aterry33
Member
Which do you prefer?
--44 Magnum
--41 Magnum
--45 Long Colt
--45 ACP
--44 Magnum
--41 Magnum
--45 Long Colt
--45 ACP
What is your favorite Mountain Gun, and why?
- Thread starter aterry33
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
I like my 41 magnum guns.I have 2 S&W model 57's now and working on a third,and I also have a Taurus Tracker in 41 mag.The 41 is flat shooting and powerful enough for anything and yet is nice to shoot.It is a great all around cartridge.Besides,I drive a 57 chevy,so what else would I have.
windypoint
Member
I have a Model 57 that I like too much to carry in the back of the plane as a survival gun while flying here in Alaska. I carry a Ruger Redhawk 44 Magnum that shoots fine and I don't mind the beating it gets in the survival gear.
.44 Mag MG was my favorite. Pre-MIM, Pre-Lock, Hammer Mounted FP and it is arguably the most versatile of the MG Series. I have had all MG calibers but the .41 and the .44 is my favorite by far even though one of my Pre-Lock .45 Colt MG's was more accurate.
Best Regards,
ADP3
Best Regards,
ADP3
celticfisherman
Member
Just something about a 41 that stirs the blood.
Dale53
Member
I Voted for the .45 ACP simply because my two 625's (not Mountain Guns) are the most enjoyable centerfires that I own. If you had listed a .44 Special, I would have to have considered that one. However, since I HAVE a 624 (4") .44 Special, in effect, I SO have a mountain gun in everything except name - and-d-d, what's in a name
>)).
I also have a 629 (standard 4" barrel) and I have no interest in a lighter .44 Magnum. The 629 is light enough for full house loads.
I could be induced to add the .45 ACP Mountain Gun as it IS quite practical. Using a Lyman (mine is an NOE) 454424 Keith 250 gr bullet at 900+ fps it becomes an excellent woods gun.
FWIW
Dale53
>)).I also have a 629 (standard 4" barrel) and I have no interest in a lighter .44 Magnum. The 629 is light enough for full house loads.
I could be induced to add the .45 ACP Mountain Gun as it IS quite practical. Using a Lyman (mine is an NOE) 454424 Keith 250 gr bullet at 900+ fps it becomes an excellent woods gun.
FWIW
Dale53
ColbyBruce
Member
in my opinion s&w .45 N frame cylinder walls are too thin. i don't like the .357 mtn gun. my dad had one that was a seven shot. i couldn't reload it very fast. i have never shot the .41, but i'm sure that i would like it, as i am a fan of the .41 mag. i own two .44 mag mtn guns. i love them both. they are really easy to reload quickly and if you reload your own cartridges you can make your loads light for plinking or heavy and kill anything on this continent.
1. .357 Magnum, seven shot.
One of the most accurate handguns I have ever owned. It's also well balanced with its 4 inch barrel and strong as a tank.
2. .44 Magnum Mountain Revolver
This was the first model, predating the Mountain Gun. I've had two, still have one, and both were very accurate and well made. I really like the matte stainless finish that came on this variant.
One of the most accurate handguns I have ever owned. It's also well balanced with its 4 inch barrel and strong as a tank.
2. .44 Magnum Mountain Revolver
This was the first model, predating the Mountain Gun. I've had two, still have one, and both were very accurate and well made. I really like the matte stainless finish that came on this variant.
Dave T
Member
In the interest of complete disclosure, I don't own a Mountain Gun yet...but I'm going to build one from a M25-2 that has a 1950 barrel screwed into it. Just have to get it to my gunsmith, who lives in another state.
Dave
Dave
woods-walker
Member
.357 Magnum
Seven shots in a good carry revolver.
Seven shots in a good carry revolver.
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2009
- Messages
- 498
- Reaction score
- 99
A mountain gun is just that......a mountain gun. It is not a range gun, not a target gun, not a plinker. It is a mountain gun. IMO it is designed to be carried in the mountains or anywhere you may be required to defend yourself from large game that may wish to do you harm or even eat you.
They are short of barrel, thin as possible and light as can be and still perform and remain reliable.....so they can be carried and be with you at all times.
The only factor with regard to caliber is where and what mountains. It you are hunting/hiking/traveling in the southwest deserts, a 357 will probably suffice. If you are in the northwest or northeast for that matter, a 41 or 44 would probably be a better choice. If you are hunting/hiking/traveling north the lower 48, the 44 magnum would be the only choice, as a minimum. The question does not include calibers larger or more powerful than the 44 mag, so the choice is obvious.
In summary, no matter where you travel, why not carry the max mountain gun, other than ammo is somewhat heavier. When I purchased my MG back in the early days, I ONLY considered the 44 for the reasons listed above.
I just today read a newspaper article on a geologist in the field in Alaska just north of Anchorage. The incident occurred this week. He was in a remote area which required him to be flown in by helocopter and extracted in the same manner each day. He was in a clearing which he was cleaning up to allow the pilot, due any time, to land. He was suddenly confronted by a grizzly bear. It attacked him and he fired one shot from the 357 magnum he was carrying before it reached him. He was uncertain if he hit the bear but noticed no change in the bear and immediately went into defense. He dropped to the ground, rolled into a ball, covered his neck with his hands and then was struck by the bear several times. He remained 'dead' and after only short time (15-20 seconds), the bear left. He remained still for a minute or so, then moved to determine how injuried he was. Unfortunately, the bear was not out of sight and when he moved, the bear charged him again from 30/40 feet. He fired two more 357 rounds at the bear, then went into the same rolled up position. The bear mauled him again, this time more agressively and for a longer period time until it again left.
This time he waited for 5/10 minutes but when he attempted to move, he could not. He knew he was seriously injured and bleeding profusely. He could not find his gun, could not stand, and knowing the helo was due to pick him up shortly, luckily found his radio still in his jacket pocket. He summoned the helo, described his attack and the pilot quickly detoured to a camp a few miles away and picked up a person he knew was there that was a paramedic. They together found him and flew him an hour to an Anchorage hospital. His injuries were serious, to his face, head, ears and arms. He will survive, according to the news report. The pilot, a local, said that he did everything right except he moved too soon after the first attack AND carried a poor choice for a weapon. He may have hit the bear every time, but the caliber was not remotely capable of stopping the bear under the best circumstances. The bear was not located at the time of the article so it can not be determined if the victim hit it once, twice, three times.....or at all.
Sorry for the lengthly story, but I believe it makes my point. If you are going to carry a mountain gun for the purpose of self defense, why carry any sub-caliber? He may not have hit it, he may have hit it every time, but regardless, it didn't help him and he is lucky to be alive. Carry the biggest and the best and hope you will never have to use it for it's intended purpose. JMHO
They are short of barrel, thin as possible and light as can be and still perform and remain reliable.....so they can be carried and be with you at all times.
The only factor with regard to caliber is where and what mountains. It you are hunting/hiking/traveling in the southwest deserts, a 357 will probably suffice. If you are in the northwest or northeast for that matter, a 41 or 44 would probably be a better choice. If you are hunting/hiking/traveling north the lower 48, the 44 magnum would be the only choice, as a minimum. The question does not include calibers larger or more powerful than the 44 mag, so the choice is obvious.
In summary, no matter where you travel, why not carry the max mountain gun, other than ammo is somewhat heavier. When I purchased my MG back in the early days, I ONLY considered the 44 for the reasons listed above.
I just today read a newspaper article on a geologist in the field in Alaska just north of Anchorage. The incident occurred this week. He was in a remote area which required him to be flown in by helocopter and extracted in the same manner each day. He was in a clearing which he was cleaning up to allow the pilot, due any time, to land. He was suddenly confronted by a grizzly bear. It attacked him and he fired one shot from the 357 magnum he was carrying before it reached him. He was uncertain if he hit the bear but noticed no change in the bear and immediately went into defense. He dropped to the ground, rolled into a ball, covered his neck with his hands and then was struck by the bear several times. He remained 'dead' and after only short time (15-20 seconds), the bear left. He remained still for a minute or so, then moved to determine how injuried he was. Unfortunately, the bear was not out of sight and when he moved, the bear charged him again from 30/40 feet. He fired two more 357 rounds at the bear, then went into the same rolled up position. The bear mauled him again, this time more agressively and for a longer period time until it again left.
This time he waited for 5/10 minutes but when he attempted to move, he could not. He knew he was seriously injured and bleeding profusely. He could not find his gun, could not stand, and knowing the helo was due to pick him up shortly, luckily found his radio still in his jacket pocket. He summoned the helo, described his attack and the pilot quickly detoured to a camp a few miles away and picked up a person he knew was there that was a paramedic. They together found him and flew him an hour to an Anchorage hospital. His injuries were serious, to his face, head, ears and arms. He will survive, according to the news report. The pilot, a local, said that he did everything right except he moved too soon after the first attack AND carried a poor choice for a weapon. He may have hit the bear every time, but the caliber was not remotely capable of stopping the bear under the best circumstances. The bear was not located at the time of the article so it can not be determined if the victim hit it once, twice, three times.....or at all.
Sorry for the lengthly story, but I believe it makes my point. If you are going to carry a mountain gun for the purpose of self defense, why carry any sub-caliber? He may not have hit it, he may have hit it every time, but regardless, it didn't help him and he is lucky to be alive. Carry the biggest and the best and hope you will never have to use it for it's intended purpose. JMHO
bronco45
Member
I have one of the original Mountian Revolvers, (only semi-exclusive Smith I own). It's got a great action, super accurate and very versatile in ammo selection. Easy to carry but the Rubber Pachmayrs that came standard on the gun had to go. Replaced by Hogue wood.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2005
- Messages
- 8,015
- Reaction score
- 7,089
Any reason you left out the 686 Mountain Gun?
I would argue the 686 Plus Mountain Gun is the best. In the old revolver days, experts used to make a good case that a four inch medium frame .357 Magnum was the one to have if you could only have one.
The argument was that it was suitably sized for both duty and off duty/concealed, sufficiently powerful for defense or hunting, could chamber a hugely accurate lower powered load (38 Special) for target practice or match shooting, and was both rugged and target grade accurate.
The 686 Plus Mountain Guns were on the durable L frame, so magnums were no problem, the 7 shot cylinder is stronger with the locking notches offset in the strongest part of the cylinder between charge holes, it has a round butt, weighs the same as a Government Model or Combat Magnum since it has the tapered barrel and seven charge holes, and it was stainless and had one more shot than the typical medium frame .357. I wish they would make it a regular production item.
Of the 3 I own I favor the .44 the most.
Snapping Twig
Member
Cereberally I choose the .44 magnum, but emotionally I select the .45 colt.
Moving a 255g cast SWC @ 1000fps is well within its capabilities and truth be told, that's enough to stop most any threat.
This from a non magnum developed before the last century, capable of passing through a horse at 100 yards with enough energy to kill someone hiding behind it.
Bump up the bullet weight, drop the speed to @ 900 fps and you have a penetrating mortar ball with a big metplat.
Certainly you can do that and more with the .44, but IMO, the .45 colt can get the job done correctly without being a magnum.
In the interest of full disclosure, my woods sidearm is a 3" 629-2, but if I ever run across a .45 mountain gun, I'm buying it!
Moving a 255g cast SWC @ 1000fps is well within its capabilities and truth be told, that's enough to stop most any threat.
This from a non magnum developed before the last century, capable of passing through a horse at 100 yards with enough energy to kill someone hiding behind it.
Bump up the bullet weight, drop the speed to @ 900 fps and you have a penetrating mortar ball with a big metplat.
Certainly you can do that and more with the .44, but IMO, the .45 colt can get the job done correctly without being a magnum.
In the interest of full disclosure, my woods sidearm is a 3" 629-2, but if I ever run across a .45 mountain gun, I'm buying it!
m657
Member
re: "This from a non magnum developed before the last century, capable of passing through a horse at 100 yards with enough energy to kill someone hiding behind it."
from the readings I did a while back, I was of the impression that was true for the 45-70, rather than the 45LC. Perhaps I'm wrong.
And while I remain a 45LC fan(a shoulder-holster brace of the Sheriff model Rugers should suffice for nearly any 4 legged event), for your poll I chose the 41 Mag mountain gun.
From the various terminal ballistic tables I've seen, a 200-250 gr hunk of lead moving around 1000+ fps in nearly any caliber is pretty much reliable for a variety of uses.
from the readings I did a while back, I was of the impression that was true for the 45-70, rather than the 45LC. Perhaps I'm wrong.
And while I remain a 45LC fan(a shoulder-holster brace of the Sheriff model Rugers should suffice for nearly any 4 legged event), for your poll I chose the 41 Mag mountain gun.
From the various terminal ballistic tables I've seen, a 200-250 gr hunk of lead moving around 1000+ fps in nearly any caliber is pretty much reliable for a variety of uses.
Similar threads
- Locked
