I think .44 is a great round for a field/hunting revolver and I was wondering what you guys believe the best barrel length is for .44? I'm always going back and forth between 6" for compactness/weight and 8" for that extra bit of oomph. What do you all think about the idea?
What's the best barrel length for .44 magnum?
- Thread starter hifi
- Start date
- Status
birddog
Member
I like my 6" Taurus M-44. Plenty of oomph for a 200 pound whitetail buck last year.
I also like my 4" S&W 629 for compactness of carry. (Primarily used for backup weapon when bear hunting.)
An 8" would be a big critter, and a little more difficult to carry, but would be a good choice for hunting, I'm sure.
I also like my 4" S&W 629 for compactness of carry. (Primarily used for backup weapon when bear hunting.)
An 8" would be a big critter, and a little more difficult to carry, but would be a good choice for hunting, I'm sure.
P95Carry
Moderator Emeritus
Best?? No real best IMO - it depends on useage. Certainly for carry, defence and portability a 4" will do good.
To gain a bit more and have better sight base then maybe the near ideal is 6" - can't really go wrong with that.
I do tho love long tubes and so for more of a hunting deal then, I like my SRH with 9 1/2" barrel - plus that extra barrel length and weight all improves the control aspect. If you like long - go long!
To gain a bit more and have better sight base then maybe the near ideal is 6" - can't really go wrong with that.
I do tho love long tubes and so for more of a hunting deal then, I like my SRH with 9 1/2" barrel - plus that extra barrel length and weight all improves the control aspect. If you like long - go long!
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
I'd like a five-inch barrel.
That said™, I was shopping for a pre-agreement model 629 with a four-inch barrel when I found a three-incher that's turned out to be both handy and accurate.
I'd still like a five-inch barrel.
That said™, I was shopping for a pre-agreement model 629 with a four-inch barrel when I found a three-incher that's turned out to be both handy and accurate.
I'd still like a five-inch barrel.
I've got S&W Performance Center revolvers with 6, 7.5, 8 3/8 and 12 inch barrels. All are accurate but as barrel length increases on target consistency increases. Also the longer barrels seem to be more forgiving about minor sighting problems.
I'd recommend buying the longest barrel length that you are comfortable with.
CDNN was selling 12 inch Taurus revolvers at a very good price. Those are accurate and inexpensive guns.
I'd recommend buying the longest barrel length that you are comfortable with.
CDNN was selling 12 inch Taurus revolvers at a very good price. Those are accurate and inexpensive guns.
Stainz
Member
I like my 629MG with it's proper-looking (... to me) partial lug under a tapered tube. The 4" is a valuable length, able to be pointed quickly and be accurate to quite a distance. An upgrade would be to the 6" half lug, a version definitely on my 'short list'. Of course, it would be better for precision distance shooting due to the longer sight axis. Still, if I could have but one .44 Magnum, it'd be that 4" 629MG - and a set of the X-frame/.500 Magnum Hogue grips - they help the recoil tremendously.
Now, for a handheld rifle, go with a Super Redhawk with it's included rings for your handgun scope. Not a multi-use firearm, but very good for it's designed role.
Stainz
Now, for a handheld rifle, go with a Super Redhawk with it's included rings for your handgun scope. Not a multi-use firearm, but very good for it's designed role.
Stainz
Yooper
Member
It's pretty hard to go wrong with the 6" barrel length for a general use field gun. The 4" carries better under a variety of conditions but the tradeoff is velocity and sighting plane for hunting purposes. I've never carried the 8" version, but it may "get in the way" under certain field conditions. For what it's worth, I've seen about a 100 fps velocity loss from a 6 1/2" barrel to a 4", which translates to about a 25 yard difference in velocity over distance. It may be something to consider at normal handgun ranges.
Brian Williams
Moderator Emeritus
5", one of the original batch sent to H&H sporting goods(H something company) in '56
or in a Marlin 1894 16.5"
or in a Marlin 1894 16.5"
I loved my 9 1/4" Ruger Super Redhawk, but it was strictly for hunting and target shooting. Ruger makes the same gun in a 7 1/2" barrel. It might be a little better proportioned than the longer one.
As I'm sure you're aware, the longer the sight plane, the easier it is to shoot accurately with open sights. If you plant to use a scope, I'm not sure the extra length buys you much.
If it's strictly for field/hunting use - go big!
As I'm sure you're aware, the longer the sight plane, the easier it is to shoot accurately with open sights. If you plant to use a scope, I'm not sure the extra length buys you much.
If it's strictly for field/hunting use - go big!
Archie
Member
My subjective view...
The S&W 29 is handiest at 4", but with a proper holster, the 6" version works well. I did have an 8 3/8" at one time; shot well but impossible to carry conveniently.
I've handled and shot Ruger SB's in the 7.5" version. I owned one in the 5.5" barrel version and vastly prefer it. Just flat easier to carry (holster) and use.
I've done all my best work with short barrels. That's probably more information than you wanted....
The S&W 29 is handiest at 4", but with a proper holster, the 6" version works well. I did have an 8 3/8" at one time; shot well but impossible to carry conveniently.
I've handled and shot Ruger SB's in the 7.5" version. I owned one in the 5.5" barrel version and vastly prefer it. Just flat easier to carry (holster) and use.
I've done all my best work with short barrels. That's probably more information than you wanted....
Marshall
Member
What's best? I don't know? But, for hunting as you described, I sure enjoy my 7 1/2" Redhawk and SRH. Not too long, not too short, just perfect for the shot. For actual carrying in the woods, I prefer a shorter barrel obviously but, I wouldn't want a shorter one to actually be shooting deer with, for example.
Working Man
Member
I'm with Marshall, I have a 7 1/2" Redhawk as well and think it's just right.
I carry it to the side and a little back in a full cover hip holster (no scope).
I carry it to the side and a little back in a full cover hip holster (no scope).
testar77
Member
7 1/2" Ruger SuperBlackhawk Bisley
LOVE IT! for hunting, great accuracy, great knockdown (and I couldn't imagine shooting the loads that we do on anything shorter
). However if you are looking for something to carry and hunt with compromise with a 6"!. Good luck with your descision
LOVE IT! for hunting, great accuracy, great knockdown (and I couldn't imagine shooting the loads that we do on anything shorter
). However if you are looking for something to carry and hunt with compromise with a 6"!. Good luck with your descision kennedy
Member
how about a 4in colt anaconda? rare, but a hoot to shoot.
Sharps Shooter
Member
It depends on your primary use. I carry either a 5" .44 629 or a 5 1/2 " .45 Redhawk while backpacking, but I'm not hunting then. I have cleanly taken mule deer with a 7 1/2" Super Blackhawk at less than 50 yards. For hunting, the 8" you mentioned would provide a longer sight radius and like you said - a little more oomph. Though at handgun hunting ranges, I doubt the differences between the 6" and the 8" would amount to much.
I prefer the 4" guns. My 6" stays home most of the time, the 4" gun goes all the time. I'm looking for a 4" barrel for the 6" gun.
Anyone want to trade my 6 1/2" lugged 629 Classic barrel (part only)for a 4" blued barrel? Or a regular 6" non-lugged barrel? Or a Mountain gun barrel blued or stainless?
I seriously doubt if any animal shot with either 4" or 6" guns could tell the difference, or the shooter for that matter. Range capabilty is more an issue of shooter than exact velocity.
Anyone want to trade my 6 1/2" lugged 629 Classic barrel (part only)for a 4" blued barrel? Or a regular 6" non-lugged barrel? Or a Mountain gun barrel blued or stainless?
I seriously doubt if any animal shot with either 4" or 6" guns could tell the difference, or the shooter for that matter. Range capabilty is more an issue of shooter than exact velocity.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
