Hunting with a 29/629 vs Ruger Hawks

[Triathloncoach]

I read that either Ruger Hawk model 44 Mags can handle higher pressure loads than the Smith & Wesson's. If true, does this translate into real world benefits in hunting or defensive loads against large predators? I reside in Georgia and live in constant fear of Grizzly/Polar Bear attack. . And I'm from NJ so of course I have never hunted. But I'd like to fire some hot 44 Mags.

Thanks
Frank

 

[cowboy4evr]

Any of the Ruger " Hawk " models will handle hot 44 mag loads , being much heavier they absorb the recoil better, if hot loaded 44's is what you're looking for . I had a 5.5" redhawk yrs ago , it was heavy , I finally sold it .
A S&W in 44 is my favorite . I have always felt that a 245gr swc traveling @ 1200fps will handle any situation necessary on the NA continent . That is not a hot load . If you feel that you need really hot loads for protection , then you really must practice with them , a lot . Recovery time to the next shot is very important . Try to get off 6 rounds in 7seconds and see how many even hit the target . That will help you decide just how " hot " you want your loads and will help you decide which firearm to carry . IMO , the 4" model 29 is perfect for a " carry " gun , and it will deliver all the defensive power I need , " IF I do my part " . I hope I have helped answer your questions . Paul

 

[edubbie]

Someone once told me the unhinged cylinders on the Ruger made them stronger that the flip out cylinders in other revolvers. Not sure if its true but sure didn't like the right hand single load process of the Ruger.

Hey coach, I live in SC and am from NJ as well and can relate.

 

[arjay]

Id just shoot em in a S&W.The novelty will go away before the gun breaks

 

[Rpg]

There's not a 4 or 2 legged predator in your state that a 44 special won't handle.

If you really plan on lugging a 44 around, you'll like the Smith better than the Ruger: every ounce saved counts in the woods. Hotter loads won't make any practical difference.

 

[otasan56]

My 6-inch S&W629 handles my special reload - a cast 210gr wadcutter bullet at 1200 FPS. That is PF 252. Good enough for bowling pins and 4-legged critters.

 

[fortyshooter]

I have a nice 629 with 3 inch barrel but for trail walking I prefer my Ruger Alaskan 2.5 inch barrel loaded up with 300 gr. hot .45 Colt loads going 900-1000 FPS out the short barrel. The thing being for .454 Casull is built like a tank!

 

[22shtur]

I shoot my 4 inch 629's with 1,200 fps loads and that is all the fun my hands enjoy. Here in MT we've already had 5 grizzlie mauling's. Grizzlies are serious here, so is my 870 with slugs, the 629 is for fun.

 

[Pierrejr]

I am planing on making some loads for my 44 mag in a super red hawk. Using 240gr cast bullets and 296 power any one out there come up with a maximum load for this combination?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Arisin Wind]

I read that either Ruger Hawk model 44 Mags can handle higher pressure loads than the Smith & Wesson's. If true, does this translate into real world benefits in hunting or defensive loads against large predators?

Thanks
Frank

If there is any benefit to using the "Ruger Only" loads over standard loads I think they would be minimal. The extra recoil and louder blast will make them slower to get on target after firing. You might want the extra velocity and energy if shooting longer distances or shooting extremely dangerous game.

I guess it depends.

 

[k22fan]

On the other hand, if over the years you have to face thousands of vicious paper targets that require over 300 grain bullets at maximum velocity, pre-endurance package N frames might skip chambers, possibly their cylinders will fly open during recoil, and they will develop end shake and rotational play at lock up sooner than Ruger's large frames. Also Ruger's longer and fatter cylinders allow reloading to higher velocities.

Now if you are actually going deer hunting any old S&W .44 Magnum will work just fine. After you snag a few deer and start looking at hand gun elk hunting you might reconsider the Rugers.

Since the 12 gauge slug's effectiveness on grizzlies was brought up I'll add that its weight and velocity can be duplicated with a .480 Ruger without resorting to a humongous X frame.

 

[BigBill]

My ruger Redhawk will shoot any hotter reload I load up and want more. My s&w m29 won't hold up with my 44 magnum hotter loads. The s&w are plagued with throat problems which I think are caused by magnum loads on a steady diet.

My ruger super black in 44 mag has been loaded hot with loads beyond the listings in the reloading manuals. I had people leaving the range who where near me. In my 20's I was young, crazy and dumb. But the super Blackhawk did hold up.

Each magnum revolver does have its limitations.

 

[Shark Bait]

Each magnum revolver does have its limitations.

Yup.....

 

[one eye joe]

YOUNG AND DUMB IS A COMMON AFFLICTION, BigBill. LUCKILY, YOU SURVIVED TO WRITE ABOUT IT, AND I SURVIVED TO READ YOUR POST.....

 

[Fishinfool]

Own a fair number of both, so my take- The Ruger red & blackhawks are probably stronger than the S&W N frames, and will probably last longer than a S&W loaded at full power. We are talking many thousands of full power rounds here.

That said, the S&W will handle any SAAMI level load just fine, for a lot longer than your wrist will last. There are no recognized +p loads for the .44 magnum, and loading beyond "book" loads is an accident waiting to happen, in any make of revolver. A 240 grain SWC at about 1400 fps is feasible without going over book (SAAMI) pressure levels. That is a pretty "get your attention" kind of load. More power, in any of the revolvers you mentioned, is best served by a caliber upgrade - .454, .460, .500.

I would second buying a post endurance upgrade model in the S&W if you plan on a lot of heavy book loads, especially with bullets over 240 grains. If you want to try a factory load with lots of flash and awe, try the Remington 180 grain load in a short barreled .44 mag. It will be a good example of why most .44 magnum owners learn to love 240 cast at a more sedate 900 / 1000 fps or so.

Larry

 

[steelslaver]

A 240 grain bullet at 1200 fps has about 750ftlb of energy. Lay down and have 750 of lead dropped on you chest from 1 ft. Then decide if it need to be dropped from a bit higher up. If you don't have that much lead a fully assembled V8 engine would be about right. If you're a light bullet high velocity fan a 4 banger from 2 ft to 2.5 ft up would get the idea across

 

[fortyshooter]

I once owned a Ruger Super Blackhawk Hunter in SS and .44 Mag. It was a great shooting revolver. I used it in trade for my current Ruger .454/45 Colt Alaskan. However I recently got a good deal on a nice older Super Blackhawk in .44 Mag with 7.5 inch barrel and it is proving to be a great shooter also.

My 629 2E and Ruger Alaskan .45 which fight for my attention!

 

[Mr.Harry]

What you might want to consider doing first is, get your hands on a S&W 29 or 629 with between 4 and 6 1/2 inches of barrel, buy a box of 'standard' .44 mag factory loads (something around 240 grains going over 1200 fps), fire at least 3 or 4 cylinders full of it, and then revisit your assessment of what is "hot" and how much hotter you're really interested in going. The Ruger can push load limits beyond what is considered safe (or in spec) for a S&W, yes. But it's also at the Extreme top-end of what is possible, in that caliber. So, the way I see it, you're really not missing out on that much. You can still push a S&W .44 mag pretty far. After that, for my money, if it's not 'enough', i'd Be shopping for something in another caliber. A 44 pushed to extremes that ruger enables (via an actually longer bore in the cylinder of a SRH) isn't even a true .44 to me anymore. It's like a .44 ......long? BUT if I wanted to hunt Grizz or Moose with a .44 mag revolver (which I wouldn't but if) I would choose a ruger over S&W specifically for that application. Any other intention, any other time, I'd take the S&W.

 

[Warren Sear]

If someone wants more power than standard 44 Magnum, they can move on to a 460 or 500 S&W. No need to stoop to Ruger.

 

[fortyshooter]

Now if something big has to be dealt with then it's .45-70 time!
I load up some "mild shooting" 405 gr. at around 1100 FPS out the 5.5 inch barrel.

 

[SLT223]

Yup.....

Most of that will buff out....

 

[jnichols2]

My Ruger Redhawk, with a great deal of steel, can handle hotter loads than my 1978 6 1/2" 29-2.

But, the 29 has history, and a soul.

 

[Triathloncoach]

Thank you all. Truth be told I'm basically a recoil whuss. I prefer shooting my guns suppressed, and outside. I said whuss. I just traded into a 4" Redhawk 44 mag and I own a Model 28. On occasion I shoot some turbo Buffalo Bore thru the 28. I haven't brought the Ruger to the range yet. I have a box of Winchester White box JHP.

I'm reading the Buffalo Bore and Underwood ammo menus and their hard cast +P 44 mag intrigues me. I'd like to get a Model 29, but my revolver inventory isn't large and I'm leaning towards a Super Blackhawk for variety. I attached a partial write up from Buffalo Bore that explicitedly states NO Smith & Wesson's.
That made me curious as to how could there be such a difference.

 

[muddocktor]

That Buffalo Bore ammo you attached their disclaimer on is actually loaded outside of SAAMI specs on pressure, Because there are no established numbers for a +P+ loading in 44 Mag. Instead of buying that to run in a 44 Mag pistol, I would rather upgrade to a hotter caliber such as a 454 Casull, 460 or 500.

 

[Mr.Harry]

Thank you all. Truth be told I'm basically a recoil whuss. I prefer shooting my guns suppressed, and outside. I said whuss. I just traded into a 4" Redhawk 44 mag and I own a Model 28. On occasion I shoot some turbo Buffalo Bore thru the 28. I haven't brought the Ruger to the range yet. I have a box of Winchester White box JHP.

I'm reading the Buffalo Bore and Underwood ammo menus and their hard cast +P 44 mag intrigues me. I'd like to get a Model 29, but my revolver inventory isn't large and I'm leaning towards a Super Blackhawk for variety. I attached a partial write up from Buffalo Bore that explicitedly states NO Smith & Wesson's.
That made me curious as to how could their be such a difference.

hahaha! Enjoy! I didn't even read the specs but I imagine 300 plus grains going... I dunno. Have fun. Drop that grizz! Or 1000 lb hogzilla. Hey, one never knows. Whatever floats your boat.

 

[k22fan]

Buffalo Bore's +P+ .44 Magnum is absurd. That is not because it will hurt guns or its power is not needed for big game hunting. At $41.77 plus shipping for 20, over $2 per shot, no one could afford to practice enough with them to be a get good over varying distances. Shooting handguns accurately enough to take big game is the challenge, not having the most ft. lbs. of energy to brag about.

I expect someone will post that ****ty accuracy out of their snub nose magnum is good enough for bear that are close enough to bite. Is it really that easy to hit a critical spot in a bear that suddenly appears charging at 25 mph?

 

[Mr.Harry]

The difference is about 20 or 30 grains of weight and a couple hundred fps. At the weight. Anyway, Ruger makes a good gun. Enjoy.

 

[Triathloncoach]

The Underwood Ammo is very popular on a 10MM Gun site. Alledgedly it more consistently lives up to the box label stats then BB, and its close to half the price as Buffalo Bore. I have some of both in various calibers. I do not spend nearly enough time at the range to accurately shoot anything with heavy recoil. New Years Resolution for 2018!

 

[mazer]

Well, depending on where I'm hunting and what I'm wearing usually decides the gun I carry! I don't pistol hunt, so my guns are backups to my rifles! If I am going a long distance, my rifle is usually in my backpack, which is designed to hold a rifle over my shoulder, I can get to it, but I need to reach over my shoulder and grab it by the butt, which I might have time to do, but I have found that in the woods you may not have even that much time to react. How I found this out is a story for another time! But, that said, if it is warm, I carry either my Ruger Alaskan 44mag or my S&W Backpacker IV. If it is cold, wet and nasty(basically I'm wearing a lot heavier coat/coveralls etc), I usually carry either my S&W Stealth Hunter in a shoulder/front rig (can adjust the rig with straps). Up to this point I haven't seen a need to go bigger than 44mag, but I will say that having the longer barrel is a plus for shooting say...25yds over the shorter barrels. I hunt where there is black bear, mountain lions and other critters with teeth and tusk so I wouldn't go any smaller! I have considered taking a 460..not because I need bigger, but because I LOVE the 460 round, but the noise!!! I would have to wear electronic hearing protection because it is painful to be anywhere in the vicinity of that round going off! But I do shoot them at near max, so maybe if I "toned it down" to say somewhere under 2000fps it would make the gun more viable...that or use 454's....but haven't gone there yet!
Bottom line though, if you reload, load to the recoil and accuracy that you are comfortable with. Might want to consider firing a shot or two off out doors without your ears on as well....

 

[cowboy4evr]

What's is interesting is that the 45 Colt will do what a 44 magnum does and do it with quite a bit less pressure . John Linebaugh , in his article " Dissolving the Myth " states that the difference is between 6000-10000 cup less pressure .
John Linebaugh has written quite an article about this ,even going into heavy bullets in the 45 , 300 grs and beyond . He has load data showing a 310 gr cast bullet doing over 1300fps at 30,000 cup . If you want something for " bigger game " . I believe that one would do it , instead of trying to " hotrod " the 44 magnum , IMO . Regards , Paul