Is this a good idea for a new 44 Mag?

[fulloflead]

IMHO, S&W or Taurus should make a Scandium/Titanium 44Magnum with a 6" or 7" barrel.

I think it would be nice to be able to carry a 6" 44 Mag in the field without the weight of a 6" 44 Mag. It'd be nice to have the extra sight radius and velocity.

Right now, both S&W and Taurus make 4" versions, but I think they were made with a "carry this instead of nothing" intention. If they made the 6" it would be more like a "better than what you've been carrying" idea.

It wouldn't be punishing to shoot like the smaller ones...
I think it makes sense to give us more gun for the weight of less gun.

What do you think?

.

 

[Sunray]

"...it would be nice to be able to carry a 6" 44 Mag in the field without the weight of a 6" 44 Mag..." Three things. One, light weight materials significantly increase the felt recoil. Two, if you don't regularly shoot a carry gun with the ammo you intend to use because it's not fun, you will not be good enough with it to defend yourself. Thirdly, both of those materials are expensive and require special machining techniques.
If you find a regular 6" .44 mag to be heavy, you should either stop carrying it or get a better belt/holster combination. If you find the felt recoil of a stock 4" .44 Mag too heavy, change the grips and the ammo. The revolver doesn't fit your hand and try some .44 Special ammo. Different grips that make the revolver fit your hand better and will reduce the felt recoil. The .44 Special ammo will too using the same bullet weight, but at lower velocities.

 

[fulloflead]

Your points are valid, but apparantly they've already been addressed and at least two manufacturers (Taurus & S&W) have decided your concerns are not enough to keep them from making a 4" models. Both S&W and Taurus are already making a 4" Titanium/Scandium model. All I'm saying is that if it was a good idea for a 4" model, it's a better idea for a 6 or 7" model. How much more could those 2-3" cost? Certainly recoil wouldn't be any worse than the 4" models they already make. I'm assuming recoil would be slightly easier.

Let's think of it in real general terms...
They've already been making small guns lighter for years and years.
Why not make the big guns lighter too?
People often sacrifice barrel length in order to make something easier to carry. Now that we have the technology, they don't have to sacrifice barrel length.

 

[P95Carry]

To quote a member of CombatCarry - rfurtkamp - when showing and comparing his 28 ounce Taurus 444 titanium 44 mag: and his 8 3/8" M29 -

The irony is that the S&W kicks far more than the Taurus.

Amazing, because I would not have expected that myself at all. He knows his guns tho and I am sure would not state such unless it was so.

 

[Tony Mig]

One point that hasn't been concidered here is barrel length = increased velocity.

A 4" barrel will only generate "X" amount of velocity, when you increase the barrel length another 2" or 3", you increase the generated velocity since the powder charge has 2 or 3 more inches of barrel to burn, and increase gas pressure before the bullet exits the barrel.

A S&W M29 with an 8.75" barrel will generate quite a bit more velocity than a Taurus with a 4" or even 6" barrel, therefore the felt recoil in the longer M29 will be harder than the Taurus, even if the Taurus is made of lighter materials.

Example.....

I have two S&W 686's (.357 Magnum) one with a 4" barrel, and the other with a 6" barrel. when shooting the same .38 Spl load from these two guns, the 4" model does not generate enought energy to knock over some of the steel combat poppers I shoot at, but when I shoot the very same .38 Spl load from my 6" model, they generate more than enough energy to knock over the same combat poppers. That extra 2" of barrel makes a big difference.....

 

[fulloflead]

So you're saying a longer barrel means INCREASED recoil with the same load? I'm sorry. I don't buy it.

That would mean that a 454 with a 3" barrel would have a lot less felt recoil than one with a 7" barrel. No way. The extra weight should more than compensate for the extra velocity that the extra length would give you.

 

[Majic]

Not to be rude or anything, but how many .44 magnums have you shot with full power loads? Have you shot a M29/629 vs the new lightweight .44 magnums?

 

[walking arsenal]

I've fired S&W's scandium .44. I put three rounds through it and it hurt so bad that i went back to shooting the S&W .500. This was at a shoot and all the dealers had guns out so you could take one buy ammo and shoot it until you couldnt afford any more ammo.

 

[mbartel]

In a steel revolver, the extra barrel weight might help to dampen the extra recoil from the increase in velocity, but in a scandium/light alloy gun, the extra 2-3" of barrel weight is so slight that it won't help much in dampening the extra recoil from the higher velocity.

 

[Sharps Shooter]

Nope. I don't buy it either. I've only shot about 25 different .44 Magnums, but from each of them I've sent thousands of full house rounds down range. I can say for sure a 10 1/2" Super Blackhawk has less felt recoil than a 4 5/8" Super Blackhawk, even though the 10 1/2" spits the bullet out at a higher velocity with the same load. Felt recoil is caused by the "jet" or "rocket" action of the escaping gases out the end of the barrel when the barrel comes "uncorked" - when the bullet exits the barrel. Yeah, the basic physics law of action and reaction applies, but you're talking about the reaction to the velocity of the escaping gases, not the velocity of the bullet. The extra added weight out front, with a longer barrel, dampens the felt recoil - the guns muzzle isn't propelled up and back quite as violently by the escaping gases because it weighs more.
To me, a single action .44 Magnum, such as a Ruger Super Blackhawk has less "felt recoil" than a double action .44 Magnum, such as a Ruger Redhawk. That's because a single action revolver twists upward in my hand, absorbing some of the recoil. But the recoil of a double action revolver seems to come more straight back, into my elbow. We're talking "felt recoil" here. Someone else may "feel" the recoil entirely differently.

 

[mlgar71]

Taurus and SW 44 Air Lite /Ultralite

I purchased both of these guns and they were both junk... First the Smith. First day at the range extractor rod jam after the next 6rounds extractor rod falls out of gun.

Taurus 444MULTI - First day at the range. Extractor rod jams then the entire action jams. Gun will not fire...

Returned guns and bought the new Springfield XD .45. Auto GAP- No jams, or parts falling out. Very Happy Now...

 

[461]

I personally want no part of a lightweight .44 in any barrel length but I'll stand behind your desires if you stand with me on mine for more .41 and .32mag options from all manufacturers.

 

[fulloflead]

Since you guys bumped up this old thread, I've got an even better idea for a new 44:

A 5-shot 44mag built on the S&W L-frame.

.

 

[461]

In Scandium with a 2' barrel too.

 

[chaim]

I personally want no part of a lightweight .44 in any barrel length but I'll stand behind your desires if you stand with me on mine for more .41 and .32mag options from all manufacturers.

I couldn't agree more. Please give me more .41mags, and I'd love some .32mag choices (and for more places to buy the ammo locally so I can feed those .32mag choices).

Since you guys bumped up this old thread, I've got an even better idea for a new 44:

A 5-shot 44mag built on the S&W L-frame.

.

While there is no such S&W, Taurus builds pretty much exactly what you are looking for- the Taurus Tracker is basically an L-frame and comes in a 5 shot .44mag version.

 

[CraigC]

The current lightweight double actions with four inch or shorter barrels surely are nothing more than maximum sized concealed carry pieces. Not much practicality in the field as short barrels and low weight are not conducive to accurate shooting at any usable range. Sure, a 6" barrel would help with a longer sight radius but there is still not enough weight to make it a practical field gun. Too long to be concealed so it's a sixgun without a purpose. Sometimes a little extra weight is a good thing. Personally, I find a 6" N frame carries quite nicely on the hip.

While it is standard practice to assume that with revolvers every inch is worth about 25fps it is not at all uncommon for a shorter barrel to shoot faster than a longer one. With so many deciding factors, there's really no safe way to assume either way. I find that the shorter barrels shoot more comfortably with full house loads in single actions but for double actions, the reverse is true.

The "L" frame was barely adequate for the .44Spl in the 696. No way there's enough beef for the magnumized version.