Help me decide which .44mag should be my next

[bczrx]

I currently have a 629-4 classic PowerPort 6.5" and a SuperRedHawk 7.5" barrel in .44mag. I've got the daily fire and super heavy rounds covered.

I was thinking of 'one more' .44mag though. This one would be for concealed carry when hiking or camping. I am really more concerned with 2 legged predators than 4, but want to cover all the bases. I am in black bear country, with mountain lions and coyotes. I visit relatives and hike in brown bear country, and there may be something bigger out there in Idaho where my folks live.

I have listed the three options that appeal the most to me so far, but wanted to gauge the public's opinion of them, so please vote and explain your vote.

Keep in mind that I do not like the idea of owning a firearm that I don't feel comfortable practicing with, but I also want to be able to use very stout buffalo-bore type rounds through it.

Assume, for the purposes of this comparison, that they all cost the same new.


Update: 12/17/2020

I went other routes, as my hiking diminished. Eventually, I got a 5.5" Super Blackhawk, and I sold my 629.

I am in California, so any gun not on our 'list' I have to buy F2F within the state. That is limiting. Unless it is a SA revolver, then I can get what I want from wherever [shipped to my FFL, of course].

IF I ever return to this consideration, I will get a 4" 44mag from Ruger in a DA/SA configuration.

I don't want to cut down my 7.5" Super Redhawk. I know I will use it more than a 4" barreled .44mag at the range, so why give up what I love.

The 5.5" SBH is nice, but rolls in the hand [as it is designed to] and requires a thumb-cock each time: not good for bear defense.

Yet, I now know what that shorter barrel feels like.

Nothing less than 4" for me.

Thanks for all the tips, everyone!

 

[Dump1567]

I voted for a 4" 29 (just bought one), but it's really going to come down to how much weight you want to hump vs. how much shooting you'll do with it. If your only going to shoot it occasionally with light rounds, I'd go 329.

I've read threads from guys who are in Alaska who pack 329's. It's all about weight for them (especially when your packing other gear).

 

[2hawk]

No offense, but none of the above...

Would be my first choice. If you're willing to pack the weight of the Alaskan, then I'd suggest a short tube S&W, non-alloy frame. Sort like:

629-5

or a 629-3

or a 29-4

Just my choices, but I haven't found fault with them.

ETA what I can't show you, but wish I could, would be a Mountain Gun or one of the Hiker models (I think that's what is was, 3" tube with fluted cylinder, 1/2 lug, and longer ejection rod). I am still waiting for that magic confluence of a reasonably priced example happening along at the same time as my having available funds.

 

[2hawk]

You also may be interested in a S&W Trail Boss- I see that there's a few available on the auction sites.

 

[NE450No2]

You also may be interested in a S&W Trail Boss- I see that there's a few available on the auction sites.

I would recommend the S&W Mountain Gun. It is lighter than a regular 4" but still easy to shoot with full power loads, much more so than the 329.

 

[Nemo288]

4" 629 in any flavor that is all steel.

Mine is a 1989 Mountain Revolver with MagNaPorts and the .500
grips. Shoots great with full house rounds. 27 grains of 296 with a 200 grain Hornady
XTP bullet. Shoots even better with Skeeter type loads.

Another choice would be a 4" 624 but those are getting scarce.

My other Mags are a 6" 629 and a 7.5" Redhawk. As you said these take care of the heavy
assignments like deer hunting. I am looking for the smaller mag to take care of bears at the
old homestead in N. Wisconsin where they have been leaving poop piles on the back porch.
The fishing is great as the Jump River also flows thru the back yard. It is that kind of situation
where the mountain gun comes into it's own. Hiking in the mountains also comes to mind.

---
Nemo

 

[Tyrod]

Without reading any of the comments or pre visualizing the votes, I thinks it's a foregone conclusion that folks at a S&W forum are gonna favor the S&Ws. Especially since you offer 2 choices in that brand.

However, having said that, I would pick the model 29 with 4" bbl. For these reasons: 1. The Ruger Super Redhawk is a great gun. I have one with a 7.5" bbl and I love it. But, I think the muzzle blast out of such a short barrel would be horrendous. Also, for concealabilty, barrel length is less of a concern than the grip frame. 2. The 329 is too light, period. The lightness and the muzzle blast would be issues for me concerning follow-up shots. I would have to practice with either on a regular basis to overcome flinches and such. I can't image either the snub nose Ruger or the lightweight 329 would be pleasant to shoot. You already have a Model 29 of sorts and know exactly what to expect.

Were it me in your place, since I don't handgun hunt anymore, I might consider cutting the barrel down on the Super Redhawk I already have. I'd bob the ramp on the front sight and just relocate towards the barrel shroud. Something around 4 to 4.5 inches would be fine for me. Since the rest of the gun is dimensionally the same as the Alaskan, I'd end up with an Alaskan with a lil bit longer barrel. And of course ugly scope mount cuts.

But that's just me, I've always been known to be a square peg in a round hole.

P.S. Concerning the scope mount cuts. I imagine there are some low power scopes that would be shorter than the eventual length of my imaginary barrel, thus the gun would still be an acceptabe hunter.

 

[Jitterbug]

If you get up in the Panhandle or anywhere near Yellowstone there is a very good possibility of being in Grizz country, not to mention Moose. At least two Grizz attacks up in the Panhandle I’m aware of this year, and just outside of Yellowstone it’s crawling with bears, lots of them and they are fanning out and spreading their territory at a good rate.

You mentioned being able to handle the stout B.B. ammo, this would rule out the Smiths, especially the light weight 329. Unless you use their Low recoil rounds which is a 255 gr. H.C. that runs in the 1200 fps range in a 4" Smith, nothing "low recoil" about it, it's a stout load, but comparably speaking to some of the other stuff they load that is Ruger only it is low recoil. It’s not a lightweight however and would probably prove good bear protection if needed…as good as it gets in a handy handgun.

Another factory load that I've seen recommended is a 300 gr. Federal Cast Core, it's rated somewhere in the 1100 fps from a 4” gun IIRC. And Garret has a 300 grainer advertised at 1040 fps or so in a 4” gun, which is probably what the Federal load does in the real world.

I consider 4” the least amount of barrel plausible in a .44 Mag, anything shorter and you’re loosing too much velocity. The little Alaskan in .454 will make up for that but at the cost of .454 blast and recoil.

I faced the same dilemma, and went with a new 4" 629-6, I hand load and currently I'm running a 260 gr. WFNGC at 1200 fps, a 280 gr. WFNGC at 1150 fps and a 250 gr. Keith in the 1225-1250 fps range. The 250 gr. Keith at 1250 fps has the most “snap” to it.

I still tweaking those loads but the 280 gr. WFNGC in the 1150-1200 fps range is probably going to by Northern Rockies woods load. I think it's about as good as it gets in a 4" Smith and Wesson. They are manageable and with limited use shouldn't wear out the gun, if they do, I’ll just get it fixed.

I was shooting anywhere up to 48+ rounds per session during load and accuracy development.

I'm getting old and I value the bones and tendons in my hand so I've since cut back to 12-24 rounds of the heavy stuff for these testing sessions.

Younger, stouter guys then I are ok with the 329, and I could handle it too, but I certainly wouldn't be shooting more then the occasional cylinder full with the heavy loads to check zero and maintain familiarity.

I want to be able to shoot a bit so that convinced me to go the 629/29 route over the 329, if I could afford both, I probably would have the 329 using the 629 as a shooter and the 329 as my carry gun.

I can load practice rounds in the 900-1100 fps range making the 629 a nice all day shooter, and loads in this range would make the 329 more manageable, but for range work the steel 29/629 would still be the better gun.

For factory loads you could either go .44 Special or maybe find some specialty .44 Mags loaded to .44 Special specs for practice/range ammo.

The 4" 629, carries nicely in a Simply Rugged Pancake with a good 1.5” gun belt. I'm good for 4 or so hours with it on my hip, then it starts getting a bit uncomfortable, however if Moose or Grizz are in the vicinity then it's still comforting and well worth a little discomfort, I could carry/hike all day with it if necessary and I’m looking into a shoulder holster as a carry possibility too. Galco has one as does Andrews Leather.

I'm a small guy just south of 60, so take that into consideration, back when I was a kid in my 40’s and early 50's I doubt if the recoil or weight would have been much of a bother.

It’s often wet up there in the Panhandle of Idaho, so I’d take that into consideration the Blue 29 looks nice but the 629 will give you better outdoor wear in my opinion.

If you can handle the weight and size, personally I think the Ruger 5.5” Redhawk is about as good as it gets for a “woods belt gun” either .44 Mag or .45 Colt, this would allow you to shoot the heavy 325-350 gr loads running in the 1300 fps range.

I’m just a hiker, fisherman and occasional hunter faced with the same Bear/Moose dilemma up North, and these are my conclusions and what works for me, hope it helps.

Pepper spray is part of the kit, but the handy gun on my hip is a given.

 

[dla]

I currently have a 629-4 classic PowerPort 6.5" and a SuperRedHawk 7.5" barrel in .44mag. I've got the daily fire and super heavy rounds covered.

I was thinking of 'one more' .44mag though. This one would be for concealed carry when hiking or camping. I am really more concerned with 2 legged predators than 4, but want to cover all the bases. I am in black bear country, with mountain lions and coyotes. I visit relatives and hike in brown bear country, and there may be something bigger out there in Idaho where my folks live.

I have listed the three options that appeal the most to me so far, but wanted to gauge the public's opinion of them, so please vote and explain your vote.

Keep in mind that I do not like the idea of owning a firearm that I don't feel comfortable practicing with, but I also want to be able to use very stout buffalo-bore type rounds through it.

Assume, for the purposes of this comparison, that they all cost the same new.

Your post doesn't make sense.

You are worried about tw0-legged predators and black bears, but you want to shoot BB high-end loads? You want something to carry but you are worried about the "comfort" of practicing with it?

Why don't you just get a big can of bear spray and write "44 MAGNUM" on the side of it?

 

[Neumann]

My vote would be for a 3" or 4" barrel with a steel frame. I have a 4" "Mountain Gun" which weighs about 32 oz dripping wet. A 3" with a full lug weighs about the same. The 329 is just too light at 26 oz (feels like a toy) to make you want to practice enough to shoot .44 magnum well. The Mountain Gun stings a bit, but I'm OK for 50 rounds or more in a session (My adult son thinks otherwise, and goes for the 4" .357.)

A short barrel is easier to carry and much easier to get into action than even a 6" revolver. The short sight radius has no significant impact on accuracy at self-defense range (or longer, q.v., Hickok45 shooting a gong at 80 yards with a 3" S&W).

 

[arjay]

I carry a 4 inch anaconda loaded with 305 gr corbons when fishing near yellowstone.It's very accurate,stainless doesn't wear like blue,prices continue to climb and you'll have another brand.

 

[NE450No2]

Jitterbug, just wrote an Excellent Post.

The onluy things I would have said different, is I just cannot go with a Ruger DA, I am a Smith kind of guy, and you might try the Galco or the Bianchi cross draw holster for carrying the 44 Mag.

The nice thing about a cross draw is that you an get to it sitting down, or ridding on a horse, ATV, show mobile, ets.

You also might be able to get to it if you are knocked down by man or beast.

Most actual animal attacks I am aware of, some of them filmed, when a person is knocked donw by an animal the trend is to roll over on yhour back and use your feet to fend off the animal. With a cross draw holster you might be able to access your gun...

Also when in a tent in bear country, black or brown, I wear my 44 Mag whild in the sleeping bag. If I am attacked in my sleep, I might be able to get to my gun IF I have it on. If it is just near me in the tent, most likely I will never find it...

Same thing applies to 2 legged varmints...

I do not carry cross draw concealed, just when in the field, so you need to train with both holsters for sure.

Also as Jitterbug stated, the Federal Cast Core 300gr 44 Mag ammo has the least recoil of the "bear loads". They kick less tha n the BB Low Recoil load or the standard 240gr jacketed factory 44 Mag loads.

Randy Garrett himself, told me that that 300gr Federal Cast Core was good bear ammo. It will not penetrate as good as his S&W safe 44 Mag load, but it is good stuff.

 

[dla]

My vote would be for a 3" or 4" barrel with a steel frame. I have a 4" "Mountain Gun" which weighs about 32 oz dripping wet. A 3" with a full lug weighs about the same. The 329 is just too light at 26 oz (feels like a toy) to make you want to practice enough to shoot .44 magnum well. The Mountain Gun stings a bit, but I'm OK for 50 rounds or more in a session (My adult son thinks otherwise, and goes for the 4" .357.)

A short barrel is easier to carry and much easier to get into action than even a 6" revolver. The short sight radius has no significant impact on accuracy at self-defense range (or longer, q.v., Hickok45 shooting a gong at 80 yards with a 3" S&W).

Mt. Guns are 41oz last I checked. The 329 is light enough that you will actually have it with you.

Most big bore revolvers get "carried" from the safe to the truck to the range and back. And that's about it.

 

[scooter123]

I voted for the 4 inch model 29. IMO a 4 inch barrel is the most versatile barrel length you can have in a revolver, it's long enough that the velocity is adequate, balances quite well, and carries well. Finally, I think the 4 inch model 29 or 27 are damned good looking revolvers.

Can't vote for the 329, IMO it's just too light for the caliber and the muzzle blast with a Magnum will be deafening. However, that extreme loudness may act to drive a bear away even if you miss, just make sure you have some electronic hearing protection on or you'll spend the rest of your life using hearing aids.

 

[stmry]

I voted for the SRH. The other are fine choices without perhaps the -6 model 629, only because of the lock.
I have the Ruger in 454 Casull, although the large majority of my collection are Smiths. The Rugers are built extremely tough and the workmanship is excellent.
Have fun choosing.

 

[TheGerk]

My advice is from a slightly different direction.
If the 44 Magnum is the ONLY option, then stay with the 4” or longer barreled guns.
The 44 Magnum while powerful, is not as efficient as more powerful calibers in short barreled guns.
With a barrel of 4” or less in 44 REM Mag, even with the heaviest “Mongo Loads” from the boutique ammo makers you will be lucky to deliver more than around ~ 750 ft.-lbs. of muzzle energy.
Sure you will still have all that recoil and muzzle blast, just not the energy you think you may have at your disposal.

If size is an issue I would recommend the Alaskan, but ONLY in 454 Casull
Here, because of the higher operating pressure, the massive loss in muzzle energy is reduced considerably in the shorter sub 4” gun.

I have a battery of guns in both calibers (Including the Alaskan in 454) and I Handload everything.
The chronograph doesn’t lie, in the short tubed Alaskan I have chronographed 300 grainers at over 1300fps with the cases stuffed full of H110
This develops muzzle energies approaching 1200 ft.-lbs.
I love my 44 Magnum guns, but they will come nowhere close to this in short tubed guns.
With any bullet or loading.

You would also have the option of staging loads in the cylinder
Maybe a couple of (+P) 45 Colt loads in the first two chambers for the 2 leg deterrent and then follow up with the full tilt 454 loadings.
There are many options here.

If you are “locked” into the 44 Magnum as the only choice, consider longer barrel length as a way to get more killing power out of the cartridge for dangerous encounters with animals that present harm to you.
If carry or pack weight is a concern, manage the “total carry load” different like packing a lighter flashlight, knife, food (pack dehydrated) to compensate for the heavier gun.
Besides, if things do go south on the trail, situational awareness and taking deliberate action will be more of the deciding factors in your success than any amount of barrel length.
Good Luck

 

[Jitterbug]

Gerk

The Alaskan in .454 is an intriguing package and offers obvious versatility to a reloader.

I know it's a difficult question to answer especially since how each individual handles recoil is somewhat subjective, but how would you compare the handling characteristics of a 4" 629 running a 300 grain bullet at 1000-1100 fps to an Alaskan running the 300 grainer at 1300?

Is it huge? Like a night verses day type of thing? What about flash, especially in a low light situation?

Any insight you can provide would be appreciated.

 

[dla]

My advice is from a slightly different direction.
If the 44 Magnum is the ONLY option, then stay with the 4” or longer barreled guns.
The 44 Magnum while powerful, is not as efficient as more powerful calibers in short barreled guns.
With a barrel of 4” or less in 44 REM Mag, even with the heaviest “Mongo Loads” from the boutique ammo makers you will be lucky to deliver more than around ~ 750 ft.-lbs. of muzzle energy.
Sure you will still have all that recoil and muzzle blast, just not the energy you think you may have at your disposal.

If size is an issue I would recommend the Alaskan, but ONLY in 454 Casull
Here, because of the higher operating pressure, the massive loss in muzzle energy is reduced considerably in the shorter sub 4” gun.

I have a battery of guns in both calibers (Including the Alaskan in 454) and I Handload everything.
The chronograph doesn’t lie, in the short tubed Alaskan I have chronographed 300 grainers at over 1300fps with the cases stuffed full of H110
This develops muzzle energies approaching 1200 ft.-lbs.
I love my 44 Magnum guns, but they will come nowhere close to this in short tubed guns.
With any bullet or loading.

You would also have the option of staging loads in the cylinder
Maybe a couple of (+P) 45 Colt loads in the first two chambers for the 2 leg deterrent and then follow up with the full tilt 454 loadings.
There are many options here.

If you are “locked” into the 44 Magnum as the only choice, consider longer barrel length as a way to get more killing power out of the cartridge for dangerous encounters with animals that present harm to you.
If carry or pack weight is a concern, manage the “total carry load” different like packing a lighter flashlight, knife, food (pack dehydrated) to compensate for the heavier gun.
Besides, if things do go south on the trail, situational awareness and taking deliberate action will be more of the deciding factors in your success than any amount of barrel length.
Good Luck

You are absolutely correct about the cartridge choice. You are kind of correct about weight management. And I mean this in the kindest possible way Since you are spot-on about the cartridge rationale, I'll focus on the weight management.

The Alaskan is physically large and it is heavy (43oz empty). The 2.5" barrel is short, but everything else about the revolver is S&W N-Frame on steroids. It is a big freaking revolver.

I can push a 300gr pill to 1100fps (800ft/lbs) from my 329pd without much effort. You can push a 300gr pill to 1300fps (1100ft/lbs) with your Alaskan. What does that 200fps mean? We both know that 1100 ft/lbs doesn't mean squat, since a lowly 30-30 will deliver 1700 ft/lbs, or a 12ga 1oz slug @1600fps will get us 2500 ft/lbs.

The reality is that handguns are woefully under-powered and should be viewed as "better than a sharp stick" because they are with you and not back home in the safe. But given the loaded weight difference (32oz versus 49oz), my bet is that the 329pd is much nicer to have "with you".

Violent Bear encounters are very rare, but eating and sleeping are not. How much weight should somebody sacrifice in the common areas for the statistically insignificant chance of a violent bear encounter? When you are on the trail, the miles force people to examine what they are carrying and why. And to be honest, very few people live & play next to coastal Alaskan bears.

Regarding recoil: A 300gr @1100fps in the 329pd generates 29ft/lbs of recoil versus 28ft/lbs for the Alaskan pushing a 300gr to 1300fps.

I think the Alaskan is the best packing solution that Ruger has, but I solidly believe that the 329pd is the best packing solution overall.

 

[celticfisherman]

Why is there more discussion if a 29 in 4" is available??? I'm thinking you might just need to send that one to me if you'd be happy with the rest!!!

 

[CWH44300]

The choice is easy 329 packing deluxe.