Do you really need more than a .44 magnum?

[Glock19Fan]

Hey everyone!

Ive been bitten by the .44 magnum bug. Although I cant afford one right now, I am really looking into getting a blued S&W 29-6. It would be used for hunting medium sized game, and possibly as a house gun loaded with .44 specials or light .44 magnums.

However, with all these new calibers coming out (.460) and the more powerful that have been around for a while (.454 for example), im wondering if the .44 magnum is enough gun for hunting medium sized game, and for protection against charging animals.

Whats everyone else opinion?

Thanks!

 

[Brasso]

The .44mag will punch thru any animal south of the Canadian border with ease. The only reason to own anyting bigger is for the fun of it or if you plan on hunting grizzlies or cape buffaloe with a handgun. Personally, I feel that if a .44mag can't do it you need a rifle.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The question should be, "Can you HANDLE more than a .44 Magnum?"

I will bet most of these super-calibers are shot a few times and then stuck in a drawer. I know that a full charge of Hodgdon's L'il Gun in a .45 Colt case behind a 255 grain wide flat nose bullet is a handfull. I don't shoot a lot of these at one session!

 

[John Ross]

There is no such thing as too much power in a defensive situation, whether it be against two- or four-legged attackers.

Remember that a .44 Magnum RIFLE is not viewed as being very powerful, yet it's 300 FPS faster than the same round in a handgun.

The question is how much power can you still shoot well. For some who shoot a lot and are accustomed to heavy calibers, there is no production handgun with too much recoil.

A student brought a .500 Linebaugh Long to my range. With 450 grain bullets @ 1200 I could ring an 8" gong every shot at 60 yards standing. With 525s @ 1400, I could not, but the owner could, and I'd never claim a gun had "too much recoil" and shouldn't exist, just because I couldn't shoot it well.

FWIW I'm not good with heavy recoil in a Single Action grip. I'm very good with the S&W .500 and 510s @ 1650 or 650s @ 1300.

Be glad we have lots of choices...

JR

 

[Marshall]

Seeing as how you specifically stated hunting medium sized animals, yes, the .44 Mag is plenty. But, you also threw in charging animals, this can be a different situation. There are loads out today that I would have no concern with them stopping anything in N.A. but a Grizzly and would probably be just fine for that. However, when it comes to Grizzlies, I'll take a Howitzer thank you.

A Ruger Redhawk/SRH would be my choice for handling both situations. I would use Buffalo Bore or Garrett Ammo and be in business. Your Model 29 might be have a tough time with that ammo, in fact I wouldn't shoot that stuff through it myself.

If you can separate hunting medium sized game from charging animals, buy your Model 29 and have a blast. If not, buy a Ruger and use the Big Dog ammo.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

There is no such thing as too much power in a defensive situation, whether it be against two- or four-legged attackers.

But there is such a thing as a gun with so much recoil that it's difficult to manage in a high-stress situation. Phil Shoemaker -- who has been in on the kill of as many big bears as any man, and who is a real sourdough -- recommends a .357 with hard-case 180 grain bullets as a carry gun in bear country. His rationalle is that you need to make a head shot, and you need a gun that will give you a second chance if you miss the first.

 

[surfinUSA]

44 mag is as big as I'll ever need. Black bears, Brown bears, zombies I don't care. The 44 mag will do them all. The current trend that bigger is better plays on the fears of those that have never done this. The reality is that a 30-30 is a good deer gun, a 30-06 will do every thing in N. America and so will a 44 mag if you want to use a handgun.

 

[Ala Dan]

Hey, I agree with ole' Phil's philosphy. Recently, our local PD rangemaster
had the opportunity to try the 4" S&W 500, for five shots. He commented
afterwards that he doesn't care to shoot it again!

 

[tc300mag1]

Do I need anything bigger than a 44 no ... But the 454 is just plain fun and for some reason i do much better hunting with it than i ever did my 44 same gun platform go figure

 

[Seventhsword]

Do you really need more than a .44 magnum?

Yes...

 

[Sir Aardvark]

As far as handguns go, a .44 mag should be plenty big for all tasks required of it.

I can find mag loads that are available to shoot out of my .44 that will HURT my hand really bad!.

If you need more than what your .44 mag can comfortably deliver, then you should have a rifle, not a handgun.

I read stories of where hunters track and kill wild boars and bear with handguns (500 magnums) and I think "Whatever - I guess you get to say: been there, done that, got the T-shirt" some sort of Macho thing, I guess. If I was going on a bear hunt, I, myself, would want a rifle, not some hand cannon.

The NRA's publication "American Rifleman" recently had an article on a gentleman who routinely hunts deer with his .44 mag revolver. He hunts in a wooded area, so his shots rarely exceed 50-75 yards.

Pretty much to sum things up - If you're into pain and punishment, get a larger-sized caliber than .44 mag, but I bet you will use it only rarely, and really now - how often do you expect to see a large charging animal that you will need to take down with a handgun that a .44 wouldn't handle?.

Check out the below link to Cor-Bon ammo. They sell 305 gr .44 mag 'Penetrator' rounds and also 320 gr hard-cast flat point ammo - surely plenty enough to handle any North American game:

http://mysite.elixirlabs.com/index.php?uid=12665&page=1624

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Hey, I agree with ole' Phil's philosphy. Recently, our local PD rangemaster had the opportunity to try the 4" S&W 500, for five shots. He commented afterwards that he doesn't care to shoot it again!

The phrase "loaded for bear" means that for a tiny instant you look at the charging bear and wonder if it would be less painful for the bear to eat you than to fire that gun.

I'd go with something I knew I could control -- and like Phil said, try to penetrate the skull.

 

[P95Carry]

There's that word ''need'' again! LOL.

Sure 44 mag will do superb service and maybe is about the ideal ''manageable'' caliber that still does good work. But - liking as I do ''bigger stuff'' - found that I ''needed'' (wanted!) - .454 Casull and later, the BFR in 45-70.

Must say, the BFR is very controllable and unless I were to badly screw up a first shot, would not be looking for an ultra rapid follow-up. At least - the time it takes to recock and take another aim is quite short. The .454 is also not too bad but that higher pressure round would I think slow me down a shade more than the 45-70.

All that said, a good gun like an SRH with full house .44 loads, is sure gonna keep the main threats ''subdued''!

 

[Standing Wolf]

Even the .44 magnum is more than my arthritis can cheerfully accept most of the time. If I were thirty years younger, I'd have to try out the super-duper magnums, of course.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Even the .44 magnum is more than my arthritis can cheerfully accept most of the time. If I were thirty years younger, I'd have to try out the super-duper magnums, of course.

And if you shot them enough, accelerate the onset of your arthritis about 25 years.

Look at Elmer Keith -- he paid a price for his constant use of heavy-kicking guns.

 

[GaryP]

I'd go with something I knew I could control -- and like Phil said, try to penetrate the skull.

I agree to a point, but when the subject is charging grizzlies I'll go with the biggest caliber I can find -- There may be no second shot option!

 

[461]

Need? No. The .44Mag is to me the highest power handgun I can enjoyably handle and reliably use but ten years ago I couldn't handle it and was topped out with a hot .357Mag. I can't say what I'll be shooting ten years from now, but I know I'll still love my .357's and my .44's. For me it depends on what I'm comfortable shooting and feel confident that I can hit reliably with.

 

[rick_reno]

Yes - I need more than a 44 magnum. I like the .454 and have been shooting it since the late 80's, it's a great round. I'd like to try one the .500's but don't know anyone who owns one.

 

[Stainz]

In it's infancy, the then-new .357 Magnum was used for taking a wide range of animals, albeit with rounds one probably can't find in a box these days. The .44 Mag was developed as a hunting round - and still excells at that. Of course, I hurt my hand years ago shooting one (Just 3 rounds!), so it was a quarter century before I ever bought one. Oddly, I had bought a Ruger .454 SRH as my first DA, and had owned it for years when I bought that first .44 Magnum - a 629MG relegated originally to .44 Russians & Specials. That .454 was bought to shoot .45 Colts... but I did shoot over 400 full load commercial .454's through it before trading it last Christmas. My favorite, the Hornady 240gr XTP's @ nearly 2,000 fps, actually would produce 1.5" 5-shot groups (I allow a flier...) at 50yd from sandbags with a Weaver 2x28mm... and they were like a rifle round! At nearly $1/round, I didn't shoot it much with those hot rounds. The soft rubber padded backstrap and higher grip helped the recoil.

The .45 Colt, in a +P venue, will provide more power and less recoil than a .44 Magnum - but the great nuclear-level .45 Colt Redhawk, like my 5.5" example, is gone from Ruger's catalog now. That leaves the .454 SRH for 'hot' .45 Colts - maybe that new S&W .460 Magnum, when it is available. Certainly, the finest .45 Colt DA launcher I have is my 625MG, my first-ever S&W. It's thin cylinder walls limit it to lower SAAMI spec .45 Colts in my use. The .44 Magnum starts looking good again - especially in the same 629 Mountain Gun format as that 625MG.

My 629MG was bought for .44 Russian & Special use - mainly my lead homebrew reloads. Recently, I discovered the backstrap-enclosing softer rubber grips of the new .500 Magnum X-frame. Rated for the X-frame, they also fit the K/L and N-frames. I bought such a grip from S&W - wow! With them, my 4" 629MG is manageable with hot .44 Magnums - still SAAMI spec's, of course. The 180gr JHP .44 Magnum UMC's (1,550+ fps!) are useable! I would feel well 'protected' with a 629MG equipped with those grips and some decent .44 Magnums.

Stainz

 

[Derby FALs]

And if you shot them enough, accelerate the onset of your arthritis about 25 years.

I am reasonably certain that has caused the tendonitis in my elbow. I never was much of a tennis player. After an afternoon of handgunning, I pay for it for a couple of days.

I'd go with something I knew I could control -- and like Phil said, try to penetrate the skull.

If you go higher than the griz's nose you will likely miss the brain altogether.

 

[BigG]

Vern Humphrey said: The question should be, "Can you HANDLE more than a .44 Magnum?"

My experience tells me that 44 Magnum is approaching the limitations of over 90% of the shooters I have known.

For every one who wears out 44 Magnums (or bigger) shooting heavy bullet nuclear loads, there are at least 500 guys whose guns have never digested a full box of standard factory loads. You can buy plenty of reasonably priced, like new, used 44 Magnums in any gun friendly state. Incidentally, I have said the same about the Colt 45 Automatic pistol and been roundly all but called a liar on the Internet among these experts. My experience with the Colt 45 Auto dates back when the gun tended to draw blood, not with the new sissy pistols with the comfy grip and rounded profile. YMMV

As for should there be bigger, heavier, faster, etc. yes, why not?

 

[John Ross]

And if you shot them enough, accelerate the onset of your arthritis about 25 years.

Look at Elmer Keith -- he paid a price for his constant use of heavy-kicking guns.

Hunh?

I last shot with Elmer in 1978, when he was 79 years old. .44s, .375s, and my .510 Wells, which he loved. He didn't have arthritis then. IIRC he died in 1986 at 87 years old, after a stroke. Before his stroke, he was still going hunting with friends. None ever mentioned him having arthritis.

I'll be 48 next week. I've got over 120,000 full-load .44s recorded, and about 3,000 .500s. Been shooting heavy revolvers since 1971. According to your logic, I should be suffering from arthritis similar to if I were 73 years old. I don't.

Environment and habits might have some effect, but from what I've seen, most ailments attributed to age are largely hereditary. Do you honestly think all those silhouette shooters (who shoot more than I do) are going to be crippled up by age 60?

JR

 

[cookekdjr]

No one "needs" more handgun than a .44 mag. The .44 mag can be loaded (either via hand-loading or with special commercial rounds like buffalo bore's)
to kill any animal that walks. Penetration tests comparing .44 mag and .45 Long Colt rounds to the largest dangerous-game rifle rounds demonstrated that the big-bore handguns are just as effective.
Some folks may want more handgun than a .44, but no one needs it.
-David

Edited to add link:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_158_26/ai_86704793

 

[only1asterisk]

I don't know about Keith, but John Taffin believes his wrist and elbows where compromised by years of big bore revolvers.

The 44 is my personal limit. With practice I might be able to master something with more recoil, but I doubt that will ever happen. I don't get enough practice with my revolvers as it is. I might go in for a bigger round someday, but it would be loaded to approximate a 44 mag. level of recoil.


David

 

[Master Blaster]

If .44 mag in a handgun is not enough you need one of these

http://www.savagearms.com/516fsak.htm