prefer, but you cannot go wrong with either of those revolvers.

Most of the time I do not think it is helpful when someone asks about a choice and people tell them to "buy both." But in this case, I do think it is quite likely that you will eventually want to own both. That still leaves the very important choice of which to buy first, and I am looking forward to hearing about which decision you make. Either one is going to shoot well and carry comfortably.
 
I have eyed that Bisley for quite a while. I don't think you could go wrong with either....Let us know what you choose.
 
I'll attempt to respond with a slightly different perspective. I live in central western Montana, surrounded by Lolo National Forest and/or "The Bob." My first woods-walking or hunting handguns were two Freedom Arms 475 Linebaughs (6.5 and 4.75 inch barrels) and two Ruger SRH 480 Rugers (7.5 and 4.75 inch barrels, 4.75 being severely customized "carry gun"). I weigh about 140 pounds with interesting spinal injuries. I discovered that this class of revolver was too heavy, too cumbersome, too difficult to shoot in terms of noise and recoil.

I stumbled upon Freedom Arms Model 97 45 Colt revolvers (4.25 and 5.5 inch barrels). These revolvers are classified as having the same pressure potential as full-sized Blackhawk 45 Colts, albeit with cartridge length limited to 1.600 inches. My woods-walking/hunting load is Saeco #454 300-grain SWC-GC, CCI Large Pistol Magnum primers, 21.92 grains H110 in Winchester brass.

The result of this combination is a revolver shooting a load equivalent to a heavy 44 Magnum load in an indestructible, incredibly accurate handgun that weighs 34-38 ounces loaded. While not as light as scandium and titanium framed revolvers, it will be usable by your grandchildren. To furnish additional perspective, My 4.25-inch FA 97 45 Colt loaded weighs the same as a Colt SAA 4.75-inch 45 Colt loaded with traditional 255-grain factory ammunition. Of course, the FA 97 is smaller and slimmer with superior recoil-controlling grip.

There is a downside to acquiring this close to perfection - PRICE!

If you amortize the cost of ownership over the remainder of your life, cost becomes chump change. And in a emergency, your 97 will retain its value better than most lesser revolvers.

Hope this helps.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Old low pixel picture of my 1989 "Mountain Revolver " 629 . It weighs 37 .oz empty and is controllable for me with those Ahrends grips. It is beautifully made FWIW , great DA/SA trigger and accurate to a fault.
P1010499.jpg
[/URL]
 
Naphtali said:
I'll attempt to respond with a slightly different perspective. I live in central western Montana, surrounded by Lolo National Forest and/or "The Bob." My first woods-walking or hunting handguns were two Freedom Arms 475 Linebaughs (6.5 and 4.75 inch barrels) and two Ruger SRH 480 Rugers (7.5 and 4.75 inch barrels, 4.75 being severely customized "carry gun"). I weigh about 140 pounds with interesting spinal injuries. I discovered that this class of revolver was too heavy, too cumbersome, too difficult to shoot in terms of noise and recoil.

I stumbled upon Freedom Arms Model 97 45 Colt revolvers (4.25 and 5.5 inch barrels). These revolvers are classified as having the same pressure potential as full-sized Blackhawk 45 Colts, albeit with cartridge length limited to 1.600 inches. My woods-walking/hunting load is Saeco #454 300-grain SWC-GC, CCI Large Pistol Magnum primers, 29.92 grains H110 in Winchester brass.

The result of this combination is a revolver shooting a load equivalent to a heavy 44 Magnum load in an indestructible, incredibly accurate handgun that weighs 34-38 ounces loaded. While not as light as scandium and titanium framed revolvers, it will be usable by your grandchildren. To furnish additional perspective, My 4.25-inch FA 97 45 Colt loaded weighs the same as a Colt SAA 4.75-inch 45 Colt loaded with traditional 255-grain factory ammunition. Of course, the FA 97 is smaller and slimmer with superior recoil-controlling grip.

There is a downside to acquiring this close to perfection - PRICE!

If you amortize the cost of ownership over the remainder of your life, cost becomes chump change. And in a emergency, your 97 will retain its value better than most lesser revolvers.

Hope this helps.
Click to expand...
cost unfortunately bars freedom arms. Don't get me wrong I agree they are a great choice. But I could potentially get both for the price of a FA Revolver. Someday maybe just not this time unless I happen upon something on the used market.
 
My hunting side arm is the 5-shot .44 Magnum S&W model 69 with 4.2" barrel. I carry it in a Diamond D Guide's Choice chest holster with speedloader case and a 6-round cartridge slide containing 1 CCI/Speer shot shell, and 5 magnums. The gun and speedloader are loaded with Buffalo Bore 250 grain Keith hard cast SWC. The leather slide has aluminum cased 240 grain JHP and a shotshell so they don't turn green & stick. Old coon chomped on my speedloader case, and disappeared before I could make a hat outta him. :fire: I like this revolver so much, I'm trying to get my paws on a model 69 short barrel (2-3/4" barrel) for EDC in fall & winter around the property. It would fit my 386 Night Guard's holster.

image.jpeg

Another gun I used to carry but pretty much relegated to being a mule gun is the Performance Center 629 in .44 Mag. It's heavier than the model 69 so I no longer wear it...just throw the gunbelt in the mule, and drop the gun in the driver side open glove box. The PC 629 fits my Ruger Alaskan's Galco DAO holster just fine. He's also loaded with BB 250 grain SWC. The knife is the Ontario 5" Bushcrafter with a Tops Knives leather dangler sheath. The Hunter cartridge belt is extra long so I can strap it over a thick winter coat.

image.jpeg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

L
  • Locked
The .44 decision..
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
kelbro
K
G
  • Locked
Ruger Alaskan Pic Request.
Replies
6
Views
1K
Jhaislet
J
Macchina
  • Locked
Why are so many more 44 Mag Blackhawks made in Plow than Bisley handle?
2 3
Replies
60
Views
3K
MaxP
MaxP
Legionnaire
  • Locked
Tell me about 3-inch .44s
2 3
Replies
50
Views
13K
ElToro
E
4
  • Locked
Why doesn't Ruger make a 44 mag with a 4" barrel?
Replies
8
Views
894
.45&TKD
4
Back
Top