Plz help me decide which .44 mag to purchase

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

ph21

Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
14
Location
Alaska
Smith and Wesson M629 Comped Hunter
th_38001_170133_122_146lo.jpg "] th_38001_170133_122_146lo.jpg [/URL]

Ruger Alaskan
th_38002_super_redhawk_alaskan_44_mag_122_385lo.jpg

Smith and Wesson 629 4 inch
th_38004_SW_Model_29_122_511lo.jpg

Any of you have a preference or experience with these three revolvers? I own a 642 and a Glock 23, but they are not big enough for the Alaska bush. I have wanted a .44 for quite some time and have narrowed it down to these three revolvers. My first preference is quality, then cosmetics, and finally price. These three revolvers are fairly close is price. + or - $100 if I find the right deal. I want to keep it under 4 inch barrel. I am not a fan of long barrels. I prefer a barrel around 2.5 inches. No need to talk me out of a .44 mag. It is plenty big for what I want. I will reload this caliber in the future and will purchase a .44 lever action riffle to go along with it. I just keep going back and forth on which one to go with. I really like the S&W 629 performance center .44 the best. Ruger Alaskan second, and the regular S&W 629 4 inch third. I am actually not to fond of the 4 inch 629 looks. But, again I want quality first.

I am looking for your experience, feedback, and preferences. These three revolvers are high priced. Cost does matter to me. Which of these three would you choose or would you go with something completely different?

Thanks guys. This is a fantastic forum!
 
For Alaska AND for reloading-you need heavy bullets and heavy loads. RUGER is the ONLY way to go! The S&W's are wonderful but they can not stand the steady diet of heavy loads you need for your purposes. My opinion.
 
If you are going to be reloading and or shooting the heavier loads, Ruger isn't the only option. There is also the Dan Wesson line of revolvers. They are just as strong as the Rugers but have a much better trigger, and are arguably MORE accurate than either the S&W or the Rugers. They have been used in silhouette matches for years and dominated the sport in the early eighties. Not trying to influence your decision, much... I've shot all of the three offerings discussed here and I enjoy the Dan Wessons the most.
 
That is good reasoning. I will consider it. I suppose I could find it cheaper than the other three. I would probably put different grips on it though.
 
What grips do you recommend? I've got one of these (in .45 Colt). I really wanted the 5.5 inch barrel, but settled for the 4. I've not shot it with "Ruger only" loads yet, and suspect that exposed backstrap will not be my friend.
 
My buddy has a 454 super rh and I have a 44 super rh. They both have the stock older style rubber around rosewood grips. We have reloaded and shot these guns heavily in the past and we like the grips just fine. The guns are built like tanks and are very accurate. The price you pay is weight. I also have 2 DW 357 revolvers, and yes the triggers are much better than the Rugers, but then again I am comparing apples to oranges......The DW's are almost too light in sa!:D Hard to beat a Ruger if you reload.
 
My thought would be the Performance Center Smith, mainly for the investment. It will get the job done, and probably appreciate better than the others.

I have the 629 4 inch, and I am fond of it. Sits in the mini-vault, loaded with HP specials, and crimson trace laser.
 
if quality is your top priority then you want the ruger, their guns are much better built than smith and wessons.

one question for you though, why would you want a .44 mag but then also want a short barrel? if you want the gun for self defense the .357 mag would be a much more effective choice, it's more effective at stopping a man and the guns are smaller and thus more concealable. if you want it for hunting or for target shooting you are going to need the longer barrel, for hunting because the velocity of the .44 out of such a short barrel will not be very effective and for target shooting obviously because it's not going to be very accurate.
 
I traded in my 629, which was an excellent gun, on TWO Ruger Alaskans. I've taken delivery of the first one, and I am still waiting for the second one to come in. The 629 had a long barrel, and while it carried well, it was a still a heavy hogleg to tote around. The Alaskan is very nice. Its lighter, and carries very nice. By the way, the second one is for my son's 28th birthday in February!
 
one question for you though, why would you want a .44 mag but then also want a short barrel? if you want the gun for self defense the .357 mag would be a much more effective choice, it's more effective at stopping a man and the guns are smaller and thus more concealable. if you want it for hunting or for target shooting you are going to need the longer barrel, for hunting because the velocity of the .44 out of such a short barrel will not be very effective and for target shooting obviously because it's not going to be very accurate.
Click to expand...

Self defense for grizzly, not humans. Although humans pose a greater threat. I have bear pepper spray which is my first line of defense. A handgun is last resort. I will buy a .357 some day. That is on my buy list but I want a .44 to carry in the mountains. I want big caliber, but nothing more than a .44. Bigger than a .44 to me in a revolver is silly.

Can a S&W handle Garrett and Buffalo Bore cartridges?

I really don't see myself selling it at a later date. When I buy something, I like to think I buy for life. That is why I choose quality first.
 
There sure are a lot of S&W 629s on Gun Broker, but I am certainly surprised there are no 4 inch Ruger Redhawks for sale. Either not many out there or people do not get rid of theirs!
 
4" Redhawks are hard to comeby. I lost an auction on one and had to "settle" for a 5.5". I say "settle" because it's still a great gun and I don't mind the extra barrel length.

Bear defense? Go for the Redhawk, either the 2" or 4" will do you fine. I'd avoid a Blackhawk only because in a panic I would forget to cock it.
 
if quality is your top priority then you want the ruger, their guns are much better built than smith and wessons.
Click to expand...
I own a Redhawk, an M-29, and a 629 Classic, and the above statement is exactly the opposite of the actual situation. :rolleyes:

S&Ws will be smoother with a better trigger than Rugers. The Smiths built since they introduced the "Endurance Package" in the late '80s will stand up to any sane load. It's unfortunate that these days they put that ugly wart on the side and the silly flag by the hammer, but a pre-lock S&W with the endurance package is a fine firearm.

Now, the Rugers are more massive and may be stronger, but they're not as slick - Redhawks in particular won't have a trigger that compares to a good S&W, and can't be made to equal the S&W. Still, if you're going to be shooting a lot of redlined loads, the Rugers make sense.

Note that short barrels on magnums both increase perceived recoil and substantially reduce velocity.

Getting back to which is built better . . . you might ask what's better, a Lexus or a dump truck? The Lexus will show better workmanship and be more pleasant to drive, but, well, sometimes you do want a dump truck. :neener:
 
HankB - Quote - "Now, the Rugers are more massive and may be stronger, but they're not as slick - Redhawks in particular won't have a trigger that compares to a good S&W, and can't be made to equal the S&W. Still, if you're going to be shooting a lot of redlined loads, the Rugers make sense."

I Disagree. I have both the Ruger RedHawk in .44 mag and a S&W. The trigger on my Ruger Redhawk is just as slick as any of my Smiths, or darn near close to it. Yes the Smith's overall have excellent triggers but the RedHawk also has a smooth as butter trigger. Maybe I got lucky and it's just my Redhawk with a smooth triggerdon't know.

Now as for my other Rugers SP101, etc., yes the Smith's triggers are superior.

Any other Redhawk owners have similar smooth triggers as mine does out of the box.
 
If a bear is running at you I seriously doubt that you'll have the presence of mind to enjoy the extra smoothness of the S&W trigger. But on the other hand if it is a little smoother than perhaps that all important first shot won't be pulled to one side so badly.

And if the gun will be used mostly for wilderness defense with only enough range time to get and stay proficient with it for the sort of shooting you'll do then a S&W will likely live for a full and honest life span. Especially if you get into reloading your own bush and practice rounds. For practice you can download somewhat to work on that first shot from the holster draw. Then for folow up practice load the full house loads and draw and shoot double, triple and on up to sextupal taps so you learn the right timing to get the follow up shots to hit close to the original shots.

Having said this the Ruger, being a touch heavier, will soak up the recoil a little better. In fact even better would be a Super Redhawk in .44Mag with a shortened barrel to around 4 to 4.5 inches. It's a little heavier to pack but it would do the job that little bit better when the SHTF.
 
I have Smiths and Rugers, all Rugers guns are tougher than Smiths exept for the Xframes. I have an Xframe 500 S&W 6.5" it has to be a tough gun to shoot the loads I shoot and it has the classic good factory Smith trigger. I have several Rugers with good factory triggers.
I have a SRH 480 9.5" that has a trigger better than my Smiths now but I did have trigger job done on it,but it is a fine shootin gun.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
44 Magnum old vs new
Replies
15
Views
2K
BobWright
BobWright
4
  • Locked
Why doesn't Ruger make a 44 mag with a 4" barrel?
Replies
8
Views
886
.45&TKD
4
M
  • Locked
Which .44 Mag do you own?
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
Byron Quick
B
Huntolive
  • Locked
Barrel length & Quality on Accuracy in 44 ma
Replies
8
Views
457
NeroM
NeroM
J
  • Locked
Which 44 magnum?
Replies
20
Views
1K
robsc
R
Back
Top