I've been thinking about a woods carry .44 seriously for last year or so, spent a lot of time in forums here and everywhere and have come pretty close to buying both at one time or another, and eventually will probably own both. For now I need to decide know the other hoping some honest opinion s can tip me one way or another. I have read a lot in both these guns I'm most concerned about which is the better fit for my purpose (back woods bear/cougar/goat protection here in the pnw Washington state wilderness) as far as accuracy, followup shots, packability and durability as I will more than likely just stick to practicing with magnum loads.

Thanks in advance and as I read a lot on this forum about similar threads, sorry for repeat topics, but didn't see one exactly covering this and wanted to give another chance for other people to way in on the topic.

I don't see the point of a .44 mag with only a 2" barrel. Magnum loaded cartridges with slow burning powders loose too much velocity in short barrels-sort of defeats what your trying to achieve by going with a .44 mag.

Your not going to wear out a recent production Smith .44 mag .

The Ruger Alaskan with 2" probably weighs about the same as the 4" Smith while being bulkier, producing less velocity with magnum loads and less sight radius for accurate shooting. The Smith will also have a better trigger out of the box which will also make it easier to shoot accurately. Its really no contest IMO.

I would look at the 4" regular redhawk as competition for the 4" 629, not the Alaskan. I would still choose the Smith for a carry gun.

There may be a short barreled Super Blackhawk. I have a Stainless Super Blackhawk and it is a wonder. A four inch gun would be very nice, but I carry a 7.5" and in the 44 that is a blast. I would also look at a 454 if there was one available in a platform that is attractive. Buffalo Bore has 44 mag torqued up for super knock down, but not intended for Smith and Wesson--but check that out to be certain. I'm here in Oregon and carrying a stout 357 will cure most any problem in the woods. If you are spending a lot of time in grizzly country the 44 or 454 mag would be needed. Other wise, as you know, two footed predators are more likely to be a hazard than the big bears.

I am a Smith guy, but own one revolver that isn't a Smith. And it's a ruger Super Redhawk Alaskan in 44 mag. I bought it, because it is super Accurate at 10 yards, I can shoot ANY 44 mag load with it. Including Buffalo Bore. It is Sturdy and Stout, I can carry it, hell drop it on accident and it will do what it's intended to do. Take down Bears and Critters at short range. I carry it bowhunting and I personally love it.

I would say steer far and away from the Blackhawk because it's single action only and when there is a bear staring ya down. You want to point aim and keep pulling that trigger

Just my. 02 cents anyways.

__________________
Regards
James

No experience in bear country hear. But from a logical standpoint, you can't beat the smooth double action and handling of a 4 inch 629. I'm assuming that in this scenario double action would be most likely used.

Considering the overall bulk of a M29, the difference between a 2" tube versus a 4" tube is non-existent. Additionally, the reason for carrying a large magnum revolver for protection against dangerous animals is to maximize energy delivery. Thus a 4" barrel on a .44 Magnum would be the minimum I'd consider and in fact, the .44 Mag would be better served with a 5" barrel, but for some reason such lengths are not standardized.
You REALLY need to view some chronograph data that shows just how much a .44 Magnum loses with super-short barrels. Many people simply don't realize that the mighty .44 Mag becomes seriously neutered into the 700 lb-ft range with short barrels. At that point you'd be better served with a Glock model 20 10mm loaded with 220 grain hardcast at 700 lb-ft - 16 shots worth!

Also bear in mind that longer tubes "point" more accurately. A 6" M29 points VERY well...which tends to matter when an 800 lb bear is closing in on you. A 4" has low pointability and a 2" has no pointability unless your target is literally on top of you...at which point the neutered velocity will add to the uncertainty of outcome.

I can't see why anyone would want a 2" barrels on a large frame revolver. An additional couple inches of barrel add such a small percentage of size and weight to the big boys. It chops down your velocity and your sighting radius. If somebody gave me 6 of them I would start looking for 6 barrels of any longer length 4" or more. Some of the cool kids have them though. But, then I am a guy that would take a 3" model 36 every time over a 2".

I'm not sure how many goat attacks occur in the great state of Washington, but you do have to be ready!!

My outdoor carry gun when I lived in Alaska was a 4" 629 Mountain Gun in 44 Magnum. To be honest, it is not fun to shoot with full power loads. It was even dubbed the "Flinch-master" by one of my hunting buddies after he shot it the first time. Don't kid yourself, full power 44 Mag loads become a handful as guns get lighter & barrels get shorter. However, in big bear country it provides an acceptable last ditch level of protection against bitey-scratchy things and was light enough that I would always have it on my person.

With the burden of a full pack and rifle over trips lasting days, if my handgun were any bigger in size/weight it would likely get left at home. However, you have to stop reducing barrel length and weight to balance the recoil and shoot-ability. For me a four inch barrel hit that balance when chambered in 44 Mag.

Another thing to consider is caliber. Do you really need 44 Mag performance in Washington for protection or would a 357 Mag stop any attacking animals? Back to the size/weight issue, there are a lot of lighter carry options in 357 that will produce much less recoil and faster follow up shots. Less weight and less recoil are good attributes for a hiking/woods gun, it just has to be an adequate caliber for the level of protection expected. If you want a 44 Mag just to have one, we all understand that need too!

So in conclusion, if a 357 Magnum will not work for you my vote is a 629 with a 4" barrel.

Just some thoughts... You have to choose your goat protection wisely!

Edmo

__________________
TRUTH: Don't delete my posts!

Ballistics is a science, and it's a given fact that a 2" barrel will not perform with the same velocity as a longer barrel; however, the "pointability" factor cited by some is an opinion, not backed by science. Saying that a 4" barrel has "low pointability" and that a 2" barrel has "no pointability" is totally subjective. I train SD point shooting at up to 10 yards, using a thumbs forward grip. It works well with seimi-autos as well as revolvers. Ask yourself at what distance you plan to use a large caliber handgun to defend yourself against an attacking predator. Do you think you will get an accurate sight picture on a fast moving bear or mountain lion attacking you in brush? If you want longer distance accuracy, better carry a carbine or a shotgun loaded with slugs. If you carry a handgun for protection, train to point shoot at short range, and train to rapid fire until the threat is eliminated. Yeah, it takes practice. No, I've never had to do it in a real life situation, but I know when the SHTF, you won't be looking for a perfect sight alignment.

A 2" barrel is for concealed carry. It really doesn't serve you well out in the woods. I have a lot of experience with a Ruger Redhawk and I have grown to despise transfer bar ignition in a double action revolver. Ignition problems are difficult to diagnose and accessing the firing pin is a nightmare. I would stick with the S&W 629 with 4" barrel for woods carry. Bullet construction and shot placement are the key and I don't believe that you need the absolute heaviest and hottest load with most severe recoil to deal with a bear attack.

Dave Sinko

Out of those choices, I'd opt for the 4". I can shoot a 2 1/2" 357 about as well as a 4" 357 (both K frames) but I only carry the shorter model when I need to conceal it. Otherwise, I like the 4".

In the N frame 44 Mag, I bought a 5" Classic which spoiled me. It's a pussycat with heavy bullets and I wear it for Bear protection.

We don't have a big grizzly problem in Louisiana but I like to carry my 9.5" super red hawk anyway in case one got lost and wound up down here. It also makes a great club/marsh anchor/ and affirmation of my position as slayer of forest beasts. I like being the guy with the biggest one!

__________________
Forum consigliere

I have carried a 4" 29 as my "bear" gun since the late 70's.....I have a lot of trigger time with 44 mag's ranging from 2" revolvers to 14" TC's.....to me, the 4" is abt optimum for woods carry and as my "last stand" gun....During the past several decades I have hunted in big bear country...and seen some HUGE brown and Grizz's.......the 44 mag is a great round....and I think the 4" is abt as short as I would go for a woods/trail gun.....I have harvested a lot of game with the 44 mag, using a M-29 8 3/8" and the Super Blackhawk 7.5", but no bears.

Bullet construction and shot placement are exactly the key, that's why I really never jumped on the "big bullet" bandwagon along with most others. Granted, a shot at a charging bear, mountain lion or whatever else may not offer a prime shot placement area but I believe a HARDCAST 240 gr. LSWC can be very effective. That is what I load in my 4" Model 29 and 4 5/8" Super Blackhawk and feel adequately protected from what I may encounter. If ever charged by a bear, of any size, I may wish I had jumped on that wagon, but for now I'll stay where I am.

Actually just recently in 2010 this happened to a friend of my roomates. I have always been able to shoo them away in the olympics but I have noticed them getting more aggressive over the years, but I myself didn't think this was possible but it happened: Outdoors | Mountain goat kills man in Olympic National Park | Seattle Times Newspaper

As far as 357, I own a 649 that I am curretly using for woods protection with 180gr BB rounds, but want somthing that no doubt will do the job, for some reason the idea of holding that small J frame against something big and angry doesn't feel right.

Well thanks for all the advice, data, and opinions everyone on here, some really good points in reduced velocity in the 2" from the 4" and although I probably could counter that with some hotter loads, I think it makes more sence to go with the 4" for all the above reasons. I put my 4" 629 on hold this morning, probably be able to finish paying it off by next month, I cant wait and thanks again.

When I was in Alaska in the 70's, I carried an Automag which like an idiot I sold when I got back to the lower 48 because I needed the money for college. Them bears are big in Alaska!

Attached Images

Auto Mag.jpg (106.3 KB, 19 views)

A 4" 629 is as perfect an outdoors revolver as you're going to find.

__________________
I'm with the banned ...

When I made the decision on portability vs performance, weight, pointing properties, muzzle blast, etc. I came up with a 629 5".
JMHO/YMMV

4" 629 like this 629-4:

Sad to hear about the goat attack. I guess it is more dangerous out there than we think.

Who would of thought, killer goats!!

Edmo

__________________
TRUTH: Don't delete my posts!

You won't wear out a 29/629 with today's watered down, pitiful excuse for .44 mag factory ammo.
Now, Buffalo Bore .44 mag ammo is a different story.
It's loaded to actual .44 mag pressures.
Even their "light" .44 mag ammo is hotter than Fedremchester .44 mag ammo.
Factory .44 mag ammo is a joke these days.
240 grain at 1150-1250 fps?
That's not a magnum. That's a hot .44 Special.

No gun=killer goat.
Gun=barbecued goat.

__________________
What would Jim Cirillo do?

When I am out in the mountains, I carry a 6.5" 629 Classic. If I had to do it over again for a "woods" piece, I would likely look at a 4" barrel since it would be a bit easier to carry for that purpose. At this point I'm not going to sweat the extra 2.5" since after a couple of decades of shooting it I have gotten pretty used to it.

The article doesn't mention the fact that Billies/Bucks become aggressive during mating season, which is when this reported fatality happened (Oct.-Nov.) I have personally encountered aggressive Billies in the wild who have lowered and shook their heads, pawed the ground, and made short false charges. In each case, it was their mating season, and I just backed away. That was the end of the confrontation.

I assume that during mating season, the Billies are exhibiting territorial dominance towards anything that steps into their turf. My advice is just back away, and let them have their little corner of the world. I see them frequently in the central portion of the Black Hills where I live, and they are usually very docile and sometimes curious enough to allow people to approach within a few feet. They like to hang around roads in the winter and spring to get the salt left on the highway from winter road maintenance plows that spread de-icer on the roadways.

Groo here
A trail gun usually denotes plinking,defense and hunting missions
Is this what you have in mind????
If so, a 3 to 4 in or longer barrel with good sights will do you well.
If you are looking at real defense , things change...
The first thing is ,if you are attacked , shooting will be at very close range,
like FEET.
The most important things will be function,placement,penetration,and
diameter . in that order.
As Keith [hats off please] put a 245gr 44 through a deer at 600yds.
The same bullet at 6 ft should go just as deep.
The 45 colt was designed for cav and you stop cav by shooting the horse.
A 250gr bullet at 900fps is more than enough to get into the good stuff,
add a hard cast flat nose for best penetration and your good to go.
Any modern shell 357 or larger can match or best these specs,so
pick the one you can shoot well,one handed.at close range,fast and
feel confortable with AND WILL CARRY.
The rest is up to the Great Copilot.

Here is my Backpacker. At least that is what Smith calls it.

It's a 629 2.5 inch. Weighs a little less than than Ruger Alaskan, but otherwise similar.

It came with Hogues and I would put them back on if I was planning to shoot lots of full boat 44 Mag.

It's great gun and easier to shoot than it looks.

I think a lot depends on what you mean by a woods gun. If you are talking 1 or 2 mile walks from your house or a cabin, then that's one thing. You can carry a fairly heavy, larger handgun -- or perhaps even a long gun.

If you are talking carrying a heavy pack with a week's provisions, stove, tent, etc. and hiking 20 miles per day with 5000 ft elevation gain, then that's a whole different thing. That's where something light like a 329 comes into favor.

I used to do those long hikes and camped in winter on 10 feet of snow and zero degree weather.

But I'm older and wiser now (also out of shape) and my idea of winter camping is staying at the Ahwahnee Hotel in Yosemite.

I don t have a .44mag. I do have a 4"bbl 624 that I load hot if I need more oooph. My every day loads are 7 gr of Unique and a 240 gr LSWC. That is a light load and very easy recoil. A friend has the 5.5 " Ruger Blackhawk in .44mag. For whatever the reason, that gun kicks and moves in my hand in an unacceptable amount, even with my light .44 Special loads.

I hope to move to Washington someday (my son moved there just last Sept) and my thought to do as you are doing would be to get a Smith and Wesson .44 Mag with a 6" BBL and carry it in one of those handy chest rigs under a coat.

A 6" revolver is hard to carry and harder to extract quickly in a belt holster. You need a low ride western style or a cross chest "tanker" style holster. Neither are unreasonable if you can open carry, but concealment is mostly out of the question. For that, a 4" or shorter barrel is prescribed.

It's probably best to conceal where there are other people about, and open carry is not a normal practice. That would include most national parks and recreational areas. I use a 3" 629 for deep concealment in an IWB. A 4" carries better outside the waistband, but needs a thumb-length jacket for reliable concealment.

1100 fps with a 240 grain hard cast bullet from a 3" barrel is hardly a "souped up" .44 special (typically 750 fps), unless you are thinking like Elmer Keith. Besides, a handgun of any sort is something you carry for unforeseen encounters. If you think there will be trouble, or help is too far away, carry a rifle, preferably a 45-70, or a shotgun with slugs.

Not to mention sllooowww reloads on single actions.

Island;

Have you looked at the new S&W 69? It's an L frame .44 mag with a 4.25" bbl. You lose a round, but you still have a 'full size' revolver for those rowdy magnums while being lighter than some of the 2" tanks. I concur with the barrel length comments here.

My mod 60 2" is fine in town for CCW but in the sticks, who cares? I'd rather shoot 4" revolver for defense since they are easier to control. Keep in mind that shooting a charging bruin is no less a lethal force encounter than shooting an armed assailant. Perhaps even more so. Bad guys can miss, bears don't!

There are so many good options for carry; chest, shoulder & hip holsters. Hill People Gear make a really cool kit bag that will fit a 4" revolver....I have one.

Age and arthritis has ended my 44 Magnum shooting but isn't this task (trail gun/dangerous game protection) what the "Mountain Revolver" and later the Mountain Gun was intended for? Seems that that is the answer to the original question.

Dave

__________________
RSVN '69-'71
PCSD (Ret)

Nice gun. Is that a bead blast finish?

I also vote for the 629

Everyone worries about bears and the funny thing is deer, cows,and horses all kill more people every year than bears. LOL The US averages about 1 bear death per year. Yea, bears can and do attack people. I spend a lot of time in bear country and while it is a concern, not a big one.

I don't own a .44 mag since I'm not concerned with Griz in my neck of the woods. Like the OP, a mountain lion, black bear, or crazed mountain goat might be my only wildlife concern, and that's likely not going to happen. My main reason for carrying in the backcountry is protection against 2-legged predators I might encounter, and I think my 2-1/2" 66 fills SD needs quite nicely.

When I worked in very remote areas with brown bear and moose, I carried a 5" S&W 460V. My woods carry gun for Northwestern Oregon is a 4" S&W 29-2. My other .44 magnums are an 8 3/8" 29-2, an 8" Colt Anaconda, a 6 1/2" Ruger Super Blackhawk, a 10 1/2" Ruger Super Blackhawk, and a Marlin 336-44 Texan lever-action rifle.

__________________
U.S. Navy - U.S. Army, ret

I completely forgot about the Sasquatch threat. When I next visit the PNW, I'm packing my 20" Mossberg 590 SP loaded with nine rounds of slug.

I have a Ruger Alaskan in 44 which is a great gun. It's accurate out to about 30 feet which is plenty for it's intended use. If you need more gun, I also have a 460V which is more than anyone needs!

I never get tired of seeing that dash one. Knowing that it shipped like that, its just icing on the cake.
Beautiful sixgun!

If you want, there's a new 460XVR coming out with a 3.5" barrel and an unfluted cylinder that looks really nice! Not legal in CA (but then what is?!?!?) or I'd be in line to get one.