Tell me about 3-inch .44s

Status
Not open for further replies.
Legionnaire

Legionnaire

Contributing Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
8,642
Location
Texas
I've been on a revolver kick for a while now. I'm interested in the possibility of a .44 magnum revolver with a no-more-than three inch barrel that is fairly compact for field and possibly concealed carry. What options exist?

The four-inch Redhawk is still massive, as is the SRH Alaskan; I don't consider either "compact." I'm not that familiar with Smith & Wessons, but the Mountain Gun seems more slim, albeit with a four-inch barrel. I don't like internal locks. I wish Ruger would offer a three-inch, five-shot .44 built on the GP100 frame.

Anyway, that's what I'm interested in. Input welcome.
 
The gun at the top is a S&W Model 24 3", and is the same size as that offered in .44 Magnum. Probably your best bet for a compact, reasonable weight .44 Magnum. This is a later production gun, with a square butt. You may still find a new one in blue or nickle, but they were recently discontinued.
DSC05240.jpg
[/IMG]
 
I don't think "compact" and 44 mag go together very well. If a 44 mag is small enough and light enough to be considered compact recoil is a bear with full house loads and in a three inch barrel muzzle blast is ridiculous as well. To make something reasonable out of it you need to load it down to 44 special levels but then what is the point of having a 44 mag? Just a thought, some people seem to like light 44's so your mileage may vary.
 
...man, those Smiths look good!!!!! After years, I got a NIB 696...the stainless 3" .44Spl. Smith...but it's still NIB...I just don't like adj. sights, and I replaced it with a Taurus 431 3" stainless before I sold it...years ago, I had the Charters...3 times...don't want another...but I'd buy that Smith 6-shot or another Taurus 431 in a heartbeat...love that .44 Spl...
 
I agree wholeheartedly on the comments about the practicality of it.
Maybe you'll never have to shoot it, 'cause 44 mag. in that package will be a punisher.

That S&W 629 sure looks cool.
Almost a grand for it before you buy ammo and leather
http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/products_id/53546

If I were spending that kind of money on a "stylish" carry-revolver, the Smith would sure be high on my list.

The Charter Bulldog can get you into the .44 (Special) for a third of the cost of the Smith.
http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/products_id/48880
It aint as purdy though.
Don't like the "look" of the rubber grips so much, but probably help with "shootability."
 
Thanks for the input (keep it coming) ... those Smith's do look nice!

I've done a lot of .44 mag shooting, but always in larger guns. Smallest was a 4" Taurus M44, and that was manageable. Still have a couple of Rugers - 5.5" RH, and 5.5" SBH. I know a "compact" could be punishing to the shooter; expect I'd mostly carry spls for CCW, but would like the option of carrying mags when out in the woods. That Carry Comp looks like it has the profile I'm looking for.
 
There's a lot of speculation here about the practicality of that type of gun. But the fact of the matter is that it is an eminently practical gun and a real joy to shoot.

Legionnaire, with exactly your criteria in mind I went through this thought process several years ago. After trying a few, I settled on a 3" S&W 629. I learned about the earliest variant and fell in love with the looks. I've carried it occasionally for several years now and shot it a fair amount. With stout loads it handles little different than a 4" .44 magnum. Which is only logical - there just isn't that much difference. 50 or so fps and an ounce or two of steel on the end - that's about it. The 3" makes it much easier to carry for me, and overall it's a very balanced and pleasing looking package. I also think the recent Lew Horton specials like SharpsDressedMan has are an attractive option. They have the square butt and not round. I do have a 3.5" 27 like that, and it carries in the same leather as this gun. I also really like the nickel job S&W did on those models (like he has pictured). They were just a special run for 2007, but if you shop hard you can find one. Not many were made, only a few hundred I think.

1985 S&W 629-1:
IMGP5381.jpg
 
FWIW: I used to hate nickled guns, but I've changed my view. Although nickle can chip and flake, I think that may be the result of dropping, abuse, and neglect. I most notably have seen old Single Action Army revolvers with worn nickle finishes, and they are generally in better shape than the old, formerly blued guns. The nickle finish seemed to have preserved the SAA's better than the bluing ever did. I also have an obviously worn, nickled Colt Detective Special, and it is not chipping or peeling, and has a great patina and look. Just honest wear. So if all you find is a nickled .44 Magnum, and you originally wanted a blued gun, give it a second look.
 
I have a Smith & Wesson 629 .44 Mag "Trail Boss" similar to the one in the link below, except that mine has a fluted cylinder and also has porting on the barrel on either side of the sight. The porting really makes a HUGE difference in recoil - you would have to try it to believe it - it also causes a wall of flame to envelope the forward portion of the barrel when I shoot magnum loads!

Also, it is without a doubt the loudest thing on the range when I am shooting it - it has caused the shooters next to me to stop shooting and step back from the shooting line (To be polite, I no longer shoot it when the range is crowded or when shooters are in the lane next to me).

I find this to be a great range gun, but I think I would hesitate to shoot it in a self-defense situation (say, against an angry bear) due to the inevitable and permanent hearing damage that will result, due to the porting.

But, on the other hand, I have shot Corbon 305 grain flat-nose penetrator rounds (with a reported muzzle energy of just over 1000 ft-lbs) out of this revolver and there is no problem at all with the recoil, again, due to the porting.


http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/...selected=opti&isFirearm=Y&parent_category_rn=
 
Why anyone would want such a revolver in such a barrel length is beyond me, but they're good safe queens. If you shoot the gun, use a camera. A 3-inch .44 mag is easy on the eyes but lousy in bed.

To each his own.
 
I have a 3" .44 - here it is with a real .44 - a 4" 629:

IMG_3509.jpg

Oh sure, that's an L-frame 696 3" 5-shooter in .44 S&W Special - and not for Mr. Keith's level loads, either. It's fun with my wimpy .44 Russians to mediocre .44 Specials - it's dimunitive forcing cone limits it's use with hotter loads here. Now, the 629 doesn't mind the hotter loads.

Stainz
 
Here's mine, from the first run done by Lew Horton back in the 80s(?) a M29-3.

Firearms008Small.gif

I was enamored with the 44 Magnum at the time and got this to pair up with my 6 1/2 M29-2. I have since sold the -2 and found other cartridges I prefer. As to recoil, if you can handle a 44 Magnum, it really isn't bad. Muzzle blast is a bit much but the recoil is a bit less than you would expect.

S&W does make the lightest 44 Mag on the block. Even the steel models weigh considerably less than anything offered by Ruger or Colts.
 
Thanks, all. Oro, you're a couple years ahead of me. I think I favor stainless at this point. Like your setup a lot, but am intrigued by the fixed-sight Carry Comp variant; very like my three-inch GP100. Aardvark, I know what you mean about ported guns; I fired a T/C Contender with a muzzle break one time while hunting without ear protection and my ears rang for several days--fortunately, my Dr. reports no measurable hearing loss. I now wear Peltor Tac-7s any time I'm hunting with a handgun. I had a 4" Taurus M44 for a while, and sold it because of its ported barrel; It was a hoot to shoot at the range, but LOUD! So porting isn't for me.
 
Without getting into a barrel length debate, I really like my .44M Alaskan. I think if you can compare a S&W and an Alaskan side by side, you will be surprised how little difference in overall size there is. I also think the Alaskan handles better, at least to me, and I have both a S&w 629 Mountain Gun and a Ruger SRH Alaskan.
 
Let's compare the Ruger SRH Alaskan, KSRH-2, to the S&W 629, SKU #163603. The Ruger weighs 41 oz, is 7.62" long, and has an MSRP of $992, according to pg 74-5 of the Ruger 2010 catalog. The S&W 629 weighs 41.5 oz is 9.63" long and has an MSRP of $1,035, according to page 33 of the S&W 2009 catalog.

Of course, it isn't fair - the 629 is a standard production 4" 629, as in my earlier photo. Sub the PC Shop 3" '629 Carry Comp', SKU #170279. It weighs 38.0 oz, is 8" long, and is MSRP $1,311 - with fixed rear notch and adjustable dovetail front sight - and that 'loud' comp. I'll keep my 4", thank you!

Stainz
 
I find this to be a great range gun, but I think I would hesitate to shoot it in a self-defense situation (say, against an angry bear) due to the inevitable and permanent hearing damage that will result, due to the porting.
Click to expand...

I think it's important to understand that the risk of hearing damage from unmuffled firearms use is not "inevitable" or necessarily permanent. It is certianly a risk but depends upon the duration and repetition of exposure and level.

Almost all magnum handgun calibers run right at the same level regardless of barrel length or caliber, 162-165 dB. This compares to the mid 150's dB level for 45acp, 44 Special, and other sub-sonic rounds. Bear in mind the speed of sound for most shooting environments is about 1,075 fps +/-. So any magnum handgun running 1200 to 1500 fps is going to create pretty similar levels of sounds pressure. Despite the fact the dB scale is logarithmic, the damage is risk is only a small amount higher. My ears ring for days from even target .45acp rounds if I don't use protection. To put this in perspective, the difference between a .45acp and a .44 magnum is very similar to the difference in a .30-06 fired from a 24" barrel vs. a .30-06 fired from an 18" bbl. That isn't much difference at all.
 
Last edited:
I find this to be a great range gun, but I think I would hesitate to shoot it in a self-defense situation (say, against an angry bear) due to the inevitable and permanent hearing damage that will result, due to the porting.
Click to expand...
:scrutiny:

You would prefer the inevitable and permanent death damage that will result, due to the mauling, from said angry bear instead?

Personally, I would take walking around resigned to having to go "Huh? What? Eh?" a lot, rather than having those attending my funeral commenting: "Yeah, he's dead. But he had such wonderful hearing when he expired, didn't he?"

To each his own.....

:D
 
Giving this thread a kick ... in anticipation of delivery of a new (to me) three-inch 629-1. Looks a lot like yours, Oro. If you check in here, tell me about the leather in your pic. Thanks!
 
Post pics of yours when it gets here. That holster is a "Tanker" from El Paso Saddlery. It is very nice, pig-skin lined. You can option them out with different stampings. It is a pretty accurate, but higher-quality, copy of the US "M3" shoulder holster from WWII.
 
I had a 3" 657 .41 Mag, but did not care for it. I love my 3" 696. I just don't see needing a 3" .44 Mag, but different strokes.
 
The only two 3" .44's I own are a S&W M696-1 (36oz) and a Rossi 720 (30oz). I really like them both, but some Crimson Trace Hog Hunter laser grips combined with the 696's double action is sweet. Conversely, the Rossi 720 might be the world's greatest "pickup gun." Nobody cares if it gets a little beat up, but it works every time I pull the trigger.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

P
  • Locked
Plz help me decide which .44 mag to purchase
2 3
Replies
50
Views
4K
HankB
H
Zaydok Allen
  • Locked
Choosing a cartridge for a 3" cannon.
Replies
18
Views
1K
Macchina
Macchina
Confederate
  • Locked
.357 Choice, Part II
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
mike101
M
P
  • Locked
Shooting Times Reviews the Ruger .454 Alaskan SRH
Replies
4
Views
2K
41mag
4
G
  • Locked
Choices (past or present) for 3" .45 Colt revolver?
Replies
11
Views
683
jdmb03
J
Back
Top