alaskan 2" vs 629 4" woods carry, accuracy durability

[island]

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.

 

[grip frame]

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.

 

[tkdguy]

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.

 

[jjbrewst1]

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.

 

[Laketime]

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.

 

[Kilibreaux]

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.

 

[steelslaver]

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".

 

[Edmo]

...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)...

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

 

[Ranger514]

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.

 

[David Sinko]

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

 

[Larry from Bend]

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.

 

[CAJUNLAWYER]

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!

 

[loc n load]

4" 44 mag

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.

 

[Kid44]

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

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.

 

[island]

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

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.

 

[island]

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.

 

[acco40]

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!

 

[mc5aw]

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

 

[fishcreekrim]

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

 

[DR505]

4" 629 like this 629-4: